MCU Retrospective, Part 13—"Ant-Man"
In this weekly series, Film Yap writer Andrew Carr revisits each installment of the decade-long Marvel Cinematic Universe. Once a week, Andrew will review one film in the series, in the original release order, reevaluating his previously held opinion of the film and giving each film a new score out of 5 Yaps. All 18 films (plus Avengers: Infinity War, upon release) will be compiled into one definitive ranking. Each entry in the "MCU Retrospective" series will include a short review as well as a historical recap about the film's initial conception and release.
A new entry in this series will be posted every Sunday until the weekend prior to the release of Avengers: Infinity War on May 4.
Last week's entry in the series: Avengers: Age of Ultron
Complete list of all entries in the "MCU Retrospective" series!
History Time!
In an unusual move, Marvel announced prior to Ant-Man's release that it would be the final film of Phase 2, not Age of Ultron, like how The Avengers had been the end of Phase One. This got fans speculating about what that would mean for Ant-Man, and how it would transition the franchise into the new chapter.
The answer? Kind of inconclusive. Ant-Man didn't end up doing much with the franchise at large, which seemed fine with audiences. It was a pretty self-contained story that served as the origin for another character who could be added to MCU roster. The film performed relatively modestly (for a Marvel film), which was expected, given that a character named "Ant-Man" isn't exactly a huge selling point. It was received moderately well by critics, scoring 64/100 on Metacritic, which was neither pleasantly or unpleasantly surprising. People generally liked it, but it didn't exactly make waves like the franchise was used to, and time has had a similar effect on the film. It's mostly forgotten or looked over by the masses during conversations about the MCU.
But is that the fate Ant-Man deserved? I really enjoyed the film when it first came out, but I can't say I was surprised by the slightly-better-than-lukewarm response. But I think it gets undersold in discussions about the franchise. Here's why:
The Review
ANT-MAN (2015)
So here's my biggest takeaway from my latest viewing of Ant-Man: I'm shocked with how little I picked up on the massive imprint Edgar Wright left on this movie before now.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Edgar Wright reference: Wright had been developing an Ant-Man film with Marvel since 2006. When Marvel showed displeasure with Wright’s last treatment of the script and had opted to move forward with revising it without the input of Wright or co-writer Joe Cornish, Wright decided he had had enough and left the project.
I was always familiar with Wright’s rough history with the film, and I had always figured certain story elements and tonal choices had been lifted or adapted from Wright’s script and storyboards. But what I never realized until now is, “This feels like an ‘Edgar Wright movie’ made by someone who isn't Edgar Wright.” It's astounding. It'd be too long and uninteresting to list all the little pieces of Ant-Man that feel “Wright-y” to me, but most notably: the off-kilter and sometimes irreverent humor (a Marvel movie that takes a dump on the Avengers themselves?), the heist story (it really kinda feels like a safer take on Baby Driver), and the seemingly random selection of oddball traits applied to the side characters (Ant-Man’s heist team consists of a Russian hacker-mobster, a Hispanic man-child with a killer right hook, and T.I.).
On top of all that, the styling—cinematography, editing, and music choice, among other things—often feels like an emulation of Wright's style, but without the precision and knack for timing that Wright typically displays. I don't mean all of these comparisons to be an attack on director Peyton Reed—Wright's replacement on the film—and it's hard to tell how much of the similarity in style is intentional. Reed made a darn good movie; whether or not he was working from a script and storyboard by Wright is unclear, but it does seem like he was at least encouraged or deliberately chose to carry some of Wright's vision into the final film. Personally, I'm glad he did. I will always wish I could have seen Wright's take on the film—especially because of how much time he spent working on it—but I am pleased with the one we got, and Reed's adaptation of Wright's style, however pale in comparison to the original, still mostly works in the film's favor.
Ant-Man often gets criticized for trying to be too quippy and funny, and there are certainly moments where the oddball comedy doesn't quite land. But for the most part, Ant-Man benefits from its down-to-earth and self-aware nature. What could have ended up an overly self-serious repeat origin story was instead a weird and goofy heist movie, and I think that ought to be more thoroughly appreciated. Fortunately, the movie still makes time for serious emotional drama and resonant arcs for all three of its main characters, Scott Lang/Ant-Man (Paul Rudd), his mentor Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), and Hank's daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly). That's more than most superhero movies can say. Interestingly enough, Ant-Man puts its themes about family and sacrifice at the forefront of its story, and Scott's arc to becoming a better father to his young daughter Cassie is undeniably innocent and heartwarming.
My biggest complaint is that the movie misses an opportunity to tie its villain—dejected and resentful apprentice to Hank Pym, Darren Cross (played with wonderful instability by Corey Stoll)—into the lesson more. When Cross was a blossoming biotech genius, he used to see Hank as his father-figure, but Hank's unwillingness to pursue the possibilities of the "Pym particle" (the science breakthrough behind the size-changing abilities of the Ant-Man suit) drove the two of them apart. This sense of rejection is what drives Cross to try to create his own version of the Ant-Man technology, putting him at odds with the heroes of our story. What would have been great is for Hank and Darren to have a more satisfying conclusion to their conflict. Instead, Hank is taken out of commission by a stray gunshot from Cross at the beginning of the climactic third-act battle, and the film forgets about him until the very end of the movie. In place of a satisfying and potentially very moving coming-to-terms-with-the-monster-I've-created moment for Hank (similar to the one Luke Skywalker experiences in The Last Jedi), we get a slugfest between two near-strangers, Cross and Scott. Admittedly, that fight is a rollercoaster of fun and creative choreography, as the two size-changers shrink and grow as they exchange blows through a variety of dynamic environments. It's one of my favorite climactic fights in the MCU just on creativity alone, but it could stand to be bolstered by a more whole emotional revelation for multiple characters, rather than just the completion of Scott's fatherhood/selflessness arc.
But that's really the only significant moment of disappointment I had during the film. Ant-Man is a joyous, heartwarming, and creative take on a superhero origin film, and its flaws are more like missed opportunities to push what it had even further, rather than full-blown mistakes or poor execution. Perhaps its Ant-Man's small stature—its insistence on being a relatively small and simple story on the massive Marvel landscape—that makes Ant-Man seemingly so forgettable among fans and wider audiences. But I think that is its greatest strength, and when it's committing to that simplicity, appreciating the little things, it's some of Marvel's best work.
PREVIOUS SCORE:
NEW SCORE:
The MCU Ranking!
Every week, I take each entry covered for that week and place it in an ongoing ranking, which will eventually include all 19 films.
I'd say Ant-Man is at least as heartwarming as Captain America: The First Avenger (and twice as funny), and more committed to its self-contained story and themes than Age of Ultron, so I'll stick it right above those two.