Ant-Man

[Johnny English]

Because the idea of someone becoming a superhero by becoming miniature is too ludicrous and I don't want to like it (go ahead, make your jokes, I can take them).

And The Pianist didn't win Best Picture, Chicago did. The only nominees I saw for Best Picture that year were The Two Towers and Gangs Of New York and if that was the standard of the rest of the competition they should have just left the award vacant that year.

[Ornstein]

Because the idea of someone becoming a superhero by becoming miniature is too ludicrous and I don't want to like it (go ahead, make your jokes, I can take them).

And The Pianist didn't win Best Picture, Chicago did. The only nominees I saw for Best Picture that year were The Two Towers and Gangs Of New York and if that was the standard of the rest of the competition they should have just left the award vacant that year.

The lore behind most superheros is pretty ridiculous, doesn't make them any less entertaining.

[JFIF]

Because the idea of someone becoming a superhero by becoming miniature is too ludicrous and I don't want to like it (go ahead, make your jokes, I can take them).

It's like something out of a ridiculous kids cartoon (IE when they shrink to go into someone's stomach).

Mostly though. Paul Rudd as a super hero is both absurd and annoying.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Because the idea of someone becoming a superhero by becoming miniature is too ludicrous and I don't want to like it (go ahead, make your jokes, I can take them).

And The Pianist didn't win Best Picture, Chicago did. The only nominees I saw for Best Picture that year were The Two Towers and Gangs Of New York and if that was the standard of the rest of the competition they should have just left the award vacant that year.

Oh right.  It was Best Director not Picture.

And freak off.  Gangs of New York was awesome and at the very least better than 6 of the BP winners that followed it in subsequent years.  Of course, it also wasn't the best film released that year.  I remember seeing City of God on the big screen and thinking it would be a long while before I saw anything that good.

[AlioTheFool]

Why did you want it to suck?  I thought it might, but I don't get wanting a movie to fail unless you don't like someone involved with it, and even then it's usually a safe bet.  The only person I actively root against who still makes good movies is Roman Polanski.  The Pianist winning Best Actor and Picture over Gangs of New York was like fuel on the fire, too.

Yeah, the only guy I root against who makes movies is Ewe Boll, and that's because he's an atrocious film maker and complete douchenozzle. I'm not a huge fan of JJ Abrams, but I never root against him.

The lore behind most superheros is pretty ridiculous, doesn't make them any less entertaining.

Teen gets bit by a spider, swings around NYC, gets shot at while being a wise derriere, always wins. Guy runs around in his underwear kicking the pee out of professional killers and whole groups of thugs using nothing more than a grappling hook and some fake boomerangs. Not ridiculous at all.

It's like something out of a ridiculous kids cartoon (IE when they shrink to go into someone's stomach).

Mostly though. Paul Rudd as a super hero is both absurd and annoying.

I had less than no desire to see it. But my youngest wanted to, and since it was my wife's birthday Friday, she said that's what she wanted to do, so we went.

It was worth every penny and we were forced to see it in 3D. Rudd is good in the role and the movie is pretty good itself. I wouldn't hold it up against Cap or Avengers, but it was worth seeing and the 3D even enhanced the movie.

Bonus: they showed the Star Wars trailer before the movie. In 3D. Amazeballs.

Bonus 2: the 2nd stinger.

[Ornstein]

Lucky, the only movie trailer they showed in 3D for my showing was the bullshit Adam Sandler video game movie.