Tag Archives: evangeline lilly

Ant-Man

Ant-Man is a heist movie AND a father-daughter relationship movie, so it’s alright in my book.

by Callum Petch (Twitter: @CallumPetch)

ant man 3OK, that’s exaggerating a little, but it gets at the precarious little platform that I am currently stood on.  Unlike most people (that I hang around with), I am still all aboard the Marvel Studios train.  I have liked or loved every film they’ve put out to various degrees, except Iron Man 3 which is just garbage save for The Mandarin twist, and I will continue to like them until they start putting out multiple bad movies in a row.  That said, I am nearing the verge of burnout and plain old cynicism about superhero movies as a whole.  The Marvel movies are formula, I know and understand that, which will one day soon wear out its welcome, whilst everybody else seems to be on a mission to drain every last strain of fun out of the genre with an even stricter adherence to rote formula, deathly seriousness, and blatant franchising during the initial birth stages.

It’s a recent occurrence, but it’s not one that I’m particularly happy with.  Even though I don’t read comic books, I love me some good superhero movies!  But most of them nowadays aren’t good, and the sheer number of them on the horizon is now, for the first time, genuinely daunting to me.  I love this genre, but it needs to try new things or it risks losing me.  Of next year’s load of superhero flicks to come, Deadpool is the one I’m actually looking forward to most because, even though the trailer isn’t particularly funny by most metrics, it looks different instead of more of the same, or needlessly and endlessly miserable.

Which, with that context out of the way, brings us onto Ant-Man, a heist movie wearing the clothes of a superhero movie.  In stark contrast to most every other movie released during Marvel’s Phase Two, and this includes Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man is a very small-scale film that focuses in on a tight cast of characters, withholds basically all of its action until the last 30 or so minutes, and has stakes that only really affect our immediate cast more than anything else.  In fact, there’s something that rings false whenever anybody tries to insist that the central technology that everyone is fighting over would cause untold chaos if released into the public, like saying so is just a reflex that everyone involved can’t kick.  The truth is that the stakes are small, the pacing is deliberate, and the focus is on the characters more than the plot.

Said plot, and the characters that populate it, follows Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), a recently freed convict who was arrested for robbing from a powerful company and handing out its funds to their employees.  He wants to do right by his young daughter Cassie (Abby Ryder Fortson), but is drawn back to crime when his attempts at finding a job go as well as you’d expect for an ex-con.  Fortunately, this time he’s being secretly swept into the world of Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) who is trying to recruit Scott to pull off a daring heist.  Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), the head of Pym Technologies and Hank’s ex-protégé, has managed to crack the formula and technology required to shrink human beings down to insect size – the same technology that allowed Pym to become the first Ant-Man back during the Cold War – and Hank is very worried about the effects that selling the tech would cause.  So, rejecting the help of his more-than-capable daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly), Hank tasks Scott with using his old Ant-Man suit to break into Pym Technologies and destroy Cross’ research and prototypes, with both Hank and Scott possibly earning their shots at redemption as a result.

So, immediately, Ant-Man is pressing two of my major weakness buttons: heist movies, and films about father-daughter relationships.  The latter ends up being the emotional and thematic backbone of the movie, as Hank and Hope try to reconcile things after a life of Hank not being there for Hope, whilst Scott tries to become “the hero [his daughter] already sees [him] as”.  Hank and Hope’s strand has issues that I’ll come back to shortly, but Scott and Cassie’s relationship works gangbusters primarily because the film doesn’t belabour the point.  Their on-screen interactions are minimal, but they, coupled with the genuine remorse that Scott shows throughout the movie, already clue the viewer into just how much they both mean to each other.  Plus, in a rare turn-up for the books, her new soon-to-be-step-father, Paxton (Bobby Cannavale), is not painted as a douchey hateful nuisance we’re supposed to despise.  The film understands that he’s a good guy just trying to do his job and never treats him as some kind of villain to wish death upon, a nice change of pace compared to usual.

