Ant-Man and the Wasp

More of the same, you could say. I wasn't particularly interested in the first Ant-Man, I don't really like Paul Rudd. Visually, the film reminded me of a more expansive episode of a TV series and I rank it as one of the last among the Marvel movies. On the other hand, I can easily respect it as popcorn entertainment that's supposed to be for the whole family. And that's what Ant-Man and The Wasp is. If you liked the first one, the second one won't disappoint you because it relies on the same things. Logically, I wasn't that blown away by it. Peyton Reed still can't do anything that is visually interesting and relies on Rudd, jokes and weird side characters. It's a shame, because he's got a very interesting villain that someone more skilled and with a more serious approach could have pulled off much better. Here, though, he crams in a lot of fun up front, which was unnecessarily too much for my taste, plus it often teetered on the edge of awkwardness. I don't want to be unfair to the film, however. With Marvel, I appreciate that they try to make the films somehow genre-specific. And for me, this genre simply doesn't fit well. (27/07/2018)

Hamster in a Nightshirt 2! Great family entertainment, made more special with quantum fun. The story picks up from part 1 with a detour to the Civil War. The action is more impressive, enlarging and shrinking things plays a larger role this time. The chase around San Francisco is seething with ideas. The Wasp gives a better performance than Ant-Man himself. It is set immediately before and during the Infinity War, but it reveals nothing new, which is a bit of a shame. They stole our damn lab! (04/07/2018)

I had a problem already with the first Ant-Man. I said to myself that within the entire Marvel Universe, he is a very average character that, on the other hand, has the setting in which it takes place working for him. Well, and the sequel? It lost even the entertaining setting, or well, it depends… There isn’t much going on in the first 80 minutes of the film and every now and then Michael Peña comes in to the rescue, as he is at least a bit entertaining. But in the final almost 40 minutes, things finally start happening, which fortunately makes the movie a bit livelier. Otherwise, I would have had to go with less than three stars. All in all, however, the Ant-Man did not convince me even the second time around and I rank him among the least interesting heroes in the entire Marvel Universe. (16/12/2018)

Lots of funny situations just like in the first installment, but this time we also get a whiff of humor at all costs. Perhaps I was expecting the main protagonist to be a little more adult and that the plot would be a little more serious - more fateful (I was much more interested in the story of Hank and Janet than the main story), but this did not happen and by the ending I figured out that something like this might not actually suit Ant-Man. Maybe. (08/07/2018)

The final credits sum it all up – Ant-Man is really nothing more than a little tyke's Saturday afternoon with a giant Lego set. On the one hand, it's irritating in the randomness of the situations, where basically nothing has any greater internal integrity; on the other hand, it's pleasing to see a lot of creativity in the action scenes and generally the second half of the film, when a bunch of people keep tossing a building around between them like a hot potato. By the way, I'd like to see the interior of the building when it's enlarged. Unfortunately it’s never quite daring enough to make me respect the film, and instead still clings to juvenile humor built around a confused hero in a strange situation, with Paul Rudd playing pretty much a family-friendly version of Deadpool here, i.e. not funny and sorely in need of a beating. After ten years of this, we should all be asking for more from Marvel. I'm dropping it a star for that reason, though compared to Black Panther or Infinity War at least this was fun. (03/10/2018)