Ant-Man and the Wasp

Usually, any time that a new Marvel film is being released I get unashamedly excited like a small puppy but as mentioned in my recent Ant-Man review I missed the boat on the whole Ant-Man movement. But with the first film in this series being a surprise hit (with me at least) I was keen to view the follow up pretty shortly after. Here's what I thought. 

I just wasn’t feeling it. How could I be? After Thor: Ragnarok, the cultural phenomenon and record-breaking Black Panther, the heart-breaking Infinity War and the hilarious first instalment of Ant-Man, it didn’t stand a chance. I went in with an open mind and middle to high expectations hoping it would provide the palette cleanse so many reviewers before had claimed it would.

Unfortunately, it didn’t. Ant-Man and the Wasp was no palette cleanser - it was boring and forgettable with a few exceptions which made me exhale slightly harder than usual. I would only rewatch this film if, after seeing Endgame in May, I want to find hidden Marvel easter eggs or references. It's basically an in between film that gets you from one strong Avenger movie to another.

The film begins two years after the events of Captain America: Civil War and during the same time that Infinity War’s storyline occurs. Scott Lang, played once again by Paul Rudd, finds himself bored under house-arrest after helping ‘Cap’, coming up with imaginative ways to entertain his daughter. So, when Hope Van Dyne, Evangeline Lily, and Hank Pym, Michael Douglas, come knocking at his door seeking help to rescue Hope’s mother, Michelle Pfeiffer, who is presumed dead in the Quantum Realm, he can’t resist.

Whilst the plot may sound enjoyable, it’s apparent from the outset that this won’t have the scale, importance or depth that Infinity War had. And that’s the key problem - Marvel has shot itself in the foot by escalating the impressiveness of its films. After the jaw-dropping end to Infinity War which left me speechless, suddenly seeing Scott Lang in a dressing gown trying to make too many jokes felt very out of place and poorly timed. This isn’t helped by the fact the film feels stale too. A lot of the comedy is the same - Luis’s rambling monologues, for example. Whilst Michael Peña is easily the most entertaining character of the film some original humour would have been welcomed rather than variations on the previous films’. On top of this, I couldn’t help disliking Evangeline Lily and Michael Douglas throughout. I'm not against liking the 'bad guy' or feeling conflicted about the 'good guy' but there was something about the pair that didn't sit right in this second film. It's as if I suddenly recognised that the characters had always been under-developed and thoroughly dull. In a film which prides itself on light-hearted comedy and relatable characters, both Lily and Douglas are too cold and blunt - not once while they’re on screen did they make me laugh. Admittedly, Lily kicks ass throughout and it’s exciting to see her adopt the mantle of The Wasp, but their dialogue really brings them down and an actor as prestigious as Douglas felt wasted.

To add to this, the villains were awful. Ghost had some depth but ultimately, was forgettable. We are given a brief insight into her past which aims to make us feel sorry for her - but then, in the same breath, she threatens to kidnap a child which drains any sympathy I may have had for her. Walton Goggins’ southern black-market arms dealer is no better either and acts more as a pawn to further the story than an actual character. This is only worsened when you compare them to other Marvel villains like Thanos, Loki, Ronan and the Winter Soldier (Bucky) to name a few.

That being said, Ant-Man and The Wasp isn’t all bad. For me, the redeeming quality of this film, like in the first, is how the visuals are utilised to cleverly distort the size of objects and people. In the first film, who could forget the iconic Thomas the Tank Engine scene? Well, whilst there was no stand-out scene like that in the sequel, it was amusing to see a gigantic Hello Kitty Pez dispenser hurled out a car as well as an assortment of enlarged functioning Hot Wheels cars which are later used in a surprisingly enjoyable car chase set piece.

Ultimately though, Ant-Man and The Wasp is a minor disappointment. Arguably, this is through no fault of its own – after all, how can you easily follow a film like Infinity War, the culmination of ten years work? That being said, the repetitive, unoriginal humour, boring villains and unambitious storyline didn’t help. I also struggled to see the relevance it had to the overarching MCU storyline other than explaining where Ant-Man was during Infinity War and what occurs in the first credit scene. I'm hoping Endgame has the answers.

Murder on the Orient Express

The world might not have been waiting with bated breath for a new Poirot film, but I'd be lying if I said that the first trailer for Kenneth Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express didn't pique my interest. Bright neon writing, a lengthy tracking shot from a first-person perspective before the reveal of the greatest moustache you've ever seen - Murder on the Orient Express looked radically different from what I expected, which when combined with a really impressive ensemble cast made it something I was actually excited to see.

