Unlike in most of the franchises where the third installment is the weakest, MCU happens to be consistent in making the second installment the weakest one, except for "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014). "Ant-Man and The Wasp" is a continuation in the legacy. It was mostly vague, and almost a total crap. It doesn't try to be anything more than a filler. To be honest, it felt like a dumbed down version of "25th Hour" with a lighter tone featuring some superhero characters. It simply aims at being a movie with some little fun stuff but being disposable on the whole. Both of the major plotlines - one involving Ghost and the other involving Sonny Burch felt just like something that was there to help the plot go further. The characterization of Ghost and Burch have no depth in them. Burch is totally shallow and one dimensional and generic. Ghost has a little backstory, and isn't enough to get behind the character. The motives which drive both the plotlines are totally clichéd and thinly built. It felt as if they thought 'Ghost isn't a good villain, let's distract the viewers by giving them the other plotline'. This created an "Iron Man 2" level of multiple plotline mess - a little less interesting. Ant-Man is a sidekick in this movie. From someone who could bring about a well planned heist to a doofus - with no explanation. Giant Man plays into the story, but it's more for slapsticky purposes. Also, the original Wasp gets some powers in the Quantum Realm which are not even explained by this movie. Surely, it might be explained in future films, but it could've easily done that. Lawrence Fishburne feels like a wasted talent in this movie. It seemed like a promising character, but turned out to be the same old "good guy in the bad guy's side" character. One good thing about this movie, besides the cast, is the deaging CGI. It looked awesome. To me, it felt like Michael Douglas from the 90s with just a different hair and almost similarly with others. Father-daughter dynamic between Scott and his daughter was likeable. To sum it up, I must say that it was way below my expectations. It's not that I have watched an impactful and emotionally craving "Avengers: Infinity War" and I wasn't in a mood to watch something so less impactful. I knew it wasn't going to be a spectacular as IW but neither did I expect it to be so much of a mediocrity. It's not that the aftermath of IW has holded this movie down. After a long time, it will develop the same legacy as that of "Iron Man 2", at best. I wonder how the same critics who panned "Justice League" (2017) for having a thin plot and creating a mess gave it a thumbs up. As someone who likes "Ant-Man" (2015) and considers it to be the most underappreciated MCU movie till date, its sequel was mediocre at best. I thought "Black Panther" was going to be the worst MCU movie of 2018, but I was wrong. It's "Ant-Man and The Wasp". It gets a "D+" and a "4.1/10".
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) 1080p YIFY Movie
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) 1080p
As Scott Lang balances being both a Super Hero and a father, Hope van Dyne and Dr. Hank Pym present an urgent new mission that finds the Ant-Man fighting alongside The Wasp to uncover secrets from their past.
IMDB: 7.434 Likes
The Synopsis for Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) 1080p
In the aftermath of (2016), Scott Lang grapples with the consequences of his choices as both a superhero and a father. As he struggles to rebalance his home life with his responsibilities as Ant-Man, he's confronted by Hope van Dyne and Dr. Hank Pym with an urgent new mission. Scott must once again put on the suit and learn to fight alongside The Wasp as the team works together to uncover secrets from their past.
The Director and Players for Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) 1080p
The Reviews for Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) 1080p
Weak second installment in the MCU - part 5.Reviewed byKmb_the_Nepali_reviewerVote: 4/10
From the opening scene, this movie was worse than could have imagined. The relationship between Paul Rudd and his on screen daughter is so cheesy, like Brady Bunch cheesy. Michael Douglas obviously didn't get the memo that he's supposed to be the straight, serious scientist because he cracks jokes the whole time. The romantic subplot between Antman and the Wasp was a bore. The presence of the villains seemed just a necessary cog to propel the action scenes/use cool CGI.
It was a waste of good actors because Michael Douglas, Paul Rudd and Randall Park are all excellent usually. Park does have some good moments but honestly, you always see the punchline being set up from a mile off. I went to the bathroom halfway through just to have a break. There's nothing more cringy than a movie full of people all trying too hard to be funny.
