It’s a bit unfair to Ant Man that the Edgar Wright episode hurt its publicity because the final film is entertaining and funny. Any fan of Wright would be able to spot his DNA in a few scenes, but there’s no denying Reed’s flair for situational comedy and his ability to subvert the whole concept of big action into a smaller scale. It’s about time Wright’s shadow left this film and Reed received an accolade or two.

With simple, natural characters and an uncomplicated, yet spirited plot line, “Ant-Man” is a visually engaging and entertaining film. An unlikely hero getting convinced and trained to become a super-hero is the premise of the film which woos the audience.

Impeccable performances by Michael Pena and Paul Rudd? Check. Hilarious quips from the characters? Check. Epic action sequences? Check. What else do you want?! Go watch the tiny superhero- now!

When someone does something slightly different with a genre as codified and hidebound as the superhero film, it’s tempting to overrate the achievement. Yet, the truth is there have already been a number of superhero movies that have mocked the idea of, well, superheroes. Ant-Man builds on the pop smarts of The Avengers and the I’m-no-hero shtick of Guardians Of The Galaxy, just like these films built on the wisecracking Iron Man films.

A charming origin story with effects to underline the beauty of miniature, Ant-Man is perfect counterfoil to the grand, sweeping, epic quality of Baahubali.

Part fun, part froth, Ant-man fails to soar beyond its central conceit.

Peyton Reed’s Ant-Man is, by the very nature of its subject, a smaller and consequently far more enjoyable enterprise. The 118-minute movie retains a cheerful and light comic-book tone throughout, with its highlight being a battle for supremacy waged on a Thomas toy engine set between two miniscule men in insect-themed suits.