Antman (2015) - Reviewed

As Marvel expands its popular Marvel Cinematic Universe with every movie released since Iron Man (2008), it seems necessary to keep up with every new superhero movie to be able to watch the next one. A few months ago, Marvel released Avengers: Age of Ultron, introducing some new heroes to the universe. Most recently it brought to us a completely fresh superhero that most people probably haven't heard of: Ant-Man.

Ant-Man is directed by Peyton Reed and stars Paul Rudd as Scott Lang, or Ant-Man. Other cast members include Michael Douglas as Dr. Hank Pym, Evangeline Lilly as his daughter, and Corey Stoll, an ambitious scientist who tries to get his hands on Pym’s technology. Scott Lang is a thief and vigilante who robs the rich to give to the poor. At the beginning of the movie, he is released from prison and lives with his ex-cellmates. Due to his records, he cannot get a proper job and thus cannot take care of his daughter. He has sworn not to go back to his criminal ways, but desperate situations drive him to do ‘one last job.’ But little did he know that his decision would lead him to cross paths with Dr. Pym and to eventually become Ant-Man.

Before going in the cool, dark theater, I had heard rumors about the newly released superhero movie. Friends informed me about the great humor and interesting superpowers and even my professor recommended the entire class to watch it. I myself had no prior knowledge about this new hero – I hadn't read the comic books or viewed the trailer. With no idea what to expect and only rumors floating in my head, I hoped for an interesting, innovative movie – however, Ant-Man didn't meet these hopes.

It seems as if Marvel has gotten movie making down to a formula by this point. After countless successful movies, including Guardians of the Galaxy (which was not expected to be successful but turned out to be the highest grossing movie of 2014 in the U.S.), it may make sense that the studios do not want to stray far from the formula. Indeed, Ant-Man has also returned twice its budget and is still being screened worldwide. But this does not excuse the fact that the storyline is typical and predictable. Character development and relationships throughout the movie also follow many other hackneyed superhero movies. The villain is also not well-realized – the audience can understand why he has a grudge against Dr. Pym but his motives for such violence seem unnatural and forced. However, since these are quite common problems with movies of this genre, let us move on to the more crucial problems.

Ant-Man’s superpower is the ability to change sizes freely, from regular human size to ant size and vice versa. He can also control various ants - and while this may seem useless, it is actually very useful since ants are everywhere (I would even go on to say that it could be more useful than his first power if used correctly). He can not only fight well but also escape easily from tight situations and use ants as distractions and transportation. 

An essential aspect of any action movie (superhero movies contain lots of action) is for the audience to feel seriously worried about the hero’s safety. Without this, the audience is just left to watch great CGI. Indeed, Ant-Man’s powers make him very powerful and agile and yes, in the end the hero will triumph over the villain, but during the action sequences it is important to induce a sense of concern. If the hero is powerful and agile like Ant-Man, the script should contain appropriate parts in which his weaknesses seem to overwhelm his strengths. However, there were no such parts and I never felt worried for his safety. One way this could have been achieved, which other movies use often, is through malfunctioning technology (I expected it to happen at least once during the movie but I was wrong). 

Another related problem is my belief that his powers were not used to their full potential. If he had truly mastered them, he should have been able to avoid any type of damage by shrinking and growing at an incredibly fast rate. The ants could have been used more often, more effectively. Overall, the action scenes could have been much more fascinating and awesome. Lastly, thee is a huge problem in the the climax (without spoiling details) - the hero makes a sacrifice, and without explanation he is returned to safety. While this magical revival is common in Marvel movies, the writers still give some kind of explanation as to how it happened. In Ant-Man, they didn't even bother to explain how it happened.

Ant-Man does have its strengths. The humor is appropriately inserted and does not distract from the important scenes. The acting was quite good (although I was a little shocked by Michael Douglas' poor acting in the beginning). You can't miss the Stan Lee and don't leave too early because you'll miss the after-credits scene and the after- after-credits scene. And of course, it was entertaining. But these are characteristics of many of Marvel's other movies, and other movies did it better. To sum it up, Ant-Man definitely could have been better.

