Reviews for Ant-Man and the Wasp ( 2018 ) 720p

I have absolutely no clue why the bad reviews ,, probably they just watched this movie without watching the first one !! or any other avengers movie !!

By: Aktham Tashtush
The movie is funny ... Paul Rudd is hilarious .. the plot has no strong "entanglement" to the last stories ... and the surprise at the credits scene was crazy ,,connecting it to the last Avengers movie ,,.

This movie has a strong plot ... really funny and the script to me looked as strong as the first movie in many scenes ... and as i said the last scene in an "Avengers" style making us expect for sure a third movie to come .

The cast was great ,, Paul Rudd proved again he is the perfect Ant-man ,, the banter and the wittiness was endless ,, and the chemistry between him and Evangeline Lilly was on point ... I loved Michael Pe?a .. Oh my goodness the scene with the Truth serum was just crazy funny... in general all the characters did well .

Final thought ,, there are a lot of weirdly bad reviews ,, but believe me when i say .. this is way better than the other Avengers sequels have ever been ,well maybe not Iron Man 2 .. but it is up there .. so watch it ,, not gonna regret it .

Made Iron Man 3 entertaining

By: ardnael
This movie by far was BORING with absolutely predictable story line, dull lifeless characters, a lot of drama with little storyline. They assume you have the feels for these characters who you've barely seen on screen, is nothing like the comics, and therefore who you care nothing about. Not really sure why it's "and wasp" was it because of the subtext of a love story? Who knows. It had a few moments of amusement but then you realize how absolutely dumb the comedy was because they repeat the same premise of that joke over and over and over again in the movie. I have insomnia and this movie put me to sleep. Yet another example of the future of MCU as Disney dulls it down. Waste of time and money I will not be watching if and when they make another one.

Ant-Man returns

By: TheLittleSongbird
Having enjoyed a vast majority of Marvel's superhero output (more so than most) without worshipping them, 'Ant-Man' was a minor effort from them but there was still a good amount to like about it. Despite being positively received by critics, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' as of now has received also heavy criticism from fans and some Marvel non-fans, so was conflicted in seeing it.

'Ant-Man' and its slightly superior follow-up 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' managed to be better than expected. 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' to me was not as great as critics are saying, but it is also nowhere near as bad as people here have said, while sharing a few of their criticisms. Do like the character of Ant-Man. He is not exactly a household name and is always tossed aside in favour of other superhero characters like Spiderman that have had longer longevity and perhaps have more compelling origins and stories, hence why they are adapted more. Also wasn't sure what to make of the trailer, which made the film out to be rather bland in story and too reliant on humour while being very well made, directed and acted with thrilling action and funny and clever moments.

Seeing it for myself, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' could have been better and has its faults, ones that are somewhat the same as the first 'Ant-Man' and somewhat what was expected from watching the trailer. The script is mostly fine, but has patchy moments, namely the overly-wordy and sometimes over-complicated jargon and inconsistent humour. While the humour mostly works wonders, there are a few instances where it's not so funny and not very well placed.

Such as in emotional scenes that are actually quite poignant and heart-warming (more so generally than 'Ant-Man')and then interrupted by a joke that is not only forced and unfunny but also not belonging in the scene, though more sporadically thankfully than before. The family scenes are a mixed bag, sometimes they are sweet and touching, the chemistry is more believable here, while at other times they're a little flat and predictable, contributing towards a few rare dull stretches in a film that generally is appropriately lighter in tone and faster paced.

Like many people here, also found the villains underwhelming. Burch is especially pointless and forgettable and only really there because there seemingly needed to be an obligatory villain when actually there could have been just one. 'Thor Ragnarok' and 'Infinity War' only had one major one, and they, especially Thanos were the best villains in the Marvel canon. Ghost fares a little better and is an improvement over Corey Stoll's under-characterised villain in the first 'Ant-Man', her problem was that her back-story was very rushed and didn't feel developed enough. Michelle Pfeiffer is wasted in a very underwritten plot-device role.

On the other hand, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' is a great looking film, it's beautifully shot, very atmospheric, is very slick and the special effects, are clever and of the usual high-quality Marvel standards. The music avoids being over-bearing, one-note, too quirky or too bombastic, fitting well tone, mood and pace-wise.

