Review:
*Originally written August 4th, 2018*
While Ant-Man and The Wasp is probably a much needed step down in scale after the insanely huge Avengers: Infinity War, it's also one of Marvel's most forgettable films in a while. A completely risk free piece of fluff that did nothing to stick in your mind. I usually defend the genre when people who barely watch superhero films say "They're all the same" , but when comic-book films like this exist, I have a hard time arguing with those people.
It's just such a shame, Marvel have had such a strong run these past few years. Infinity War, Black Panther, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2 and Thor: Ragnarok. All films that had their own unique voice and at the very least, some interesting action. For the most part, the MCU have made sequels that have massively improved on their original, with the odd exception (Age of Ultron and Iron Man 2). Ant-Man and the Wasp sadly can't even live to the decent standard of the first.
This all starts off so well, the opening 20 minutes have Scott Long/Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) stuck in his house after the events of Civil War, finding himself bored until his house arrest is over. He builds elaborate cardboard mazes, watches too much TV and routinely plays the drums. It's this sort of humanising of characters that the MCU needed, but it quickly falls apart when Hope Van Dyne/ Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and her father, Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) enter the picture.
From then on, it is such a dull, formulaic affair and I lost interest so fast, I fell asleep for a good 15 minutes or so towards the end of the second act. Despite this missing that much of the film, I felt I had missed nothing, I still knew what was going on, I just wish I'd slept a little longer. The villain problem is something that Marvel had struggled with in the past, but it seemed like it was a hurdle they were finally over, but it comes crashing back here with such wasted and uninspired villains in Hannah John-Kamen's "Ghost", an angry person who can shift through walls and has a personal vendetta towards Pym and Walton Goggin's Sonny Burch, a charming, Southern arms trader. Both of these fine actors are completely wasted in thankless roles.
I was also surprised at what little action there was, the first Ant-Man had some genuinely inspired set-pieces involving ants and changing sizes in the middle of a fight. The sequel just does this again with no real effect, but at a bigger scale. A car chase in the third act started off with the cool idea of a car shrinking and growing on the go to evade pursuers, but they use the same trick several times in a row and it become tiresome very quickly. I suppose a big problem was just the fact there was no emotional weight to anything, there is no real consequence. It was mostly just frustrating.
While Marvel has continued to improve in many respects, where I find them lacking is with it's lame cringe humour clearly aimed at children (Which you know, is fine, it's a kids film after all), but there is some really awful stuff here. It's not Thor: Ragnarok or Age of Ultron levels of obnoxious, but there is some real cringe, especially from Michael Pena, who is quickly becoming the worst part of every film he's in. His eye-rolling, fast talking monologues from the first film is just lazily rehashed and thrown in again here. It really did just feel like people liked it in the first one, so let's not doing anything new, so just do it again.
I know there was no way this would have anything close to the stakes of Infinity War and I didn't expect it to, but I was hoping for something far more substantial than this. If there was any word to describe this sequel, it would be "Inconsequential". The only real change by the end of film is related to Pym's wife, Janet Van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer), which is a spoiler, so I won't talk about that, but every character goes through no change. I still like Paul Rudd as Ant-Man, he's completely charming and watchable, but his character goes through absolutely nothing here, he's completely the same person by the end of it, it just felt so pointless. I did appreciate how Janet had more to do this time, relegated to a much more action orientated role, which is a huge improvement from here role in the first.
I've ragged on Marvel films for looking "Televisual" and drab before, and like their villain problem, it's something they've massively improved on over the years, but they've sadly regressed once again, as a Ant-Man and the Wasp is such a bland and dull looking film, the colours are flat and looked washed out, the lighting is so plain and TV like (Expensive TV). I'm not sure if this is how director Peyton Reed wanted the film to look, but if he did, my god, he does not have the visual eye for making a good looking film. There is some good anti-ageing CGI and all the set-pieces are technically impressive, but cinematography wise? Gross.
I'm making it sound like I hated Ant-Man and the Wasp, but in all honesty, I didn't. It's perfectly watchable, just absolutely forgettable and made that much worse based on how strong the recent Marvel offerings have been. It's just such a lower tier MCU film that lacks any consequence and barely manages to be anything more than serviceable.
5/10 Dans
Ant-Man and the Wasp is out now in cinemas in the UK
Watch the trailer below:
Follow us:
Twitter: @FigmentReviews
Instagram: @thesurprisingadventuresofdanb
YouTube: Figment Reviews
Letterboxd: Dan
No comments:
Post a Comment