MCU Commentary Rewatch: Ant-Man and the Wasp
(Cover art by Matt Ferguson, for the Blu Ray release. https://www.cakesandcomics.com/)
Going in, I want to state that I think this movie is technically superior to 2015’s ANT-MAN in every way. But it’s still a quirky little side quest, and its greatest contribution to MCU-lore is JIMMY FREAKING WOO.
Sure, there’s a lot of quantum realm stuff, and the setup for ENDGAME. And maybe some awesome badinage between our formerly romantic leads.
BUT JIMMY WOO!
dude should be on the poster…
TL:DR:
Running Ranking: #13 of 24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant-Man_and_the_Wasp
Commentary Takeaway:
Even though I slept through 20 minutes of the middle, this rewatch was an uplifting couple of hours. Peyton Reed as a solo act was entertaining, and had a lot of insights I hadn’t thought about at the time.
And now, 7 hours later, I can’t remember a single one. I remember their general content for sure, thoughts on the difficulty of shooting virtual, big vs small focus problems, etc. But Reed is a narrator, and for the greater part of the commentary he had his screenwriter hat on to speak to the character’s motivations, and how the actors nailed their performances.
He was particularly effusive about Laurence Fishburne (or “Fish”, as he calls him), especially about how big of a comics nerd he is. Like many actors, Fishburne approached Marvel directly about roles he could take in the MCU, and the two met for the first time outside an office not knowing what the other was there for.
Reed was also pleased that the script allowed Evangeline Lilly to shine as Hope Van Dyne, and even more so that Michelle Pfeiffer was willing to sign on to the MCU as the original Wasp. Reed notes that he wanted her to be part of ANT-MAN as well, and that her body-double (used for the de-aging process and action shots) was chosen in part because she had “saucer-like, Michelle Pfeiffer eyes.”
And here lies the problem. All of these facts were presented in the commentary track, but they are also in the Wikipedia article for the movie (see above), from which I cribbed liberally to supplement my recollections.
So while I want to rank this one higher than some of the other films on the list, the track’s forgettability hinders its chances.
YMMV, of course.
One more note. Peyton Reed mentions in the opening minutes of the commentary that he had never done a sequel before, and until ANT-MAN he was never really interested in being part of a franchise. But after making that film he approached Marvel directly for the opportunity. That alone piqued my interest for anything else he had to say, but unfortunately, not a lot of it held said interest for any length of time.
Commentary Ranking:
1. BLACK PANTHER
2. DOCTOR STRANGE
3. CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR
4. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER
5. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOL. 2
6. THOR: THE DARK WORLD
7. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOL. 1
8. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER
9. ANT-MAN
10. AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR
11. THOR: RAGNAROK
12. IRON MAN 2
13. ANT-MAN AND THE WASP
14. AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON
15. INCREDIBLE HULK
16. IRON MAN 3
17. MARVEL’S THE AVENGERS
18. IRON MAN
19.
20.
21. THOR
22. SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING
23. SPIDER-MAN FAR FROM HOME
A reminder on how the rankings work. I start from the bottom of the list, and ask, “is it better than ___?” The first no I come to gets a metaphorical pin stuck in it, and I continue up the list until the second no.
In this case, those commentaries were IRON MAN 2 and THOR: RAGNAROK.
My original consideration was that this might go as high as #6, and I was surprised to see it stop climbing so quickly. It did boost IRON MAN 2 a few rankings in the process, but I’m confident it will stay in the mean for now.
At this point I have no predictions whatsoever about CAPTAIN MARVEL, other than that I will most likely watch it next.