In the interest of full disclosure, I will state what most of you already know: I wrote the novelization of “Fantastic Four.” So obviously it’s to my benefit for the film to do well. Anyone who feels that linkage to the film colors my opinion can disregard it as he or she sees fit.
Now–
Just came back from the FF screening in the city. I heard a number of adults crabbing about how terrible it was, and I was left wondering whether they saw the same film I did. I then asked every kid I could find who was in attendance what they thought of it, and kids of (literally) all ages loved it. Girls liked Sue Storm, boys grooved on the Thing and, particularly, the Human Torch. No one loved Reed. But, hey, what else is new?
Whatever you’re expecting in terms of the more mature angle that comic book films have taken, be it “Batman Begins,” “Sin City,” or even the sophistication of X2…to enjoy “Fantastic Four,” you simply have to set the wayback machine in your mind back to when comic books (and movies thereof) were mostly cornball fun. Think “Superman” but without the camp. Some mild spoilers follow:
It’s a well-made film with some wince-worthy dialogue that you then realize could have (and possibly did) come straight out of Silver Age FF, and a lot of sequences that just nail the entire squabbling-yet-loving family nature of the FF. The film is at its best when it keeps it small. The character interactions, the throwaway casual uses of their powers. Johnny’s tormenting of Ben, including a hilarious practical joke while the Thing is sleeping. And you sit there and say, “That’s the FF.”
When it goes big, there are stumbles. The main problem centers on Doctor Doom. My concern was not that they changed Victor Von Doom from a Latverian monarch to a corporate douche bag. My concern is that Von Doom blames Reed Richards for the accident that essentially ruined Von Doom’s life. In the comic book, this blame is misplaced. In the film, it’s not. That Von Doom goes bonkers as a result doesn’t change the fact that Reed really IS responsible. I’ll grant you, that’s consistent with the comic in that Ben blames Reed for rushing them into space without the proper shielding in place. But the thrust of the comic isn’t Ben trying to kill Reed as a consequence. In this case, the FF isn’t battling a supervillain so much as they are doing damage control, cleaning up after the mess the themselves made (or at least that Reed made).
But there’s more than enough in the film to make it worthwhile nevertheless. The Thing should defnitely be seen on a big screen, because all the cries of “Foam rubber” were misplaced. Between the acting, the sound effects, and a few CGI boosts, you’ll believe a man can be made out of rock. And the must-see of the film remains the Human Torch. Basically he’s an exuberant jáçkášš, but hey, again, that’s Johnny. That he’s not callow doesn’t bother me. After all, he grew up and married a Skrull in the comics, so why not just start with him as the older model? Instead of being a teen and thus expected to be a jerk, he’s a guy who refuses to grow up. Johnny Storm with the ultimate in Peter Pan syndrome considering he really DOES learn to fly.
Several key scenes were in the script but not in the film, which would have topped two hours had they been there. These include an entire sequence with Ben attending a soiree at Alicia’s art gallery, and Johnny running afoul of a football star and his date at a singles bar. I’ll be interested to see if they show up back in the eventual DVD release, as they were excellent scenes (although admittedly they didn’t advance the plot much.)
Bottom line, go in expecting a hip, up-to-date rethinking and redefining of the FF, and you’re largely going to be disappointed. Expect a reasonably faithful (Von Doom issues aside) translation of the style, spirit and stories of the Silver Age of comics, and you’ll have a great time.
PAD
• 
Who’s smarter in the comics, Dr. Doom or Dr. Octopus? Who’s smarter in the movies, Dr. Doom or Dr. Octopus? I expected a *much* smarter Doom.
The difference between Doom and Ock, at least, is that they left open a possible return for Doom.
Which means, if it is well-written, we could see a much better Dr. Doom next time around.
Was Dr. Doom the end-all menace in the comics in his first appearance? Probably not – he probably grew nuttier & more powerful over time.
