Ant-Man Review: 8 Ways It's Better Than Avengers: Age Of Ultron

3. The CGI Holds Up Throughout

Avengers: Age Of Ultron cost $279.9 million to make. That's an eye-watering amount even by Marvel standards - it's double the budget for Iron Man and a cool $50 million more than The Avengers. And yet despite costing more than the GDP of Sokovia, the film still managed boast some pretty shoddy CGI. Oh, for the most part it held up, but in massive action sequences it all fell apart; instead of being fist-pumping moments of awesomeness (as in the first film), the extended takes of the team busting Hydra guards and Ultron drones look like poorly rendered in-game cutscenes. It's certainly helped by having a strong focus on character and thus having effects scene well spaced apart, but Ant-Man manages much more illusion-maintaining effects of a consistently high quality, all done on a budget a fraction of the size (it cost $10 million less than Iron Man, and that's likely accumulated somewhat from the troubled production). Particularly impressive is the de-ageing effects used on Michael Douglas during the film's infrequent flashbacks to younger Hank Pym. Somewhat accentuated by making modern Pym look a bit older through make-up, there's none of the uncanny valley dead eyes that plagued the likes of Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy or Patrick Stewart in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.