Didn't see this posted on here so here you go folks. Could be quite good I think.
Interestingly, they've not bothered with Hank Pym for Ant-Man for this film and instead gone for Scott Lang. The second guy to take up the mantle of Ant-Man. I think this is probably due to Hank Pym being an alcoholic-wife-beating jerk and Scott Lang's origin has a bit more of a tragic beginnings storyline.
In all likelihood, Scott Lang will be working for Stark Industries by the end of the film.
I'm pretty sure they've mentioned Pym is in the film, but has 'retired' as Ant-man and passes the mantle to Lang. I'm pretty certain the old guy that is talking to Lang is Pym.
As for what I think, I'm probably least excited about this of all the Marvel films, not because I don't think it'll be good but because I'm just not a fan of heist-type movies in general, which this purportedly is. I'm certain I'll still watch it, I just won't be bothering with a cinema viewing.
That has been Marvel's genius really. They are taking conventional "genre" movies and inserting super-heroes instead of making Superhero movies. That is why people are still going to them.
Paradigm wrote: I'm pretty sure they've mentioned Pym is in the film, but has 'retired' as Ant-man and passes the mantle to Lang. I'm pretty certain the old guy that is talking to Lang is Pym.
As for what I think, I'm probably least excited about this of all the Marvel films, not because I don't think it'll be good but because I'm just not a fan of heist-type movies in general, which this purportedly is. I'm certain I'll still watch it, I just won't be bothering with a cinema viewing.
The old guy being Michael Douglas as Hank Pym.
On IMDB it's showing Darren Cross/Yellowjacket played by Corey Stoll and Hope Van Dyne played by Evangeline Lilly (not familiar with her character)
Easy E wrote:That has been Marvel's genius really. They are taking conventional "genre" movies and inserting super-heroes instead of making Superhero movies. That is why people are still going to them.
Yeah, it's certainly worked so far for them, and I'm sure Ant Man will be a great film because of that. Because let's face it, Ant-man on his own as a Super-hero doesn't have that much to work with without being part of a genre movie.
angelofvengeance wrote:Hope Van Dyne played by Evangeline Lilly (not familiar with her character)
At a guess, maybe Janet Van Dyne/Wasp's daughter (and therefore maybe Wasp herself?). Either way, she's a good actress, especially in the last Hobbit film, so I expect it to be a good character.
On a side now, I'm really hoping we get to see Scott Giant Man out at some point! (although in the comics that was always more Hank/Bill's thing)
Just saw this, and I think I'm over any reservations I had, it looks great! Yellowjacket's suit design is epic, and the fight scenes look like they could be very fun indeed. Throw in some good dialogue and I'm hooked!
So wait... the villain in this movie is Ant-Man? Because Yellowjakcet was one of Hank Pym's many, many other attempts at superheroing. Will Giant Man be the villain in the sequel? Or will that villain be Hank Pym's reputation for spousal abuse?
I hope it is. Two of the players at my Tuesday night Star Wars RPG game are mega-huge Ant Man fans. I mean, mega huge. They have had nothing but bad things to say about how the studio seems to be playing fast and loose with the established Ant Man canon. They (and I, as well) are perplexed at the decision to make Scott Lang (Ant Man mk 2) Ant Man, but still have Hank Pym in the movie (as a former Ant Man, no less). I get the "mentor" angle, I just don't get "why". The fan clamor to see Ant Man in a movie wasn't about seeing Scott Lang; people wanted Hank. So the studio gives them Scott, instead. Is that the studio being passive-aggressive? They give the fans an Ant Man movie, but not the Ant Man character they wanted to see?
I mean, I'm not an Ant-Man fan. I haven't got a dog in this fight. But it seems to me that the studio is making a lot of changes to the established canon for no reason other than: just because. I'd like to know the thought process behind those changes, because without knowing them, it looks like the studio is changing things to target imaginary audience demographics, which will sink a movie faster than a gakky script.
I hope it is. Two of the players at my Tuesday night Star Wars RPG game are mega-huge Ant Man fans. I mean, mega huge. They have had nothing but bad things to say about how the studio seems to be playing fast and loose with the established Ant Man canon. They (and I, as well) are perplexed at the decision to make Scott Lang (Ant Man mk 2) Ant Man, but still have Hank Pym in the movie (as a former Ant Man, no less). I get the "mentor" angle, I just don't get "why". The fan clamor to see Ant Man in a movie wasn't about seeing Scott Lang; people wanted Hank. So the studio gives them Scott, instead. Is that the studio being passive-aggressive? They give the fans an Ant Man movie, but not the Ant Man character they wanted to see?
I mean, I'm not an Ant-Man fan. I haven't got a dog in this fight. But it seems to me that the studio is making a lot of changes to the established canon for no reason other than: just because. I'd like to know the thought process behind those changes, because without knowing them, it looks like the studio is changing things to target imaginary audience demographics, which will sink a movie faster than a gakky script.
And I'm still waiting for my She-Hulk movie.
I think it has something to do with Hank being an alcoholic wife-beater.
I think it has something to do with Hank being an alcoholic wife-beater.
It's kind of funny... the guy has more superhero identities than Fletch, but is his low self-esteem what he is most known for? Nope. He invents Ultron (and by extension, the Vision) but is that what he is most known for? Nope. He slapped Wasp once and that is his defining character trait.