7.0/10 - an average superhero movie.

The Social Network (2010) - Reviewed

The Social Network is directed by David Fincher and stars Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerburg, the founder of Facebook. Sadly, many know it as just the "Facebook movie," deeming it as a boring documentary about a successful computer programmer. I would have thought so too had I not known who the director was. However, having experienced the mastery and finesse of Fincher, I knew this movie was going to be more than a dull biography. 

It begins with Zuckerberg before his huge success, at a local bar with his girlfriend. The few minutes of their interaction gives a great first impression of Mark as a human being. His attractive girlfriend tries to carry out a conversation with him, he only talks what interests him and doesn't listen, his words are offensively honest, and you wonder why she is still dating him - at which point she breaks up with him. The next scene shows Mark on his way to his room with background music and names of people involved with the movie (actors, producers, etc. - you know, the opening credits) appearing on the sides, but it also sets the tone of the entire movie very well. Fast-paced shots of Mark running around and the cold Boston background foreshadows the ensuing captivating but blue atmosphere. And here you realize that this isn't the documentary you've been expecting, but rather a much more complex, film-like story that will keep you attentive for the next two hours. 

Before this review starts, I have to point out that the accuracy of the script plays no part in the review. (Zuckerberg said that the portrayal of his character is too impersonal and that he found the movie "hurtful.") This review is solely based on the quality of the movie itself.

The seemingly ordinary story of the creation and development of Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg decides to quit school one day to create an ingenious website that will revolutionize social media and change the way we interact and think, and he becomes the youngest billionaire. Happy ending, right? Like the poster says ("You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies"), this movie will focus more on the ugly sides of the story. By introducing two lawsuits, one with Eduardo Saverin and one with the Winklevoss twins, the story unfolds to show us  just the important parts but melts together to form a coherent storyline.  Instead of a linear story with no interruptions, it cuts back and forth between the main story and the lawsuits. Usually, this would be a recipe for an incoherent story that the audience cannot follow, but Fincher and his crew crafted this so excellently that it not only flows smoothly, but it actually works as a way to keep the viewers attention for the entire runtime.

Mark's character, whether an accurate depiction or not, is great. A nerdy programmer with poor social skills, yet at the same time so charismatic and witty, is difficult to come alive on screen. Eduardo's superiority in both looks and finances, coupled with the odd submissiveness toward Mark, is also fascinating. Sean Parker's character is more common, but still fits in aptly. The characterization of these people is also done very well. Instead of resorting to direct characterization, Fincher brings them to us indirectly through their conversations and actions. The fact that they stick in our minds so definitively proves that they are great characters. Watching them interact in Aaron Sorkin's beautifully written story is worth whatever a movie ticket costs at your hometown. (Yes, I know it was released five years ago.)

The actors that portrayed the characters did a phenomenal job to assist the great writing. There is no need to mention Jesse Eisenberg as Mark - we all knew the character would fit him and that he would do great. But still, it would be a dishonor not to mention that his discrete mannerisms and consistent tone made him a believable Mark. Andrew Garfield also played a great Eduardo, especially in the emotional parts. I had no idea that the Winklevoss twins were played by the same actor, Armie Hammer, and even Justin Timberlake played a great charismatic asshole, Sean Parker.

As I've mentioned before, the story isn't just about the development of Facebook - it's much more complex. There are two hidden motives behind Mark's actions that aren't very evident in the story: girls and finals clubs (These aren't spoilers since they are mentioned from the beginning). Girls start the whole story with "Facemash," while finals clubs impact Mark's relationships with a certain individual. These two seemingly minor factors play an adequate role in the story - they aren't too significant but still discretely influence Mark's choices.

Overall, The Social Network successfully turns what might seem like an ordinary story into two hours of thrilling character interaction and fluent storytelling.

10/10 -  Definitely worth your time. (Please refrain from calling it the "Facebook movie.")