Ant-Man is about Scott Lang
(Paul Rudd), who comes across a suit that not only allows him to turn into the
size of an ant, but to control ants with
his mind.
If the premise
sounds stupid, that’s because it is. But Ant-Man has one saving grace: it never
takes itself too seriously. The makers of this film know it’s a ridiculous
concept and they’re running with it.
Rudd rides
around on houseflies, gets washed away by bathwater, slides through electricity
cables and fights on top of toy trains. As the cliché goes, it will have kids
screaming with laughter and is fun for the whole family.
Observe me
melt into a grey puddle of contempt while I write that sentence.
Having a zany
concept and some cool effects is not my idea of captivating cinema. It’s all so
formulaic, so intentional, so transparently focused on a specific audience to
milk a specific dollar. Kids will like this movie. Comic-book fans, you will
like this movie.
But who am I?
US critics have been raving about Ant-Man, with it getting a 79% fresh rating
on Rotten Tomatoes.
Wonder why
studios keep churning out comic-book movies?
The plethora
of Marvel and DC comic-book movies we’ve been seeing is about studios retaining
intellectual property rights and very little about creativity, or even viewer
demand. When a studio buys into the intellectual property rights of say,
Spiderman, a contract caveat stipulates they must keep producing films on this
character, or they will lose their licence to it.
This is why
you might see sequels – or quickly produced, cheap sequels when viewers did not
seem to ask for them – for something like Wolverine
No comments:
Post a Comment