Tony Stark is a much bigger alcoholic than Hank.
Mr. "Fantastic" is a much bigger spousal abuser than Hank.
But only Hank Pym is reviled for being an alcoholic wife abuser.
... the "domestic dispute" scene from the first Ultimates book didn't help, of course, but that is alternate continuity.
I hope it is. Two of the players at my Tuesday night Star Wars RPG game are mega-huge Ant Man fans. I mean, mega huge. They have had nothing but bad things to say about how the studio seems to be playing fast and loose with the established Ant Man canon. They (and I, as well) are perplexed at the decision to make Scott Lang (Ant Man mk 2) Ant Man, but still have Hank Pym in the movie (as a former Ant Man, no less). I get the "mentor" angle, I just don't get "why". The fan clamor to see Ant Man in a movie wasn't about seeing Scott Lang; people wanted Hank. So the studio gives them Scott, instead. Is that the studio being passive-aggressive? They give the fans an Ant Man movie, but not the Ant Man character they wanted to see?
I mean, I'm not an Ant-Man fan. I haven't got a dog in this fight. But it seems to me that the studio is making a lot of changes to the established canon for no reason other than: just because. I'd like to know the thought process behind those changes, because without knowing them, it looks like the studio is changing things to target imaginary audience demographics, which will sink a movie faster than a gakky script.
And I'm still waiting for my She-Hulk movie.
At this point in time, there's not much point whining about "established canon" since comics are always changing stuff anyways lol. I mean, how many times have people's origin stories been messed about with?!
That's because no one is an Ant-Man fan. Your friends that say they're Ant-Man fans... they aren't.
angelofvengeance wrote: At this point in time, there's not much point whining about "established canon" since comics are always changing stuff anyways lol. I mean, how many times have people's origin stories been messed about with?!
Agreed.
I've been a Marvel fan for 20 years and I couldn't care less about "established cannon." There have been so many insanely stupid and downright silly storylines (and origin stories) over the years that streamlining some of them into more coherent and approachable form is a good thing.
I think it has something to do with Hank being an alcoholic wife-beater.
It's kind of funny... the guy has more superhero identities than Fletch, but is his low self-esteem what he is most known for? Nope. He invents Ultron (and by extension, the Vision) but is that what he is most known for? Nope. He slapped Wasp once and that is his defining character trait.
Tony Stark is a much bigger alcoholic than Hank.
Mr. "Fantastic" is a much bigger spousal abuser than Hank.
But only Hank Pym is reviled for being an alcoholic wife abuser.
... the "domestic dispute" scene from the first Ultimates book didn't help, of course, but that is alternate continuity.
And after deciding to tie Ultron to an established, profitable character, what's left of Hank to work with?
"Poor self-esteem" and "Alcoholic Wife-beater", neither of which are a selling point for a character.
Yeah, but they didn't have to tie Ultron to Tony. I mean, Avengers 2 could have just had the script altered a little to make Hank the programmer who invents the Ultron AI, rather than make it the bastich spawn of J.A.R.V.I.S....
And hey, poor self-esteem could make for a great selling point, if you make a movie that is a deconstruction of the superhero blockbuster. Okay, it would be kind of meta, but the Marvel movies have been about doing established genre films (war, spy, adventure, etc) and just adding a layer of superheroes to them. It could totally work with Hank and Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Yellowjacket, and so on, as a wanna-be superhero with dozens of different powers and enough skill at inventing to become the next Thomas Edison wastes his time and life trying to come up with a superhero concept that people don't immediately laugh at.
squidhills wrote: Yeah, but they didn't have to tie Ultron to Tony. I mean, Avengers 2 could have just had the script altered a little to make Hank the programmer who invents the Ultron AI, rather than make it the bastich spawn of J.A.R.V.I.S....
And hey, poor self-esteem could make for a great selling point, if you make a movie that is a deconstruction of the superhero blockbuster. Okay, it would be kind of meta, but the Marvel movies have been about doing established genre films (war, spy, adventure, etc) and just adding a layer of superheroes to them. It could totally work with Hank and Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Yellowjacket, and so on, as a wanna-be superhero with dozens of different powers and enough skill at inventing to become the next Thomas Edison wastes his time and life trying to come up with a superhero concept that people don't immediately laugh at.
In the MCU, Ultron is an AI created by Stark, using the Chitauri tech salvaged from New York- hence Angry Thor. No doubt we'll see something to do with Ultron in Ant-Man though.
And hey, poor self-esteem could make for a great selling point, if you make a movie that is a deconstruction of the superhero blockbuster. Okay, it would be kind of meta, but the Marvel movies have been about doing established genre films (war, spy, adventure, etc) and just adding a layer of superheroes to them. It could totally work with Hank and Ant-Man, Giant-Man, Yellowjacket, and so on, as a wanna-be superhero with dozens of different powers and enough skill at inventing to become the next Thomas Edison wastes his time and life trying to come up with a superhero concept that people don't immediately laugh at.
I totally agree. I really like Hank Pym, because of his (negative) character and would have preffered this approach, however, I can see why Marvel doesn't want to make an Anti-Hero movie.
