Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) Mini-Review — The Analytic Critic
After watching the first film, I felt that Ant-Man had made me suffer enough. I certainly had no intentions of watching the second one when it was announced.
But despite some major hiccups, Ant-Man and the Wasp is an enjoyable sequel to a bad movie. It’s a film with a cool concept, if some odd idiosyncrasies. Is that concept executed well, though? Let’s take a look.
WRITING:
After Scott Lang joined Cap against the government’s leading Avengers, the trio in charge of Ant-Man’s quantum tech become wanted fugitives on the run. All this time since the first movie, Hope van Dyne and Hank Pym are focused on trying to find a way to save Hank’s wife from the quantum realm.
But when Scott has a vision planted by Hank’s wife, he becomes entangled in a three-way race to claim Hank’s tech before someone more opportunistic has the chance.
While superior to the previous film, Ant-Man and the Wasp is plagued by issues with the script. The most significant one is the lack of a proper villain. The stakes are never that high because the film splits its focus between the F.B.I., a female phaser known as Ghost, and a black market criminal who wants Hank’s tech to sell. Too many weak “villains”, in other words.
The humour, again, is absolutely abysmal. Marvel really needs to learn how to properly develop comedy relief. Many of the action scenes are pretty boring, too. Not because they’re poorly executed, per se, but due to a lack of tension.
With all of that said, the movie does get some stuff right. The characters develop nicely, as does a budding romance between two of them. One of the villains is dynamic, more like an anti-hero than a villain. I love that, even if she isn’t the most intriguing character.
CAST:
I would say the cast is better than the writing by a great deal. Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lily are both really good, building organic romantic tension between each other that feels believable. Each seems like they have history with one another, something that ex-lovers should have.
Walton Goggins and Hannah John-Kamen play two of the villains this time around. Both do a great job with what’s written on the page. The writing prevents either of them from offering the excellent performances they achieved in the past.
Similarly, Laurence Fishburne and Michael Douglas are excellent actors, yet neither of their characters are that significant in the script. What is there is good; I just wish we could’ve gotten more of them.
Which just leaves Michael Peña. Ugh! This guy is literally one of the worst actors out there. No matter the genre, his roles always drop immersion, pulling the carpet from underneath your feet. He fails at drama, but he also lacks the talent to pull offcomedy.
PRODUCTION:
Director Peyton reed does a solid job with the cinematography. though his action sequences lack the punch necessary to make his work stellar. What he excels at, however, is pulling strong performances from his cast members.
The set design and the editing often leave a lot to be desired, unfortunately. That said, Hank’s lab is amazing to behold, the effort that went into it quite apparent.
Visually, the CGI and special effects are outright engrossing. Making a spectral image phase in and out of existence or objects look like they have shrunk is no easy job, but the crew somehow delivers.
The same can’t be said about the music, however. The soundtrack lacks the uneasy, hurried cacophony necessary in a movie like this. You can almost hear the tension in the sound design, but it falls short and fails due to its composition.
SUMMARY:
As much as I dislike several aspects of the film, it’s really not that bad at the end of the day. Its strong performances and visual effects make up for the sometimes poor writing and lack of focus.
Ant-Man and the Wasp gets a 6 out of 10.
