This is the most underrated Marvel movie in my opinion. I heard so much bad about it, but I really enjoyed it! It was funny, full of action & had a wholesome ending.
861 Reviews
This movie gets too much hate for no reason
silliohooie18 September 2021
Minor Marvel, but still good Marvel
TheLittleSongbird30 May 2016
Having enjoyed a vast majority of Marvel's superhero output (more so than most) without worshipping them, 'Ant-Man' is a minor effort from them but there is still a good amount to like about it.
'Ant-Man' manages to be a better film than expected. The character is not exactly a household name and is always tossed aside in favour of other superhero characters like Spiderman that have had longer longevity and perhaps have more compelling origins and stories, hence why they are adapted more. Also wasn't sure what to make of the trailer, which made the film out to be rather bland and too reliant on humour.
Seeing it for myself finally a year on, 'Ant-Man' could have been better. While the humour mostly works wonders, there are a few instances where it's not so funny and not very well placed, like in emotional scenes that are actually quite poignant and then interrupted by a joke that is not only forced and unfunny but also not belonging in the scene. The family scenes are a mixed bag, sometimes they are sweet and touching while at other times they're a little flat and predictable, contributing towards a few rare dull stretches. Corey Stoll also goes through the motions as the rather generic and under-characterised villain.
On the other hand, 'Ant-Man' is a great looking film, it's beautifully shot, very atmospheric, is very slick and the special effects, mostly the rapid size-changing and with the ants, are clever and of the usual high-quality Marvel standards. The music avoids being over-bearing, one-note, too quirky or too bombastic, fitting well tone, mood and pace-wise. Direction is more than competent, keeping the story going at a solid pace and the telling of it interesting enough, though maybe a little more flavour may have been more welcome. While the action is not as much as most Marvel films, it is fun, thrilling, nicely choreographed and tautly shot and edited, especially towards the end. Admittedly there are a couple of cheesy parts towards the end too, but kind of in an endearing rather than jarring way and it doesn't jar with the rest of the film.
There is some very smart and hugely entertaining scripting and dialogue here in 'Ant-Man' too. While it doesn't work completely seamlessly, 'Ant-Man' is one of Marvel's generally consistently funniest films, and the film doesn't take itself too seriously or too much of a joke either, instead not being afraid to embrace the silliness and humour while ensuring still that the subject matter is treated with respect. It is especially good with the title character's deadpan quips and Luis' fast-talking patter. The story is mostly diverting, it's narratively simpler than most Marvel outings and less risks here are taken than most Marvel films but it always makes sense, moments of dullness and jarring are few (while not being completely absent either), it's fun and it doesn't try to do too much or try to insert too many characters while not playing things too safe either.
While not complex as such, the characters are mostly engaging and are not too one-dimensional, only the villain could have had more done with him. Paul Rudd is a strong and hugely entertaining lead, while Michael Peña's hilarious in a role that could have been really annoying. The seasoned support of Michael Douglas adds hugely too, and Evangeline Lilly gives the film some much needed heart. Anthony Mackie is good too.
Overall, minor Marvel but good Marvel. Well-made and a lot of fun, but there is a personal preference to the Marvel films that took bigger risks with more and often richer characters, bigger bolder action and more going on in the story. 'Ant-Man' executes a vast majority of its components really well indeed, just that Marvel has done even better before and since. 7/10 Bethany Cox
'Ant-Man' manages to be a better film than expected. The character is not exactly a household name and is always tossed aside in favour of other superhero characters like Spiderman that have had longer longevity and perhaps have more compelling origins and stories, hence why they are adapted more. Also wasn't sure what to make of the trailer, which made the film out to be rather bland and too reliant on humour.
Seeing it for myself finally a year on, 'Ant-Man' could have been better. While the humour mostly works wonders, there are a few instances where it's not so funny and not very well placed, like in emotional scenes that are actually quite poignant and then interrupted by a joke that is not only forced and unfunny but also not belonging in the scene. The family scenes are a mixed bag, sometimes they are sweet and touching while at other times they're a little flat and predictable, contributing towards a few rare dull stretches. Corey Stoll also goes through the motions as the rather generic and under-characterised villain.
On the other hand, 'Ant-Man' is a great looking film, it's beautifully shot, very atmospheric, is very slick and the special effects, mostly the rapid size-changing and with the ants, are clever and of the usual high-quality Marvel standards. The music avoids being over-bearing, one-note, too quirky or too bombastic, fitting well tone, mood and pace-wise. Direction is more than competent, keeping the story going at a solid pace and the telling of it interesting enough, though maybe a little more flavour may have been more welcome. While the action is not as much as most Marvel films, it is fun, thrilling, nicely choreographed and tautly shot and edited, especially towards the end. Admittedly there are a couple of cheesy parts towards the end too, but kind of in an endearing rather than jarring way and it doesn't jar with the rest of the film.
There is some very smart and hugely entertaining scripting and dialogue here in 'Ant-Man' too. While it doesn't work completely seamlessly, 'Ant-Man' is one of Marvel's generally consistently funniest films, and the film doesn't take itself too seriously or too much of a joke either, instead not being afraid to embrace the silliness and humour while ensuring still that the subject matter is treated with respect. It is especially good with the title character's deadpan quips and Luis' fast-talking patter. The story is mostly diverting, it's narratively simpler than most Marvel outings and less risks here are taken than most Marvel films but it always makes sense, moments of dullness and jarring are few (while not being completely absent either), it's fun and it doesn't try to do too much or try to insert too many characters while not playing things too safe either.
While not complex as such, the characters are mostly engaging and are not too one-dimensional, only the villain could have had more done with him. Paul Rudd is a strong and hugely entertaining lead, while Michael Peña's hilarious in a role that could have been really annoying. The seasoned support of Michael Douglas adds hugely too, and Evangeline Lilly gives the film some much needed heart. Anthony Mackie is good too.
Overall, minor Marvel but good Marvel. Well-made and a lot of fun, but there is a personal preference to the Marvel films that took bigger risks with more and often richer characters, bigger bolder action and more going on in the story. 'Ant-Man' executes a vast majority of its components really well indeed, just that Marvel has done even better before and since. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Better than I thought it would be
Dana_Sibilsky2 September 2015
Antman. When I first heard about the plans for this movie I laughed to myself and thought, "How can becoming smaller be cool?" Sure enough, Marvel has surpassed my expectations and turned something I thought would be lame and uninteresting into something hilarious and actually pretty cool. I'm not going to include any spoilers, but I will say the fighting style of Antman is much better than I thought it would be. I learned a lot about the story as well as the abilities he has.
Antman gets much more interesting when doing combat. The ability to shrink and grow at will is something Marvel has gotten very creative with.
The language in this film is good enough for my young children to watch. There are no F or GD bombs to ruin the mood and the moment with the family. I'd say I'd surely watch it again.
Antman gets much more interesting when doing combat. The ability to shrink and grow at will is something Marvel has gotten very creative with.
The language in this film is good enough for my young children to watch. There are no F or GD bombs to ruin the mood and the moment with the family. I'd say I'd surely watch it again.
A Marvellous Molecular Metamorphosis...
Xstal17 February 2023
There's a particle that can make you miniature, scale you down the size of ants and even more, and Scott Lang, is just the man, who has the chance to be less than, with Dr. Pym and Hope Van Dyne, there to make sure; that the devious and the scheming Darren Cross, doesn't get the chance to beat them, and to boss, by releasing Yellowjacket, to those called Hydra and their racket, causing misery and torment, and great loss.
It's one of those cinematic episodes that gets better with subsequent viewings, a great story and you feel there's genuine chemistry between Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas - plenty of humour too, well worth a revisit.
It's one of those cinematic episodes that gets better with subsequent viewings, a great story and you feel there's genuine chemistry between Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas - plenty of humour too, well worth a revisit.
Second most underrated MCU film.
jstrohm-5835910 May 2019
Works a treat as a light-hearted effects blockbuster
Leofwine_draca20 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
ANT-MAN is another light and breezy Marvel superhero movie conceived as a stand-alone introductory piece. The story is about a down-on-his-luck thief who ends up stealing a body suit that has the power to miniaturise him instantly. He then uses said suit to go on a heist to retrieve some important technology from a maniac. The film is set in the same universe as the Avengers films and contains some clumsily shoehorned-in references to the franchise.
It's a simple enough conceit, but one which zings with humour and features endlessly great CGI action sequences which really push the boundaries and show off techniques and effects that haven't been done before. It was a lot of fun seeing ants playing the good guys in a similar way to HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS. The heist plot is nothing special but there's enough ensemble acting and humour to see it through. I wasn't particularly interested in Paul Rudd's hero, but Michael Douglas gives reliable support and Corey Stoll's bad guy is memorably nasty. For a light-hearted effects blockbuster, ANT-MAN works a treat.
It's a simple enough conceit, but one which zings with humour and features endlessly great CGI action sequences which really push the boundaries and show off techniques and effects that haven't been done before. It was a lot of fun seeing ants playing the good guys in a similar way to HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS. The heist plot is nothing special but there's enough ensemble acting and humour to see it through. I wasn't particularly interested in Paul Rudd's hero, but Michael Douglas gives reliable support and Corey Stoll's bad guy is memorably nasty. For a light-hearted effects blockbuster, ANT-MAN works a treat.