Meanwhile, the heist side encompasses all of the traits that you expect from a good heist film: extended training montages, detailed step-by-step plans that are slowly put together (often in montage), the smaller heist to build up to the real heist, the moment where certain failure is just avoided, the moment where everyone has to improvise, the bit where everything goes to hell in a handbasket.  I’m a sucker for heist movies, basically, and the standard heist mechanics get a nice shot in the arm from the fact that we’re watching this take place in a superhero movie, allowing for more inventive ways of executing acts like frying circuitry or making an escape from a hairy situation.  What’s most impressive is the way that the two elements balance so smoothly, although there are times when the superhero part of things takes over, as the addition of the Ant-Man suit and the power to control ants shifts sequences like desperately trying to hide plans or briefing new last-minute team members in slightly different yet distinctive ways.

On the note of “new team members”, Ant-Man spends a lot of its time developing its cast, either through character arcs or just letting them hang out.  I bring this up not to mention that Scott Lang is wonderfully charming, or that I really like Hope despite most everything attached to her character, or that Darren is a surprisingly menacing and sadistic villain who is one of the few genuinely good MCU villains that have come along so far.  No, I bring this up to make reference to Scott’s friends, headed up by his ex-cellmate Luis (Michael Peña).  They are, to be blunt, racial stereotypes whose ethnicities are played up at every opportunity, yet they still feel like three-dimensional characters because their actors (which also include Tip “T.I.” Harris as Dave and David Dastmalchian as Kurt) commit totally to them and the film cares enough for them to give off the impression that they actually do have real lives outside of the times where Luis gets all motor-mouthed or Dave plays up his blackness to try and get out of trouble with the police.  It’s a very fine and tough line to walk, but the film, in my opinion for whatever that’s worth, just manages to pull it off.

Again, that smaller-scale is what helps here.  Characters like Luis would usually be lost in the shuffle in a giant world-ending stakes movie, like most Marvel movies are, but because the film commits to that smaller scale, to building its stakes out of personal legacies and character relationships, it allows for a deeper emotional connection than most typical Marvel films.  Sure, there are multiple characters that just get shunted to the sidelines – which is the kind way of saying that Judy Greer is in this movie and we are all currently part of 2015: The Summer of Completely Wasting Judy Greer – but the central relationships get time to properly develop and blossom.  Plus, the film finds time to invest in some more idiosyncratic relationships: Scott ends up taking a fancy to one particular ant, whom he dubs Anthony, in a way that’s pretty funny but gains genuine resonance because the film is always completely sincere about how much Scott likes it.

It would also be remiss of me to not mention the film’s final third, the point where one would expect the film to expand its scale for those big action setpieces that all superhero movies apparently must close with by law.  Instead, once again, Ant-Man remains committed to keeping those stakes small and personal, with the main conflict coming from Darren’s inferiority complex towards his former mentor, his rapidly deteriorating mental state, and his desire to punish Scott for being everything he wanted Hank to see him as.  That also extends to the final setpiece, one of only three times in which the film really lets loose with the suit, which utilises the size-changing mechanics to allow for a big pyrotechnic battle to take place in a little girl’s bedroom.  It’s a load of fun and more inventive than any other Marvel setpiece I’ve yet seen, where the fusion of the superhero and comedy aspects works to brilliant effect.

As much as I do really like Ant-Man, though – and that’s not even mentioning Peyton Reed’s stylish direction or the across-the-board-excellent performances – it does have several notable flaws.  For one, although this is one of the most stand-alone Marvel movies yet, there are moments where the broader universe intrudes itself on the rest of the film.  Now, I am not opposed to this concept, when pulled off right it can excellently give off the feeling of this universe existing outside of each hero’s individual movies, but it’s very hit-and-miss here.  Scott immediately asking aloud why Hank doesn’t just contact The Avengers is an example of it working, since it’s an acknowledgment that these films don’t exist in a bubble and provides justification as to why they wouldn’t work on this kind of story.  An extended setpiece about midway through the film with a surprise cameo (that I won’t spoil) is one that doesn’t.  Oh, sure, it is pretty fun, but it still feels a little clunky, like it was forced in there either because somebody panicked and feared that holding off on proper action until the last third would bore the audience, or somebody just thought it was a really cool idea and threw it in there regardless of whether it fit the film or not.

