Ant Man...A Quick Critique
Ant Man is a very enjoyable movie. Superman, Spiderman, Batman and the Hulk were the four superheroes of whom one was aware growing up. By one, I mean me.
Captain America, Thor and Iron Man were lesser heroes. I had perhaps heard of Steve and Tony, but I would've struggled to recall their names. We all knew Clark and Peter.
Comic book cynicism was parked long ago, when a quite good Smallville came along after the dire Lois & Clark crapfest. Expectations of an epicfail were never vindicated, and they've rarely been since, by either the DC or Marvel adaptations, even the ones that aren't sposeda be good, like Ang Lee's Hulk.
All these people are doing entertaining work. Ant Man is pushing it in terms of name recognition, although it's great fun. Both the human dimension and comedy elements are among the strongest of all the Marvel movies.
My problem with the Marvel Cinematic Universe Notwithstanding the TV shows - the massive Marvel **** - is that it has too much going on. If these movies and series were not made without the others, then I'd prefer they're all in it together. If one helps to bankroll or justify the next, that's super.
But Norse mythology is unlike the harder science fiction of Hulk or Iron Man. One might argue that NONE of it's possible, that you're about as likely to get an hour out of a jetpack as you are to find a eugenicist's wet dream buried in ice since WW2, or a hammer from Asgard in the desert. Speaking of the expanding Marvel universe, how does Thomas the Tank Engine fit into things, in Ant Man? I'd like to see how that one plays out.
Ant Man is more rooted in the hard sci fi camp. If they invest enough time and money in Scott Lang and his pals, they've every right to use the character as one of the next generation of Avengers. But I think Ant Man would be a superb standalone franchise. It didn't sit well with me that I almost wet myself like a fanboy seeing character cameos from other movies. The story was solid, the performances great, and it worked without the other bells and whistles. In Ant Man, Thomas's bells and whistles worked just fine.
Captain America, Thor and Iron Man were lesser heroes. I had perhaps heard of Steve and Tony, but I would've struggled to recall their names. We all knew Clark and Peter.
Comic book cynicism was parked long ago, when a quite good Smallville came along after the dire Lois & Clark crapfest. Expectations of an epicfail were never vindicated, and they've rarely been since, by either the DC or Marvel adaptations, even the ones that aren't sposeda be good, like Ang Lee's Hulk.
My problem with the Marvel Cinematic Universe Notwithstanding the TV shows - the massive Marvel **** - is that it has too much going on. If these movies and series were not made without the others, then I'd prefer they're all in it together. If one helps to bankroll or justify the next, that's super.
But Norse mythology is unlike the harder science fiction of Hulk or Iron Man. One might argue that NONE of it's possible, that you're about as likely to get an hour out of a jetpack as you are to find a eugenicist's wet dream buried in ice since WW2, or a hammer from Asgard in the desert. Speaking of the expanding Marvel universe, how does Thomas the Tank Engine fit into things, in Ant Man? I'd like to see how that one plays out.
Ant Man is more rooted in the hard sci fi camp. If they invest enough time and money in Scott Lang and his pals, they've every right to use the character as one of the next generation of Avengers. But I think Ant Man would be a superb standalone franchise. It didn't sit well with me that I almost wet myself like a fanboy seeing character cameos from other movies. The story was solid, the performances great, and it worked without the other bells and whistles. In Ant Man, Thomas's bells and whistles worked just fine.
Comments
Post a Comment