Extremely fun origin story
masonsaul18 July 2019
Ant-Man is an extremely fun origin story and a superb addition to the MCU. Paul Rudd is incredibly charming in the lead role with Evangeline Lilly, Michael Douglas and Michael Peña giving great supporting performances. The CG is great and the action sequences are extremely impressive. The humour works really well and it's consistently funny. Unfortunately, it does suffer from the weak villain problem that some other Marvel movies suffer from.
Let's get small.
justinwfirestone21 July 2015
I must admit that I never got into comic books, so when I heard Paul Rudd would be Marvel's Ant-Man, I had to read the Ant-Man Wikipedia entry just to make sure it wasn't some total prank. Stupid me, he first appeared in 1962, no doubt capitalizing on those halcyon days when the young males across America were obsessed with ants, quantum theory, and microphilia in general.
I'm not the only one with a bit of disbelief. While I was waiting in line to see Terminator Genisys, a stranger pointed over to the Ant- Man poster and said, "Ant-Man?! Man, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for these Marvel movies."
But let's not make a mountain out of an ant hill. The Ant-Man movie is the light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, self-aware, almost campy movie that I wanted Avengers: Age of Ultron to be. Paul Rudd is the best casting of a Marvel hero since Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Michael Douglas brings some class to the whole affair, Evangeline Lilly isn't given a ton to work with but succeeds at being told she's crucial yet largely relegated to behind-the-scenes work, and Michael Peña provides some nice laughs as a goofy and cocksure sidekick.
Once again, the villain is actually science, or at least cutting- edge science. That's because the technology that makes the Ant-Man possible, the Pym particle, could be used for a lot of good, but in the wrong hands, it will surely be used for a lot of bad. And you can tell immediately that Corey Stoll as Darren Cross is bad because he's bald. He pretty monolithically bad, the only reason for which seems to be that Dr. Pym wouldn't raise him as a surrogate father figure.
All of the summer blockbusters now require some throwaway side story about divorce and wanting to be better parents for their kids. I wish all those side stories would go subatomic and be lost forever, allowing for more time to "mount the thorax."
Ant-Man can control ants, too! But he can't until he learns how to clear his mind. So Hope van Dyne tells him to think of his daughter. Simple! Easy peasy, calabrese! He can't fly, though, even though some ants can fly. This all becomes problematic when Yellowjacket shows up and can fly and shoot lasers. Lasers seem lame when Yellowjacket could've had cannons that transform living creatures into small piles of ectoplasmic goop.
As in Terminator Genisys, a total victory for the good guys includes blowing up a server farm. Good thing Darren Cross, just like Skynet, never heard of putting data way up high in The Cloud.
The final battle includes some imagery that almost made me wish I'd seen it in 3D, or at least after enjoying some medicinal tea. It hasn't been this much fun to be small since Rick Moranis shrunk his kids.
I'm not the only one with a bit of disbelief. While I was waiting in line to see Terminator Genisys, a stranger pointed over to the Ant- Man poster and said, "Ant-Man?! Man, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for these Marvel movies."
But let's not make a mountain out of an ant hill. The Ant-Man movie is the light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, self-aware, almost campy movie that I wanted Avengers: Age of Ultron to be. Paul Rudd is the best casting of a Marvel hero since Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Michael Douglas brings some class to the whole affair, Evangeline Lilly isn't given a ton to work with but succeeds at being told she's crucial yet largely relegated to behind-the-scenes work, and Michael Peña provides some nice laughs as a goofy and cocksure sidekick.
Once again, the villain is actually science, or at least cutting- edge science. That's because the technology that makes the Ant-Man possible, the Pym particle, could be used for a lot of good, but in the wrong hands, it will surely be used for a lot of bad. And you can tell immediately that Corey Stoll as Darren Cross is bad because he's bald. He pretty monolithically bad, the only reason for which seems to be that Dr. Pym wouldn't raise him as a surrogate father figure.
All of the summer blockbusters now require some throwaway side story about divorce and wanting to be better parents for their kids. I wish all those side stories would go subatomic and be lost forever, allowing for more time to "mount the thorax."
Ant-Man can control ants, too! But he can't until he learns how to clear his mind. So Hope van Dyne tells him to think of his daughter. Simple! Easy peasy, calabrese! He can't fly, though, even though some ants can fly. This all becomes problematic when Yellowjacket shows up and can fly and shoot lasers. Lasers seem lame when Yellowjacket could've had cannons that transform living creatures into small piles of ectoplasmic goop.
As in Terminator Genisys, a total victory for the good guys includes blowing up a server farm. Good thing Darren Cross, just like Skynet, never heard of putting data way up high in The Cloud.
The final battle includes some imagery that almost made me wish I'd seen it in 3D, or at least after enjoying some medicinal tea. It hasn't been this much fun to be small since Rick Moranis shrunk his kids.
Fun off Marvel film
welhof124 November 2021
This is one of those MCU movies that are great but aren't that important in the overall plot of the MCU. Paul Rudd is great in this role. His personality really fit the character. The CGI was top notch. They did a great job shrinking things down. I wonder if he'll have a bigger part in the MCU. Anyway, great enjoyable film here. Worth the watch.
A fine comic movie
que_no_me_toque_un_alto_delante18 October 2015
With a story that is pretty good, but it's not great. Quite cohesive. Good point showing the old superhero training the young one. A little too many cliché phrases. Paul Rudd is quite good, handles well the comic point, which otherwise would be a disaster.It's entertaining, with good special effects. Some great fighting scenes, specially the one in which they make the giant train. They have made a decent movie with a superhero who at first seems to not give much of itself. The little superhero has rightfully earns a place amongst marvel MOVIES superheroes. Nice ending with the reference to Avengers. quenometoque.wix.com/unaltodelante
2 legs bad; 6 legs better
bob-the-movie-man21 July 2015
OK, so I will probably target the wrath of a legion of fan-boys but as a PhD Physicist I will categorically state that much of the science in the Marvel universe is total nonsense. For example, it requires a certain suspension of belief that whole cities can be levitated. But it's called "Science Fiction" for a reason, right? "Ant Man" pushes that suspension of belief to whole new levels. The concept that a miniaturised man, were such a thing even possible, could exert the same moment and force as a full sized person would make Newton spin in his grave.
With these nagging doubts I watched the trailer increasingly comfortable in my view that, (even with a free cinema pass), this was a film I would avoid like the plague. That was until the final scene, featuring Thomas the Tank engine, that was ludicrously and surprisingly comical. Could it be that, like last year's "Guardians of the Galaxy", Marvel had pulled its pompous head out of its ass and come up with an 'Avengers-lite' that could entertain a broader audience? I decided to risk it. And I was glad I did.
Paul Rudd ("Friends", "Anchorman") plays ex-con Scott Lang who is recruited by brilliant scientist and would-be superhero Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his gorgeous daughter Hope ("Lost" and "The Hobbit"'s Evangeline Lilly) to steal a jacket. (No, really). The owner of said jacket, albeit a high-tech jacket, is businessman and all-round bad-guy Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), with evil intent. (You can tell he's evil by what he does to a cute little lamb - this is the worst viewing for sheep since "Far from the Madding Crowd".) By miniaturising Lang and securing the help of an army of ants, the stage is set for a heist of a most unusual kind.
This sounds ridiculous to even write. So why does it work? First up, the script by Edgar Wright ( of "3 Flavours Cornetto" fame), Adam McKay ("The Other Guys"), Joe Cornish and Paul Rudd himself is as tight as a drum, with some situations and lines that are downright hilarious. A couple of brilliant lip sync scenes, one featuring the requisite Stan Lee cameo, are grin-inducing pleasures.
Supporting the screenplay, the three leading players pull off their roles with enormous panache. Rudd is hugely likable, with all of the smart-whip humour of Downey Jnr.'s "Iron Man" but with none of the appalling arrogance. Michael Douglas, in his one outing this year, seems to be revelling in his role and (presumably with the help of some clever makeup and/or CGI) looking very dapper in the 1987 version of his character. And Evangeline Lilly enters the Avenger's world with a bang and looks very comfortable there. In an effective supporting role, Michael Peña ("American Hustle") adds a comic lightness of touch as fellow robber Luis. Abby Ryder Fortson also deserves special mention (and an Oscar for cuteness) as Lang's young daughter.
Whilst real fan-boys might object to the flippant nature of the film, there are a number of clever cross-overs into the 'mainstream' "Avengers" films, with one B-list Avenger guest star and (eventually) an A-list appearance. And (as is common in these films, and notable as 80% of the audience stayed in their seats for the full credits) there is both a mid-credits scene (that's a set-up for the sequel) and a final post-credit scene that (so I'd told) is hugely significant for next year's "Captain America: Civil War" (in which Rudd is set to reprise his "Ant Man" role).
The director is Peyton Reed, whose limited movie portfolio to date includes Jim Carrey's "Yes Man" and "Bring it On".