Just saw the movie and I thought it was pretty good all things considered. FF has never really had any of the themes like responsibility in Spider-Man or tolerance in X-Men. The FF’s main draw has always been the characters’ personalities and family dynamics and the cosmic scale of their stories. The scale was pretty much undoable in a Hollywood movie that actually had a budget (can you imagine how much special effects it would take to create something like the Negative Zone, Subterranea or Skrull World?) So the full power of the movie fell on the characters and they were pulled off perfectly. Johnny and Ben were perfect. Sue was spot-on and compared to some actresses I’ve seen, Alba did great. I thought they did a great job with Reed Richards. I think Reed’s a hard character to get right. You get him wrong and he seems like a stretchy sitcom dad from the ’50s. This movie did a great job of emphasizing the strengths and flaws that make Reed Richards unique, notably his being more comfortable with scientific phenomena than with people. I could complain about Doom, but I thought many aspects important to Doom were there. Namely, his ego. Everything about Doom always came down to ego. And as we saw from the ending, his story is just beginning. Story was a little weak, but they did the best with what they had. SOP in comic movies these days is to create a story that’s origin based and utilizes the heroes’ most popular enemy. I find it hard to imagine another way to create an Origin/Doom story for the FF. If you look at Spider-Man, they actually had to have two stories in that movie (one was the origin, one was Green Goblin).
Anyway, that’s my two cents.
Nytwyng:
Clooney wanted the part of Reed, and I can see that working.
Craig J. Ries:
I can also see another Batman & Robin…
Personally, I love Clooney. As horrible as Batman & Robin was (and make no mistake about it…it was the horrible stuff that horrible scrapes off of the bottom of its horrible shoes), I don’t see him taking the blame for it.
But as far as Clooney as Reed, I don’t see it. Reed is, of course, a little geeky and unsure of himself. I have a hard time seeing Clooney pull off anything other than smarmy and cocky (“so sue, want to see how far I can stretch” as he flashes the trademark clooney grin with a twinkle in his eyes).
I absolutely agree, PAD!
Okay, clearly there are two different FF movies out right now; the one you all saw and the one I saw.
I was bored out of my mind. I went in expecting not-good, but fun. I got not-good and incredibly dull. These were all problems easily dealt with at the script level, let alone decent direction.
They were celebrities from a single event that they caused????
Reed was miscast and boring – inactive, hesitant characters make for boring characters.
Johnny – the only (dare I say) bright spot of the film. Though Ben refered to him once as blonde, but he wasn’t.
Ben – Good actor, looked like he was made out of Belgian Waffles. But – “I look horrible! I think I’ll do nothing but hang out in public places!” (and his wife/girlfriend goes for a walk in New York in her nightgown… ????)
Sue – wore more makeup than Ben and looks down right weird – I’ve never seen the actress before and don’t mind if I never do again.
Doom – Are those real eyebrows?
They are refered to as super-heroes before ever getting costumes or fighting anyone (suggesting that other superheroes exist, by the way). And all they do is fight in self-defense.
I can see wanting to cure Ben, but why cure themselves? They have powers, after all. I’m with Johnny on that one.
This isn’t a comic where you have issues to develop things. It’s a movie (an ACTION movie) where you go BANG out of the shoot). There is no ticking clock, no sense of peril, nothing beyond wanting time to work on their problems (and Ben turns down getting cured again when all they need is a better power source???)
No sweat on the blood thing, Peter. It was brief and miraculously gone in the next shot. It was suitable for kids, in my opinion. Not sure why it got a PG13.
To sum up my opinion, it was a low-budget made for television movie. It was maudlin instead of fun. If instead, you have three people who’s world just opened up because of these powers and now they can do anything and DO do everything, dragging along their misshapen buddy who has to occassionally remind everyone of the downside to powers, THEN you have a fun movie.