And for good reason, it turns out. While hardly a must-see movie or the genre revitalisation I had hoped for, Murder on the Orient Express is a mostly well-made and very watchable detective yarn, the kind that you don't often see anymore. You know the story - there's been a murder on the Orient Express, and it's up to Hercule Poirot to solve the mystery. 

Before that though, we get a nice introductory scene in Jerusalem that sees Poirot solving a more minor crime, giving us plenty of time to get accustomed to both his methods and his personality. I'm no Poirot connoisseur (in fact, my knowledge of the character starts and ends at him being smart and mustachioed), but I like Branagh in the role - there is a warmth and theatricality to him that stop his eccentricities or somewhat impersonal manner from painting him as alien or distant, without robbing him of any of his intelligence. Equally impressive are the supporting cast, at least when they're given the chance to be. It was always going to be difficult to balance the needs of the story with a cast this large in a film that's less than two hours long, and while Murder on the Orient Express doesn't always pull that balancing act off, most of these performances are strong enough to leave an impression regardless. Interestingly, it's the newer actors that end up getting the most screen-time rather than the veterans - Daisy Ridley and Josh Gad are arguably the most prominent of the supporting characters, and they're both able to hold their own against the more established cast surrounding them.

The core story may be an interesting one, but writer Michael Green can hardly be given credit for it, and ultimately Branagh's execution of that story is rarely more or less than just serviceable - which isn't to say that it's bad merely that it doesn't do anything to elevate the material beyond what it already offers. Ultimately, even with its star-studded cast, relatively high budget and modern film-making techniques, you've seen this film a dozen times before, whether that be through a previous adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express or even just in the way it so closely resembles almost any other detective story.

Perfectly watchable and considering that it's a film consisting of little more than conversations, it kept me entertained and engaged for most of its running time.

Ant-Man

Big things come in small packages. A cheesy line, but it certainly describes Marvel’s Ant-Man. We’ve known Ant-Man was on the horizon for perhaps as long as we’ve known of the Iron Man films, and yet it took until 2015 for the incredible shrinking Ant-Man to be released (and a further four years for me to ACTUALLY see the film). I’d be lying if I said that Ant-Man’s productions woes, be it delayed filming windows to multiple directors swapping in and out, had me worried about the quality of the film because frankly I didn't care... about the film, the plot or the announced cast. But, for some reason, I found myself sat on the couch ready to watch Ant-Man. So - could something that’s languished in development hell and been passed through many hands come out on the other side successful? The short answer is yes. Of course it did! It's Marvel for god-sake. For the most part Ant-Man succeeds in being funny, heartfelt, action packed and most importantly entertaining.

As Marvel has done in movies past Ant-Man is a super hero film wrapped in the trappings of another genre. The genre of choice this time is a heist film. We’re introduced to Scott Lang, played by Paul Rudd, a recently released thief, who’s chosen by enigmatic Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his appropriately prickly daughter Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) to steal Pym’s former business partner and protégé’s shrinking suit and formula before it can be used for evil. Sounds pretty par for the course, because it ultimately is. Marvel has never really broken new ground when it comes to its plotting, but it’s never needed to. We’re given familiar story elements with a fresh coat of paint, and what a coat of paint it is. Like Marvel’s previous films this movie is packed with wit. It’s a very funny film. At times the humour undercuts the serious elements, or rather the serious elements undercut the humour. It’s difficult to say. The audience is told very early on not to take the film and its happenings too seriously and everything is done with a wink and a nudge. Whenever the film tries to get weighty and bring us a serious dramatic beat we’re left waiting impatiently for the next one-liner. Still, those moments are few and far between and the film is paced well enough that I was never bored.

Ant-Man has a curious power. The Ant-Man suit, powered by Pym Particles, allows the user to shrink down to the size of an Ant. We’ve never seen anything like this from the likes of a super hero movie which is refreshing mid-Avengers campaign. The fight scenes are exciting to watch as Ant-Man switches between big and small so effortlessly that you wonder if anyone could stand a chance against such a nimble and difficult to strike target. Ant-Man even gets the opportunity to fight an Avenger in this film which was a prelude to his appearance in Captain America: Civil War (which I had seen already). Ultimately Ant-Man is just another superhero movie but the way it’s presented is such a breath of fresh air that I decided to watch the movie's sequel Ant-Man and the Wasp shortly after this film finished.

