REVIEW: Ant-Man: Go Small or Go Home

   ...and we're back, folks.  Sorry for the lengthy gap between posts, all of you who are so clearly hanging on the edge of your seats waiting breathlessly for my updates.

   So to kick off August, we're going to take a look at the last Marvel Cinematic Universe film of the year, which also happens to be the final film of the MCU Phase II: Ant-Man.  I know I'm a little late on this, but here goes anyway...

   

In the category of "Movies You Never Thought You'd See"

   Ant-Man was, from the start, an interesting topic for a film.  The character has never been as much of a headliner as the other characters who've thus far been granted movie franchises, but as we've seen, Guardians of the Galaxy pretty much tossed out the argument that the secondary or tertiary characters can't hold their own.   While Ant-Man has been an Avengers staple since the very first issue, his history is problematic...his own comic books have never done as well as his teammates, and some of his storylines have been somewhat controversial.   In the source material, Hank Pym, the original Ant-Man was a reluctant superhero, but one whose powers led him to decidedly unpleasant places, giving him frequent identity crises and turning him into a schizophrenic wife-beating jerk.  His successor, Scott Lang, was introduced in the late '70s, and made - for my money, at least - a more palatable character and more likable hero.

     The movie finds a nice balance between the two, establishing both characters in a way that allows for something resembling the comics continuity.  Pym (Michael Douglas) retires from active heroing in a flashback which makes up the first scene of the movie, and for the rest of the film, he acts as a mentor to Lang (Paul Rudd).   The Wasp, Pym's wife & sidekick in the comics, is largely absent from the film, and that absence is a major plot point.  Pym's daughter Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly), who stems from Marvel's alternate-timeline Ultimate books, takes her mother's place in the film, though her role as superhero-proper is being saved for later films.  The villain of the piece is Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), Lang's first nemesis in comics continuity, who was rather short-lived and had no alter ego to speak of; here, he duplicates Pym's powers & technology to create a villainous identity as Yellowjacket, which in the comics was another of Pym's various superheroing identities.

    So the movie is something of a hodge-podge, regarding the source material anyway.  To be fair, Ant-Man's never really had the grandest of supporting casts.  His most memorable foe is probably Ultron - it was Pym, not Tony Stark, who was responsible for the creation of the demented robot in the comics - and without Ultron, the pickings are rather slim.  There are other foes they could have used - Egghead or Whirlwind come to mind - but there is no real Ant-Man arch-nemesis equivalent of Red Skull, Loki, etc.  Given how Ant-Man and his world have never been particularly well-known, though, the amalgamation of different elements works well enough for the film.

"Just to be clear, you just had the *one* identity, right?"

   The film does have a few weak points - for one thing, its plot does tend to be formulaic and predictable.  We know from the very beginning of the film exactly how the entire movie is going to play out, and like the rest of the MCU, there's very little in terms of nuance or depth.  Even given the advanced (and often weird) technology in play, the movie plays it safe and simple, and all the tropes are present...reluctant hero, grizzled mentor, theatrical villain, obligatory unnecessary romance, goofy bumbling sidekicks for comedy relief, action sequences at the appropriate moments, and references to the larger universe.

   My biggest complaint with the film has become a familiar one - once again, we have a cartoony, underdeveloped villain chewing up the scenery.  As much as I like Corey Stoll, I found his character to be over-the-top in delivery and vastly lacking in motivation.  There are the usual throwaway lines for the gratification of the kiddies to the effect of some kind of long-nursed bitterness, combined with irrationality brought on by the chemicals which allow for size-changing, but as per usual, the villain is not relatable, not compelling, and not even likable, as villains go.  Cross functions as a hammier version of Obadiah Stane from the first Iron Man film, but ultimately he's simply there to fill in the necessary 'bad guy' hole.  I'll grant that as Yellowjacket, he certainly looks cool, and would have made for a great action figure if Hasbro had been so inclined, but otherwise he joins a long list of MCU villains that are ultimately forgettable outside of their gimmicks.  This has been one of the biggest sticking points with me in the MCU, again and again - instead of developing the villains as well as the heroes, the movies just turn them into straight-up Silver Age throwaways.  Outside of Kingpin, and to a lesser extent, Loki, the MCU foes have been badly short-changed.

   

Yellowjacket - surprisingly, NOT a Spider-Man villain.

   Another thing which I found a little odd, but really wasn't anyone's fault, was that I kept feeling that Rudd's Scott Lang was somehow a long-lost brother of Chris Pratt's Star-Lord.  I suspect that's just the nature of hiring Paul Rudd, because his performance is pretty much what I expected to see, but it was a little strange hearing the dialogue delivered largely the same way.  There's a sequence when Ant-Man meets the Falcon, and as he tried to introduce myself, I couldn't help but hearing "Come on, ...Star-Lord?" from the beginning of GotG.  It's not a problem, just strange - and it's made more so by the eerie similarity between Rudd and Lilly in this movie, and Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard in Jurassic World.  They have the same demeanor, the same general look, the same questionable chemistry - heck, even the same haircuts.   Factor in Judy Greer's presence in the movie as mother-of-child-in-danger, and you start to wonder if Hollywood was having a shortage this summer on deep characterization, and had to spread the stock 'types' around the different studios.