Direction is more than competent, keeping the story going at a solid pace and the telling of it interesting enough, though maybe a little more flavour may have been more welcome. While the action is not as much as most Marvel films, it is fun, thrilling, nicely choreographed and tautly shot and edited, especially towards the end. The stuff with sizes was clever visually and interested and entertained while the film is better than a lot of sequels in being consistent in the continuity.

There is some very smart and hugely entertaining scripting and dialogue here in 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' too. While it doesn't work completely seamlessly, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp's humour when it works is some of the funniest stuff of all Marvel films, and the film doesn't take itself too seriously or too much of a joke either, instead not being afraid to embrace the silliness and humour while ensuring still that the subject matter is treated with respect. The truth serum and the feminine side being brought out parts were hilarious.

The story is mostly diverting, it's and the first 'Ant-Man' film are narratively simpler than most Marvel outings and less risks here are taken than most Marvel films but it always makes sense, moments of dullness and jarring are few (while not being completely absent either), it's fun and it doesn't try to do too much or try to insert too many characters.

While not complex as such, the characters are mostly engaging, with the reservations being with the villain and Pfeiffer's character. Paul Rudd is a strong and hugely entertaining lead, while Michael Pe?a's hilarious in a role that could have been really annoying. The seasoned support of a distinguished Michael Douglas adds hugely too, and Evangeline Lilly and Abby Ryder Fortson give the film some much needed heart. Hannah John-Kamon does command the screen and Walton Goggins has an oily presence that is more than what the forgettable and useless character deserved.

Overall, not one of Marvel's best and has its flaws but a good sequel and film with many great things. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Leave the PG humor and drama at the door

By: Comedy_Disney_Marvel_Central
MCU should make PG cartoons of Avengers instead of integrating over the top humor with MCU. The word "toony" and "cartoony" is describing Star Wars and Marvel movies because of some of the star wars videos from upset fans. Although "Toony" "Cartoony" "Anime-ish" are perfect descriptions for MCU's latest movies. The first Avengers movie was perfect. But the comedy gets worse, pushing jokes beyond Marvel's limits. There's no comic book nostalgia in Ant-Man 2 or the Avengers Infinity war. I don't recognize any stories from the comic books. The characters are comedians now; they feel like brand new characters.

Terrible

By: dave-18887
So bad, you'd be forgiven for thinking this was a DC film.

Mediocre movie, nothing worthy of the big screen

By: dcobbimdb
I'm a huge Marvel fan, and pretty much see all of them in the theaters, I was a bit hesitant with this one just because I thought the original Ant-Man was "just okay."

In the end the 2nd one wasn't memorable, the story was okay, nothing earth shattering or particularly cool. I'm not saying this because the last Avengers blew everything away, I'm rating on this movie on it's own merit

My biggest complaints was the humor (which we've come to expect from Marvel movies and usually funny), was just off or not funny at all. The only humor that kind of worked for me was Luis and his parts, but even that wasn't enough to carry the movie.

This movie also failed from the lack of a decent "bad guy" and again I'm not saying this because of the recent Avengers, but the bad guys or gals in this movie just didn't do anything for me. I didn't like them, I didn't dislike them, I didn't care about them. Overall they were little more than a backdrop and if anything felt slapstick funny, but without the funny...

Acting & special effects wise it was okay, but again with a story I didn't really care about or characters I didn't really have much investment in, it was hard for the acting to transcend that and help make me care. Special effects were good, which is 100% expected these days but nothing that blew me away visually.

I guess if you're a huge fan of Ant-Man or the Wasp, then maybe you'll get more out of this than I did. Other than it tying in certain aspects of the Avengers timeline and giving you a bit more understanding of why Ant-Man wasn't present in the Avengers I got very little out of this movie. Even the after credits scene was stupid and felt more just like filler because they had to do it. Sadly a movie like this makes me put into question whether Marvel really wants to put out good movies or just simply put anything out there to make money

Just Fun & Inventive.

By: rjsuno
While the villains are weak (typical of the MCU overall) this movie is a worthy sequel to Ant-Man.

I think there's a group looking to slam this film with excessively negative reviews. No clue what their endgame is, unless they're DC loyalists tired of Marvel winning out repeatedly.