And for the poster who took exception to my describing Byrne as ponderous – I love reading, but a bazillion word balloons and four pages of Sue looking at her new house in the ‘burbs IS ponderous. It was a different time, and I know there were some really good issues, but not in that trade paperback. Renee, thank you for your understanding.
First, Clooney needs to learn how to act.
Second, he should be kept far, far away from any comic book-related movie.
And so should Joel Schumacher.
You know, after reading some particularly nasty reviews and thinking about the last few Marvel movies, I approached this film with a bit of trepidation.
So, I’m happy to say I thought it might have been the most fun Marvel movie yet, at least for me.
Everyone acted in character. Alba was more than fine. There was humor, cool special effects and a villain who actually had a motivation to hate the heroes.
Think back, what REAL good reason did the “Green Goblin have for hating Spider-Man in the first film of that franchise?
Also, in the two Spider-films, the two X-films and even “Batman Begins”, the means to acheieve the goals of the villains are never quite made clear. Really, explain Doctor Octopus’ grand scheme and motivation behind it in “Spider-Man 2”, win valuable prizes.
This was different. This was cool. The focus on Ben was a smart move.
But as some other posters have stated, part of the reason so many critics (and fans) are griping is because it didn’t meet THEIR expectations. Our movie reviewer constantly uses terms like “comic book spirit” of the piece when describing comic book movies. See, he already has preconceived notions of what a “comic book movie” should be. Likewise, many were against the idea of Alba as Sue Storm from the get go, and many critics upon hearing that she would be portraying a scientisy, immediately sneered and looked for something to attack in her performance from the get go (since, in their opinion, I guess all female scientists are all unattractive hags).
Doom could have been a stronger villain, but I get the feeling once he is revived and is monarch of Latveris, he will be much more formidable.
And can we please give George Clooney a break? He didn’t mess that franchise up. It wasn’t him who put Bat-nipples on costumes, cast Schwarzenegger instead of Patrick Stewart as Mr. Freeze, have ridiculous portrayals of Ivy, Bane and basically everybody, and he didn’t write the cornball dialogue.
“Not sure why it got a PG-13.”
From what I understand it’s Sue Storm’s adventures with her invisibility, in which she has to strip to slink away unnotices, is caught briefly in her underwear, and is then imagined to be naked.
If true, that’s just ridiculous on the MPAA’s part.
I watched the movie on Friday opening day and I absolutely loved it.
I didn’t have the same problem with Von Dooms character as Peter did, but then I loved this actor on Charmed and as far as I was concerned he could do no wrong.
Right now Knight Arthur is making the rounds on premium cable and Ionn (Lancelot) was an extremely likeable character, I don’t understand why the critics felt that Mr. Fantastic was stiff. If you read Stan and Jacks silver age comics this was Reed Richards.
Overall I liked this movie more than Batman Begins but I will pick them both up when they ship on DVD.
Watch the movie if you are a comic book fan you won’t be disappointed.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
“Why give Alicia drawing tools if she didn’t draw anything?”
She was probably coming back from drawing something. I try to bring a pen, pad and tape recorder wherever I go in case something happens, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to generally be writing when I’m trying to relax in a bar.
The scene got across that she WAS an artist. For this movie, for me, that’s enough.
Quote:
Posted by: Den at July 11, 2005 10:38 AM
First, Clooney needs to learn how to act.
Second, he should be kept far, far away from any comic book-related movie.
And so should Joel Schumacher.
End Quote…
Truer words never said.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
And can we please give George Clooney a break?
I’ll give him a break when he stops sucking. No, he wasn’t the only thing wrong with Batman and Robin, but that doesn’t mean he did a good either.
And B&R wasn’t the only movie he was terrible in.
I still haven’t seen Fantastic Four, but with the horrible reviews, I’m wondering if I shouldn’t just wait for the DVD.
