Regie:
Peyton ReedKamera:
Dante SpinottiMusik:
Christophe BeckBesetzung:
Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer, Michael Peña, Walton Goggins, Hannah John-Kamen, Laurence Fishburne, Bobby Cannavale (mehr)Streaming (5)
Inhalte(1)
Immer noch erschüttert von den Ereignissen von The First Avenger – Civil War wird Scott Lang von Dr. Hank Pym mit einer neuen Mission konfrontiert. Einmal mehr muss er sich in den Anzug werfen und nun an der Seite von The Wasp im Team kämpfen, um gemeinsam die Geheimnisse der Vergangenheit zu lüften. (Walt Disney Deutschland)
Kritiken (12)
Hamster in a Nightshirt 2! Great family entertainment, made more special with quantum fun. The story picks up from part 1 with a detour to the Civil War. The action is more impressive, enlarging and shrinking things plays a larger role this time. The chase around San Francisco is seething with ideas. The Wasp gives a better performance than Ant-Man himself. It is set immediately before and during the Infinity War, but it reveals nothing new, which is a bit of a shame. They stole our damn lab!
()
Als einer der wenigen Filme aus dem MCU können die Ant-Man-Filme herausgenommen und als eigenständige Komödie betrachtet werden, ohne dass sie dadurch verlieren würden. Der zweite Film wird auch durch die Rückkehr von Michelle Pfeiffer zu den Comics aufgewertet (alle verneigen sich immer noch vor ihrer Catwoman aus Batmans Rückkehr), und es ist das erste Mal, dass Michelle und Michael Douglas auf der Leinwand zusammentreffen, etwas, das seit drei Jahrzehnten erwartet wurde. Und als Sahnehäubchen können sich Filmkenner über eine Liebeskomödie freuen, in der Paul Rudd mit Michelle ausgeht (auch wenn zwischen den beiden 11 Jahre liegen). Ich empfehle also auch, sich Hauptsache verliebt noch einmal anzusehen.
()
Viele Situationen sind zum Verrücktwerden witzig, so wie im ersten Teil. Im Unterschied zu ihm gab es aber auch Momente, in denen der Humor um jeden Preis da war. Vielleicht habe ich erwartet, dass der Hauptheld ein bisschen erwachsener ist und der Plot ein bisschen ernster, schicksalhafter (die Geschichte von Hank und Janet hat mich viel mehr als die Hauptgeschichte interessiert). Das ist aber nicht passiert. Am Ende des Films wurde mir bewusst, dass so etwas zu Ant-Man And The Wasp wahrscheinlich nicht passen würde. Wahrscheinlich.
()
More of the same, you could say. I wasn't particularly interested in the first Ant-Man, I don't really like Paul Rudd. Visually, the film reminded me of a more expansive episode of a TV series and I rank it as one of the last among the Marvel movies. On the other hand, I can easily respect it as popcorn entertainment that's supposed to be for the whole family. And that's what Ant-Man and The Wasp is. If you liked the first one, the second one won't disappoint you because it relies on the same things. Logically, I wasn't that blown away by it. Peyton Reed still can't do anything that is visually interesting and relies on Rudd, jokes and weird side characters. It's a shame, because he's got a very interesting villain that someone more skilled and with a more serious approach could have pulled off much better. Here, though, he crams in a lot of fun up front, which was unnecessarily too much for my taste, plus it often teetered on the edge of awkwardness. I don't want to be unfair to the film, however. With Marvel, I appreciate that they try to make the films somehow genre-specific. And for me, this genre simply doesn't fit well.
()
I had a problem already with the first Ant-Man. I said to myself that within the entire Marvel Universe, he is a very average character that, on the other hand, has the setting in which it takes place working for him. Well, and the sequel? It lost even the entertaining setting, or well, it depends… There isn’t much going on in the first 80 minutes of the film and every now and then Michael Peña comes in to the rescue, as he is at least a bit entertaining. But in the final almost 40 minutes, things finally start happening, which fortunately makes the movie a bit livelier. Otherwise, I would have had to go with less than three stars. All in all, however, the Ant-Man did not convince me even the second time around and I rank him among the least interesting heroes in the entire Marvel Universe.