The Earth's Mightiest Heroes cartoon showed Ant-Man (Hank) done right. Flawless execution of the character while leaving out the abuse/alcohol (it was still technically a kids show after all). That said, as minor of a character as he is (He's no Thor or Hulk), having the second Ant-man is fine, with a torch passing off. We're gonna be seeing the main heroes passing the torch soon too. Or being killed. Marvel is easing us into it.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: That's because no one is an Ant-Man fan. Your friends that say they're Ant-Man fans... they aren't.
This is the most honest thing ever said about Ant-Man.
What's not to like? He can have no redeeming qualities, lame adventures, beat his wife, and still be considered a hero! That's the most amazing super power since common sense!
timetowaste85 wrote: The Earth's Mightiest Heroes cartoon showed Ant-Man (Hank) done right. Flawless execution of the character while leaving out the abuse/alcohol (it was still technically a kids show after all). That said, as minor of a character as he is (He's no Thor or Hulk), having the second Ant-man is fine, with a torch passing off. We're gonna be seeing the main heroes passing the torch soon too. Or being killed. Marvel is easing us into it.
A good example of an upcoming torch passing is Captain America. Chris Evans is contracted for, IIRC, 6 movies. I'm assuming that Infinity War being split wasn't expected, but he's probably out after those. Sebastian Stan, however, is contracted for nine films. If he appears in Civil War, that makes 3 leading up to Infinity War - with 6 left to take over as Captain America if the movies keep up the momentum.
I think it has something to do with Hank being an alcoholic wife-beater.
It's kind of funny... the guy has more superhero identities than Fletch, but is his low self-esteem what he is most known for? Nope. He invents Ultron (and by extension, the Vision) but is that what he is most known for? Nope. He slapped Wasp once and that is his defining character trait.
Tony Stark is a much bigger alcoholic than Hank.
Mr. "Fantastic" is a much bigger spousal abuser than Hank.
But only Hank Pym is reviled for being an alcoholic wife abuser.
... the "domestic dispute" scene from the first Ultimates book didn't help, of course, but that is alternate continuity.
timetowaste85 wrote: The Earth's Mightiest Heroes cartoon showed Ant-Man (Hank) done right. Flawless execution of the character while leaving out the abuse/alcohol (it was still technically a kids show after all). That said, as minor of a character as he is (He's no Thor or Hulk), having the second Ant-man is fine, with a torch passing off. We're gonna be seeing the main heroes passing the torch soon too. Or being killed. Marvel is easing us into it.
This review is not for spoilers, for cameo details, for post-credit scenes. You want those? Go here. Or actually see the film on its release in just over a week.
Ant-Man is a family film, in both senses of the word. You’ll get a couple of gaks, but that’s all – and I’m not talking about the kids you brought with you. There is no sexuality to speak of really. And what violence there is, is generally stylised, cartoony and, frankly wondrous. Those who thought Jurassic World was too much – and it was – should have fewer issues here.
Not that there aren’t mature ideas, there are. The film is about two families, the Pyms and the Langs, who have nothing to connect them save idealism, and both have fallen foul of it. Hank Pym who lost his wife and then figuratively lost his daughter then also lost his company. Scott Lang lost his freedom, his marriage and self respect as a father.
So Scott, a prisoner in San Quentin, after defrauding a corporate company of the very money they defrauded from their customers, Scott Lang is an Occupy Robin Hood who can’t catch a break or get any visitation rights until he can pay maintenance. His young daughter Cassie utterly loves him but his wife has moved on and what’s more they are both living with a cop.
Hank Pym needs a man for an inside job against Cross, a man he once treated like his son. But won’t risk his daughter. And Scott will risk everything for the chance to be with his daughter again. And maybe find a brand new family as well…
But what about the ants?
Well, the ants are pretty great and knock every other shrinking film of this type, even though there is a nod to feeding ants droplets of water from Honey I Shrunk The Kid. But they look great, and they are treated as soldiers, as tanks, and with the Carpenter Ants, as helicopters, the beat of their wings audibly replicating the whirr of windblades, and performing extractions straight out of Vietnam movies. It’s an attitude mirrored in a scene where Ant-Man is being shot at, repeatedly, and it plays out like someone running across No Man’s Land in World War One. And that’s what probably makes this film distinct.
Because this is a superhero movie. It is also a heist movie. It is also a war movie. It is eve also a Western. And it also a comedy, with thankfully more of the slapstick coming in towards the end, as the differences in the small and large world get contrasted for comic effect. Those are the pieces I think people are going to most remember and be grateful that they saw.
But certain key scenes are set up, teased and foreshadowed so much that I might as well spoil them here as you’ll be able to guess them the moment the first thing happens. It gets really obvious in what the eye is drawn to. It didn’t make me feel clever, it made the film seem dumber.
As for the 3D, I’m generally pretty 3D-phobic, but once my brain settle in, I wasn’t thrown out of it constantly as I was in Age Of Ultron. The 3D here is mostly handles responsibly and with purpose, as Paul Jenner said in the introduction, letting you shrink alongside Ant-Man. So you see the wide vistas, the differences in scale and are immersed in them before you are ripped out to see things from a macro perspective. Time after time, that works a treat.
Some logic flaws did jump out. An imperfect shrinking device that turns organic material to goop would make a rather nifty weapon right there, it could be sold to SHIELD as-is. Hell you could weaponise the shrinking process to attack the enemy by shrinking their tanks, buildings, cities away to nothing. Also the Yellowjacket suit looks like it could go up against Iron Man full sized. There is te suggestion of chemical imbalance but for Darren Cross, a villain who shows all sorts of smarts not usually associated with his type, he’s not looking at the big picture.
