Ant Man: Review

I distinctly remember how the theater reacted when the end credits of "Ant-Man" began to roll.  This was before the two-for-one post-credits bonus scene announcing "Don't worry, more of these movies are still coming out."  The entire theater burst into applause, clapping, laughing, and high-fiving each other.

I looked around in confusion.  Had I watched a different movie?

Apparently all Marvel has to do these days is show up, because "Ant-Man" was garbage.

Now, it's very easy to dismiss any negative reviews of Marvel's latest darling as the bitter ramblings of dejected Edgar Wright ("Hot Fuzz", "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World") fan boy.  To be fair, the second the announcement of Wright's departure from the project hit the net, I was among the first to wash my hands of the movie.  But less we forget, Wright had been working on his "Ant-Man" script since before 2008's "Iron Man" had even come out.

The film follows ex-con Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), who wants to give up the life of a professional thief in order to go straight so he can be a father to his daughter.  Of course, Marvel wants us to root for anti-heroes but without the annoyances of real depth or inner conflict (think of the brainwashed Hawkeye in the first "Avengers" or the brainwashed Winter Soldier in the second "Captain America"), so Scott was wrongfully jailed for stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.  But Scott falls back to his thieving ways and breaks into the home of Hank Pym (Michael Douglas).  Hank trains Scott on how to use his super hero suit, giving him the powers of an ant, with the intent of using Scott to steal his secret Yellowjacket suit from the generic bad guy Darren Cross (Corey Stoll).  Hank's daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly, who probably gives the only somewhat decent performance of the movie) is there too because she has to become Wasp in the sequel.

Marvel's horde of fans defend this film as being "a really fun heist movie", yet it's anything but.  Think of all the great cinematic heists ("Heat", "Ocean's 11-13", "The Sting") and aside from characters, story, and execution, you'll pinpoint the one other trait those films have that "Ant-Man" lacks:  tension.  There's no intricacy to the plan to break into Cross's company and steal the thing Yellowjacket suit.  The resulting battle between Ant-Man and Yellowjacket is kind of fun, especially when they both duke it out on a toy train and are forced to submit to the stakes of such a situation (although the punch line of this fight is wasted in the trailer).  But there's never any feeling of danger.  There's no reason to care, except that they throw some flashy CGI on screen with jokes.

Speaking of the humor, it's abysmal.  Speaking of the effects sequences, same answer.  I maybe chuckled once.  And I never once thought that I was really watching someone shrink and navigate a sewer system.  If a stunt man was wearing at Ant-Man costume, he's clearly in front of a green screen.  But I'm sure that Ant-Man himself was just a cgi affect too.  There's no care, no thought put into what happens on screen.  The execution is generic, just another example of Marvel Studios printing their own money.  And a great cast (including Bobby Cannavale, Judy Greer, Hayley Atwell, John Slattery, Michael Pena, and Anthony Mackie in a distracting, yet somehow the most fun moment in the movie, Falcon cameo) can't change that.

While Marvel keeps reigning supreme at the box office, most of their films are still just generic trash (the "Thors", "Iron Man 2 and 3").  Yet even they still have successes ("The Incredible Hulk", "Captain America:  The Winter Soldier").  One key word separates the hits from the misses:  execution.  Careful writing, casting, planning, and directing is the difference between the bottom of the barrel blockbusters and the ones people remember.  It's not that Marvel is incapable of creating good, but the box office success of "Ant-Man" proves that they really don't have to.

Rating:  * out of ****