As I found myself thoroughly enjoying the experience, my rating, against all the odds, is twice what I expected it to be. I can't believe I'm saying this but I recommend you go see this for a fun movie summer experience.
With these nagging doubts I watched the trailer increasingly comfortable in my view that, (even with a free cinema pass), this was a film I would avoid like the plague. That was until the final scene, featuring Thomas the Tank engine, that was ludicrously and surprisingly comical. Could it be that, like last year's "Guardians of the Galaxy", Marvel had pulled its pompous head out of its ass and come up with an 'Avengers-lite' that could entertain a broader audience? I decided to risk it. And I was glad I did.
Paul Rudd ("Friends", "Anchorman") plays ex-con Scott Lang who is recruited by brilliant scientist and would-be superhero Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his gorgeous daughter Hope ("Lost" and "The Hobbit"'s Evangeline Lilly) to steal a jacket. (No, really). The owner of said jacket, albeit a high-tech jacket, is businessman and all-round bad-guy Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), with evil intent. (You can tell he's evil by what he does to a cute little lamb - this is the worst viewing for sheep since "Far from the Madding Crowd".) By miniaturising Lang and securing the help of an army of ants, the stage is set for a heist of a most unusual kind.
This sounds ridiculous to even write. So why does it work? First up, the script by Edgar Wright ( of "3 Flavours Cornetto" fame), Adam McKay ("The Other Guys"), Joe Cornish and Paul Rudd himself is as tight as a drum, with some situations and lines that are downright hilarious. A couple of brilliant lip sync scenes, one featuring the requisite Stan Lee cameo, are grin-inducing pleasures.
Supporting the screenplay, the three leading players pull off their roles with enormous panache. Rudd is hugely likable, with all of the smart-whip humour of Downey Jnr.'s "Iron Man" but with none of the appalling arrogance. Michael Douglas, in his one outing this year, seems to be revelling in his role and (presumably with the help of some clever makeup and/or CGI) looking very dapper in the 1987 version of his character. And Evangeline Lilly enters the Avenger's world with a bang and looks very comfortable there. In an effective supporting role, Michael Peña ("American Hustle") adds a comic lightness of touch as fellow robber Luis. Abby Ryder Fortson also deserves special mention (and an Oscar for cuteness) as Lang's young daughter.
Whilst real fan-boys might object to the flippant nature of the film, there are a number of clever cross-overs into the 'mainstream' "Avengers" films, with one B-list Avenger guest star and (eventually) an A-list appearance. And (as is common in these films, and notable as 80% of the audience stayed in their seats for the full credits) there is both a mid-credits scene (that's a set-up for the sequel) and a final post-credit scene that (so I'd told) is hugely significant for next year's "Captain America: Civil War" (in which Rudd is set to reprise his "Ant Man" role).
The director is Peyton Reed, whose limited movie portfolio to date includes Jim Carrey's "Yes Man" and "Bring it On".
As I found myself thoroughly enjoying the experience, my rating, against all the odds, is twice what I expected it to be. I can't believe I'm saying this but I recommend you go see this for a fun movie summer experience.
Enjoyable yet simple
joeybweiss27 September 2015
Ant Man is about a likable burglar, played by Paul Rudd, who finds a suit which allows him to shrink down to the size of the ant. The owner of the suit, and previous Ant Man (Michael Douglas) trains the main character to use the suit in order to stop the villain, who is attempting to militarize a shrinking suit of his own. The cast is solid and has good chemistry, and the movie is pleasantly humorous. The action, though there is not a lot of it, is exciting. It includes great special effects, largely in sequences when the hero shrinks and controls ants to aid him. On the other hand the story is for the most part underwhelming, though it does benefit from having a smaller scale than most superhero movies. The villain of the movie, played by Corey Stoll, is wasted, lacking interesting personal motivation or interaction with the main character until the ending.
Unable to adhere to their own rules.
darrenwolf7-962-30941520 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I am abysmally disappointed in the execution of this film. This film, like it's peers, has all the Hallmarks of a produced-for-the masses, generic, and stereotypical film created for the lowest common denominator. There is no innovation in this film, only mind-numbing clichés that fill the monotonous hours otherwise spent counting the number of in-world errors the films directors manage to commit.
As a cinephile and a resolute fan of super-hero movies and action flicks alike I can forgive a meaningless plot focused once again on a dysfunctional family unit where a well-meaning male protagonist finds himself at odds with a morally bankrupt society, a teary-eyed "I only want the best for our daughter" token mother, and a cliché domineering "replacement father" with a skewed perspective of our hero's motivations. The daughter managed to swim a little higher than the bottom of the barrel but only just enough to reach the "I'm a smart sassy kid with more self-awareness than the adults think and I'll express that with a few endearing one liners" level.
I can forgive the generic antagonist meglomaniac who used to "hold so much promise" until he effectively "turns to the dark side" using his abilities for evil and/or personal gain and in a way designed to convey as much sensitive information about his intentions to his enemies as possible thereby giving them ample opportunity to thwart his every plan. I can look past the incredibly cliché nameless "investors" representing the greed and hunger of a capitalistic world for domination as this amazing, new, and world changing technology is sold to the highest bidder despite the fact that this approach is a clear step below the ability of an motivated antagonist who intends to put their potential to personal use. (Predictably, despite the best efforts of our hero's, our antagonist still finds an opportune time to don his suit to give us our much anticipated climatic battle scene.)
I can even forgive the stereotypical "wizened" scientist with emotional baggage who can never allow his creation to fall into the wrong hands, a son/daughter with resentment and abandonment issues, and, surprise, the mysterious death of their spouse illogically requiring them to lie about the details to "protect" their loved ones until the right "time."
But, in addition to every stereotype, cliché, and generic element of this movie, I am incredibly annoyed at also being expected to lower my intellect to the point where it is assumed I will pay no attention to anything but the most shallow details of a movie so that if/when the producers violate their own in-universe laws I won't care or notice.
Specifically, the suit functions simply by reducing or increasing the distance between atoms of an object. This in turns makes an object more or less dense without altering it's total mass, hence the multiple characterizations of Antman as still weighing and having the strength of a 200 pound man, being able to kill with a single punch, being much faster, stronger, etc. Apparently these details only matter when it's convenient for the producers. As many have already stated, how in the Hell does Antman ride an ant when he is effectively a 200lb man in compact form? If I reduced the earth to the size of a marble I can tie it to my dog but he still won't be dragging it around anytime soon. How is he able to stand on the shoulders of his friends? When he runs he should be exponentially faster, when he struggles to lift things (toy blocks) they should be several times heavier than an object that can be lifted by a 200 pound man or go zinging away like a bullet. The whole purpose of the suit is to reduce the spread of force over a relative area thereby increasing it's overall impact and strength. Think of the Human body like a cannon and the ant suit like a focused laser. Time and time and time again within the movie these in world laws of physics are ignored or turned on and off at whim to suit the needs of a given scene. The enlarged train should have still weighed no more than a toy train, the enlarged ant no more than a normal ant, and the damn tank on the scientists keychain should have been nigh immovable. How in the world is Antman denser upon shrinking and yet a tank appears to weigh about as much as a couple pencils.
Obviously this is a movie. Clearly it isn't meant to simulate the laws of our own universe. However, it's hard to sit back and imagine that either the director and producers are so stupid and profit driven they are unable to take the time to produce something that even appears to try and conform to the rules and expectations given to the audience, or apparently I, as an audience member, am considered so intellectually challenged that I'm expected to focus on the bright lights, cool sounds, and pretty pretty colors at the expense of any clear story-line at all beyond the cliché "oohs" and "aahhs" we all get when our own personal stories and imaginations are confirmed through the lives of these on screen characters.
I will say, I thoroughly enjoyed the film style associated with the token comedic relief characters monologue scenes. They were beautifully executed and I could probably watch hours of them.
As a cinephile and a resolute fan of super-hero movies and action flicks alike I can forgive a meaningless plot focused once again on a dysfunctional family unit where a well-meaning male protagonist finds himself at odds with a morally bankrupt society, a teary-eyed "I only want the best for our daughter" token mother, and a cliché domineering "replacement father" with a skewed perspective of our hero's motivations. The daughter managed to swim a little higher than the bottom of the barrel but only just enough to reach the "I'm a smart sassy kid with more self-awareness than the adults think and I'll express that with a few endearing one liners" level.
I can forgive the generic antagonist meglomaniac who used to "hold so much promise" until he effectively "turns to the dark side" using his abilities for evil and/or personal gain and in a way designed to convey as much sensitive information about his intentions to his enemies as possible thereby giving them ample opportunity to thwart his every plan. I can look past the incredibly cliché nameless "investors" representing the greed and hunger of a capitalistic world for domination as this amazing, new, and world changing technology is sold to the highest bidder despite the fact that this approach is a clear step below the ability of an motivated antagonist who intends to put their potential to personal use. (Predictably, despite the best efforts of our hero's, our antagonist still finds an opportune time to don his suit to give us our much anticipated climatic battle scene.)