Badumtish.
And of course, as you’d expect some very dodgy science that gets steamrolled over in favour of some damn fine scenes. But there is something missing.
There are very large Edgar Wright shaped holes in the film. Parts of the original screenplay which you feel were intended for Edgar to perform some of his more entertaining director pirouettes. Going into the kitchen to fetch a number of utensils and turn on the gas feels emptier when you think how he did that kind of thing in Hot Fuzz. One feels that a children’s party under his watch would have, well, more children. Doing unspeakable things. And the scene when Scott Lang is picked up from jail by a cohort and is driven home seems to be a reference from the video asking why people don’t use direction in comedy films to be funny.
Because, yes, much of the comedy in this film, is not visual. There are exceptions, the cut shot to Baskins & Robbins, the repeated motif of someone telling a story of what other people said, as we see those other people lipsynching to the narrator’s voice, even if much has changed in the telling, and then certain aspects of the final scenes that seen cribbed directly from The Lego Movie. And good, they were great there and they are great here.
But for much of Ant-Man, it is filmed straight, people say generally funny things and are sometimes awkward about it. Some way say that may make it a better fit to tell what are basically two stories about fathers and daughters, but I don’t think anyone felt the emotional family relationships in previous Wright films were undersold because of the visual panache. For some, however, this film may be a little easier to swallow. Damn them.
And amidst the big time actors of Michael Douglas and Paul Rudd, familiar faces of Evangeline Lilly and Corey Stoll, all being rather wonderful, I would like to give a special shout out to Michael Pena, who steals the show every time he is on screen as an art-loving motormouth henchman. In many ays, Ant-Man is his film and really hope he capitalises on it.
So that’s what I’m left with. A really fun, action packed film, that’s stands up with the Marvel troop and adds to its eclectic line. I’d put it below Iron Man, Guardians and Avengers but above Winter Soldier. Which I know will just start a whole lot of arguments. And whatever criticisms I have, I have plenty of compliments to match them.
Go see.
spoilerific one -- mentions twists and any credits scenes etc
This is not a review of Ant-Man. You can find that right here. But first, for the most anal of you out there, and I count myself as one, here are the cameos, the references and, yes, both credit sequences for Ant-Man, that I was able to jot down while watching it earlier this week. Some of you like to know them in advance so they can both anticipate and look out for them. If that’s not you, you can read the full reduced-spoiler review here.
Hank Pym used to work for SHIELD before setting up on his own as Pym Industries. We see the older Howard Stark played by John Slattery and rather-better-aged Peggy Carter in a scene set in 1989. Michael Douglas’ young looks works well too.
Pym is not a fan of Tony Stark, and the idea of Stark getting his hands on his technology scares him. That’s why, as Scott Lang’s request, “I think our first move should be to call the Avengers”, he declines saying that they “are too busy dropping cities out of skies.” Oops.
Scott Lang stays in the Milgrom Hotel, named after comics artist Al Milgrom.
His crime is not too dissimilar to that of Richard Pryor‘s character in Superman III. Indeed, it seems a deliberate similarity.
One of the ne’er-do-wells in the film has a Ten Mandarin Ring neck tattoo.
We see old footage scenes of Hank Pym Ant Man in action against soldiers. “Silly I know, propaganda, Tales To Astonish!” as Darren Cross says. That was the title of the comic Ant-Man first appeared in in the sixties.
The Yellowjacket suit is bases on Ant Man’s recurring second identity in the comics.
The Falcon isn’t just here in a cameo. We visit the new Avengers base as seen at the end of Avengers: Age Of Ultron, and Sam Wilson is at home. Cue one of the major fight scenes of the movie. Though, as Falcon says to a HW “It’s really important to be that the Captain doesn’t find out about this.
We flashback to a time when Ant Man fought alongside The Wasp and see them both in action together.
We are told (and see) the Quantum Realm if you shift to subatomic size. Sadly there appears to be no Microverse here. Or, rather, not yet. Maybe if they work things out with Fox Studios.
The schematic and the plans totally look like the Death Star.
Hydra are here.
Stan Lee makes a cameo as a bartender, lipsynching to the narrator’s version of events and what he is meant to have said. Basically, Stan ends up sounding gangsta.
There is a mention of another superhero. “We have a guy who can jump, who can swing, who can crawl up walls.” Just that line, but yes, that’s Spider-Man.
Credits see Ant-Man created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby.
The mid-credit scene, has Captain America, The Falcon and I think a dishevelled, though floppy haired Winter Soldier who is in some kind of fix, that whatever it is, would have been easier to deal with the previous day. Because now they can’t ask Tony Stark for help. Will they be forced to reconsider their position with Tony? “Maybe not, I know a guy” says Falcon.
Clearly Cap didn’t find out…
We are told that Ant Man will return.
More credits make a lot of name checks, everyone from John Byrne to Robert Kirkman.
The final credit scene sees Hank Pym revealing the next version of the Wasp suit that he had been working with Janet Van Dyne on, for Hope Pym to wear. Looks like we have our second Wasp…
Ok I highly enjoyed this film, i'd say it is my 2nd favorite next to Winter Soldier with Guardians of the Galaxy coming in 3rd.