More of a problem is Hope van Dyne.  Now, I like Hope – a combination of Evangeline Lily’s winning charm offensive and my natural love for women who can get sh*t done made sure of that – but her existence in this movie is part of a meta-text that I am not really comfortable with Marvel making.  See, Hope is clearly the one best suited to donning the Ant-Man suit and undertaking the heist – she’s tougher than Scott, a fair bit smarter than Scott, more accustomed to the labs and technology – but Hank keeps refusing to let her for personal, ultimately unfair reasons.  It’s played as this meta-commentary on how Marvel seem similarly resistant to making a female superhero movie, instead constantly trading on white guys cos if one fails, in the words of Scott in this very film, “[they’re] expendable”.  It’s a nice acknowledgement of a genuine problem, and builds to a promising payoff, but that doesn’t change the fact that Marvel still aren’t actually doing anything to fix the problem and ultimately just made me even more annoyed that we still won’t get a fix to this problem until November 2018.

(For more on this, keep an eye on the site over the next few days, I have an article about this in the ideas oven as I type these words.)

That said, I do still really like Ant-Man.  For every moment it adheres to the standard Marvel formula, there are many more where it tries something completely different or twists the familiar into something that’s atypical for these kinds of films.  It’s still recognisably a Marvel Movie, but its commitment to keeping things small and personal provides a shot-in-the-arm and a nice change of pace for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It’s not massively different, so those completely averse to Marvel/superhero movies are unlikely to get much from this one, but it is a positive step in the right direction.  As stated up top, I do still like these kinds of movies, but I need them to be trying something different if I’m going to stay a fan of this stuff.  Ant-Man is a good start.

Callum Petch feels like he’s living at the edge of the world.  Listen to Screen 1 on Hullfire Radio (site link) and follow him on the Twitters (@CallumPetch)!

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Not quite the triumphant fanfare that the epic fantasy adventure series deserved to bow out on, but still an impressive conclusion to an entertaining series.

by Owen Hughes (@ohughes86)

hobbitDuring the week, you may have read an article that I published on here expressing my excitement at the release of Peter Jackson’s final jaunt through Middle Earth. After I recently watched all three of the extended edition DVD’s of The Lord of the Rings and rewatched the two Hobbit films, the most unexpected thing happened. I found out that despite previously believing these fantasy adventure films to be little more than Hobbity-tosh, they were actually rather marvellous. Full of character, personality and thrills, I could not wait to complete the set by taking myself off to the cinema and spending 144 minutes with Bilbo & Friends one final time.

In fact, I’ve actually been holding out voting on our end of year awards just yet in case The Battle of the Five Armies made my top 10, as both An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug had done in 2012 and 2013 respectively. (Yes, that is a plug for our Failed Critics Awards 2014! Finish reading this and then scroll back up the page and click this link to vote for your choices!)

So, where does this third and final Hobbit film begin? It picks up directly from where the previous film left off without pausing for breath or to stroke its long and lusciously thick beard. As we saw in the closing scenes of the second movie in the series, Smaug the dragon has taken flight and is on his way to burn Lake-town to cinders to inflict revenge on the company of dwarves out to steal back their home. Perhaps an even bigger threat to our heroes is the impending arrival of an army of orcs marching towards the Lonely Mountain ready for all out war.

Maybe I made a rod for my own back by over hyping the film to myself beforehand, but I genuinely was looking forward to this. However, as disappointing as it is for me to say, it was something of a let down. Whereas the previous two movies feel like lots of mini-adventures all taking place within one movie, the final part is.. well.. it’s just the third act to the second film. From the arrival of the dwarves at Bag End and Bilbo’s confrontation with Gollum in An Unexpected Journey, to the barrel riding escape plan and awakening of the dragon in The Desolation of Smaug, there’s always one more perilous quest awaiting Gandalf’s party of homeless dwarves and burglars. In that regard, this is lacking somewhat, which is no surprise when you consider the original plan was for JRR Tolkien’s The Hobbit to be adapted into two movies rather than three. The main issue is that isn’t very well concealed. This may be the shortest movie of all six films, but that’s because it’s essentially just one long battle sequence with a bit of story at the beginning and a bit more at the end.