()
For me weaker than the first one and also a weaker cinema visit this year. This is a downright Marvel movie for kids. Not much Action, childish humour (at least Michael Peña was funny at times, but I don't find Paul Rudd funny at all). A weak villain who didn't really show much of anything, it dragged at times unfortunately and I would have preferred sleeping in places. Compared to The Avengers and Deadpool it's a big drop down, but it still sort of holds that standard average. 55%
()
With its confident approach, better team dynamics, and the abilities of the main hero expanded by a hair better than the first installment, it is also surprisingly a strong part of the whole universe. Given that it has not deviated from its heist schemes, family pathos, or even purely physical comedy, Scott Lang himself (and now perhaps Hope van Dyne) is an easily fitting piece of the puzzle that can shine on its own.
()
Ant-Man is a bit second tier in the Marvel universe, but purely feeling-wise I’m a bit more satisfied with the resulting product in many aspects than I with the A-list blockbusters about destroying the world in a number of ways. It's more intimate script-wise, emotionally lighter, and at the same time fresh and mostly funny. An exceptional Marvel movie with a good script that is full of twists and turns, but at the same time the core makes sense, without any twists pulled out of thin air. Bombastic visual effects that culminate brilliantly in the most breakneck action scenes, but the digital rejuvenation is good too. It’s still mass-produced stuff from the M brand, but it’s watchable, at least once.
()
Very nice and a big surprise for me. Ant-Man hasn’t changed, doesn’t give a crap about the fatefulness the Avengers and offers an enjoyable ride that manages to work with many characters, always keeping itself together, even though the humour is repetitive at times and the action is so cheesy that it’s almost pointless to root for the heroes. In terms of style, it’s nothing earth shattering, but Reed has a lot of entertaining ideas up his sleeve, the heroes are all great (as are their actors), the narration escalates well connecting all the four subworlds in a sensible way. I really had fun and I don’t feel guilty about it.
()
The final credits sum it all up – Ant-Man is really nothing more than a little tyke's Saturday afternoon with a giant Lego set. On the one hand, it's irritating in the randomness of the situations, where basically nothing has any greater internal integrity; on the other hand, it's pleasing to see a lot of creativity in the action scenes and generally the second half of the film, when a bunch of people keep tossing a building around between them like a hot potato. By the way, I'd like to see the interior of the building when it's enlarged. Unfortunately it’s never quite daring enough to make me respect the film, and instead still clings to juvenile humor built around a confused hero in a strange situation, with Paul Rudd playing pretty much a family-friendly version of Deadpool here, i.e. not funny and sorely in need of a beating. After ten years of this, we should all be asking for more from Marvel. I'm dropping it a star for that reason, though compared to Black Panther or Infinity War at least this was fun.
()
I had a great time with the first Ant-Man. It had an action-packed plot filled with exactly my kind of humor. This is why I was quite disappointed with the second installment. There was humor, but it was sort of uptight. The only characters who could really make me laugh were Luis and his two employees. The plot felt like a family adventure film, the only thing missing was a wife and two kids under twelve sitting next to me.
()
After the nerve-wracking Infinity War, here's a sequel about the smallest (or is it biggest?) Marvel hero that (by MCU standards) actually takes a pretty relaxed route, serving up a fine film with a family feel instead of a heavyweight story about saving the world. There are of course references to the MCU world, but I haven't had such a laid-back and relaxed feeling from a Marvel movie in a long time. Paul Rudd may be the weakest Avenger in terms of acting, but thankfully it doesn't matter too much in his solo films. Evangeline Lilly gives a decent performance, and she looks wickedly good to boot. After the bland and flavorless first Ant-Man, I've gotten a better taste in my mouth from the second installment, and I'm downright excited for the third.
()
Werbung