Spoiler:
When they discover one of the places they need to break into is the New Avengers facility you get to see what Ant-Man can do against Falcon and boy is it awesome.
It was good... He will be a good addition to the Avengers in the future.
I thought his crew of sidekicks were fun too. Avenger jobs for all of them!
This movie also passed the 'superman' test. Like how Bane could hold hostage an entire city for months in a world with Superman presumably flying around on it? Nope.
At least this movie made sense and answered the question "End of the world? Why not just call the avengers?" Marvel has done a good job with the movieverse with not falling into the trap of Justice Leaguing on a planet with hundreds of murderous supervillians which seem to run rampant.
pities2004 wrote: Ok I highly enjoyed this film, i'd say it is my 2nd favorite next to Winter Soldier with Guardians of the Galaxy coming in 3rd.
Spoiler:
When they discover one of the places they need to break into is the New Avengers facility you get to see what Ant-Man can do against Falcon and boy is it awesome.
That scene was good but i prefered the train track fight scene
I really liked the film.
Excellent Special Effects, Engaging Story, Excellent Acting, References to the MCU and other characters, Build up to Civil War
The plot was essentially Iron Man 1 + Batman Beyond (not that "closest friend steals your company" and "train your successor" were particularly novel ideas in the first place) except that nobody has any personality or believable motivations whatsoever. The pacing is absolutely atrocious with all the suspense loaded in the last 15 minutes. Could do without the gang of comedy relief Mexicans, too.
The fight in the kid's room was basically the only good thing in the movie.
The plot was essentially Iron Man 1 + Batman Beyond (not that "closest friend steals your company" and "train your successor" were particularly novel ideas in the first place) except that nobody has any personality or believable motivations whatsoever. The pacing is absolutely atrocious with all the suspense loaded in the last 15 minutes. Could do without the gang of comedy relief Mexicans, too.
The fight in the kid's room was basically the only good thing in the movie.
The movie was pretty good. I go to movies to be entertained, and this one accomplished that. Definitely not the best Marvel movie, but not the worst either.
Did you see your compatriot surfer get attacked by a shark on live TV? Surfer unharmed and shark wisely swam swiftly away once it realized it was an Aussie, and we all know Aussies bite back.
Just watched it. A nice solid heist movie and probably falls somewhere in the middle of the Marvel pack in terms of overall enjoyment (i.e. better than Norton's Hulk, Ironman 2 and 3 etc).
I'm not sure shoehorning a random Avenger into the proceedings was necessary (distracted from the plot IMO).
Don't forget to stay for the (almost literal) mid credits sting.
I took my nephew and his friend to see it yesterday and I quite enjoyed it. I would place it near the top of the MCU pantheon, behind only The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Iron Man. This may be due to the fact that I've been a Paul Rudd fan since his appearance in Clueless.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I took my nephew and his friend to see it yesterday and I quite enjoyed it. I would place it near the top of the MCU pantheon, behind only The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Iron Man. This may be due to the fact that I've been a Paul Rudd fan since his appearance in Clueless.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I took my nephew and his friend to see it yesterday and I quite enjoyed it. I would place it near the top of the MCU pantheon, behind only The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Iron Man. This may be due to the fact that I've been a Paul Rudd fan since his appearance in Clueless.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I took my nephew and his friend to see it yesterday and I quite enjoyed it. I would place it near the top of the MCU pantheon, behind only The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Iron Man. This may be due to the fact that I've been a Paul Rudd fan since his appearance in Clueless.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How violent would you say this movie is? Would it be okay for a three and a half year old who can handle Star Wars?
I would say it's on par with Star Wars violence-wise. My three and half year old daughter loves watching Star Wars and I would have no qualms with her seeing Ant-Man.
There is also a little bit of colorful language, but nothing as bad as my kids hear from me on a regular basis.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How violent would you say this movie is? Would it be okay for a three and a half year old who can handle Star Wars?
I would say it's on par with Star Wars violence-wise. My three and half year old daughter loves watching Star Wars and I would have no qualms with her seeing Ant-Man.
There is also a little bit of colorful language, but nothing as bad as my kids hear from me on a regular basis.
I tend to find th concept of "bad words" more harmful than actual bad words, so language won't be a problem.
Glad to hear about the level of violence being mild. My son likes insects and superheroes, so we might see a matinee to beat the heat, if he behaves.
If I had a younger child prone to repeating colorful language, I wouldn't take them--but I'm not a parent and I'm not the parent of your kid. There were some 2 year olds in the 7:15 showing I just saw, and they got kinda whiny--which is always such a joy.
Ahtman wrote: Saw it and it was ok. It is fun as a Marvel movie but overall as a piece of cinema it is 'meh'.
Does it hurt?
I'm not sure what you mean tbh. You could be referring to whether the film hurt or are being sarcastic; either is as just as likely. It isn't a horrible movie and I am glad I saw it and I would recommend others to go see it, but I wouldn't put it in my top ten or buy it for my collection. Doesn't mean it is a bad movie, just that it doesn't really do much interesting visually or thematically that makes me want to watch it again.
I saw it and quite enjoyed it. Wasn't high on my favorites list or anything and I feel like I don't need any additional ant-man/wasp solo films. But I think he'll be a cool addition to the Avengers.