Don’t get me wrong, the battle is well shot. There’s the epic scale that is to be expected and director Peter Jackson doesn’t deny the viewer some absolutely fantastic and imaginative set pieces. It’s not like Jackson doesn’t have experience in how to shoot them by now. However, it just wasn’t satisfying like The Return of the King was. Calling it a battle sounds quite grand but it was more of a brawl with thousands of unidentifiable generic soldiers.

My biggest gripe lies with the lack of humour. It’s not completely without comedy; indeed, I chuckled and sniggered during some amusing scenes. However,  the dwarves simply weren’t fun characters to be around any more. A (100% CGI) Billy Connolly pops up to deliver one or two funny lines, but generally they are more concerned with the darkness enveloping their rightful king, Thorin Oakenshield, played brilliantly by Richard Armitage. In fact, the performances across the board were of a high standard again. Evangeline Lilly, Aidan Turner, Lee Pace and of course Sir Ian McKellen were all positive aspects, as was Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. The only problem with Martin Freeman is that he really should’ve had more screen time. All of the best lines and most interesting plot lines come from the little hobbit. Unless of course you count Legolas declaring that “these bats are bred for one purpose; for war” to be the best line in a so-bad-it’s-good way.

Finally, on the subject of characters and their respective actors, I really think Luke Evans as Bard is one of the best human characters from any of the Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit films so far. An honourable character whose sentiment is not over-egged, with a performance that does not seem to be discussed as much as it should. He carries the story on his own during some of the lesser moments and does so admirably.

Overall, it’s still an occasionally exciting and impressive film, but undeniably lacklustre. The first two films made me laugh and had their own identity as fun, fantasy adventure films. Oddly The Battle of the Fives Armies only managed to make me laugh on a handful of occasions and as such, regardless of the fact the run time flies by (unlike An Unexpected Journey), unfortunately it just feels like Lord of the Rings-lite as opposed to the conclusion to an original and new Hobbit trilogy.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is in cinemas right now and will be featured as the main review on our next episode of the Failed Critics Podcast, a Christmas special.

There And Back Again: The Unexpected Return of the Lord of the Hobbit and King’s Ring

Ahead of this week’s big release of the final instalment in The Hobbit trilogy, There And Back Again— sorry, quick name change to The Battle of the Five Armies, Owen has rewatched the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy and first two Hobbit films as preparation.

by Owen Hughes (@ohughes86)

gollumApologies for the profusely long title, but I felt it only fitting given the epic length of Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth saga. Fans of these modern adaptations of JRR Tolkien’s iconic fantasy adventure novels are no strangers to things being stretched out for longer than is probably necessary. For example, within the last four weeks or so, I’ve sat through the DVD extended editions of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy (682 minutes all in all) and re-watched the first two Hobbit movies (a modest 369 minutes by comparison). With the release of the third and final part of Bilbo Baggins and his merry band of dwarves’ journey appearing in cinemas this Friday, re-titled The Battle of the Five Armies after it was decided There And Back Again made little to no sense any more since being split from two films to three, I will have spent a total of 1195 minutes in the company of hobbits, wizards, elves, orcs, trolls and dragons. In that time I could have re-watched the entire first two seasons of HBO’s massively successful and increasingly popular fantasy series Game of Thrones! And I’d have seen more boobs. A lot more boobs.

Before I get any further, a bit of context as to my position on the Lord of the Rings movies prior to this not-so-unexpected journey through the series is probably in order. As I explained on one of our recent podcasts, whilst I appreciated the scale and ambition of the projects, I would not have considered myself a fan. “Hobbity tosh” was a phrase an old colleague of mine used to describe them – and I would nod in agreement whenever he said it. Quite how I ended up really enjoying both An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug (in all of its 48 frames per second glory) when seeing them in the cinema is anybody’s guess! But I did. I mean, I really enjoyed them and was a little taken aback by how much fun I had with them when expecting so little.

