Based on Ant-Man by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, Jack Kirby & Wasp by Stan Lee, Ernie Hart, Jack Kirby
Starring: Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Peña, Walton Goggins, Bobby Cannavale, Judy Greer, Tip “T.I.” Harris, David Dastmalchian, Hannah John-Kamen, Abby Ryder Fortson, Randall Park, Michelle Pfeiffer, Laurence Fishburne, Michael Douglas
Plot Synopsis: (via Wikipedia) In Ant-Man and the Wasp, the titular pair work with Hank Pym to retrieve Janet van Dyne from the quantum realm.
My Opinion:
I’m going to make this quick as well as my review for Incredibles 2, which I’ll post tomorrow. Because…. I really enjoyed both of them yet have very little to say about them. With stuff like this one, I struggle to think of new things to say about yet another Marvel superhero sequel. Let’s be honest – they all follow the exact same formula. However, I enjoyed this one much more than I was expecting to and even more than the first one. I’ve now updated My MCU Movie Ranking list & this is right in the middle. And the end credits scene in this was one of the best yet.
I do love Paul Rudd, so that helps. And Chris Hemsworth, of course. I want an Ant-Man/Thor movie! I did like the first Ant-Man but thought this one improved on that quite a bit. Evangeline Lilly getting to kick some ass was a big help – I really liked these two together as a team. And then we also got the addition of GODDESS Michelle Pfeiffer, which also made me happy. Love her. And I also really enjoyed the “villain” in this one (Hannah John-Kamen) being one of those in that gray area (Is she really bad? I think we’d all go bad in her situation). As always, I know nothing of these comics so it probably helps my enjoyment as I don’t nitpick. I do believe her character was changed a lot but I liked this film version.
Like Deadpool 2, this sequel also ups the humor a bit. Ant-Man’s thieving friends have bigger roles in this, which was fun (but won’t be for anyone who finds those guys annoying). And, as I mentioned earlier, I thought the end credits scene was really strong – There was actually an audible gasp in the cinema at that scene. I quite often enjoy the origin stories the most when it comes to these superhero movies but prefer the characters themselves in the sequels as they become more developed. In this case, I think the sequel is a pretty big improvement in terms of making us like these characters more. And did I mention Michelle Pfeiffer?!? Michelle Pfeiffer rules. I think I actually enjoyed this one more than Deadpool 2. Crazy, huh? I may be alone in that opinion…
Based onAnt-Man by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber & Jack Kirby
Starring: Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Corey Stoll, Bobby Cannavale, Michael Peña, Tip “T.I.” Harris, Anthony Mackie, Wood Harris, Judy Greer, David Dastmalchian, Michael Douglas
Plot Synopsis: Superhero ants.
My Opinion:
I finally saw Ant-Man! It was… okay. Everyone has reviewed it by now so the general vibe I got was that it wasn’t exactly the best superhero movie ever but it was a bit of fun anyway. Yep – that’s pretty much it.
First of all: Paul Rudd. I’ve talked of my love for Paul Rudd here a few times. I’d say he’s definitely the best thing about this and, had it been someone else playing Ant-Man, I’m sure I wouldn’t have enjoyed it as much. I mean, it’s about a tiny little superhero with an army of ants. It’s weird! The movie could have been a total disaster but I think they just managed to actually pull it off thanks to Rudd more than anything else.
With Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish writing this, I was hoping for a slightly better story (I found Cornish’s Attack The Block to be a pleasant surprise). The story was okay but it was kind of “same old same old”, as with most Marvel movies. I’m getting a tad bored with the superhero thing so I did appreciate that Ant-Man felt a little “different” (although nowhere near as different as Guardians Of The Galaxy, which is probably why that remains my favorite superhero movie of recent times & maybe my favorite ever).
You know what else I’m bored with? Reviewing superhero movies. I’m kind of glad to hear that Fantastic Four sucks so I don’t have to waste my time on that one. What else can I really say about Ant-Man?? If you love the Marvel films, you know you kind of need to see this as they’re all connected. As always, I don’t know a thing about the comics so I can’t compare but I doubt Ant-Man was anyone’s favorite character in the first place so I think Paul Rudd did a good job making such a potentially boring superhero so likeable.
Oh! Being a woman & mother of a young girl, I have to admit that my favorite element of the story involved Rudd’s scenes with his character’s daughter. She was so adorable! Nothing melts women’s hearts more than seeing a daddy protecting his daughter. Also, although you see it coming (which is fine as all Marvel films are pretty predictable), there’s a scene during the big climax at the end that was fantastic & saved the movie a little for me. I didn’t think Ant-Man was at all bad but the final half hour or so did really up my opinion of the movie as a whole.