Whatever the case may be, I'm looking forward to the further adventures of Scott Lang. And plenty of others are as well.

Joyful

By: jasondaggeron
It's joyful in a special way. I recommend it.

How could anybody rate this movie 1-star, 2-stars?

Bad Everything.

By: Jro619
This movie was doomed from the first frame and it never got better. I regret wasting my time watching it all the way through. It offered no compelling reasons to buy into the concept of "big and small". To top that, the "Good Daddy and Cute Daughter" subplot is worn out and dead. Nothing makes sense. Nothing is cleaver. Nothing is funny.

Pretty good actually

By: erenerginler
I actually quite liked this film. It certainly wasn't bad. In fact, it's my 9th favorite movie in the mcu. Now it could have been better, but I really enjoyed it. But to be honest, the villian wasn't that great. As much as I like this film, I will admit that yellow jacket from the first one was a better villian.

Quantum dumbness

By: talwinder1508
This movie is just another level of idiocy I mean Quantum idiocy

Blah

By: darkyoda
I actually snoozed a bit during the movie. I haven't done that at the theaters in who knows how long. The only thing that the leads did during any chase or action sequence was to shrink to get away or grow big to fight someone. There was nothing innovative about the script. Pretty lame for a marvel movie. The comments that were aimed at being funny landed flat or were plain annoying. And the ending was actually laughable (not in a good way).

Weak second installment in the MCU - part 5.

By: Kmb_the_Nepali_reviewer
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 clich├ęd 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".

No reason for this movie

By: bri_j_har
Congrats, Thor: The Dark World. You're no longer the worst movie in the MCU. There was no point to this movie. There were some funny moments and good performances by the actors, but not enough to make up for the lack of plot. The first post-credit scene was the best part of the movie.

Waste of time, worst ever marvel movie

By: lal_rakesh
If marvel made ant man miss latest avengers for this crap, then they really need to focus on one movie at a time. No grip over script, unnecessary science and boring dialogues. We were really thinking of leaving the hall midway through movie, but finished in hope that end might be saviour, but no. Utter disappointment!

Not worth your time

By: otranto-dra
Easily the worst of the Marvel Universe. The entire movie could have been the last 5 minutes of the first Ant-Man. Paul Rudd felt awkward throughout, and Michael Douglas proves he's not all that great an actor.

Saw this on the new ScreenX in Kansas City which was very underwhelming and not worth the extra $8.

as bad as it gets

By: curiousmolar
Adding quantum in front of every statement doesn't add much to anything. It's one of the worst movie of all time.

Flat.

By: Brian Sciro
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...

Flat.

By: littlemankazoo
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...

It's okay

By: nothimme
If you love shallow movies.

There isn't any depth in this movie. The jokes, story, villains, subplots. It all falls flat. It all one-dimensional. We have a mysterious-looking antagonist named Ghost, but she can't be mysterious, and at one point she serves up a clot of over complicated exposition that gives the film little bit action. You don't care if she'll accomplish her goal or not. You don't even care which side is going to win. We have lots of jokes, but they're all stale. If you guys find this humour funny, I'm sorry, I just can't take the movie seriously. While some ''intense'' interrogation scene was going on someone's cell is ringing with a joke sound. And this call is in this movie just because to be there - just because to be ''funny''. It doesn't have any contribution to the story. We have a story that concerns a rescue mission. But there isn't any complexity or twist that blows the audience away. Just flat. You could easily predict what's going to happen next. We have a subplot concerning a romantic relationship between Antman and the Wasp. But there isn't much, it just teases us around. And that's all. We have another subplot concerning a lovely relationship between a dad and a 10 years old girl, which is not very well developed but a little bit heartwarming because it's a relationship between a dad and a 10 years old girl.

While a woman who is in constant physical and emotional pain is trying not to die, the movie is trying to be funny. Peyton Reed maybe should've gone for the head, not chest. But then again, he can't, Disney has the strings. It got to try to be colorful, amiable, ''funny'' with forced jokes. I really wonder when Marvel and Disney are going to take some risks and make a groundbreaking superhero movie. I guess never. Critics and audience fine with eating this.

There isn't any climax, or depth, or emotion. Just a filler movie with no heart and soul.