Review: Ant-Man

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★★

We’re about to embark in a phase of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe that will make or break the studio’s ability to pull in hundreds of millions of dollars with each outing. This is a phase consisting of many of the studio’s lesser-known properties. We saw the studio’s success last summer with “Guardians of the Galaxy.” This summer brings us “Ant-Man.” Non-comic book readers such as myself will probably take one look at that title and think it’s nonsense. Despite it’s goofy sounding title, Marvel once again succeeds in producing a highly entertaining film.

Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is a convicted felon being released from prison after a three-year stint. He wants to live an honest life now for the sake of his daughter, otherwise his ex-wife Maggie (Judy Greer) and her fiancé Paxton (Bobby Cannavale) may not let him anywhere near her. But it’s tough to find a job after being in prison. So he quickly turns back to being a burglar with the help of his goofy friend Luis (Michael Peña). They end up breaking into the home of Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) who has some kind of incredible shrinking suit hiding in a safe. When Scott puts it on, he’s shrunken down to the size of an ant.

Turns out, Pym would now like Scott’s help since he successfully stole the suit. Pym would like Scott to become what he calls the Ant-Man in order to prevent a copy of the shrinking technology from being sold by his former protégée Darren Cross (Corey Stoll). Pym thinks that selling this technology to governments could lead to chaos in the world. Pym and Scott along with Pym’s daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) plan a heist in order to break into the company and steal the technology from Cross.

There are probably folks out there who know who Ant-Man is, but there will be many more people in the audience who don’t. We do need an introduction, but there’s nothing more boring than a standard origin story. “Ant-Man” appears to have been conceived as a comical heist movie first, with the Scott Lang/Ant-Man character dropped in after the major plot points were already worked out. That’s what makes “Ant-Man” such a compelling film to watch. It’s a well thought out plot without seeming so heavy handed.

This does leave the film lacking in character development just slightly. It’s not that the characters in “Ant-Man” are boring or uninteresting, it’s that they’re too familiar. There are so many similarities between this film and some of Marvel’s earlier works where there’s barely a distinction between the films anymore. At times, “Ant-Man” seems very similar to the original “Iron Man” film. That’s not a horrible comparison since “Iron Man” is still probably one of Marvel’s finest offerings. But Marvel needs to look into diversifying their origin stories a little bit, especially with so many coming over the next several years.

Character aside, “Ant-Man” is loaded with a lot of sharp and witty humor thanks to the talented group of writers Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish with additional material from Adam McKay and Rudd. There are many parts of this film that have Wright’s DNA all over it (no surprise since he was initially hired to direct the film as well). Wright is one of the sharpest comedic minds in Hollywood today and it shows in his writing. McKay and Rudd added their own take on the material; most likely bringing the Scott Lang character into someone easier for Rudd to play. Rudd shines as Lang and he’s a perfect choice to play the part. That loveable every-man shtick he brings to all of his roles is largely left out for most of the picture, but he brings it out at all the right times. It’s a balanced performance from Rudd – one of the better offerings of his career, too.

Director Peyton Reed (“Yes Man”) is comfortably in control of the film despite having never worked in the action/sci-fi genre before. I don’t take any real issues with his handling of the film, but I can’t help but think how great this film could have been had Wright been sitting in the director’s chair. He left the project over creative differences with the studio, and he’s not the first person (nor will he be the last) to tell Marvel, “no.” But that leads me to wonder how in-control Reed is of this film, or if Kevin Feige is standing over his should dropping some not-so-subtle hints about what he and the studio would like to see.

Oh well. We can’t judge the film we wanted to see; we can only judge the film we did see, and Peyton Reed’s “Ant-Man” is a well-conceived heist film, filled with all the right amounts of witty humor. I had zero expectations for this and didn’t know what to expect, but it certainly is entertaining and a worthy addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel seems to have found an origin story formula they like and they’re sticking to it. It’s working fine for now, but they need to expand their creative boundaries a little more moving forward. Otherwise, their forthcoming slate of features is going to get old real quick.