It was with the release of The Battle of the Five Armies looming that I decided to give the entire series another chance. I reached for the unwatched copies of the extended edition DVD’s on my shelf (that I had stolen off my dad in 2012 with the intention of watching them before the first Hobbit film came out) and made my way through each of them. Starting with…


fellowship of the ringThe Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) (208 minutes)

Well blow me down. It seems the only reason I can fathom as to why I did not enjoy Fellowship of the Ring the first time around is that it was missing 30 minutes of extended footage, because I really enjoyed what is the start of Frodo’s adventure. As I mentioned on the podcast when I reviewed it last month, it genuinely wasn’t a chore trying to finish it. I know that may sound like a back-handed compliment, but for such a long film, every bit of it was entertaining to watch. From our four heroic hobbits and their first encounter with Stryder, to Legolas and Gimli’s banter, to Bormoir’s battle with the orcs, it was (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) fantastic. I’m still not 100% certain that I like Elijah Wood’s performance as Frodo Baggins, bearer of the one ring on a quest to destroy it before Sauron enacts his dastardly plan, but everyone else seemed perfect. Perhaps none more so than Sir Ian McKellen who was born to play the part of the wise old wizard Gandalf the Grey. It was still as impressive an achievement as I remembered, with some gorgeous New Zealand scenery and beautifully framed shots, but it was probably the first time I really took notice of just how good a movie this is. A genuinely pleasant surprise.


The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) (223 minutes)the two towers

Whilst my colleague Gerry may disagree given his thoughts in our Decade In Film series, I personally found that there was a noticeable drop off in quality during the first half of The Two Towers. A title that I found slightly confusing, given the fact there are more than two towers in the film. In an article I read just this week, it seems that Tolkien himself was also of the same opinion that it was a rubbish title. The film started slowly, with perhaps the opening 90 minutes offering little more than a build up to what was to come. Pacing issues dragged this movie down to essentially a story about walking. Albeit one with a number of redeeming features. There’s more humour here than in Fellowship, particularly involving scenes with Pippin, Merry and Treebeard whose light-hearted scenes help brighten an otherwise dark tale of Mordor’s imposing presence as Frodo and Sam draw nearer. Speaking of whom, Gollum’s appearance also marks a turning point in the story as the fork between their relationship, foreshadowing what is to come of Mr Baggins (Sméagol’s dark and twisted nature) and what he once was (Sam’s friendly disposition and naivety). Narratively, its timing couldn’t have been better as an injection of life suddenly surges through the movie. Of course, also helping this film find its large and hairy feet is the political struggles between Madril and Théoden, Saruman’s corrupting influence (played sublimely by Christopher Lee) and the extraordinary Battle At Helm’s Deep. To coin a football cliché, it’s not just a film of two towers, it’s a film of two halves. The first, plodding and uneventful; the second, increasingly magnificent.


return of the kingThe Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) (251 minutes)

Winner of eleven (yes, ELEVEN) Oscar’s at the Academy Awards in 2004 – that’s seven more than Fellowship of the Ring and nine more than The Two Towers – including the big two (Best Picture and Best Director), it is arguably the most successful film in the entire trilogy. Or, possibly, a recognition of the trilogy in its entirety. The challenge Peter Jackson faced with this final instalment mainly consisted of topping what has preceded it in terms of narrative structure, visual flair and erstwhile adventure, whilst roundly bringing the story to a satisfying conclusion. From its opening scenes with Sméagol and Déagol discovering the Ring, to its climactic battle sequence closing the movie.. or was that catching up with the gang back in the Shire? Or was it Aragorn’s ceremony? Or Gandalf shipping former ring-addicts Frodo and Bilbo off to the Elven rehab facility across the water (all in slow motion for some reason)? Or was it… you get the idea, there’s a lot of potential endings to this movie. Even so, from start to finish it was a truly deserving final piece and quite nicely ended the journey without feeling inclined to leave unresolved cliff hangers, include cheap shock twists near the end or unfathomably long indistinguishable CGI fight sequences. If Two Towers momentarily made me question whether or not I would actually enjoy completing the series of films, then Return of the King swiftly put to bed any such thoughts and converted me to a genuine fan of this Hobbity tosh I once pompously sneered at.