I can even forgive the stereotypical "wizened" scientist with emotional baggage who can never allow his creation to fall into the wrong hands, a son/daughter with resentment and abandonment issues, and, surprise, the mysterious death of their spouse illogically requiring them to lie about the details to "protect" their loved ones until the right "time."
But, in addition to every stereotype, cliché, and generic element of this movie, I am incredibly annoyed at also being expected to lower my intellect to the point where it is assumed I will pay no attention to anything but the most shallow details of a movie so that if/when the producers violate their own in-universe laws I won't care or notice.
Specifically, the suit functions simply by reducing or increasing the distance between atoms of an object. This in turns makes an object more or less dense without altering it's total mass, hence the multiple characterizations of Antman as still weighing and having the strength of a 200 pound man, being able to kill with a single punch, being much faster, stronger, etc. Apparently these details only matter when it's convenient for the producers. As many have already stated, how in the Hell does Antman ride an ant when he is effectively a 200lb man in compact form? If I reduced the earth to the size of a marble I can tie it to my dog but he still won't be dragging it around anytime soon. How is he able to stand on the shoulders of his friends? When he runs he should be exponentially faster, when he struggles to lift things (toy blocks) they should be several times heavier than an object that can be lifted by a 200 pound man or go zinging away like a bullet. The whole purpose of the suit is to reduce the spread of force over a relative area thereby increasing it's overall impact and strength. Think of the Human body like a cannon and the ant suit like a focused laser. Time and time and time again within the movie these in world laws of physics are ignored or turned on and off at whim to suit the needs of a given scene. The enlarged train should have still weighed no more than a toy train, the enlarged ant no more than a normal ant, and the damn tank on the scientists keychain should have been nigh immovable. How in the world is Antman denser upon shrinking and yet a tank appears to weigh about as much as a couple pencils.
Obviously this is a movie. Clearly it isn't meant to simulate the laws of our own universe. However, it's hard to sit back and imagine that either the director and producers are so stupid and profit driven they are unable to take the time to produce something that even appears to try and conform to the rules and expectations given to the audience, or apparently I, as an audience member, am considered so intellectually challenged that I'm expected to focus on the bright lights, cool sounds, and pretty pretty colors at the expense of any clear story-line at all beyond the cliché "oohs" and "aahhs" we all get when our own personal stories and imaginations are confirmed through the lives of these on screen characters.
I will say, I thoroughly enjoyed the film style associated with the token comedic relief characters monologue scenes. They were beautifully executed and I could probably watch hours of them.
Entertaining superhero movie FULL of plot holes
gtylerpayne7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I've become a big fan of MCU movies ever since the first Iron Man movie came out. I went into this expecting to love it, and I did enjoy it, but for the first time in a MCU movie, the plot holes were just too glaring to over-look, and the script felt disjointed.
I did enjoy the movie, and I learned long ago, that if I'm going to enjoy a super-hero movie, I can't over-think things. I really have to suspend my dis-belief. I watched this with that same mentality, but I couldn't help feeling like things weren't right.
This movie goes to some great lengths to explain the sci ency parts of what's going on but then completely ignores the things it just told you. Like Scott is told that his mass stays the same when he shrinks... then how can a group of ants or a flying any carry a 200 pound man? How man Hank carry around a key chain of a shrunken tank that would weigh thousands of pounds?
Another thing that kept bothering me... if he can easily make ants and random objects enlarge in size, how come he only shrinks? Why does he never get bigger, or at least mention the possibility? It would seem like that would be just as useful as shrinking. Not mention the fact that ants could no way survive being that size, they would not get enough oxygen. Any when Ant-man is small his voice should get very high in pitch but it stays the same.
Another thing that made no sense, when Hanks wife or Scott shrink down to "sub- atomic size" how exactly does this stop a missile or destroy the Wasp suit, if they are really THAT small and shrinking rapidly, it's hard to see how they could do that much damage at that size. Any if he is smaller than molecules, he would not be able to breath because the oxygen molecules would be bigger than him.
Then there was the whole mission that led to the fight with Falcon for some random "tech" object, even though it was never explained what that was, or why it was necessary or why Hank couldn't just build a new one.
And then there was the strange was in which Hank recruited Scott, by planting the idea of the safe, but having a friend of a friend tell the story... What if Scoff didn't steal the suit? Why would he bother to take it anyway? There were surely a lot easier ways to recruit him, like just talking to him or offering him money. The money he gave to the girl for telling the story would have been more than enough to convince him to try it on.
They there was the question of why Scott never even questioned this whole issue of the suit "taking a tole on people" "messing with their brain chemistry" .. you would think he might be slightly worried about that... but no, not at all.
I could go on and on... even with trying to just sit back and enjoy without thinking, these questions kept popping out at me. The movie just really made no sense at all.
I will say that I still enjoyed it. I though Michael Pena did a great job as comic relief, and Paul Rudd was a good Ant-Man, but while I enjoyed this movie, I left feeling sure that it should have been better. It just doesn't quite live up to some of the better MCU movies like Winder Soldier, Avengers, or Iron Man 1.
I did enjoy the movie, and I learned long ago, that if I'm going to enjoy a super-hero movie, I can't over-think things. I really have to suspend my dis-belief. I watched this with that same mentality, but I couldn't help feeling like things weren't right.
This movie goes to some great lengths to explain the sci ency parts of what's going on but then completely ignores the things it just told you. Like Scott is told that his mass stays the same when he shrinks... then how can a group of ants or a flying any carry a 200 pound man? How man Hank carry around a key chain of a shrunken tank that would weigh thousands of pounds?
Another thing that kept bothering me... if he can easily make ants and random objects enlarge in size, how come he only shrinks? Why does he never get bigger, or at least mention the possibility? It would seem like that would be just as useful as shrinking. Not mention the fact that ants could no way survive being that size, they would not get enough oxygen. Any when Ant-man is small his voice should get very high in pitch but it stays the same.
Another thing that made no sense, when Hanks wife or Scott shrink down to "sub- atomic size" how exactly does this stop a missile or destroy the Wasp suit, if they are really THAT small and shrinking rapidly, it's hard to see how they could do that much damage at that size. Any if he is smaller than molecules, he would not be able to breath because the oxygen molecules would be bigger than him.
Then there was the whole mission that led to the fight with Falcon for some random "tech" object, even though it was never explained what that was, or why it was necessary or why Hank couldn't just build a new one.
And then there was the strange was in which Hank recruited Scott, by planting the idea of the safe, but having a friend of a friend tell the story... What if Scoff didn't steal the suit? Why would he bother to take it anyway? There were surely a lot easier ways to recruit him, like just talking to him or offering him money. The money he gave to the girl for telling the story would have been more than enough to convince him to try it on.
They there was the question of why Scott never even questioned this whole issue of the suit "taking a tole on people" "messing with their brain chemistry" .. you would think he might be slightly worried about that... but no, not at all.
I could go on and on... even with trying to just sit back and enjoy without thinking, these questions kept popping out at me. The movie just really made no sense at all.
I will say that I still enjoyed it. I though Michael Pena did a great job as comic relief, and Paul Rudd was a good Ant-Man, but while I enjoyed this movie, I left feeling sure that it should have been better. It just doesn't quite live up to some of the better MCU movies like Winder Soldier, Avengers, or Iron Man 1.
Best introduction to a new character!
Top_Dawg_Critic20 July 2020
Don't tread on an ant; he's done nothing to you. There might come a day when he's treading on you!
Chalice_Of_Evil15 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
From the opening scene, which we get *before* the 'Marvel Studios' logo appears, you know things will be a bit different with this movie compared to the previous ones. It was a nice surprise to see Hayley Atwell (once again rocking the convincing old age makeup) as an older Peggy Carter, who appears alongside a more youthful-looking Michael Douglas as Hank Pym (which remains the BEST de-aging I've seen in a film) and John Slattery's Howard Stark.
After this set-up, we're introduced to Paul Rudd's Scott Lang in a scene you think you've watched many times before (the hero getting beaten up in jail, only to fight back and win), but it's something else. I appreciated this shake-up to the formula we've become accustomed to over time. And that's this film's main takeaway: it mixes things up, which is sometimes a positive/sometimes a negative. The beginning, for example, feels slower-paced with its setting up of the characters and rather 'low-key' in comparison to other Marvel films. Paul Rudd has an easy likeability about him, which is important since Scott's a burglar...but he's also a mostly-good person. Seeing our hero working at Baskin-Robbins may come as a surprise to some, but he's just an ordinary guy trying to do right by his daughter (the heart of the film). Unlike certain other jerky superheroes, while Scott gets some funny lines (Rudd's extra-dry delivery helps), thankfully it's not of the rapid-fire mumbling snark variety and he also knows what he's good at, without being full of himself.