Summary:
I know I sound a little bored with this movie but it’s just the overall superhero thing that doesn’t excite me so much anymore. They’re fun popcorn movies & I’m sure I’ll watch them all but I’m waiting for another one to surprise me in the way that Guardians Of The Galaxy did. I’d have to say I actually enjoyedAnt-Man more than some of the sequels involving Marvel’s much more famous superheroes (such as Iron Man). In fact, I’d almost say that I enjoyed this one a little more than Avengers: Age Of Ultron, although I think Ultron is a better film. I don’t know… Ant-Man is an enjoyable enough experience. I’m just happy that, of the two, Fantastic Four is the massive failure instead. I do love my Paul Rudd and am glad he did pretty well in this one.
My Rating: 7/10
Is There A Scene After The Credits?Don’t be silly – of course there is! Two, actually – a mid-credits & one after the credits. Fairly worth staying for…
Plot Synopsis:
The second unnecessarily long movie of three unnecessarily long movies. Based on an awesome short book, The Desolation Of Smaug is not awesome and not short.
The Desolation of Smaug is set in Middle-earth sixty years before the events of The Lord of the Rings, and portions of the film are adapted from the appendices to Tolkien’s The Return of the King. The wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) investigates a growing evil at Dol Guldur, while Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) continues his quest with thirteen Dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch).
My Opinion:
What on (middle) Earth did I just watch? I’ve never looked at my watch so many times during a film. This was one of the most unpleasant movie-going experiences I’ve had in a long time. What I’m trying to say is this: I really didn’t enjoy The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug (that’s the last time I’m typing that entire title).
A brief history on my Hobbit/Lord Of The Rings knowledge: I loved the books. A lot. Then I loved The Lord Of The Rings movies. A lot. Then The Hobbit movies started and the first one was… Meh. A bit better than some of the critics were saying but it was certainly no Lord Of The Rings film (those were fantastic). Although I loved the books, I only read them all once & don’t obsess over them or have the greatest memory of every detail. I don’t get too bothered about adaptations being 100% faithful as long as they’re at least… Respectful? I don’t remember The Hobbit book well enough to go into discussing how faithful these two films have been so far. I don’t care anyway. I disliked this film not because of the story or the acting (that was all “good enough”). I HATED how it looked and how that look made it feel!
I’m not going to spend too long on this review. I was just very disappointed. The things I care about when it comes to a movie are a good story & great characters. It’s great when a film looks good too but I’m not someone who cares too much about things like 3D and I hate dodgy looking CGI. I choose to watch films in 2D (the only film to get 3D right so far is Gravity). Unfortunately, I watched this one in 3D (it was the only time I could go to it). Awful! The blurriness I can’t stand with 3D when it comes to things in the background was worse than ever & all the layers in scenes like when Bilbo is in the leaves at the top of the trees were just distracting & weird. Although I don’t think it was just the 3D – I think it’s the way it was filmed overall and my 2D experience probably wouldn’t have been much better (my hubby spent ages trying to explain things like high frame rate to me when we spent almost this entire movie just discussing how awful it looked). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I know NOTHING about filmmaking. I just love watching movies. All I know is that this film didn’t look right to the point that I was SO distracted for at least the first half of the movie that I couldn’t concentrate on the things I care about (story and characters) and actually couldn’t wait for the film to finish.
Now before everyone tells me that this film looks amazing I should explain what I mean by the film looking “awful” and I know that not everyone will agree. It’s also very hard to put into words. It looks too REAL. The daylight scenes were the worst – it felt like I was actually watching a play (with a very high budget) and that the actors were standing on a stage in front of me. It had the look & feel of a National Geographic documentary or a BBC drama (which are things that are fine if that’s the sort of thing you want to watch). The Hobbit is an epic fantasy – I don’t want it to feel REAL. I want to lose myself in this magical world – I go to movies as an escape from the real world, especially when it comes to an actual fantasy film. It took the fantasy element away by being filmed in this way. It wasn’t as bad during darker scenes – I found myself cringing every time there was another scene in bright daylight. Luckily, the last half of the film is dark and I finally started to get into the story a bit more when they go to Lake-town. But this is over halfway into the film – I was too annoyed by this point to really care.
Summary:
I’ve spent no time discussing what should really matter in a movie – the story & the characters. The film picks up once they reach Lake-town and was a lot more enjoyable than the first half, I think Freeman is very good, I adore Ian McKellen but he’s very underused in this one, I liked Bard, I thought Smaug looked really good and liked the scene where he starts moving underneath all that gold. Hell, I even didn’t mind that romance they threw in there which most people probably hate. But, unfortunately, none of this really mattered as the look of the film was so distracting that it ruined the entire experience for me. So for the first time EVER, my rating is largely influenced by this instead of just being based on the story & characters. I’m very very disappointed and am considering skipping the last one in order to not end up having it lessen my love for The Lord Of The Rings films.
My Rating: 5.5/10
** And to think I was waiting until I’d seen this to do my 2013 Top Ten Movies list. I’ll probably post that tomorrow. Spoiler: This movie doesn’t even come close to making it. 😉
Cinema Parrot Disco 