>
>Antman was a character no one cared about. It had cool
>special effects, but relatively few bells and whistles.
>
>And it was one of the best Marvel movies because it was in
>the right hands: The writers had the EXACT tone, right
>senses.
>It was directed VERY well. It was a huge overachiever.
>
>Dr. Strange had a TON going for it that Antman didn't:
>ELITE actor. EASY story to tell. Bells and whistles.
>
>And they fumbled it and almost lost it. They didn't...but
>I'm watching the movie kinda like "WTF?"
>
>Like I just said: this movie should have been original
>Ironman
>good.
>
>You have an actor as talented as RDJ. A compelling story.
>
>Missed opportunity for Marvel.
>

first, as i mentioned above i went in with little or no expectations and came out entertained and curious enough to want to see more....it was good. it definitely wasn't 'bad'. it was genuinely good.


but, i guess if you think about the quality of the cast, then yeah, it really has the PEDIGREE and ingredients to be one of them GREAT ones...i think it starts out that way (again, as mentioned above, i actually wanted to see a little MORE of him in his true 'Doctor (surgeon) stage' of life BEFORE he gets his mystical stuff...i understand why they didn't spend more time there obviously (ya got 90 minutes or so to get through everything so they can't stay there forever)...but i thought the early part was very well done...

overall i was pleased. no i didn't come out of it COMPLETELY WOWing like i did Iron Man 1 (and a few other Marvel flicks), but i did came out of it feeling satisfied with NO real bad taste in my mouth at all, i didn't feel jipped. Worth my bucks.

I'm going to see it again, so we'll see how viewing 2 leaves me...