Review: Carrie

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

One day, moviegoers are going to realize that remakes really are a gigantic waste of time. Not only a waste of the moviegoer’s time, but a waste of the studios’, the directors’, the producers’ and the talents’ time. Yet, people still pay money to watch the same movie that they probably already own in their DVD collections. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Now, we have a remake of the classic 1976 horror film “Carrie”. The studio even knows it’s doomed because they’ve advertised it as a “reimagining” of the original novel rather than a remake. Their slick advertising techique is quite transparent, and its pretty evident from the beginning that this is nothing more than a simple remake.

Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz) is a shy, quiet and troubled teen in high school. Most of the other students don’t really care for her. Carrie’s mother Margaret (Julianne Moore) is a very strict and religious woman, and she doesn’t even want Carrie attending the public schools. One day after gym class, the other girls in the locker room ridicule and embarrass Carrie.

The bullying is lead by one of the popular girls, Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday). Her friend Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) also participates, but quickly realizes how wrong this is and stops. Gym teacher Ms. Desjardin (Judy Greer) breaks up the commotion and sides with Carrie.

Chris is banned from the upcoming prom for her stunt. Sue, feeling sorry for Carrie, asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to prom instead. Carrie reluctantly agrees despite her mother’s insistence that she doesn’t go. Chris plans for vengeance against Carrie with her boyfriend Billy Nolan (Alex Russell). What her classmates don’t know is that Carrie has a special ability where she can move things with her mind. And what would any sane person with this ability do when someone gets on his or her bad side? I think most people know what happens next.

Nothing new is brought to the table in this version of “Carrie”. I wish I could say this wasn’t a remake of the 1976 film since the source material is based on a Stephen King novel, but it’s hard to see it that way. The book has been readapted, but it’s far from a reimagining. It’s not a shot-for-shot remake but it might as well have been. More inspiration seems to have been drawn from the 1976 film than the novel.

It’s disappointing to see someone as talented as Moretz participate in a remake and bring nothing new to the role. Remakes probably wouldn’t be so awful if they find some way to make it different and unique. Moretz as Carrie White is no different than Sissy Spacek in the same role. Spacek’s portrayal is one of the classic performances in the history of horror films.

Too watch Moretz copy Spacek’s performance is egregious. She’s talented beyond her years and is one of the most gifted teen actresses working in Hollywood today. She wastes her time with “Carrie” and utilizes none of her talent in bringing this role to life. To say her presence here is a disappointment is an understatement.

Moore is the only bright spot. She does portray the role a little differently than Piper Laurie. Moore is always solid in everything she does; not surprisingly she shines here. She’s evil, but doesn’t believe what she’s doing and how she’s raising her daughter is wrong. It’s difficult for someone to successfully pull off an evil role like this, but Moore is such a great and rare talent. She has no issues here.

Director Kimberly Peirce (“Boys Don’t Cry”, “Stop-Loss”) is just as guilty of copying from the original as Moretz. Brian De Palma helmed the original and really brought the horrific imagery of the original King novel to life. He deserves all the credit for the famous scene everyone knows from the original. Peirce tries to make that one famous scene her own. While the effects might be a little sharper (thanks to 2013 CGI), it’s not as effective. Outside of that, everything else feels bland and very similar to the original.

As a reimagining, “Carrie” fails. As a remake, it still fails. There’s nothing new that we haven’t seen before. I don’t understand why there’s a market for remakes these days. It seems that if Hollywood isn’t making a sequel to something, they’re remaking old properties. Was this remake really that necessary? Most aren’t but this one certainly wasn’t. It’s a lazy attempt at remaking yet another horror film. What’s really disappointing is waiting the entire film until the prom expecting something massive and getting nothing different.

To me, remakes are for people who want to see the same story they’ve already seen before, and for studios too cheap to buy new ideas from writers. If that’s the case, studios need to find property that’s good but not well known. At least then we’d be treated to something different. It’s hard to remake something everyone has seen. And if moviegoers really want to see the same story they’ve already seen before, why not just watch the original? In this case, that might be a wise decision.