Playing well off Rudd is Evangeline Lilly, sporting toned arms and a questionable bob haircut as Hank's daughter, Hope van Dyne. While she starts off seeming like the typical 'tough chick' who argues with her father, teaches Scott to fight and doesn't seem to like either of them very much, we learn why that is (Hank fed her a lie about the death of her mother and also refuses to let her wear the Ant-Man suit despite her proving time and again how qualified she is to be a hero while Scott struggles to be). So, she has good reasons for acting the way she does and is far from 'one-note'. Eventually Scott earns her respect; her dad tells her the truth and that's when they become a team. Lilly displays her range, showing she's not only capable of throwing a punch and delivering verbal barbs, but also displaying humanity when it counts whilst never losing her edge. Her final line in the mid-credits scene, "About damn time.", is not only in regards to Hank finally allowing her to don a superhero suit (that of The Wasp, as her mother was before her) and join Scott, but also about it being well-past time we had a female superhero working alongside the male lead as an equal partner. I really liked her dynamics with Scott and Hank.
Speaking of, Douglas lends some real weight/gravitas to the film, playing the old Ant-Man who needs someone to take over from him. He gives a layered performance and the way Hank tests Scott makes for the film's first memorable 'shrinking' sequence. Regarding the shrinking effects on display, these aren't the old-style Honey, I Shrunk the Kids type of thing, but much more refined. The concept of Ant-Man allows for something completely different to what we're used to when it comes to MCU action sequences. Scott's first shrinking was quite effective, conveying just how dangerous everyday normal things can be when you're the size of an ant. The upside is that he gains strength and ants become his allies. He even develops a friendship with one particular winged Carpenter ant he names Ant-thony (if you *didn't* see the outcome of this friendship coming from a mile away...clearly you've never seen Honey, I Shrunk the Kids). We soon learn of various types of ants, all of which have different sets of skills that come in handy, and it's nice to see Scott's bonding with his various insectoid allies.
At the other end of the spectrum is nasty badguy, Darren Cross, whose experiments reduce test subjects to bloody piles of goo (WHY'D they have to do that to the CUTEST LAMB EVER?! At least Hope was upset by it). It's weird that he's so focused on this shrinking tech when he has a gun that TURNS PEOPLE TO GOO (which can be flushed down the toilet) that's a more powerful weapon. His is the latest in a long line of MCU bad guys, and as unhinged but otherwise relatively 'normal' human villains go, Corey Stoll does a decent enough job (though he missed an opportunity to use "Dead-ant, dead-ant/Dead-ant, dead-ant dead-ant dead-ant dead-ant..." when threatening Ant-Man). Scott also battles a less-likeable-than-he-was-in-CA: TWS Sam Wilson/Falcon at one point. Scott's heist buddies, referred to as "wombats" by Hank, are mostly played for laughs (with varying degrees of success), but are alright/not entirely useless. Michael Peña's Luis walks a fine line between being entertaining and annoying, especially with his storytelling about tips he's given. Judy Greer has the rather thankless role of Scott's ex-wife, Maggie, while her new husband, Paxton (Bobby Cannavale), seems kind of a jerk for most of the movie, but eventually shows he's a decent guy.
There are some really great moments (unfortunately, the trailers spoiled the Thomas the Tank Engine scene) throughout, plenty of heart, a likeable hero and new/fresh type of superhero power that we haven't seen before which isn't just about causing explosions. There's *real* imagination/creativity to it. Best of all is the catchy/memorable 'Ant-Man Theme' (it's nice to have a clearly identifiable superhero theme after so long). While I was a bit underwhelmed by this film after my first viewing, and really wanted to know what Edgar Wright (who dropped out due to 'creative differences') would've done with the concept, I've appreciated this movie more with repeated viewings. It mightn't be one of the 'big' MCU films...but you know what they say about good things coming in small packages.
After this set-up, we're introduced to Paul Rudd's Scott Lang in a scene you think you've watched many times before (the hero getting beaten up in jail, only to fight back and win), but it's something else. I appreciated this shake-up to the formula we've become accustomed to over time. And that's this film's main takeaway: it mixes things up, which is sometimes a positive/sometimes a negative. The beginning, for example, feels slower-paced with its setting up of the characters and rather 'low-key' in comparison to other Marvel films. Paul Rudd has an easy likeability about him, which is important since Scott's a burglar...but he's also a mostly-good person. Seeing our hero working at Baskin-Robbins may come as a surprise to some, but he's just an ordinary guy trying to do right by his daughter (the heart of the film). Unlike certain other jerky superheroes, while Scott gets some funny lines (Rudd's extra-dry delivery helps), thankfully it's not of the rapid-fire mumbling snark variety and he also knows what he's good at, without being full of himself.
Playing well off Rudd is Evangeline Lilly, sporting toned arms and a questionable bob haircut as Hank's daughter, Hope van Dyne. While she starts off seeming like the typical 'tough chick' who argues with her father, teaches Scott to fight and doesn't seem to like either of them very much, we learn why that is (Hank fed her a lie about the death of her mother and also refuses to let her wear the Ant-Man suit despite her proving time and again how qualified she is to be a hero while Scott struggles to be). So, she has good reasons for acting the way she does and is far from 'one-note'. Eventually Scott earns her respect; her dad tells her the truth and that's when they become a team. Lilly displays her range, showing she's not only capable of throwing a punch and delivering verbal barbs, but also displaying humanity when it counts whilst never losing her edge. Her final line in the mid-credits scene, "About damn time.", is not only in regards to Hank finally allowing her to don a superhero suit (that of The Wasp, as her mother was before her) and join Scott, but also about it being well-past time we had a female superhero working alongside the male lead as an equal partner. I really liked her dynamics with Scott and Hank.
Speaking of, Douglas lends some real weight/gravitas to the film, playing the old Ant-Man who needs someone to take over from him. He gives a layered performance and the way Hank tests Scott makes for the film's first memorable 'shrinking' sequence. Regarding the shrinking effects on display, these aren't the old-style Honey, I Shrunk the Kids type of thing, but much more refined. The concept of Ant-Man allows for something completely different to what we're used to when it comes to MCU action sequences. Scott's first shrinking was quite effective, conveying just how dangerous everyday normal things can be when you're the size of an ant. The upside is that he gains strength and ants become his allies. He even develops a friendship with one particular winged Carpenter ant he names Ant-thony (if you *didn't* see the outcome of this friendship coming from a mile away...clearly you've never seen Honey, I Shrunk the Kids). We soon learn of various types of ants, all of which have different sets of skills that come in handy, and it's nice to see Scott's bonding with his various insectoid allies.
At the other end of the spectrum is nasty badguy, Darren Cross, whose experiments reduce test subjects to bloody piles of goo (WHY'D they have to do that to the CUTEST LAMB EVER?! At least Hope was upset by it). It's weird that he's so focused on this shrinking tech when he has a gun that TURNS PEOPLE TO GOO (which can be flushed down the toilet) that's a more powerful weapon. His is the latest in a long line of MCU bad guys, and as unhinged but otherwise relatively 'normal' human villains go, Corey Stoll does a decent enough job (though he missed an opportunity to use "Dead-ant, dead-ant/Dead-ant, dead-ant dead-ant dead-ant dead-ant..." when threatening Ant-Man). Scott also battles a less-likeable-than-he-was-in-CA: TWS Sam Wilson/Falcon at one point. Scott's heist buddies, referred to as "wombats" by Hank, are mostly played for laughs (with varying degrees of success), but are alright/not entirely useless. Michael Peña's Luis walks a fine line between being entertaining and annoying, especially with his storytelling about tips he's given. Judy Greer has the rather thankless role of Scott's ex-wife, Maggie, while her new husband, Paxton (Bobby Cannavale), seems kind of a jerk for most of the movie, but eventually shows he's a decent guy.
There are some really great moments (unfortunately, the trailers spoiled the Thomas the Tank Engine scene) throughout, plenty of heart, a likeable hero and new/fresh type of superhero power that we haven't seen before which isn't just about causing explosions. There's *real* imagination/creativity to it. Best of all is the catchy/memorable 'Ant-Man Theme' (it's nice to have a clearly identifiable superhero theme after so long). While I was a bit underwhelmed by this film after my first viewing, and really wanted to know what Edgar Wright (who dropped out due to 'creative differences') would've done with the concept, I've appreciated this movie more with repeated viewings. It mightn't be one of the 'big' MCU films...but you know what they say about good things coming in small packages.
I was not expecting this... Brilliant addition to the MCU.
lukehiggs19 July 2015
AntMan is a lesser know character of marvels but by no means does that effect the quality of this movie. First off I thought that the casting of this film wasn't going to work, that been Paul Rudd mainly, just because I have read a few of the AntMan comics and didn't think it was going to work, I was wrong he is brilliant, hilarious and believable, all of the jokes he made actually made laugh out load which doesn't happen much. Michael Pena was great in this film, he plays the same kind of character he always seems too, but it really works, especially the story telling scenes were hilarious. This was a all round well cast film.
The action and CGI Was great, on first thoughts I thought when AntMan shrinks down that the CGI would take you out of the movie but let me tell you it doesn't, it's awesome! Especially seeing the world from that size and scenes where AntMan is shrinking and enlarging when fighting i thought would get a little too much but the honestly don't.
All around I AntMan felt different to all the other MCU movies that have come out, but a good different. A well cast,directed and acted film that will be a welcome addition to my marvel collection.
