"My days of breaking into places and stealing shit are over! What do you need me to do?" Scott Lang
"...I want you to break into a place and steal some shit." Hank Pym
 |
| I imagine when Paul Rudd was offered a lead role as a superhero, Ant-Man wasn't what he had in mind... |
SYNOPSIS:
Down on his luck cat burglar Scott Lang is fresh out of jail, broke, and unable to see his little girl unless he can find a way to settle his outstanding alimony. However, little does he relaise he's an aging scientist's last hope of preventing high-tech weaponry from falling into the wrong hands. Under the tutelage of this scientist, as well as the older man's estranged daughter, Lang must don an experimental costume and become the Ant-Man.
SCRIPT 1/2
The script is an interesting thing, and it's as much a success as it is a failure. It manages to be witty, smart and self assured, always ready to poke fun at it's own (frankly) ludicrous premise, and revels in its own small-scale- as apparent in the marketing. Bravely it steers away from the typical Marvel climax of 'giant-things-falling-out-of-the-sky-and-endangering-the-world-or-city' in favour of a brawl through a little girl's bedroom- which manages to be dramatic and humorous all at once (Thomas the Tank Engine has never been so terrifying). See, for me, the success of the story was in it's intimate scale; sure, the world was technically in danger, but the drama which played out for the characters was personal; it was about families, children, broken relationships, and the heartbreak of parenthood. In a way that would seem oddly fitting, the larger-scale world-effecting issues feel less significant (or smaller), and the small-scale personal drama is played-up (made larger). I would suspect these elements were very much present in the Edgar Wright script- but more on that later.
So considering that, it would seem an odd thing it made such a ham-fisted attempt in other areas. Aside from the ever present nag that the very idea of Ant-Man is completely bonkers, the story itself was awfully contrived. The Marvel formula of advanced technology falling into the wrong hands has been so over-used now, and it's tiring having so many Marvel Cinematic World references and set-ups shoe-horned into what should be a stand-alone story. But most daunting here are the giant lapses in logic. Marvel films may be fantasy but they make sense in their own internal worlds. Unfortunately some of the plot-holes in Ant-Man are so glaring they prevented me from enjoying the many quirky pleasures of the film.
If the military could enlarge and control thousands of ants, would they really bother with a suit?
The antagonist of the films is said to have had his mind warped by imperfect shrinking technology, yet we know as an audience that this can't be true because until half way through the film he hasn't perfected shrinking beyond accidentally turning things into jelly...
And those explosives planted in the building during the climax? They were put in place knowing full well all the characters would still be inside the offices, and if not them, God knows how many innocent security guards and employees (after all, the main characters were hardly likely to warn everyone inside or alert the villain to their plans)...
PACE: 2/2
Like all the Marvel Studio films, this moves along at a fairly snappy pace, but unlike the majority of these other films, bloated behemoths over the 3 hour mark, Ant-Man is also a much shorter film, and this lends proceedings a sense of urgency missing from most blockbusters. This fast pace also deprives the audience time to consider the absolute ridiculousness of the plot, or the many plot holes that will begin to dog them as they leave their seats.
ACTING: 1/2
As with other recent Marvel efforts, most of the casting is top-notch. Note I use the word casting, rather than acting; it feels as though everybody plays a part rather than a character. I guess that's the distinction here, it's not about acting or about being believable, it's about entertainment. Everyone seems to be having a blast making the film, especially Michael Douglass, who steals all of his scenes as the curmudgeonly scientist (and inventor of the Ant-Man suit) Dr. Pym. Paul Rudd gives a good turn as the snarky cat-burglar with a heart forced to become the Ant-Man (although some of his dialogue feels a little forced), while Evangeline Lilly, playing Hope, Pym's estranged daughter, brings a certain spark and wit to an otherwise bland troupe. But like Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America, Iron-Man 1 and 2 (to mention but a few), the film's central villain is pretty weak. Corey Stoll, here playing the morally bankrupt Darren Cross, the ruthless protege of Dr. Pym, just comes across as made-for-TV-bland. He's bald, he's unhinged, he's rich, he wears a suit- he's pretty much a diet Lex Luther.
AESTHETIC: 1/2
Considering the budget Marvel Studios has at it's disposal, a lot of the film looked quite cheap, most notably the poor CGI used for the ants; they looked like something you'd see on a straight-to-DVD film, alongside titles "Sharknadeo" and "We are Omega". That's unforgivable considering the money involved, or how important the ants are to the story of Ant-Man! Having said that, the sound design, optics and focus-pulling used when the characters shrink is very, very effective. Familiar surroundings feel gargantuan- it genuinely feels like a tiny camera is being used to film a miniature little man, as opposed to someone just scaled down with computer effects.
INTENTION: 1/2
Well, you can't criticize it's noble intentions; Ant-Man strives to be an entertaining antidote to the usual high-steaks and large-scale-damage of other Marvel films, and for the most part it succeeds. It's rare to see a film with such a budget take genuine risks, or by straddling so many different genres all at once, but Ant-Man manages to be an endearing, if flawed, mash-up of superhero blockbuster, comedy and heist movie. It may not manage to fully pull-off it's intention, but it's a brave effort.
Having said that, in a lot of respects this is pretty much more of the same from Marvel Studios, and it suffers from the constraints of association with that cinematic background, while the almost patented witty-banter-with-big-explosins Marvel blue print is also showing signs of age.
FINAL SCORE: 6/10
Much was made of how Peyton Reed stepped up to direct this after Edgar Wright (he of Shaun of the Dead and Spaced fame, as well as Scott Pilgrim infamy) left the project after continual disagreements with Marvel Studios- despite the public support of Joss Whedon, the man responsible for shaping the quote/unquote Marvel Cinematic Universe... But, unlike most people imagined, Reed can hardly be said to have dropped the ball. Sure, it's not a perfect movie, but at this point it would be unfair to blame Reed for this, seeing how the real power behind the camera are Marvel Studios.
Ant-Man remains a lovable and gimmicky bag of tricks, but far from a satisfying whole, and while Wright's writing certainly still remains in the spine of the film, it's intriguing to contemplate how different his version might have been...