So I think I can officially say it this time:
This is the first Marvel film I can undoubtedly say I thought was bad. VERY bad, as a matter of fact.
Let's start from the beginning; I enjoyed the first 'Ant-Man' film. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It reeks of re-writes and five different people working on its script. That said, it's imaginative and fun and I can at least roll with it and find it amusing at its worst lows and creative at its highest highs.
But this...this...this just felt like it was there to just be 'there'.
The characters: Paul Rudd is Paul Rudd. That may sound like a joke, but in all honesty, I have trouble finding a character in Scott Lang beyond "Paul Rudd". His character lacks any real depth, and I find it a struggle to truly care for him by the end of this film or even grasp onto a new development of his character that resulted in his film. He gives off the AIR of being likeable, and I DO like Paul Rudd's performance in this, but other than that...he's an actor playing himself. I don't see "Scott Lang". I see "Paul Rudd".
Michael Douglas? Again, I LOVE Michael Douglas as an actor, but...he spouts technobabble, we're left confused as to what it all means, and we end up just seeing Hank Pymm as a dispensary of science talk and lacking a character. This entire film is about him and his quest to find his wife...yet we never get anything intimate for his character beyond a scene or two (Which are played for laughs anyway, so who cares?).
Evangeline Lily and Michelle Pfeiffer, however, suffer the most here. Never have I seen such flat female characters in a superhero film since the mid-2000's of half-baked Marvel adaptation films. Hope Van Dyne is positioned as such a vital character in this film (Her character's name is IN THE TITLE), yet she feels completely jammed into a "Badass girl who kicks you" stereotype with little-to-no depth. For a character who we were "promised" would be vital to this film, I know very little about her beyond what I already knew from the first film.
Pfeiffer suffers just as much, as she too is treated as only the role of "Woman who must be rescued". We get no development of her character as they search for her, no characterization, no scene that at least gives us an idea of what she was like or what she did.
But what development we DO get is expressed through some truly awful sequences where the events of the first film are needlessly recapped, character backstories are flipped through and swatted-away just so the writers can say they included it, and take away any and all depth that could be explored with these characters.
Instead, everything is FLAT. And I think that word describes this film perfectly. "Flat".
"Flat" is what the characters are. "Flat" is the cinematography and lighting of the film that looks like any other cut-and-dry comedy film with no inventiveness or seeming effort to make this look creative.
And "Flat" is how the humor of this screenplay falls. For the thousands of swings this film takes at humor, it lands it about 20 times, and misses all the rest. The theater I was in was awkwardly quiet, simply because it was trying TOO HARD to be funny. The wit of the first film worked far better in that it didn't need to TRY to be funny.
Instead, we have Michael Pena and Paul Rudd's heist friends rambling in scenes that feel improved and landing no jokes whatsoever. Other than a few scenes that were indeed humorous and garnered a big laugh or two from the audience and myself...clearly, the audience wasn't feeling it.
And neither was I.
In addition, the editing for this film incited a rare reaction of mine where I felt total whiplash in a jump from one scene to another. Quite literally, one transition from a scene to another was the most jarring and disjointed thing I've ever seen, and it left myself and my girlfriend audibly asking ourselves in our theatre seats if we just missed an entire scene. Not good at all.
All that considered...I didn't absolutely hate every aspect of this film. The action scenes where they play with size are still mildly interesting, although even they can't save this film as they lack the ambition and creativeness that the first had. Paul Rudd is entertaining enough as...Paul Rudd, and even a few scenes involving Michael Pena and his friends elicit a chuckle or two.
That said...I can't help but feel this film is an utter mess. A mess of mediocrity, poor editing, poor character writing, 2-3 action scenes that are nothing beyond "Serviceable", and attempts at humor that throws the entire buffet at you...but in the end, you only end up with empty calories.
And that's how I feel about this film. Empty.
...+1 whole point for that Tim Heidecker cameo, though...