The action and CGI Was great, on first thoughts I thought when AntMan shrinks down that the CGI would take you out of the movie but let me tell you it doesn't, it's awesome! Especially seeing the world from that size and scenes where AntMan is shrinking and enlarging when fighting i thought would get a little too much but the honestly don't.
All around I AntMan felt different to all the other MCU movies that have come out, but a good different. A well cast,directed and acted film that will be a welcome addition to my marvel collection.
It is funny, it is action-packed, it makes not much sense
tenshi_ippikiookami2 July 2016
"Ant-Man" is a nice change of pace from all the Marvel Universe movies that we have been getting in this 2010s. Instead of being a serious movie, or one packed with superheroes fighting against yet another city that is falling on their heads, it centers on a very simple idea: a heist. And it does a good enough job in making it fun, but it also has a very uneven tone and doesn't make any sense throughout the whole movie.
Dr. Hank Pym was Ant-Man many many years ago, but decided to give up and hide his suit behind a safe in his house. But when his former pupil Darren Cross comes close to creating something similar with a new suit called Yellowjacket, he knows he has top Cross. And he decides to get the help of Scott Lang, a former convict, to steal the new suit. Will Scott Lang help Dr. Hank Pym and become the new Ant-Man? And will they be in time to stop Darren Cross?
The movie follows the 101 heist book from beginning to the end, but mixed with the superhero formula. You have the rag-a-tag team of losers that helps the hero, the old person with the info and the mission, the other one that wants to be the hero (in this case Dr. Hank Pym's daughter Hope)... It is not very original, but it is fast-paced enough that you won't even notice. And the acting is good enough (even if the direction comes and goes). The plot development is OK, and as it doesn't have so much overlap with other Marvel movies, it can stand on its own two feet without much problems. And it tries to be funny (too much), and has some nice jokes to keep things easy and not very serious.
On the other hand, it makes no sense whatsoever (it looks as it had a half-baked script), and as said, as the direction come and goes, it falls into some empty moments that distract from the movie. The worst sin, though, it is its over-reliance on special effects, especially in the third act, with way too much CGI that wasn't necessary. It is a problem many of the superhero movies seem to have: an overlong third act with just explosions, punches and things flying around. At least this time they put some humour, but it is still way too long.
All in all, not the greatest superhero movie ever, but one fun and totally enjoyable.
Dr. Hank Pym was Ant-Man many many years ago, but decided to give up and hide his suit behind a safe in his house. But when his former pupil Darren Cross comes close to creating something similar with a new suit called Yellowjacket, he knows he has top Cross. And he decides to get the help of Scott Lang, a former convict, to steal the new suit. Will Scott Lang help Dr. Hank Pym and become the new Ant-Man? And will they be in time to stop Darren Cross?
The movie follows the 101 heist book from beginning to the end, but mixed with the superhero formula. You have the rag-a-tag team of losers that helps the hero, the old person with the info and the mission, the other one that wants to be the hero (in this case Dr. Hank Pym's daughter Hope)... It is not very original, but it is fast-paced enough that you won't even notice. And the acting is good enough (even if the direction comes and goes). The plot development is OK, and as it doesn't have so much overlap with other Marvel movies, it can stand on its own two feet without much problems. And it tries to be funny (too much), and has some nice jokes to keep things easy and not very serious.
On the other hand, it makes no sense whatsoever (it looks as it had a half-baked script), and as said, as the direction come and goes, it falls into some empty moments that distract from the movie. The worst sin, though, it is its over-reliance on special effects, especially in the third act, with way too much CGI that wasn't necessary. It is a problem many of the superhero movies seem to have: an overlong third act with just explosions, punches and things flying around. At least this time they put some humour, but it is still way too long.
All in all, not the greatest superhero movie ever, but one fun and totally enjoyable.
It's a fan movie because of Paul Rad
roygamblet13 August 2020
An All Around Very Good Movie
Michael_Elliott15 May 2016
Ant-Man (2015)
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is released from prison and plans on going straight but that doesn't go as planned but he's recruited by Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) to try out a suit that manages to shrink his size while making him even stronger. Soon Ant-Man has to try and stop a bad guy (Corey Stoll) trying to sell the secret.
ANT-MAN is a film that really took me by surprise. I'm not a comic book person so I wasn't familiar with this character or the story. I was really shocked at how entertaining the personal drama was as well as how exciting the action was. When I first saw the trailer I couldn't help but think of HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS and this film actually benefits from the same thing that movie did and that's the rather cool effect of being small and surrounded by large, everyday items.
This is certainly one aspect that makes the film so entertaining because the entire idea of someone being able to shrink and then go back to their regular size in the matter of seconds is just fun. Even more fun is the way he is trained into becoming this warrior because it not only adds some great action scenes but also some very good laughs. You've got the action and the laughs but I thought the film also sold the personal drama that the main characters have.
A lot of credit has to go to the cast for pulling this off. Rudd is as perfect as Ant-Man as Robert Downey, Jr. is as Iron Man. The casting was simply perfect because Rudd can perfectly handle the drama, the comedy and the action and he makes for a complete character. Douglas also adds a lot to the film in his supporting role as does Stoll as the villain. Michael Pena and Bobby Cannnavale are both good in their supporting bits as is Evangeline Lilly in her role.
ANT-MAN also benefits from clocking in under two hours as the film never seems too long. The story isn't dragged on and instead we're given non-stop action and fun. There have been many good movies made from Marvel comics but ANT-MAN is certainly among the best.
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is released from prison and plans on going straight but that doesn't go as planned but he's recruited by Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) to try out a suit that manages to shrink his size while making him even stronger. Soon Ant-Man has to try and stop a bad guy (Corey Stoll) trying to sell the secret.
ANT-MAN is a film that really took me by surprise. I'm not a comic book person so I wasn't familiar with this character or the story. I was really shocked at how entertaining the personal drama was as well as how exciting the action was. When I first saw the trailer I couldn't help but think of HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS and this film actually benefits from the same thing that movie did and that's the rather cool effect of being small and surrounded by large, everyday items.
This is certainly one aspect that makes the film so entertaining because the entire idea of someone being able to shrink and then go back to their regular size in the matter of seconds is just fun. Even more fun is the way he is trained into becoming this warrior because it not only adds some great action scenes but also some very good laughs. You've got the action and the laughs but I thought the film also sold the personal drama that the main characters have.
A lot of credit has to go to the cast for pulling this off. Rudd is as perfect as Ant-Man as Robert Downey, Jr. is as Iron Man. The casting was simply perfect because Rudd can perfectly handle the drama, the comedy and the action and he makes for a complete character. Douglas also adds a lot to the film in his supporting role as does Stoll as the villain. Michael Pena and Bobby Cannnavale are both good in their supporting bits as is Evangeline Lilly in her role.
ANT-MAN also benefits from clocking in under two hours as the film never seems too long. The story isn't dragged on and instead we're given non-stop action and fun. There have been many good movies made from Marvel comics but ANT-MAN is certainly among the best.
Funny and awesome
FeastMode26 June 2019
Awesome, entertaining movie. Cool concept taken in lots of cool directions. Did a good job of being exciting without needing to be epic. The fight scenes were hard to follow at times but there was a lot of good action. And it was very funny. Funny characters, dialogue, and situational humor. (6 viewings, 4/29/2020, 2/13/2023)
The world's smallest superhero!
Tweekums27 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
After three years in prison cat burglar Scott Lang finds it difficult to find work so soon gets involved in a robbery. His criminal contacts have learnt about an old man with a massive safe in his basement
they don't know what it contains but given the security it must be valuable. He is rather surprised to discover that all it contains is what looks like an old biker-suit. He takes it and tries it on later
suddenly he shrinks to the size of an ant! It turns out the suit's owner, Dr Hank Pym, intended for him to steal it he wants somebody who is a skilled burglar to use the suit for a very specific job. Initially Scott isn't interested but inevitably he is soon pulled in. Hank explains how the suit works and tells Scott that he is worried because his former protégé Darren Cross has replicated the technology and intends to sell it to the highest bidder. Scott won't be working alone; he will have support from Hank, his daughter Hope, his three criminal friends and lots of ants
it turns out Dr Pym has developed technology that enables ants to be telepathically controlled! Ultimately Scott, in his Ant-Man suit will have to face Cross who is wearing his fully armed 'Yellowjacket' suit.
Not being a comic reader I wasn't familiar with Ant-Man before this film came out but when heard about it I thought the premise sounded rather fun and so it is. There are some humorous moments, mostly provided by Scott's criminal friends; these are fun and don't detract from the story. Scott/Ant-Man is a good protagonist as he isn't a typical superhero; he has no natural superpowers and the technology he uses wasn't invented by himself. Paul Rudd does a fine job in the role and is ably supported by Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly as Dr Pym and Hope. Corey Stoll is suitably menacing as Cross and Michael Peña, Tip "T.I." Harris and David Dastmalchian are fun as Scott's criminal friends. The special effects are very impressive making it easy to suspend ones disbelief and accept that Ant-Man can change size and interact with actual ants. I liked the fact that while it is made clear that this film takes place in the same reality as other Marvell superhero films it doesn't guest star any other well-known superheroes just one less well known one in a scene where Ant-Man infiltrates an Avengers facility to steal a needed piece of equipment. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to fans of the superhero genre; it is lots of fun and has plenty of exciting moments.