We’ve come to expect quality with Marvel and Ant-Man is right in their sweet spot of humour, action and sympathetic characters. It’s not the best film Marvel has produced, but it’s still a film I am glad not to have missed, I just wish I had realised this sooner and seen it on the big screen.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part

Picking up right where the first film ended before jumping forward in time five years, The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part sees the city of Bricksburg destroyed by Duplo alien invaders and rebuilt as a gritty, post-apocalyptic wasteland called Apocalypseburg, forcing the population (with Emmet as the only exception) to adopt a dark and tough persona in order to survive. But after an alien from the Systar system named General Mayhem kidnaps Batman, Unikitty, Benny, Metalbeard and Wyldstyle, it's up to Emmett to rescue them and prevent OurMomAgeddon, teaming up with a battle hardened space pilot named Rex Dangervest along the way.

It's hectic start to the film, moving at a breakneck pace in order to get the actual story set up as soon as possible, and while that's understandable - everything before General Mayhem shows up is little more than wasted time in the grand scheme of things - it also results in an introduction that's simply not engaging and filled with too much meaningless action to really let you settle in to the movie. It's only when Emmett sets off to find his friends that The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part really finds its feet, at which point it becomes a hugely entertaining movie.

Which probably shouldn't come as all that much of a surprise given Lord and Miller's track record of smuggling real intelligence into concepts that would otherwise be entirely devoid of it, but it still feels a little miraculous when you see it happen right in front of you, expected or not. As with the first film, The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part is practically bursting at the seams with real purpose and genuine thematic weight. What was used in The Lego Movie is instead here used to explore some interesting and topical ideas, and while I'd hate to spoil exactly what ideas those are (half the fun of The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part is seeing exactly where it's heading), you can rest assured that the result is a film with far more on its mind than you might expect.

And that's great - it's always nice to see a film aimed at kids and families that has some real thought behind it - but it wouldn't mean much if The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part wasn't also a damn good film at it's core. Lord and Miller's script is just as funny, smart and endearing as that of The Lego Movie, rarely going more than a few moments without throwing a new gag or two at the audience, making great use of returning characters from the first film while also finding room to introduce some new ones too. With Richard Ayoade's overtly prim and proper Ice Cream Cone, Ben Schwartz' goofy Banarnar (a sentient banana peel) and Stephanie Beatriz' General Mayhem - but the best of them is easily Tiffany Haddish's Queen Watevra Wa'Nabi, a shape-shifting set of blocks whose musical number introduction is be a highlight.

And of course the whole movie is a real feast for the eyes, just as good looking as its predecessor thanks to the highly stylised animation in which almost everything on screen at any given moment is made entirely of Lego, still a novelty worth enjoying even now there have been 4 full films in this franchise. The only real complaint I can make of The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (beyond the aforementioned rushed introduction) is that Mike Mitchell's direction here isn't quite as strong as Lord and Miller's was on The Lego Movie, meaning that some gags don't land as well as they might've with the duo directing - but it seems like such a minor nit-pick in the grand scheme of things that it's not really worth dwelling on. All said and done, The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part is nothing less than a thoroughly joyous time at the cinema and a worthy sequel to The Lego Movie in its own right.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

It's been a good couple of years for Spider-Man fans, which is something of a pleasant surprise when you consider the radically different position the character found himself in just four short years ago. Cast your minds back to the winter of 2014 for a moment – Spider-Man couldn't help but feel like yesterday's news, what with the newly crowned Marvel Cinematic Universe dominating the screen, the Raimi trilogy already being something of a distant memory and Webb's attempt to restart the franchise failing to ignite much passion in anyone but its most vocal detractors. Things weren't looking great for ol' web head – and yet since then, we've seen the character make his debut in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to much applause, star in his first good solo movie since 2004, make a hugely enjoyable appearance in probably the most successful and talked about film of 2018 and even star in his own critically acclaimed and highly successful video game. It's been quite the impressive turnaround – so really, I guess it's only fair that Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse ends continues that winning streak.

We follow Miles Morales, an Afro-Latino New Yorker teenager who (wouldn't you just know it) winds up getting bitten by some kind of radioactive spider and gaining superpowers. But this isn't your average origin story – after a plan to stop a dangerous experiment held by Wilson Fisk goes wrong, several other Spider-Folk are dragged into Miles' universe, all of whom will soon die from the side-effects of being in the wrong universe if they cannot get back to where they came from.