We saw it as a family. I missed a few chunks of the movie due to the kid's small bladder, but enjoyed what I saw. He liked it a lot once the ants got involved, and I think he liked the fight at the end with the lasers and the toys. I feel a little bit bad because he kept saying "Ants!" whenever the ants appeared onscreen, but after the movie the people behind us said he was fine and didn't bother them. My wife liked the movie a lot more than she thought she would, which doesn't say much because she was sure Antman the idea was going to be irredeemably stupid.
Falcon's scene was great, but the heist at the Cross Industries building was my favorite part, with its escalation in crazy antics and the police cop in over his head. The Chekhov's guns set up through the movie were all obvious and all fired in the third act, so anyone expecting a clever film of twists will be disappointed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the villain had the look, voice, and mannerisms to a boy I knew from the local synagogue, which made the name "Cross" somewhat hilarious to me.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How violent would you say this movie is? Would it be okay for a three and a half year old who can handle Star Wars?
Marvel movies are much more violent than bloodless Star Wars. In a Marvel movie, people can get hurt and actually die on screen (Coulson, Pietro).
My youngest is 5-1/2, and we saw AoU. But then he's been watching Marvel movies for a couple years.
I think 3-1/2 is OK if (s)he's already seen similar movies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: My wife liked the movie a lot more than she thought she would, which doesn't say much because she was sure Antman the idea was going to be irredeemably stupid.
The Chekhov's guns set up through the movie were all obvious and all fired in the third act, so anyone expecting a clever film of twists will be disappointed.
My buddy was the biggest holdout for GotG, because of the talking animal. After much cajoling, he finally saw it. Enjoyed the talking animal after all.
Marvel has a lot of economy of writing, so "Rosebud" will always be a giveaway.
The fighting wasn't so bad, but Pym was awfully quick to use violence to express himself. Talking scenes where one man gets frustrated and starts hitting people display more troublesome behavior in my opinion than two costumed heroes leaping around throwing trains and shooting lasers.
There was a gunshot wound, but even by action movie standards it was tame.
Alpharius wrote: I've heard that 'someone' is visible in the corner of the screen when Scott goes into the QUANTUM ZONE (The Microverse?) - I've heard it was:
Close - the Quantum Realm... because I think 'Microverse' belongs to Fantastic 4, and therefore Fox.
Anyway, I've heard the same thing. I don't see it.
I collected The Micronauts from the newstand to direct only subscription. Sure, they started as a toy-based product (like Rom, Spaceknight, also a worthy read over time), but what a romp. Not quite as goofy as GotG, but wow, if they were reimagined a la Big Hero 6 and brought to life on the big screen...
I was really, really hoping the QUANTUM REALM = MICROVERSE, for many of the same reasons as John up there!
I LOVED the Micronauts both as toys and a comic - collected them both as a kid.
Also LOVED the comic book ROM, but never had the toy.
Sadly, ROM is not a part of the MU anymore - rights reverted back to the toy company?
But interestingly enough, in SECRET INVASION (I think!) the Wasp (Janet) 'dies' - but in reality, she escapes death by shrinking down...into the MICROVERSE!
Alpharius wrote: I've heard that 'someone' is visible in the corner of the screen when Scott goes into the QUANTUM ZONE (The Microverse?)
Almost certainly not the Microverse. But OMG, how awesome if it were, because the Mircroverse imples the Micronauts:
I collected The Micronauts from the newstand to direct only subscription. Sure, they started as a toy-based product (like Rom, Spaceknight, also a worthy read over time), but what a romp. Not quite as goofy as GotG, but wow, if they were reimagined a la Big Hero 6 and brought to life on the big screen...
Micronauts! Yeah, I was a huge fan of the comics and toys.
I think the series lost its way later, but IMO it's one of the very best toy-to-comic translations, especially considering the toys were a mishmash of stuff without much in the way of built-in narrative and characterizations like with the '80s GI Joe and Transformer toys. And sure, there's PLENTY of Star Wars influence, but there's also plenty of unique creativity involved too.
Michael Golden is a really talented artist IMO. I still love these "coming soon" ads that ran in Marvel comics back in the day.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
This panel reminds me of an early Mike Mignola.
Spoiler:
Sadly, Bill Mantlo has been disabled for over 2 decades now after a horrible car accident.
I think that it's possible that we could see the Micronaut characters that Marvel owns (like Bug) or spaceknights other than Rom make an appearance in Marvel film at some point. Rom himself, though...that seems like it might be complicated.
@Alpharius -- I still have my ROM toy and it still works! (Although I lost the cable to light up his Neutralizer, etc.)
I've still got a large run of Micronauts comics somewhere, in a box... the Mantlo/Golden stuff was so good...
I also had a lot of the toys...Baron Karza and Oberon!
And many others...now long, long gone!
So yeah, I was kind of hoping QUANTUM REALM = MICROVERSE because of all that, and the weird sort of potential already did that storyline with the Wasp in the 'regular' Marvel Universe had me hopeful too!
I still have my Force Commander and Oberon. My kids play with them. They'd probably like the rest of my Micronauts stuff too (we had the battle cruiser, the exploration lab, hydrocopter, hornetroid, terraphant, etc.), but most of it disappeared...which is to say it's no longer at my parents' house, but I don't have it now and never took it, yet my mom says she never threw anything out. How does that happen?
