Marvel Studios’ Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Then there's an even more interesting rat doing the rounds in some car impound. What I meant wasn't that it wasn't some innate abilty, yes he contributed, but some of it was circumstance or pure fluke.

Well, Thor's a god. Iron Man made his suit, and it was his technological advancements that led the universe to knowing that "earth was ready for a higher form of war". Cap is a living legend that's led the Avengers.

The other two are soldiers...

It's not a dig at Ant Man, but his stories have always been a bit more personal, and his influence in the collective movies until now have always been more of a support role. Maybe it's just his few minutes in the quantom zone that intrigues Kang, or, more likely, he's picked up a macguffin.

I'm just saying I feel he's been very quickly thrown into the A-Team because of the changing line-up.

____

I found it fun as well, certainly on par with the 2nd film in the trilogy which I was surprised to hear got an 87% RT rating. Just goes to show how messed up that site is when one scores that and the other is scoring below 50 now.

I can only assume Disney are no longer sending the shills crates or nice passes.

Weirdly I thought Evangeline Lilly was an MVP in the film even though some reviews said she was barely in it. She was really good. Douglas was good as well when he had something to do. I preferred the Van Dyme stuff to Scott and his daughter.

But the weird thing is that it isn't the reputable ones with the knives out. The Guardian gave it 3 stars and seemed to enjoy it mostly. Irish Times gave it 3 stars as well.

It's the **** sites that are slating it , and who previously ate up everything MCU, and most of them are on RT.

On first view in IMAX there was nothing as bad as the very low points of Thor. I'm sure there'll be plenty of questionable stills but overall it looked great - though a good chunk of Thor was good, even great parts, but it is now the poster boy for bad FX.

Can understandably see MODOK being one element that could be cited. It was jarring with the mask off but they sort of boxed themselves in with the narrative choice and the fun element to me was worth it.

Like most MCU, and blockbusters in general, I saw it in a giant IMAX.

I never said L&T was perfect, your assessment actually seems pretty close to what I posted - some highs and serious low lows (your examples are what comes to mind on opposite ends of the spectrum). My original point was just that the way some people talk about the CGI in it you'd swear every scene was at that SyFy level.

I'm obviously not a harsh rater on CGI, outside of those obvious scenes I mentioned in my OP I think the majority of it was good - which is how I rate CGI if it doesn't stand out so much as to pull me out of the movie - they are super hero blockbusters so the skeptical part of my brain is already switched off. I don't think I'd ever enjoy a movie if I picked up some of the stuff I see in complaints in threads regarding CGI (not that there is anything wrong with having that eye or focus).

Haven't seen L&T on the small screen yet so all of that could change on my next viewing - I thought MoM was fine in that theatre and saw way more issues when I rewatched on TV. Definitely more of a drop off in CGI in phase 4, which I'd guess is more down to COVID impacting FX team capacity and late changes in plans when movies have issues. Hopefully it'll improve now with things slowing down a bit.

Also, me having not viewed L&T again at this stage probably says it all about how I felt about the movie overall.

I really went in with no expectations to this and was pleasantly surprised.

Better than any of the phase 4 films (with the exception of spiderman), no stupid cameos or fan service of note. I'd agree the CGI was a bit ropey in places but it got in, told its story and got out while setting up Kang, which I'm presuming was the goal. Majors was excellent though.

Saw this last night and it wasn't the worst. Its very predictable and the type of movie they'd use in a screenwriting class to illustrate the definite stages of a screenplay. All the beats are there but that suits a lot of people I reckon. Paul Rudd is reliably good but all in all its a bit irrelevant.

That's the vibe I'm getting. I'm tempted to see it as I've seen the previous Antman films but I'm finding it hard to care about what Marvel are doing as well. Thor was the last one I saw. I thought it was quite funny but if I didn't, it'd have been one of the worst things I've ever seen.

On the mid credit scene - I took from it that the other Kangs have been keeping tabs on him and they were just reporting the news to the others so that they can forget about him and focus on their other plans.

Given all the beating the audience over the head that he is dead I presume the opposite is true and he will return even more powerful down the line - in true super villain fashion.