It's an exciting conceptual hook that helps Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse stand out amongst the crowd, but vitally, it's not a hook that ever threatens to overwhelm the film entirely. In fact, it could be argued that Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is actually fairly restrained in this respect – it would have been easy (and I imagine incredibly tempting) to really cram in as many Spider-Folk as possible, but by keeping that number reasonable and ensuring that the real meat of the story centres on just three of them (namely Miles, Peter and Gwen), the film manages to perform a careful balancing act that ensures the multiverse concept neither overpowers the movie nor ends up feeling under-utilised.

The result is a film that manages to both have its cake and eat it too, indulging in all the fun weirdness that the multiverse concept brings while also telling a tight and well-focused story about a young man figuring out his place in the world. I had assumed from the marketing that Nicolas Cage's Spider-Noir or the adorably anime Peni Parker would end up being my favourite characters, but wonderful as they are it was actually Miles himself who ended up taking the top spot. But he's far from the only stand out character – virtually every other character in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse leaves an impression of some kind, whether they be Jake Johnson's Peter Parker, Hailee Steinfeld's instantly iconic Spider-Gwen and others that would be mild spoilers to even talk about.

And it's funny too, which probably shouldn't come as much of a surprise given the talent involved – Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's fingerprints are all over this. They might not have directed it (that particular credit goes to Rodney Rothman, Bob Persichetti and Peter Ramsey) but one has to assume that Lord and Miller were very hands-on producers – it fits their style and sense of humour to a tee, filled with neat visual gags and open slapstick right alongside some character driven humour that never seems to miss, all of which only adds to the sense that Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is an immaculately crafted movie on every level.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse bursts at the seams with innovation and heart, it's a movie that demands your attention from frame one and never wavers in its commitment to earning, so consistently, fundamentally great. Even as a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a fantastic movie that single-handedly justifies Sony's decision to hang on to the rights to the character. I can't see a film this different and daring coming into existence under the Disney banner, and if the price of that is the risk that Spider-Man could simply disappear from the MCU one day? Well, so be it. It's worth it, and I don't say that lightly.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

From a film-making perspective it's bad - drab and unexciting in all the ways that instantly mark it as a David Yates movie - but from a Harry Potter perspective it's downright insulting, inserting clearly made up on the spot backstory where none is needed and (seemingly) altering established facts about this world and its characters on a whim. It's fan fiction-y and pandering in all the worst ways, and it ends with a reveal so deeply unearned by the film itself and totally at odds with the larger Harry Potter canon around it that I have to assume that the characters involved are either mistaken or simply lying, less my brain be turned to mush trying to figure out just what the hell J.K. Rowling was thinking. Making a film "just for fans" is easy - making a film that's "just for fans" that even the fans are going to hate is bloody hard, yet it's the one thing that Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald unequivocally succeeds at.

If I sound exasperated, well, that's because I am. Even ignoring the way that much of the film is effectively just unneeded backstory about characters you don't really care about, from a purely storytelling level, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is fundamentally dysfunctional, consistently failing to give the audience the information they need to be engaged in the movie that they're watching. Like almost all of J.K. Rowling's other writings, it's ultimately a mystery story at heart - but here, the mysteries that are central to the story are so poorly seeded by the film itself that there are multiple instances of the audience not knowing what the question even is until the answer is on-screen in front of them. Worse, even if these mysteries had've been set up better, the answers themselves only either raise more questions, or ultimately have very little impact on anything of importance.

Which means that for the vast majority of it's running time, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is downright directionless, never really feeling like it's started in earnest because it's either unable or unwilling to give you any indication of what this film is ultimately about or where it might be headed until far too late. With the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that at least part of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is Rowling's attempt to reckon with the return of fascism as a political force in the West and the rise of the alt-right, how the disenfranchised can so easily be seduced by a charismatic leader who offers supposedly simple, ideologically driven solutions to complex problems, and that's a noble goal - but frankly, Rowling isn't anywhere near as good a screenwriter as she is an author, and the resulting product can't help but feel flimsy and spineless (and maybe even naive) in comparison to what I imagine it could've been had it been fleshed out in novel form.