My Kenner Star Wars stuff is spotty like that. Have most of my figures, my X-Wing, Snowspeeder and AT-ST. My brother has his Falcon. Darth Vader's TIE? Lost in the warp, apparently. *shrug* That thing was kind of big...how does it just disappear?
Anyway, you'd think that the interchangeability would make the Micronauts concept popular today if they got relaunched.
I recall having the Baron Karza, Acroyear, Space Glider and Time Traveller Micronaut toys, and the shooty bits were very cool. While the terrain was nice, the highlight (for me) was the space ship, huge and modular. No idea what my parents did with it, or my other cool toys. *snif*
Never had the Rom toy, but I collected that comic, too. I think The Micronauts was a better story, though.
Just got back from it. I actually approved of Pym socking the guy in the beginning. The most infamous Pym thing in comics was when Hank accidentally hit Jan. And then hit her on purpose in the Ultimate comics where he was a total douche. Since she wasn't in this movie, I felt it appropriate when he hit someone for mentioning her. Almost like another Easter egg.
And the end credit scene was appropriate, but felt VERY expected. Some of the end credit scenes, like Apocalypse in DoFP made me cheer with surprise and happiness. This end scene was appreciated, but was no surprise at all.
Not the best Marvel movie (think that title belongs to GotG now), but still a lot of fun. I quite enjoyed myself, had some good laughs, and saw an excellent story unfold.
Alpharius wrote: I've heard that 'someone' is visible in the corner of the screen when Scott goes into the QUANTUM ZONE (The Microverse?) - I've heard it was:
1) The original Wasp, Janet! (Seems most likely!)
I think that is who it was because it makes the most sense, both for the movie and future sequels.
timetowaste85 wrote: Just got back from it. I actually approved of Pym socking the guy in the beginning. The most infamous Pym thing in comics was when Hank accidentally hit Jan. And then hit her on purpose in the Ultimate comics where he was a total douche. Since she wasn't in this movie, I felt it appropriate when he hit someone for mentioning her. Almost like another Easter egg.
And the end credit scene was appropriate, but felt VERY expected. Some of the end credit scenes, like Apocalypse in DoFP made me cheer with surprise and happiness. This end scene was appreciated, but was no surprise at all.
You either:
1) didn't stay until the very end and therefore missed the 2nd end credit scene or
2) you really can tell the future or
3) you're a liar!
I'd like to think if my wife died heroically saving a bunch of people and some dick insinuated that I lost her because "I couldn't protect her" I'd knock the crap out of him as well.
I liked it! I thought the scene with Falcon was a bit forced and silly. Otherwise pretty good, if you don't think about the science or the established rules too much.
Hang on, there was a second post-credits scene? Aw, damn!
If was certainly acgood film, I can't really fault any of it (except perhaps that the second act could have done with another 10 minutes or so), and while we've been somewhat spoiled by a succession of absolutely amazing Marvel movies (TWS, GotG, AoU) that Ant-Man doesn't hold a candle to, it's still as good as anything from Phase 1, and better than some.
The Spidey reference at the end was kind of cool, but annoyed me a little as it marked the first on-screen acknowledgement that Amazing Spiderman is over, and I very much doubt Marvel's Spidey will be as good. That's less a criticism of the film, though, just a personal bugbear.
The Falcon scene was great, especially his line at the end.
Honestly, there's not really been a Marvel Studios film that hasn't performed well(or well enough to make it's budget back at least). I think Spidey will be excellent in Marvel's hands. Sony appear to have made a horrible mess after Spider-Man 3 and the "Amazing" Spider-Man 1&2.
Green Goblin was only really any good when they had Willem Dafoe portraying him. Harry Osborne's Goblin (in both Raimi's and ASM 2) sucked massively.
Oh, I'm sure Marvel's will be good, I just love the Amazing Spiderman films so much and would happily trade MCU-spidey for a conclusion to the ASM trilogy.
I do seem to be in a minority in liking them that much, although I'm not sure why they got such a bad reception.
Can't say the new guy they've cast as Parker fills me with confidence, though.
In fairness though, everyone's a bit sceptical when it comes to new blood in the comic-film adaptations. Heath Ledger is a fantastic example of that. Who'd have thought a guy who played a gay cowboy could become the Joker?
Paradigm wrote: ... it marked the first on-screen acknowledgement that Amazing Spiderman is over, and I very much doubt Marvel's Spidey will be as good.
You might be the only person I've ever encountered who holds that opinion.
angelofvengeance wrote: In fairness though, everyone's a bit sceptical when it comes to new blood in the comic-film adaptations. Heath Ledger is a fantastic example of that. Who'd have thought a guy who played a gay cowboy could become the Joker?
I'm one of those that didn't like the ledger joker. I prefer the Nicholson/Romero style. But I know I'm in the minority on that.
timetowaste85 wrote: Just got back from it. I actually approved of Pym socking the guy in the beginning. The most infamous Pym thing in comics was when Hank accidentally hit Jan. And then hit her on purpose in the Ultimate comics where he was a total douche. Since she wasn't in this movie, I felt it appropriate when he hit someone for mentioning her. Almost like another Easter egg.
