Ant-Man

Ant-Man

A Partially Educated Review

The size of an ant

The strength of a bear

The charisma of an amoeba

In 50 Words Or Less: Dull when dialogue-led and derivative when action-led, Ant-Man isn't bad in the grand scheme of things, but Marvel are starting to take the piss a little.

In Detail: As startling as this may sound, it is actually possible to start getting bored of something if it's thrust upon you 35 times in the last 15 years. Such is the case with films based on Marvel properties. That gets worse when you consider that not only have we have not had a year without a Marvel adaptation since 2001, we've also had 15 of them in the last 5 years. If there was ever a case for the links between over-saturation and fatigue, this is the one that settled the argument once and for all. Here's the thing that really throws me though. I keep coming back to them. Not because of some bizarre necessity for completion, but because I want to see these films. I then still feel some semblance of surprise when I leave the screenings with a resounding sense of disappointment. It's how I imagine most Adam Sandler fans feel. This disappointment goes doubly for Ant-Man: a film so utterly unable to raise itself above anything other than competent. It is the poster-child for those people that like to claim that Hollywood is nothing more than a soulless money-devouring eater of souls.

Stop me if you've heard this one before. A good-natured but misguided soul finds his true calling when he…

Ex-con Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) steals a high-powered suit that shrinks him down to the size of a take a wild guess. Somehow, this also gives him superhuman strength (characters fall asleep when this starts to get explained, but it's something to do with ants being able to carry multiple times their own weight). Meanwhile, a shady organisation wants to use the technology for shady needs. Let me stress this. Every single character in Ant-Man is a stereotype that's been used more times than Bill Cosby's Quaalude collection. This wouldn't be the end of the world if the actors were doing something with that, but none of them are. Paul Rudd plays Ant-Man like every Paul Rudd character. Evangeline Lilly is as dull as it comes in the ass-kicking (Marvel's idea of feminism) female role. Then there's the Oscar winning clout of Michael Douglas, but he's defining the term "cashing a cheque". Meanwhile the likes of Corey Stoll, Judy Greer and Bobby Cannavale get short-changed by a script that considers them grateful to be involved. One of those three is the main villain and that kind of says all you need to know.

This is where Edgar Wright comes into it. Or rather, would have come into it. As was fairly well documented, Wright dropped out as director following disagreements with Marvel and came to be replaced by Peyton Reed, a man who could make as many films as he likes, but will always be hated by me on account of his helming of Down With Love.

I'm not going to pretend like I love everything Edgar Wright does (can we all learn to agree that The World's End wasn't, by any stretch, good), but the hint of his touch provides the film with it's only sense of imagination. It pokes it's head out on the rarest of occasion, only to be smashed back down by Kevin Feige's million dollar boot. Different is not welcome here because frankly the status quo is working for the needs of the producers. My question is: how long will that last? They curried some good will last year with the refreshing Guardians Of The Galaxy, but are people honestly going to keep paying to watch the same film again and again.

That answers that one then.

FOUR out of 10