Marvel goes small, cuts corners with 'Ant-Man'

I'm not the best judge of how Marvel's "Ant-Man" works as summer entertainment. My idea of a good "Ant-Man" movie was forever tarnished when director Edgar Wright left the project.

Wright has written and directed some of my favorite movies of the past decade, including "Hot Fuzz" and "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World." He spent years developing the "Ant-Man" movie for Marvel, dating back to before the studio was iron clad at the box office.

The idea of a superhero movie centered around a guy who shrinks and talks to bugs definitely requires the distinct comic sensibilities of someone like Wright. With him on board, along with the casting of Paul Rudd, it seemed like Marvel would allow the movie to veer from the studio's typical tone.

Then Wright exited last year, citing creative differences with Marvel executives. Peyton Reed ("Bring It On") stepped in to direct, and Rudd and Adam McKay ("Anchorman") reworked the screenplay.

The seeds of Wright's "Ant-Man" exist in the finished product, and the director is still given story credit on the film. It's impossible to know exactly how the film differs from Wright's vision. I just know his movie would have been better.

Reed is a competent director. Rudd and McKay have a decent track record as screenwriters. But none of them can overcome the crushing mediocrity in which Marvel showers "Ant-Man." Since it must exist within the heralded Marvel Cinematic Universe, the movie isn't allowed to be more than sequel setup and franchise synergy.

Rudd's thief-turned-hero Scott Lang is given a flimsy backstory, and the comedian is more restrained in the role than hoped. Michael Douglas has the fun backstory as (original Ant-Man) Hank Pym, but the movie isn't interested in exploring it beyond a few "sequel teases." Evangeline Lilly plays a generic love interest. Corey Stoll is an even more generic villain. The origin story is pretty much the same as every other superhero movie, just with more CGI ants.

Until the third act, "Ant-Man" seems completely neutered. The highlight is an unnecessary fight between Ant-Man and the Avenger known as Falcon, as played by Anthony Mackie in a couple previous Marvel installments. The scene seems like it was inserted last minute, because Marvel worried moviegoers might forget about their precious interconnected universe.

"Ant-Man" almost turns it around in the final act. The humor is better integrated, and the action sequences build suspense by scaling down and embracing the smallness of the premise. There's an intense fight inside a briefcase, and a Thomas the Tank Engine toy plays a part in the final battle.

It could be the final 30 minutes of the film are entirely new ideas developed after Wright left the project. If I had to guess, though, that's the last threads of his original vision. The humor in Wright's previous movies are often anchored by visual gags and a very specific pace of editing. Reed, to his credit, doesn't try to imitate the pacing, but the seeds of Wright's influence feel strongest in the finale.

Beyond that, Marvel Studios made sure the rest of "Ant-Man" works enough to keep their cinematic universe flowing smoothly into the next phase. Paul Rudd will appear in next year's "Captain America: Civil War," and it won't seem at all out of place. That's the problem. Why couldn't "Ant-Man" just be the weird outlier? He's a tiny man who talks to ants! The premise doesn't justify a multi-picture franchise.

Again, I might not be a fair critic. I'd much rather see an Edgar Wright movie than any of Marvel's plans for the next decade. When everything is connected, it all starts to bleed together.

Tyler Wilson can be reached at twilson@cdapress.com.