DISCLAIMER: I’m one of the biggest Edgar Wright fans and this review will be EXTREMELY biased because he COULD have made this one of the most unique superhero films ever. But, he didn't get that opportunity. So, with that being said, I will admit, I went into this film wanting to hate it.

So, did I?

Before I begin… Let’s start with some history since I believe this film has a lot of it. 12 years of it to be exact.

Edgar Wright, the director of “The Worlds End”, “Shaun of the Dead”, “Hot Fuzz”, and the perfect “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” proposed this to Marvel way back in 2003 and was in development for the project since then. Yes, before the Avengers initiative, and before the billion-dollar acquisition from Disney. So since 03’ he had been working on what he called “an action-adventure comedy; a cross-genre action and special effects bonanza”. 

I remember before I went to basic training, I saw test footage that leaked, and it was amazing! I remember checking every night for updates that Wright would post on his twitter. Like pre-production material, concept art, designs and costumes.

He even picked most of the cast! I couldn’t wait, especially after seeing ‘The Worlds End’. I had reached an all-time high of hype.  Wright and Marvel?!?! It was too good to be true!! And it was…

After I returned from basic training where I was isolated from all entertainment news. I saw it. Edgar Wright leaves Ant-Man over creative differences with Disney-Marvel

Why?! What difference’s?!?! NOOOO!!

Go watch ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’, It’s totally a James Gunn film or ‘The Avengers’ it has Joss Whedon’s soul all over it! Why can't there be a Edgar Wright flavored Marvel film?!

No one knows all the details, but it’s obvious Disney-Marvel asked for re-writes to conform to some sort of narrative structure or content. This seems likely as the film constantly tries to include the Avengers.

I see why he left. This film has no remnants of style or originality. All the things wrong with this film feel like things Disney-Marvel wanted.

So with all my venting of the past over with. How is this film?

Let’s start with the script where I feel like the film fails the most, as it feels patched and pieced together by force.

The story is simple. It revolves around an older Hank Pym hiring Scott Lang a young thief recently released from prison. Scott Lang wants a better life and his daughter back. The story never gets emotional or gains any weight, even with the dynamic of a desperate thief doing what he has too.

Hank Pym on the other hand feels more fleshed out as he is dealing with the struggles of a company that’s leaving him, A successor who’s betraying him (which is the worst character in the film). Oh! and a daughter that resents him, AND the death of his late wife. He basically gets all the drama, yet his character is always on the sidelines.

Every other character in this film are one note, with no depth, and suffer from obvious stereotypes (especially Scott Lang) So why have the most interesting character not be the main one is beyond me.

The story trudges along with bland sequences of “superhero learning his powers”. His ‘mandatory’ training montage is by far the worst I have seen in any Marvel film. Ant-Man’s powers are so unique and creative yet all he does is shrink through a key-hole?!? Ride some ants?!? And that’s it.. What a pathetically lazy use of his powers. A 3-year-old could be more creative.

They even go rob a pointless object that they never reference again from Shield Warehouse. What I’m assuming should be one of the heaviest guarded locations in the world. Yet, He robs the place in minutes after an uninspired avenger cameo/fight.

This whole set-piece feels forced to just tie in the Avengers.

At the center of this film is a heist! Exciting right?

Wrong.

The actual heist is so underplayed and short lived. It’s ridiculous to even call it a heist film at all. None of the great attributes of a heist are played here and since the entire basis of the film revolves around this heist it makes the film feel forgettable. The truth is, the only heist this film pulls off is robbing you of an actual experience.

So, the story was flat, forced and forgettable. What about the performances?

Paul Rudd is a great actor, he has a natural charisma and charm to him, but he loses all of that in this film. I can’t remember if he even had a line that made me feel anything. It was like they tried to force feed his charisma into the script, but it never lands, his performance was weak and misdirected.

