I need to figure out a way of better avoiding trailers. There was a moment in one of the
Antman trailers that reminded me of my favorite posts from Hyperbole and a Half by Allie Brosh.
She wrote: “I remember being endlessly entertained by the adventures of my toys. I didn't understand
why it was fun for me, it just was. But as I grew older, it became harder and harder
to access that expansive imaginary space that made my toys fun. I remember looking at them
and feeling sort of frustrated and confused that things weren't the same. I played out
all the same story lines that had been fun before, but the meaning had disappeared. I
could no longer connect to my toys in a way that allowed me to participate in the experience.”
101
There is a scene in the Antman trailer that captured that phenomena in reverse. Toys on
an epic scale. The expansive possibility of imagination that can conjure something epic
out of the minute. The scene was so clever and thoughtful that it had a dramatic impact
on my expectations for how Antman might juice up the MCU formula, which still tastes good
but, after the last Avenger’s movie, I’m worried may be beginning to spoil.
An adult’s magical exploration of the minute was to me the obvious opportunity for adventure
with Antman’s powers and while the movie flirts with that magic once or twice, it is
mostly content just being another capable and entertaining movie in the MCU. You’ve
seen this movie already with a different coat of paint and maybe a different grill and if
you enjoyed it then and haven’t gotten tired of it yet you’re going to enjoy it here.
Paul Rudd is the reluctant (and since its the MCU, quippy) hero who meets Michael Douglas,
the sage tutor. Douglass introduces him to the Antman suit and sends him on his quest
to save society as we know it. There’s a training montage. Some characters who don’t
believe Paul Rudd is the man for job. The crazy pants villain who doesn’t understand
how anyone can believe they can stop him. We get a few competent action sequences and
one really good one. There’s a point when it looks like the hero isn’t going to win
but in the end he saves the day, maybe with the aid of his humorous side kicks.
We get a few moments of childlike wonder where Paul Rudd is exploring cavernous pinholes
or running from enormous crushing feet. But for a lot of the movie he’s running through
air vents in this futuristic research facility that are completely nondescript and might
as well be hallways on the JJ Abram’s enterprise, which spoils the magic of Antman’s abilities.
I was hoping that casting Paul Rudd might shake-up the formula a bit too as he seemed
like such an unlikely choice for a superhero movie. And there are a few moments where Rudd
seemed to be his hilarious improvisational self, including one where I honestly believed
Mostly though
rather than Rudd’s presence opening up new opportunities in the story, Rudd seems muffled
and contained to me within the standard hero role.
One thing that these movies really seem to have a problem with are the villains. An endless
cavalcade of forgetful characters played by competent or even great actors. And Ant Man’s
Darren Cross played by Corey Stoll feels no different. If you swapped him with Jeff Bridges
Obidiah Stain in Iron Man 1 I honestly couldn’t tell the difference. I’m not sure why the
Marvel movies have SUCH a problem creating interesting villains. Of course the ONE exception
to that everyone is presently screaming at me is Loki from Thor. Yes. I agree with you.
He’s SO much better than any of the other villains that Marvel has used him 3 times
already and Joss Whedon tried to include him in Avengers Age of Ultron
Tom Hiddleston stated in an interview that he decided to do Thor 1 when Kenneth Branagh
told him he wanted to create a movie in which Thor or Loki could be considered the protagonist,
depending on your point of view. And while I don’t think Branagh was completely successful
in accomplishing that, what we ended up with was the most well motivated and properly developed
villain in the MCU. Corey Stoll has some cursory motivation in that maybe he and Michael Douglass
had a whole father son thing going on. Also shrink rays could be affecting his brain...maybe.
Thats about it.
But really, most of the drama in the movie is wafer thin. There is no Tony struggling
with his fear of death or Cap feeling like a man out of time. Conflicts seem to rise
and fall between the characters almost arbitrarily. As an example, (VERY minor spoiler here) Evangeline
Lilly plays Michael Douglass’ daughter, angry at Douglass because he has never explained
to her what actually happened to her mother. About 10 minutes after we the audience find
this out, Michael Douglas just out and tells her and their rift is resolved, almost as
though it never happened.
But I digress. I was going to put together a spoiler section of quibbles but decided
against it. Getting into a protracted rant about the logical fallacies in a movie about
a shrinking man felt like I was being dumber than the script. I haven’t yet figured out
where the mendoza line is for sufficient intelligence in an action movie but it is enough to say
that Ant-Man is just over it and in the green, even if the movie has a scene where a guy
shoots an ant with a bullet. This is an incredibly watchable movie. These are charismatic actors.
The special effects are top notch. The action is fun enough. And there is enough humor throughout
to prop up the flaccid drama. I would rank it somewhere in the middle of the MCU origin
movies. For your reference, there are two stingers, one after the primary credits and
one at the very end of the entire credits. And they are both very worth it. Make sure
you stay for the entire thing.
Ant-Man gets a 7 out of 10.