Not being a comic reader I wasn't familiar with Ant-Man before this film came out but when heard about it I thought the premise sounded rather fun and so it is. There are some humorous moments, mostly provided by Scott's criminal friends; these are fun and don't detract from the story. Scott/Ant-Man is a good protagonist as he isn't a typical superhero; he has no natural superpowers and the technology he uses wasn't invented by himself. Paul Rudd does a fine job in the role and is ably supported by Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly as Dr Pym and Hope. Corey Stoll is suitably menacing as Cross and Michael Peña, Tip "T.I." Harris and David Dastmalchian are fun as Scott's criminal friends. The special effects are very impressive making it easy to suspend ones disbelief and accept that Ant-Man can change size and interact with actual ants. I liked the fact that while it is made clear that this film takes place in the same reality as other Marvell superhero films it doesn't guest star any other well-known superheroes just one less well known one in a scene where Ant-Man infiltrates an Avengers facility to steal a needed piece of equipment. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to fans of the superhero genre; it is lots of fun and has plenty of exciting moments.
A light-hearted adventure.
Troy_Campbell17 July 2015
Even by comic-book movie standards, a thief who can shrink himself to the size of an insect – as well as being able to telepathically control ants – is a totally bonkers premise for a blockbuster. As their sensational Guardians of the Galaxy proved, however, Marvel Studios isn't afraid to take left-field ideas and turn them into cinematic gold. It's a shame then, that Ant-Man is more of a mildly diverting setup for phase three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, rather than a wholly entertaining flick that can stand on its own two legs. It's also arguably the least action-centric Marvel film to date, with barely a punch thrown or weapon fired until the final act, save for an unexpected (and highly enjoyable) scrap between the titular hero and a recognisable face. Where this idiosyncratic heist flick scores big points though, is in the comedy department. With a script worked on by Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish and Paul Rudd, it's hardly surprising to find a tongue-in-cheek tone and a healthy splattering of jokes; Michael Pena's goofy sidekick bagging the biggest laugh with an energetic monologue. On leading man duties, Rudd is eminently lovable as burglar Scott Lang – his effortless charm ideal for such a breezy adventure – whilst Michael Douglas brings gravitas to mentor Hank Pym. Coming so soon after Terminator: Genisys gave us a decent-looking youthful Arnie, the digitally de-aged Douglas in the opening scene here is scarily good too, with the CGI staying at a top level throughout. Devoid of an interesting villain and largely lacking in thrills, this is somewhat of a missed opportunity in the Marvel universe. Yet with a strong protagonist (who will be superb when thrown into the Avenger mix), a solid gag rate, and a light-hearted mood (resulting in a PG rating), it's an amusing film suitable for the whole family.
Something's not Wright here
pyrocitor17 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Once upon a time, Ant-Man was the Marvel movie to beat. A founding Avenger with less baggage of expectation, Ant-Man allowed the studio increasing danger of collapsing under the titanic weight of their own 'universe-building' a chance to shake things up with something small (ha
), intimate, and quirky. Paired with the eclectic stylistic flair and consummate comedic timing of visionary writer/director Edgar Wright, Ant-Man was primed to become the breath of fresh air in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Alas.
Wright's departure from the project, followed by shady, last minute rewrites, and the hiring of Peyton Reed, best known for helming despicably generic attempts at comedy, didn't bode well. But Marvel's impeccable track record and the inspired casting of Paul Rudd suggested there was still Hope (ha ) an enjoyable romp could be salvaged out of the film's prior potential. Indeed, it's hard not to sneer that the film's theme of "second chances," uttered roughly 1800 times by Michael Douglas with all the subtlety of a children's bedtime story, reads as a meta plea for clemency on behalf of the studio. And yet, even with this growing backlog of worrisome evidence against it, none could have predicted the final product to come.
Ant-Man is, not to mince words, an insultingly poor film.
Inexcusably lazy, under-thought, clichéd, soulless the list of adjectives is endless. Purportedly structured around a heist narrative, the miserable excuse for a script slaps together a slew of loathsome narrative crutches (released con coaxed into "one last job", disgraced dad trying to win back custody rights to his daughter, emotionally distant genius forced to confront the demons of his past yawn), glued together with laughably contrived MCU tie-ins (a dire prologue tacked on to remind audiences that Marvel's Agent Carter still exists, an Avengers cameo so embarrassingly out of place I won't dare spoil it here, ugh) in a shamefully textbook example of 'safe studio filmmaking'.
One would imagine that after the rampant success of the eccentric, daring Guardians of the Galaxy Marvel would push the envelope even further into the realm of clever humour and weird levity. Instead, Reed inexplicably stoops to sassy 'comedic relief' side characters that would have felt stale in the 1980s, otherwise leaning on Paul Rudd's indestructibly affable charisma to keep the film afloat. And though Rudd is nearly impossible to dislike, turning on the charm and puppy-dog pathos and mining the abysmal script for laughs like never before, even he can only do so much to save a sinking ship (it's ironic Rudd's Lang makes a Titanic reference ). Running less than two hours and still feeling offensively overlong, Ant-Man plods along at an insomnia-curing pace (Reed may as well have re-titled the film Slug-Man), counterbalancing a stupefying long training montage with terse monologues about morality so repetitive there is a legitimate worry of having entered the simulacrum of Groundhog Day.
The sole consolation: the film's visual effects, while often looking slapdash and rushed, do conjure an ant-sized handful of fascinating imagery. Lang's first shrinking experience into the suddenly desolate wasteland of a bathtub provides a blip of entertainment, and there is brief joy – nay, perhaps even a chuckle or two – to be found in his ant-training escapades (watching him surf through a drainpipe on a skittering carpet of ants is a highlight). Similarly, Lang's accidental descent into the subatomic realm provides a gorgeous feast of Escher- influenced surrealism. But, before you know it, we're back to being pummelled senseless by cliché once again. Sigh.
Speaking of pummelling: despite a surprisingly sound rationalization of the physicality of Ant- Man (small yet compact, "like a bullet"), the film's action sequences are tragically sparse. It's a shame, as the unique size-changing fight choreography offers a few precious where the film momentarily sputters with some life and vigour. Surely a couple of minutes of Michael Douglas' droning could have been shaved off for a few more shots of unorthodox pounding? Ah, but that would require a director with even a skeletal grasp of energy, pace, or vision (ahem). Among the film's immeasurable log of missed opportunities: no Lang entering the human body and attacking from within, and not even a fleeting glimpse of a triumphant Giant-Man transformation (at least one climactic moment provides an ideal setup). And the Wasp? Shamefully, unforgivably absent. All the while, Christophe Beck's musical score bwomps away in the background, the most hackneyed pastiche of heroic musical clichés yet, and there are even a couple of moments where Reed has the gall to attempt to mimic Edgar Wright's trademark kinetic 'swish-pan' editing and cinematography. Rub salt in the gaping wound, why dontcha. The squandered potential on screen is almost too much to bear.
Even the film's generally talented cast is Hopeless (see what I did there? I used the same joke twice. Just like Ant-Man) at providing any respite from the turgid mess surrounding them. Apart from Rudd – and even he starts to seem tired by the end – Michael Douglas snores through the film, his Hank Pym an unmistakably extraneous mentor archetype, while Evangeline Lily continues her Hobbit streak of astoundingly flat 'token action woman' cardboard cutouts. Corey Stoll, saddled with the worst lines the script has to offer (which is saying something), is so embarrassingly cartoonish here it almost overrides his previously impressive work in House of Cards, while poor Michael Peña is forced to constantly mug for increasingly cheap laughs as Lang's fellow ex-con buddy. The worst of the lot: Bobby Canavale's oafish cop/stepdad rival is hilariously out of place, while Judy Greer is given so little screen time as Lang's estranged wife she may as well have played the Invisible Woman.
In conclusion (just to finish beating that dead horse): Edgar Wright once opined that "the only bad films are dull films." Ladies and gentlemen, Ant-Man is a bad film.
-3/10
Alas.
Wright's departure from the project, followed by shady, last minute rewrites, and the hiring of Peyton Reed, best known for helming despicably generic attempts at comedy, didn't bode well. But Marvel's impeccable track record and the inspired casting of Paul Rudd suggested there was still Hope (ha ) an enjoyable romp could be salvaged out of the film's prior potential. Indeed, it's hard not to sneer that the film's theme of "second chances," uttered roughly 1800 times by Michael Douglas with all the subtlety of a children's bedtime story, reads as a meta plea for clemency on behalf of the studio. And yet, even with this growing backlog of worrisome evidence against it, none could have predicted the final product to come.
Ant-Man is, not to mince words, an insultingly poor film.
Inexcusably lazy, under-thought, clichéd, soulless the list of adjectives is endless. Purportedly structured around a heist narrative, the miserable excuse for a script slaps together a slew of loathsome narrative crutches (released con coaxed into "one last job", disgraced dad trying to win back custody rights to his daughter, emotionally distant genius forced to confront the demons of his past yawn), glued together with laughably contrived MCU tie-ins (a dire prologue tacked on to remind audiences that Marvel's Agent Carter still exists, an Avengers cameo so embarrassingly out of place I won't dare spoil it here, ugh) in a shamefully textbook example of 'safe studio filmmaking'.