And the end credit scene was appropriate, but felt VERY expected. Some of the end credit scenes, like Apocalypse in DoFP made me cheer with surprise and happiness. This end scene was appreciated, but was no surprise at all.
You either:
1) didn't stay until the very end and therefore missed the 2nd end credit scene or
2) you really can tell the future or
3) you're a liar!
There were two? gak.
I saw the one featuring Hank and his daughter. That one was obvious.
Alpharius wrote: Doesn't Marvel only have the rights to use Spidey in the Avengers films not solo pictures?
And isn't Sony rebooting Spidey yet again?
Keeping him in high school for a lot longer this time?
They are both the same. Marvel can use him in MCU films, and the solo Spidey films (same actor/version) will still be a part of the MCU, but funded/produced by Sony (although I think Marvel still have the final say on creative matters). To all intents and purposes as far the viewer is concerned, Spiderman is now 100% an MCU character.
And yeah, he's much younger, I believe 15 has been cited as his age in Civil War.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I'd like to think if my wife died heroically saving a bunch of people and some dick insinuated that I lost her because "I couldn't protect her" I'd knock the crap out of him as well.
I liked it! I thought the scene with Falcon was a bit forced and silly. Otherwise pretty good, if you don't think about the science or the established rules too much.
I love that he looked to Stark, and Stark's just "Hey, you said it." like hell yeah he'd have done to you too.
angelofvengeance wrote: In fairness though, everyone's a bit sceptical when it comes to new blood in the comic-film adaptations. Heath Ledger is a fantastic example of that. Who'd have thought a guy who played a gay cowboy could become the Joker?
Ahem.
Robert Downey, Jr., anyone?
Do we not remember the skepticism when he was cast as Tony Stark for Iron Man (1)? Wasn't RDJ a washed-up B-lister? And more known for his personal struggles than anything else? At the time, I was thinking RDJ would be fine for the "demon in a bottle" storyline, but I wasn't sure about the rest.
Now, of course, everybody loves RDJ and it's hard to see anyone else as Tony, but his initial casting was very skeptical.
I think it's fairly safe to say that there's a lot of skepticism for ANY new actor playing a character.
Case in point, look at the nerd rage going on over Batfleck, and even Leto as Joker, etc.
Actually, when I first heard the announcement for Ant-Man, I was skeptical of the whole idea because he's not well known outside of comic shops, and while I didn't doubt Paul Rudd would make a good actor, I can't recall him ever really doing many "action" movies.
Marvel obviously knows what they're doing. Consider the last "new" lead, Chris Pratt. From his work on Parks & Rec, would anybody have seen him in a Marvel superhero movie? Much less the awesome blockbuster that Guardians turned out to be?
As for Ben, he was Daredevil. And before that, he saved the world in Dogma. So he should be OK as Batman - the real question is how Warner does with the rest of the heroes they're throwing in, whether the result is more Fantastic Four bomb than Avengers blockbuster.
Case in point, look at the nerd rage going on over Batfleck, and even Leto as Joker, etc.
People still hate the Leto Joker design. (But I think that's more the character design than the actor.)
Much of the internet did think that Batfleck was a ridiculous concept until they were told, "we're basing him off of Dark Knight Returns" which started to sway people. Now that the costume / trailer is shown, the majority are behind Batfleck.
angelofvengeance wrote: In fairness though, everyone's a bit sceptical when it comes to new blood in the comic-film adaptations. Heath Ledger is a fantastic example of that. Who'd have thought a guy who played a gay cowboy could become the Joker?
Ahem.
Robert Downey, Jr., anyone?
Do we not remember the skepticism when he was cast as Tony Stark for Iron Man (1)? Wasn't RDJ a washed-up B-lister? And more known for his personal struggles than anything else? At the time, I was thinking RDJ would be fine for the "demon in a bottle" storyline, but I wasn't sure about the rest.
Now, of course, everybody loves RDJ and it's hard to see anyone else as Tony, but his initial casting was very skeptical.
I Thought he was great in the first Iron man. It felt like he was a perfect fit. But as time goes on, it seems like he has lost some of that "desperation" that showed up in the first film. He seems too comfortable now, as Iron Man. Kind of like an old prize fighter, where they have lost the "eye of the tiger".
I Thought he was great in the first Iron man. It felt like he was a perfect fit. But as time goes on, it seems like he has lost some of that "desperation" that showed up in the first film. He seems too comfortable now, as Iron Man. Kind of like an old prize fighter, where they have lost the "eye of the tiger".
GG
It's probably kinda hard to maintain that "eye of the tiger" when you're a billionaire playboy philanthropist
I think the second teaser in the Ant-Man film told us a lot about the sides in Cap 3: Civil War. I am only passingly familiar with the source material, so I found that little bit interesting.
Also, perhaps the best Stan Lee cameo yet. I hope he is around to do many, many more. He is something like 94 or 95 now!
Easy E wrote: I think the second teaser in the Ant-Man film told us a lot about the sides in Cap 3: Civil War. I am only passingly familiar with the source material, so I found that little bit interesting.
Also, perhaps the best Stan Lee cameo yet. I hope he is around to do many, many more. He is something like 94 or 95 now!
Yeah, that cameo was one of my favourites. Seeing wotsisname turn around in the bar, and seeing Stan Lee agree "Yeah, crazy damn fine!" was brilliant!
That thing was kind of big...how does it just disappear?
