Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Directed by Peyton Reed
Starring Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Corey Stoll, Michael Douglas
Running time: 117 minutes
Rated PG-13
Long Story Short: Ant-Man introduces another lesser-known Marvel superhero, one literally overshadowed by the likes of Iron Man and Thor. Positioned as a change of pace film, like last year's Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man's success is driven by Rudd's reluctant and hilarious hero and a refreshingly reduced set of stakes. A well-made film that may not match Marvel's top efforts but also should (non-cynically) appeal to a broad audience.
Scott Lang, released from prison as the film begins, is nevertheless down on his luck. He just wants to start fresh, a life of new possibilities and one that includes his young daughter. Unfortunately he and his wife, who has custody of their child, are divorced, and with his record Scott finds it difficult to keep a job even at Baskin-Robbins. To pay child support so that he can see his daughter, Scott relents and joins his old partners in crime (literally) in robbing a house. Adding to his bad luck, he breaks into a vault to find only an odd suit. Messing around in it the next day, Scott finds that it is no normal suit: it allows the wearer to shrink to the size of an ant. He also soon finds the owner of the suit, who turns out to be less angry about it than he expects.
The suit's owner - and inventor - is a man named Hank Pam, who has kept the suit a secret but has watched with worry the development of a similar technology by his old company. With few alternatives - and with the possibility of becoming worthy of his daughter's adulation - Scott agrees to help Hank try to keep this incredible but dangerous technology out of the wrong hands.
Ant-Man has an impressive cast, full of unexpected but well-chosen actors. Paul Rudd plays the lead as Scott/Ant-Man and the role fits him like a glove, so much so that it's difficult to imagine someone else in his place. Rudd doesn't have to deviate much from his characters' usual quiet, charming, yet (as already mentioned) down-on-his-luck ways. His excellent comic presence is also here, and his own brand of "hero" fits into the Marvel universe. Michael Douglas has the biggest supporting role; my film history is skewed recently enough that I really haven't seen him in much else but he does a great job here. He banters well with Rudd, and also is crucial in driving the superhero plot forward and giving it meaning. His character's daughter, played by Evangeline Lilly, unfortunately doesn't get written beyond the tough-but-skeptical heroine cliche. There's plenty of room for growth there. Corey Stoll plays a solid but unmemorable villain (Marvel's specialty, it seems). Rounding it out are Scott's old cronies, led by Michael Pena; they, particularly Pena, provide excellent comedy but also good hearted partnership; and a small but important scene with a lesser known Avenger.
This is Marvel's "goofy" (read: not guaranteed box-office smash) release of the summer, following last year's Guardians of the Galaxy which, of course, went on to be the #3 grossing film of the year. Ant-Man, with smaller stakes, (slightly) smaller star power in the cast, and smaller fireworks, is an even bigger exception than Guardians. Without size and quantity, Ant-Man depended on the quality of its creativity, and it largely succeeds. The backbone, its story and writing, are strong overall, especially in the first half. We get tantalizing hints at the superhero nature of the film, before concentrating on Scott. The main character here has the advantage of not being heroic (if anything, apathetic) yet also likable, thanks largely to Rudd. His personal life and troubles are handled well (Hank and his daughter's, less so). With Rudd as lead, comedy is of course a central theme and quite well done, everything from the aforementioned Baskin-Robbins to my old childhood buddy, Thomas the Tank Engine. The superhero stuff eventually filters back in, wisely not trying too hard for "big reveals" but also keeping it relatively subtle. We get a brief (if familiar) training period before the inevitable action-based final act. The effects are done well and creatively - especially when mixed with comedy - but I wasn't all that impressed by the scale or creativity (possibly because of my headache and tiredness). The film is somewhat too long, as superhero films often are; I would've cut down especially on the last act, but it's nevertheless entertaining throughout.
***
Ant-Man may not be yet another "A" film to join the ridiculous parade of such films this summer, but it is just what it needs to be. I've wavered between a "B" and an "A-" on this one, so I think a "B+" is about right. Taken for the usual superhero elements, Ant-Man is mostly average, with some strengths but also a little disappointing (i.e., the villain). Fortunately, that isn't what Ant-Man is aiming for: it's a more down to earth (no pun intended), comedic and character-driven film. Following the bombastic - though also underrated - Avengers 2, this is a perfect complement. Marvel has shown me that it is both quite savvy at the macro level of filmmaking - tying its films together, in both plot and style, timing their releases well - and simply making quality films every time (certainly making other, lesser movies like the new Spider-Man's stand out as the poorly conceived and executed efforts they are). Ant-Man continues this pattern just fine so I say keep it up! Recommended for a trip to the theater, especially for superhero and/or Rudd fans, of course.
Rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):
- Inside Out (A+)
- Tomorrowland (A)
- Jurassic World (A-)
- Spy (A-)
- Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
- Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)
- Ant-Man (B+)
- Terminator Genisys (C)
"Ant-Man poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ant-Man_poster.jpg#/media/File:Ant-Man_poster.jpg
Score: *** out of ***** (C)
Directed by Alan Taylor
Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Emilia Clarke, Jai Courtney, Jason Clarke
Running time: 126 minutes
Rated PG-13
Long Story Short: Terminator Genisys is the fifth installment of the franchise that started over thirty years ago, and it doesn't live up to the standards of the first two. Schwarzenegger is nice to see back, and there are some other good actors involved including the Clarkes (Emilia and Jason - no relation). But the script botches an interesting premise and bogs everything down after a promising start. Depending on your tastes, worth a rental but no more.
The year is 2029 and, as previous Terminator films have shown, the future is dominated by machines known as Skynet. However, human resistance leader John Connor (J. Clarke) has helped his beleaguered companions turn the tide, and he launches an attack to try to end the threat of Skynet once and for all. The attack goes well, but Connor finds a Skynet secret chamber - once again, a human-disguised "terminator" has been sent back in time to eliminate humanity's resistance before it can start. Connor quickly puts his lieutenant, Kyle Reese (Courtney), into the time machine, too, to stop the terminator. What Reese finds in 1984, though, is much different than what he expects. Sarah Connor (E. Clarke), John's mother, already knows about the threat to her life and even has her own protection - her very own T-800 (Schwarzenegger).
While it seems humanity may have the upper hand this time in Skynet's attempt to pacify humanity, the timeline change also creates a new level of unpredictability. Connor, Reese and the T-800 set out to stop Skynet, but a series of Reese's fragmented dreams is all they have to go on. And they must be constantly vigilant, for Skynet could use anything - and anyone - against them.
The cast of Terminator Genisys is decent, if underutilized. Jai Courtney plays Kyle Reese, the same guy sent back to 1984 in the original Terminator to protect John Connor's mother. I guess he's supposed to be the main character, but both his acting and his part are incredibly bland. He ends up just being a body that fights for the good guys, but is constantly overshadowed by his co-stars. I often lost track of who he was supposed to be and why he was there. Arnold Schwarzenegger is easily the most entertaining member of the cast, clearly enjoying his return to the series he built and carried in the first two films. He doesn't have quite the same presence anymore, and the part is kind of cheesy, but he's still fun. Emilia Clarke plays Sarah Connor; while she lacks Linda Hamilton's (original Sarah) raw ferocity, she brings plenty of personality to the role. Her acting, and part, are the best of the human characters. Finally there's the famed John Connor. He's played by Jason Clarke, a good actor who does what he can but his role is poorly written and gets lost in plot murk (see below). There are a few smaller parts, most notably J.K. Simmons in a funny role that I wish had been bigger.
The Terminator films are one of the top action franchises, but after the first two great films, ideas of where to go next have been far less certain than the quest for more cash. While some fans of the franchise surely disagree, I think the general idea of Genisys is good: use the main element of Terminator - time travel, and how it (could) change future outcomes - for a related but new scenario. The problem is in the execution, most notably the script. The prologue is decently and quickly done, with good special effects work to show the future war against Skynet. And the first part back in "normal" times (1984) is quite good. It starts by showing much of what you expect from previous films, then suddenly turns everything on its head, and it does all this with entertaining action. Then it starts to fall apart, and quickly. The characters use almost all their dialogue to simply try to explain what the hell is going on. The time change is fine; combined with a messy plot, it's convoluted beyond salvage. The nail in the coffin is Skynet's new way of dominating the world: by infiltrating all of our devices, in 2017. ("See!!! It's an allegory for our culture!!!" Ugh.) Even the action rapidly loses its entertainment. The new terminator - and effects technology - are able to cause so much destruction that the action loses almost all tension (not to mention being hamstrung by the plot).
***
Terminator Genisys qualifies as the first disappointment of this summer movie season (that I've seen) - the end of an astonishing streak of high-quality entertainment. Yes, it has a 26% on RT so I wasn't too surprised, but I'm more guilty than most in being attracted to many film franchises (and Emilia Clarke's presence certainly didn't hurt...). To continue from above, though, I would not call this a cynical cash grab. The general premise is just fine, it has a cast full of talented, entertaining actors (aside from Courtney), and the production values are good. The problem is almost entirely the script (and likely the directing, though I still often struggle understanding its role in a film overall), which infects other elements of the film. It really is a shame, though not an uncommon one, when they don't give this crucial element more effort and attention. This film was supposed to be the start of a new series, but considering its box office performance, who knows? You can skip Genisys in the theater, but it looks like there is plenty of non-sequel/reboot fun coming up later in July at a theater near you!
Rolling rankings of the summer's movies (click to go to my reviews):
- Inside Out (A+)
- Tomorrowland (A)
- Jurassic World (A-)
- Spy (A-)
- Mad Max: Fury Road (A-)
- Avengers: Age of Ultron (A-)
- Terminator Genisys (C)
"Terminator Genisys" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terminator_Genisys.JPG#/media/File:Terminator_Genisys.JPG