One would imagine that after the rampant success of the eccentric, daring Guardians of the Galaxy Marvel would push the envelope even further into the realm of clever humour and weird levity. Instead, Reed inexplicably stoops to sassy 'comedic relief' side characters that would have felt stale in the 1980s, otherwise leaning on Paul Rudd's indestructibly affable charisma to keep the film afloat. And though Rudd is nearly impossible to dislike, turning on the charm and puppy-dog pathos and mining the abysmal script for laughs like never before, even he can only do so much to save a sinking ship (it's ironic Rudd's Lang makes a Titanic reference ). Running less than two hours and still feeling offensively overlong, Ant-Man plods along at an insomnia-curing pace (Reed may as well have re-titled the film Slug-Man), counterbalancing a stupefying long training montage with terse monologues about morality so repetitive there is a legitimate worry of having entered the simulacrum of Groundhog Day.
The sole consolation: the film's visual effects, while often looking slapdash and rushed, do conjure an ant-sized handful of fascinating imagery. Lang's first shrinking experience into the suddenly desolate wasteland of a bathtub provides a blip of entertainment, and there is brief joy – nay, perhaps even a chuckle or two – to be found in his ant-training escapades (watching him surf through a drainpipe on a skittering carpet of ants is a highlight). Similarly, Lang's accidental descent into the subatomic realm provides a gorgeous feast of Escher- influenced surrealism. But, before you know it, we're back to being pummelled senseless by cliché once again. Sigh.
Speaking of pummelling: despite a surprisingly sound rationalization of the physicality of Ant- Man (small yet compact, "like a bullet"), the film's action sequences are tragically sparse. It's a shame, as the unique size-changing fight choreography offers a few precious where the film momentarily sputters with some life and vigour. Surely a couple of minutes of Michael Douglas' droning could have been shaved off for a few more shots of unorthodox pounding? Ah, but that would require a director with even a skeletal grasp of energy, pace, or vision (ahem). Among the film's immeasurable log of missed opportunities: no Lang entering the human body and attacking from within, and not even a fleeting glimpse of a triumphant Giant-Man transformation (at least one climactic moment provides an ideal setup). And the Wasp? Shamefully, unforgivably absent. All the while, Christophe Beck's musical score bwomps away in the background, the most hackneyed pastiche of heroic musical clichés yet, and there are even a couple of moments where Reed has the gall to attempt to mimic Edgar Wright's trademark kinetic 'swish-pan' editing and cinematography. Rub salt in the gaping wound, why dontcha. The squandered potential on screen is almost too much to bear.
Even the film's generally talented cast is Hopeless (see what I did there? I used the same joke twice. Just like Ant-Man) at providing any respite from the turgid mess surrounding them. Apart from Rudd – and even he starts to seem tired by the end – Michael Douglas snores through the film, his Hank Pym an unmistakably extraneous mentor archetype, while Evangeline Lily continues her Hobbit streak of astoundingly flat 'token action woman' cardboard cutouts. Corey Stoll, saddled with the worst lines the script has to offer (which is saying something), is so embarrassingly cartoonish here it almost overrides his previously impressive work in House of Cards, while poor Michael Peña is forced to constantly mug for increasingly cheap laughs as Lang's fellow ex-con buddy. The worst of the lot: Bobby Canavale's oafish cop/stepdad rival is hilariously out of place, while Judy Greer is given so little screen time as Lang's estranged wife she may as well have played the Invisible Woman.
In conclusion (just to finish beating that dead horse): Edgar Wright once opined that "the only bad films are dull films." Ladies and gentlemen, Ant-Man is a bad film.
-3/10
Neither Amongst Marvel's Best Works Nor Refreshing Enough As A Standalone Flick
CinemaClown22 November 2015
The twelfth instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the final chapter of their Phase Two plan, Ant-Man is a small-scale, light-hearted & sufficiently entertaining blockbuster that brings a new superhero into the already crammed Marvel family and although it may not be as heavy handed as some of their biggest extravaganzas, there's hardly anything refreshing about it.
Ant-Man tells the story of Scott Lang; an engineer turned criminal who wants to support his daughter but is unable to secure any job due to his criminal record. Things are set in motion when he decides to commit a burglary with his crew and steals a super-suit that allows him to shrink in scale & amplify in strength, following which he assists the suit's owner in pulling off a heist that will save the world.
Directed by Peyton Reed, Ant-Man was initially supposed to be Edgar Wright's pet project, who worked on it for years before being removed by the studio after creative differences arose between the two. What Reed has done after taking the director's helm from Wright is that he has completely modified the script in order for the film to fit into Marvel's existing universe, which is in contrast to Wright's vision who intended it as a standalone feature.
While one can argue over just how much was chopped out & what all was retained from the original screenplay, it would've been quite interesting to see Wright's take on the minuscule superhero. Nevertheless, Reed's take isn't a total disaster for the movie actually feels like a typical Marvel flick with its simple plot, charming lead, playful wit, fun vibe & family-friendly entertainment. And although it will satisfy majority of mainstream viewers, it could've been much more improved.
The set pieces come in all shape & sizes this time and with added enhancements from the visual effects department, they look detailed enough. Cinematography makes heavy use of macro photography & many interesting point-of-view shots while kinetic camera-work drives its action. Thanks to its predictable plot & some lame attempts at humour which don't work out, its 117 minutes of runtime is felt at times. Visual effects is top-notch as expected while Christophe Beck's score feels pretty generic.
Coming to the performances, Ant-Man features a good cast in Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly, Corey Stoll, Michael Peña & others, and most of them do a fine job in their given roles. Rudd, however, is a revelation for he proves that he can be charming enough in the lead role of a big-budget blockbuster. His performance as Lang is well-balanced and he carries most of the film on his own. Douglas is in as Hank Pym but chips in with a mediocre input. Lilly does well with what she's given, Peńa is annoying & Stoll isn't really intimidating as the villain.
On an overall scale, Ant-Man delivers the big-budget extravaganza it promised, even if it is on smaller scale when compared to its predecessors but from the storytelling perspective, it definitely ranks amongst Marvel Studios' weaker entries, that may have been avoided if it had added greater depth to its main plot & characters. Even though this film is designated by Marvel as their Phase Two finale, it works more or less as a prologue for Phase Three. A playful introduction to a new character & spearheaded by Paul Rudd's on-screen charisma, Ant-Man is no quality blockbuster but it's still worth one viewing, at least.
Ant-Man tells the story of Scott Lang; an engineer turned criminal who wants to support his daughter but is unable to secure any job due to his criminal record. Things are set in motion when he decides to commit a burglary with his crew and steals a super-suit that allows him to shrink in scale & amplify in strength, following which he assists the suit's owner in pulling off a heist that will save the world.
Directed by Peyton Reed, Ant-Man was initially supposed to be Edgar Wright's pet project, who worked on it for years before being removed by the studio after creative differences arose between the two. What Reed has done after taking the director's helm from Wright is that he has completely modified the script in order for the film to fit into Marvel's existing universe, which is in contrast to Wright's vision who intended it as a standalone feature.
While one can argue over just how much was chopped out & what all was retained from the original screenplay, it would've been quite interesting to see Wright's take on the minuscule superhero. Nevertheless, Reed's take isn't a total disaster for the movie actually feels like a typical Marvel flick with its simple plot, charming lead, playful wit, fun vibe & family-friendly entertainment. And although it will satisfy majority of mainstream viewers, it could've been much more improved.
The set pieces come in all shape & sizes this time and with added enhancements from the visual effects department, they look detailed enough. Cinematography makes heavy use of macro photography & many interesting point-of-view shots while kinetic camera-work drives its action. Thanks to its predictable plot & some lame attempts at humour which don't work out, its 117 minutes of runtime is felt at times. Visual effects is top-notch as expected while Christophe Beck's score feels pretty generic.
Coming to the performances, Ant-Man features a good cast in Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly, Corey Stoll, Michael Peña & others, and most of them do a fine job in their given roles. Rudd, however, is a revelation for he proves that he can be charming enough in the lead role of a big-budget blockbuster. His performance as Lang is well-balanced and he carries most of the film on his own. Douglas is in as Hank Pym but chips in with a mediocre input. Lilly does well with what she's given, Peńa is annoying & Stoll isn't really intimidating as the villain.
On an overall scale, Ant-Man delivers the big-budget extravaganza it promised, even if it is on smaller scale when compared to its predecessors but from the storytelling perspective, it definitely ranks amongst Marvel Studios' weaker entries, that may have been avoided if it had added greater depth to its main plot & characters. Even though this film is designated by Marvel as their Phase Two finale, it works more or less as a prologue for Phase Three. A playful introduction to a new character & spearheaded by Paul Rudd's on-screen charisma, Ant-Man is no quality blockbuster but it's still worth one viewing, at least.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
