Tag Archives: michael pena

‘Ant-Man’ a Fun but Frustrating Marvel Ride

Ant-Man_posterIf nothing else, this is proof that Paul Rudd makes everything bearable.

“Ant-Man” is the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it stars Paul Rudd as the titular superhero. Armed with a suit that gives him the ability to shrink, career burglar Scott Lang (Rudd) is recruited by an aging scientist (Michael Douglas) to pull off a heist that will save the world from the scientist’s ex-protégée (Corey Stoll). Peyton Reed directs.

There was a lot of behind-the-scenes drama before “Ant-Man” even began filming. Originally, Edgar Wright was supposed to write and direct the film, however left after those pesky “creative differences” arose with the studio. So Marvel brought in Adam McKay (known for directing Will Ferrell flicks) to rewrite the script with Rudd, and “Yes Man” director Peyton Reed to helm the project. It was clear that they were trying to go heavier on the comedy than the action with “Ant-Man,” which may be where the film’s biggest pluses, and faults, lie.

The film is a bit frustrating in that it does a lot right, and creates a fun ride for the audience, but at the same time bogs itself down with a cliché and sloppy narrative. For every step forward “Ant-Man” takes, it takes one back. The biggest problem I have with the film is that essentially the first half, if not more so, is exposition and explanation. We are introduced to the characters, and rightfully so, but the movie beats us over the head with facts repeatedly, like how Rudd is a good guy who just can’t go straight, and how Douglas needs to make sure his research isn’t duplicated.

The film just feels cookie-cutter, and it feels that way because it is. The villain of the film (Stoll, known for “House of Cards”) is one big, bald cliché: the ex-protégée is angry at his former mentor and tries to get back at him. He then creates a bigger and badder version of the hero’s suit, and the two must face off (if that sounds like the ending to “Iron Man” it’s because it is). Not too much about “Ant-Man” felt refreshing or new, and one can only imagine how much more energetic it would have been had Wright (“Shaun of the Dead”) had stayed on as director.

That’s not to say the film doesn’t have its positives. Rudd is as charming as ever as our leading man; I’m pretty sure he could make reading the Wall Street Journal while eating a bowl of Fruit Loops into comedy gold. His wit and charisma save some scenes from feeling bogged down, and is believable in the action sequences. Michael Douglas turns in an entertaining performance as well, playing a man who truly cares about protecting his research because it is what’s best for humanity, not just for him.

Director Reed, like the film itself, is a mixed bag. He has a career in comedy, and most of the humor scenes are handled well; nothing ever feels too awkward or out of place. However it is the narrative and camera work that seemed slacking, which makes sense seeing as this is Reed’s first big-budget action flick. Most of the film is just build-up and preparation for the big heist, and when that finally comes it under-delivers. The film never truly flows well, and that usually falls at the fault of the man in charge.

“Ant-Man” is far from a bad movie, and it isn’t quite a failure for Marvel, but it certainly is one of their weaker films (I doubt anything will ever beat out “Thor 2” for their worst). Rudd and Douglas keep the film watchable, and some of the abilities they give Ant-Man are creative, but all these positives are almost knocked out by a tedious pace, formulaic plot and stereotypical supporting characters.

The film’s tagline is “Heroes Don’t Get Any Bigger Than Ant-Man.” Well they may not get bigger, but they certainly get better.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Variety

Variety

‘Fury’ Is Powerful, Gritty and One of Year’s Best

Leave a reply

Fury_2014_posterBrad Pitt and World War II. So far, it has proven to be a potent combonation. First Pitt was hunting Nazis in “Inglorious Basterds”, now he is commanding a tank in Germany.

“Fury”, written and directed by “End of Watch’s” David Ayer, tells the tale of five American soldiers who get stuck in their tank behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, they must fight their way through and defeat the surrounding Nazi forces. Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña and Jon Bernthal portray the members of the tank.

There’s really no point of sugar coating it or beating around the bush: “Fury” is one of the year’s best movies and one of the better, and most realistic, war films of all-time. From the haunting depictions of battle, to the heart-wrenching performances, to the high production value everything about this film is as beautiful as it is chilling.

The performances across the board are nothing short of fantastic, with the standouts being Pitt and Lerman. Pitt plays a man who has clearly let the evils of war shatter any morals and sensitivity he ever had, and this is demonstrated when on the first day of the job for the tank’s new recruit (Lerman), Pitt orders him to execute an unarmed German solider.

I have never been a Logan Lerman fan, I believe he plays a pretentious, spoiled boy in every role he takes (“Noah” and “3:10 to Yuma”, just to name two), but the man shut me up with his performance here. He is a soldier who was pulled away from his desk and put on the front lines, and it seems like he will never get used to the idea of taking a human life. But throughout the film we see him begin to change and become more desensitized to the notion of war, but he never loses the innocence that we empathize with.

The rest of the cast are all cookie-cutter roles (minority member, jerky sociopath and Bible-thumper), but the actors all have their moments to shine.

Ayer has proven that he is more than capable of shooting an engaging action scene, but never while sacrificing drama or content. Even when the bullets are flying and shells are being rocketed off, we see the characters’ weaknesses and at times hesitation in their actions. Even at the end of the film, in the midst of an extended battle, the action never feels derivative or redundant, because we are getting heavy doses of human drama, accompanied by a fantastic score from composer Steven Price.

What holds “Fury” back from the greatness it so clearly was striving for is a scene in the middle of the film. After taking a town, Pitt and Lerman come across two German women, who proceed to make lunch. The scene drags on for 22 minutes (I remember looking at my phone twice), and in the end the entire interaction took place simply for a plot point down the road.

If that one scene had been shorter, which it should have been, then “Fury” may have been able to be mentioned in the same breath as “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Hurt Locker” for greatest war movie of all-time. That being said, “Fury” is still a fantastically shot, grittily depicted and powerfully acted war story, which features a climax that had my theater silent when the credits began to roll.

Critics Rating: 9/10