Peter Suderman Reviews Ant-Man


Marvel Studios/Disney

I thought Ant-Man was okay, but there were a few things that, um, bugged me. Here's the opening to my review… 

When Marvel announced a few years back that it was finally going into production with a big-budget movie based on its decidedly not-so-big superhero, "Ant-Man," the response, at least from those who are not longtime comic book readers, was more than a little confused.

Ant-Man? Why Ant-Man?

Marvel's other big-screen hits may have been somewhat unlikely, but you could always see the case for the multiplex treatment: Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk and Thor were all, in their own way, iconic characters, well-recognized, even if not always well-read, outside of the comic-geek niche.

And with four of them in play, it was possible to set up a team-up movie, "The Avengers," which, of course, went on to become a massive hit as well as one of the most beloved blockbusters in recent memory.

Even the intergalactic weirdos of "Guardians of the Galaxy" made a certain kind of sense: They provided an entry point into Marvel's vast cast of cosmic characters; besides, the movie itself was just "Star Wars" in superhero drag.

But what about Ant-Man? He's barely known, even in this era of Wikipedia-fueled comic-book completism, and he's hardly anyone's favorite hero. What could a guy who wears a suit that makes him small and allows him to control ants — seriously, ants — bring to Marvel's never-ending comic-book movie party?

The only possible reason for making the movie was the involvement of writer-director Edgar Wright, the mind behind genre comedy classics "Hot Fuzz" and "Shaun of the Dead."

But Mr. Wright left before the movie got off the ground.

Now that I've seen the movie, I'm afraid I still don't know what Marvel saw in Ant-Man post-Wright, and I'm not sure the maestros behind Hollywood's most successful interconnected universe know either.

Read the complete review in The Washington Times.