But the biggest problem with all this is that it's so easy to imagine what this franchise could've been in the right hands, so easy to see the potential that a prequel series about a young Albus Dumbledore and Newt Scamander travelling around the world doing wizard stuff (that eventually - not yet, but eventually - sees them moving against Grindelwald). I like Eddie Redmayne's Newt Scamander and Dan Fogler's Jacob Kowalski; I like Katherine Waterston's Tina Goldstein (even if she has almost nothing to do here); I like Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore; and much as it pains me to say, I even think that Johnny Depp isn't bad as Grindelwald. There is value here, entertainment to be found if you look hard enough. With a better sense of direction and someone who isn't David Yates at the helm, I do think that these films could've been an interesting entry into the Harry Potter canon.

The Grinch (2018)

For their eighth fully animated feature, Illumination and Universal Pictures present The Grinch, based on Dr. Seuss’ beloved holiday classic. The Grinch tells the story of a cynical grump who goes on a mission to steal Christmas, only to have his heart changed by a young girl’s generous holiday spirit. Funny, heartwarming and visually stunning, it’s a universal story about the spirit of Christmas and the indomitable power of optimism. Illumination’s take on How The Grinch Stole Christmas is as warm and sweet and comforting as a hot mug of cocoa that’s mostly marshmallow.

Those familiar with Dr. Seuss’ Christmas tale will recognise the opening all too well. We sweep and swoop over the town of Whoville—bustling with Christmas colours and sounds—as the introduction to the place and time of year is given through voice over. Feelings of familiarity trickle in, accompanied by a dynamic camera that grabs us by the hand to explore the town. In a movie that might seem uncalled for, the same-ness you might be expecting ends there. The core story is tried and true, but the slick pace of The Grinch doesn’t waste time showing us things we’ve seen before at length, and goes as far as to realign and shed what’s not important in this fictional land. As the happy town of Whoville busies itself preparing for Christmas, Academy Award nominee Benedict Cumberbatch lends his voice to the infamous Grinch, who lives a solitary life inside a cave on Mt. Crumpet with only his loyal dog, Max, for company. With a cave rigged with inventions and contraptions for his day-to-day needs, the Grinch only sees his neighbours in Who-ville when he runs out of food. Each year at Christmas they disrupt his tranquil solitude with their increasingly bigger, brighter and louder celebrations. When the Whos declare they are going to make Christmas three times bigger this year, the Grinch realises there is only one way for him to gain some peace and quiet: he must steal Christmas. To do so, he decides he will pose as Santa Claus on Christmas Eve, even going so far as to trap a lackadaisical misfit reindeer to pull his sleigh. But of course, we all know this classic story by now!

From the snowy opening alone it’s clear the animation style goes straight down the middle. The characters are simple and nothing stands out, but the textures in the snow and materials are delicate, bringing winter and the fuzz on the Whos’ faces to life. What’s most noteworthy is the fun direction. One of the blessings of animation is total control, and that’s something directors Yarrow Cheney and Scott Mosier make full use of. The delights of the swings, loops and circles that dance around the characters are enough to keep the visuals interesting, and even if they weren’t, the saturated colours and beautiful details of Whoville and the Grinch’s mountain peak would be. A lot of what The Grinch lacks in fully developed storytelling is made up for with pretty renderings that do well to distract.

Dr Seuss’ original work is short on side plots and additional details so this animated offering – like the 2000 live-action movie – finds ways to embellish and expand the story. Both offer an insight into the Grinch’s childhood loneliness to provide some motive for his lack of Christmas cheer, but this animated offering also adds in a side plot involving a rotund comedy reindeer called Fred and opts to give Cindy Loo-Who, voiced by Cameron Seely, much more agency than before, giving her a parallel plot of trying to make a Christmas wish for her mother come true. A big difference here is that the 2018 incarnation of The Grinch is immediately more sympathetic than any we’ve seen before. His mean-spiritedness is clearly conflicted, with numerous indications that he’s not the mean and nasty creature of previous versions. His dog Max, for example, is clearly loved and loves the Grinch in return and while he’s not the kindest of friends, the Grinch has friends in Whoville and he’s not the ostracised villain seen in other adaptations.

It’s exactly what you would expect, though, from Illumination, whose family-friendly animated offerings often skew young and cutesy and when it comes to that target audience, this film plays like gangbusters. The Grinch won’t be revelatory for anyone who’s seen on-screen translations before, but for a new generation of little ones it spreads a wonderful message of love and outreach. So although this film will be added to my annual December viewing list, it does not reach the level of the 2000s adaptation. Jim Carrey still holds the Grinch crown in my eyes.