The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) (182 minutes)121118_publicity_still_002.tif

As I stated earlier, upon exiting the cinema on 21st November 2012, after just seeing this film in 3D expecting to be bored half to death three hours earlier, I was practically giddy about how much fun I had with Jackson’s triumphant return to Middle Earth. This was my first time rewatching the film since then and whilst I’d forgotten just how slow the opening 50 minutes were, as dwarf upon dwarf arrives at Bilbo (Martin Freeman)’s Hobbit Hole (careful now). It was something I didn’t mind too much in the cinema. It set the tone and jovial atmosphere that would penetrate most of what proceeded through these prequels, but witnessing it for a second time, it was rather tedious. However, things pick up once everybody has been introduced (or re-introduced as the case may be) and they hit the road, beginning Bilbo’s unexpected journey to the Lonely Mountain to help the dwarves reclaim their home from Smaug the dragon. What still holds up well, and has been one of my favourite aspects from any of these films so far, is the performance of Andy Serkis as Gollum (which is even more creepy than Peter Woodthorpe in the 1978 rotoscoped animation Lord of the Rings, of which I also squeezed in a rewatch of before starting on The Hobbit). His utter disgust at being accused of sneaking in Return of the King is topped only by the game of riddles with Bilbo. It becomes the stand out moment across either Hobbit film so far and remains as darkly amusing now as it was the first time I witnessed it.


desolation of smaugThe Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (187 minutes)

Just as An Unexpected Journey was a fun frolic through a fantasy world I had slowly become attached to, so too was its follow up from this time last year. In fact, I’d say that this was the much better film out of the two. The pacing was more even and the world expansion seemed more rapid and interesting. Suddenly these worlds and characters we’d glimpsed previously became worthwhile additions as Bilbo no longer had to keep proving himself to Thorin (Richard Armitage) over and over again. Meanwhile, Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) added some much needed romance to these stories. It’s not often I say that, but (excuse the euphemism) it had been a bit of a sausage-fest up until this point. Bromance can only take you so far in a world that explores all manner of creature and race. It also gave Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and his moody glances a reason to be here. I can quite safely say that it also has some of the most exciting and amusing battle sequences from any of these five films. There’s never been any questions about Peter Jackson’s ability to shoot these moments; whether it’s a priest battling zombies in Braindead, or the sweeping epic Battle of the Pelennor Fields from Return of the King, it’s clearly an area he excels in. Here, there are numerous encounters that are immensely enjoyable. A barrel ride down some rapids, for example, is as fun as it sounds like it should be. A close-combat sequence in a Lake-town house between some orcs and elves is also fiercely engaging, even if it did look a bit too weird in 48fps. And, of course, the moment the audience were waiting for with Smaug’s awakening and subsequent run-around with the dwarves is totally engrossing, setting up a finale that just made me wish Battle of the Five Armies was due out a few weeks sooner so I could watch it straight away!


With all that out of the way, the only thing left to write is that if you haven’t gathered already, I have converted from cynic to fanatic as I eagerly await the release of what is likely to be Peter Jackson’s farewell to Tolkien. Where is there left to go now? A biopic of JRR Tolkien is a possibility but not likely to fit into this fantasy series. With Jackson having repeatedly denied any intentions to adapt The Silmarillion, works that feature familiar characters from Tolkien’s world but was edited and completed posthumously by his son, not to mention the legal battles there would be over the rights to the book which have never been sold, it seems this is the end for Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf and co. Unless Guillermo Del Toro fancies a crack at it, of course…

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies will be in UK cinemas from Friday 12 December 2014, at which point Owen will return for a full review. It will also be featured as the main review on our next podcast, the Christmas Special episode featuring Matt Lambourne and Callum Petch.