 Evangeline Lily had an equally “written” in part. It was pretty much a standard female sidekick tossed to the sidelines. Which by the way she would’ve also made a better lead character then Lang since she’s tied directly to Hank Pym drama.. (but don’t let Disney-Marvel know that, lord forbid a female super-hero lead) again her performance was by the books and misdirected.

Corey Stoll is horrible as the main villain, He kills sheep.. and has no remorse..

 :O

At this point in the film is when I realized how terrible the direction of the cast was. Stoll’s character is so awful that you'd swear he was from a Marvel movie from the early 2000’s. It's worsened by the other actors who don’t match his tone.

Many brilliant minds say that a director’s main job is tone management, and Peyton Reed (director) is terrible at it and hints at his inability to have a clear creative vision.

They could have added more to Stoll’s character, maybe showing his true resentment toward a father figure that abandoned him. But he over acts everything in the cheesiest way possible. Probably the worst villain in the entire MCU.

The entire cast is the weakest in the MCU. It’s embarrassing to see how generic they perform when you know they are all capable of so much more.

BUT there is one exception.

Michael Douglas, he brings Hank Pym to life, even through the horrible writing, he brings some humanity and soul to his character. Maybe it’s because Douglas doesn’t know or care about comics, which lets him act his part as he would any other. Where the rest of the cast, act like they’re in a “superhero” movie. It would've been easy to have Hank Pym be the lead character in this story. But again, I feel as if that could never be an option for a “Marvel” movie. I mean why would they ever want a lead character over the age of 50? How could he possibly do the CGI battles? And no one wants to buy an old man toy!

I talked a lot about Edgar Wrights departure, I guess I should spend some time on his replacement Peyton Reed

Peyton Reed has nowhere near the creativity as Wright and that’s just a fact. Oddly enough, this might be Reed’s best work. His filmography is filled with TV material, and generic chick flicks, ‘The Break-Up’, ‘Down With Love’, ‘Bring It On’ and his latest ‘Yes Man’ which wasn’t bad (but that might be my Jim Carey Stan showing)

All those films I mentioned are forgettable. His filmography is more that of a “Jober” or a “Director for hire” type. The type of director who shows up, shoots what he must shoot and leaves. This might be controversial, but these types tend to produce wasteful “content”.

All the scenes not involving the Ant-Man suit looked like what you would expect from a cheap comedy, or a Mid-Range T.V. Series. Truly a new low for Marvel in the visual department.

But, the Ant-Man suit parts were handled well. Which is the biggest compliment I can give this film.  They used a lot of macro photography to showcase height and depth. When this first appears in a bathroom. I was quite happy with the visual they achieved. I was excited to see how they could push the look and use it in interesting environments and scenarios.

But nope, they got lazy. The first time he puts the suit on is short lived and not very engaging or thoughtful at all.

In one segment he falls into a party, and they literally just show a tracking shot of people stomping around a digitally added little Ant-Man.. I’m not saying there is a right or wrong way to shoot something, but I am saying there is a lazy and boring way and an engaging and exciting way.  This film only has the former.

So the mini-to-big element felt underdeveloped, under-used and under imagined. But there is one exception. One fight scene involving Thomas the Train was spectacular and honestly one of the best fight scenes in the entire MCU. Toys and small blocks flew in a flurry of miniature mayhem, as the hero & villain faced off. The film came alive during that final sequence and the idea of what this film could have been languished in me after that sequence had ended. Why didn’t we see that creativity throughout the whole film?

So.. in ending

4/10  - Bad

Ant-Man is a generic superhero film that tries to be smaller in all the worst ways. The script is patched together, loose and forgettable. The acting is bland and cheesy, except for Michael Douglas. The Directing by Peyton Reed is weak and creatively bankrupt. I blame Marvel for having a “director for hire” instead of keeping a auteur. RIP Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man.. Maybe one day your script will leak.

Oh, and here’s a link to a YouTube video dissecting Edgar Wrights talents.

So what did you think of Ant-Man? Leave a comment!