     All that said, though, I actually really enjoyed the movie.  The pacing was good, and while the dialogue didn't really go deep, it managed to stay fresh and entertaining.  It managed to avoid that Whedon pitfall of  "Look, we're wittily bantering!"  There were some very funny bits that were well-timed and well-played, and the trio of clumsy criminals that assist Lang managed to be endearingly comical rather than irritating.  The film's soundtrack was well done, peppering a decent score with songs that fit the piece, and while there were ties to the broader MCU, the film managed to keep to its own story, making it accessible.  I've been hearing a lot of people who aren't generally superhero-movie fans liking this one, simply based on its humor and lack of need to have seen ten other films.

   The cast was fine - it was a little strange to see Michael Douglas in a movie like this, and even more strange to realize that he's getting old...and with each passing year, resembling his father more and more.  He does a decent job with Pym, giving him more sincerity and depth, as well as evidence of a violent temper lurking beneath the surface, than a less experienced actor might have done.  Rudd and Lilly are both serviceable in their roles; with Rudd I find you get two options, Goofy Paul or Sincere Paul, and we get mostly the latter here, which works well enough.  Lilly's not bad, but I don't feel she had as much to work with as the script could have given her.  Bobby Cannavale has a supporting role as a police officer who's also dating Lang's ex-wife Maggie (Judy Greer); Lang & Maggie's daughter Cassie is played by Abby Ryder Fortson, who manages to be cute and charming without being cloying.  Falcon (Sam Wilson) has a small role to play, showing off his moves and new suit which were barely featured in Age of Ultron, and there are brief cameos from Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter and John Slattery as Howard Stark - as well as two other cameos in the end-of-credits bumper for Captain America: Civil War, the next MCU offering.

She may be able to get Wasp powers, but she does NOT have jungle-running-in-high-heels power.

     Where the movie truly shines, however, is in the special effects and action sequences.  Ant-Man's forays into the microscopic are fantastic, with ordinary sights and sounds magnified and everyday things like a bathtub faucet becoming enormous terrors.  The hordes of ants that respond to Ant-Man's commands are really well-rendered, and while they do come off as creepy at points, they're mostly cute and helpful, and play a pivotal role in the movie.  There's a sheer exuberance to the powers in this movie that reminds me a lot of the thrill we really only get from Spider-Man on the big screen, and an enthusiasm for those powers which can be incredibly useful in a fight, or an escape.

   The powers come into play most effectively in the fight between Ant-Man and Yellowjacket in the last reel, as some very clever editing creates jumps between the miniature world and the real one, allowing for some sequences that are both cool and hilarious - everything from a fight inside a briefcase to the best use of Thomas the Tank Engine I've ever seen in a battle.  That, I think, is probably the best thing about the movie...that in this day and age of CGI everywhere, it manages to bring something fresh and unique to the screen.  It's nice to see something different, and given that this particular element is key to the movie, it's gratifying to see it work so well, and to be so much fun in the process.

"Do you wanna build an anthill?  It doesn't have to be an anthill."

   I don't see Ant-Man getting a sequel; he's not really a franchise character, and while the movie's done fairly well at the box office, it's a low-earner by MCU standards.  That's fine, though, and I don't know that I need to see another solo movie, given how we already know Ant-Man and the Wasp will be appearing in Phase III of the MCU movies.  Given the high-profile departure of Edgar Wright, the original director of the film, just prior to principal photography, I have to wonder how different the movie might have been had he stayed on...maybe a little wackier and offbeat, perhaps?  He does retain writing & producing credit, at least, and there are parts of the movie in which you can feel his influence, but I can't help but think the movie might have been a little stronger and more individual had he stayed on to helm it all the way through.  Alas, we shall likely never know.

  So with this, the generally lackluster Phase II of the MCU is done, and in thinking about it, especially in regards to Ant-Man, I've come to realize something.  I find that the entries which I tend to like the best are the 'firsts'.  Each one of the franchise-starters - the first Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Daredevil - and the first Avengers - are the better-made or more enjoyable works.  The movies I've liked less - or flat-out disliked - have been the sequels and spin-offs, Winter Soldier being the exception  - though it was specifically designed to be a movie with a very different sensibility from its predecessor.  It seems to me that each new entry starts out with its own identity, and isn't really burdened by the continuities of prior entries, because at the outset each film more or less stands alone and can function as an actual, contained, artistic work.  (The first Avengers was something of an exception to this as it did draw on other films, but it was the first time there was an actual blending of the other franchises.)  Getting these stories out the door in a novel way is where Marvel excels.  Where they drop the ball, though, is in taking the stories further, as they've largely lacked consequence, broader development, or greater depth.   So that gives me some hope for projects like Doctor Strange or Black Panther, but I'm not too sanguine about things like Civil War or the continued tediousness of Agents of Shield.  I'd rather see new entries, which is why I'm perfectly happy with Ant-Man being a stand-alone picture.  It's better to enjoy the movie for what it is, rather than worry about it being a cash-cow leader for the next installment of a corporate brand.

   Because sometimes, it's better to think smaller.


FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10)