From what I understand it’s Sue Storm’s adventures with her invisibility, in which she has to strip to slink away unnotices, is caught briefly in her underwear, and is then imagined to be naked. If true, that’s just ridiculous on the MPAA’s part.
Johnny is also imagined to be naked after burning up the slopes.
But that would be ridiculous too.
We’ll probably wait for the DVD for this. not a huge FF fan, and with the new baby coming soon, we’re kinda stingy on the entertainment spending (I know, there’s a side of my brain screaming that we should be seeing all the movies we can now, while we still can, but the theater experience just doesn’t have the same magic it used to).
Just responding to a few points raised by Jerome on other issues:
Spidey-1 was like 2 movies fused by a montage…Spidey’s origin, and Goblin’s origin. The first half…Spidey’s origin…was fantastic. After that, it went downhill. It might have been very faithful to the images and themes of the comic, but it was forced. Because instead of evolving over the course of months and years in the comic, it was forced to fit into a 2+ hour movie. As an audience, we know Gobbey hates Spidey, but because of the time constraint, the movie doesn’t get to show us that.
I’m not sure why a villians means are necessary to show…it’s not enough to know that Magneto has a device, powered by gravity, that changes humans to unstable mutants? We need to see ledger sheets showing how he financed it, researched the tech, and had it built?
Still, I’ll at least answer the Doc Ock motivation: His machine was intended as a new power source. He arms were programmed with the singular goal of making that fusion machine work. When the inhibitor chip was destroyed, Ock became subject to the arm’s programming. Completing the experiment became his driving motivation. Until he learned to control the arms better, that goal tinged all his actions.
I absolutely agree that most complaints I read about comic films are of the “I would have done it differently” variety. I think it’s almost funny to read references to Alba’s portrayal of a scientist, and how “unreal” it was, leading to a dislike for the film. In Hulk, Jennifer Connely purposefully (either on her own, or because of direction) avoided the glamorous look exactly because of the perception that you can’t be both smart and pretty.
I also agree with not laying B&R on Clooney. Dislike him if you want because he hasn’t shown a lot of range (I hear seeing him in Solaris changes that opinion of his talent), but don’t put the demise of the Bat Franchise on him. Someone on this site (or maybe it was Newsarama) about some of the other stuff leading to Batman Forever and B&R…and it had much more to do with internet chat and focus group reaction. Schumacher was tasked by the studio to make a more “comic-ey” franchise, and he succeeded. It sounds like FF is a decent blend of camp and serious comic action. Both the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises have less camp…of which I’m glad…and variety is going to be essential if comic-based movies are going to survive.
We go to comic movies not to see Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan, but to essentially see James Bond in tights.
“To sum up my opinion, it was a low-budget made for television movie. It was maudlin instead of fun. If instead, you have three people who’s world just opened up because of these powers and now they can do anything and DO do everything, dragging along their misshapen buddy who has to occassionally remind everyone of the downside to powers, THEN you have a fun movie.”
60s Marvel Comics was hardly “fun” in the way modern fans use the word (as if to describe bright, light stories featuring heroes who enjoy being heroes). It had it’s many camp moments, but as far as the heroes’s personalities go, “maudlin” is a good word to describe it. A even better word would be “tragic”.
It seemed like the only FF member who enjoyed being a hero was the Human Torch. Sue seemed to want a normal life, the Thing wanted his humanity back, and Reed was torn between guilt for Ben and insecurity as how to deal with Sue, even though Reed was the one with the sense of duty to mankind.
Johnny was the only one who remained more or less angst-free, until he met Crystal…
But I can see how a movie dealing heavily with the “origin” would be kinda light on action, and that would be a problem to some.
“And for the poster who took exception to my describing Byrne as ponderous – I love reading, but a bazillion word balloons and four pages of Sue looking at her new house in the ‘burbs IS ponderous. It was a different time, and I know there were some really good issues, but not in that trade paperback. Renee, thank you for your understanding.”
No sweat. 🙂 I understand you, but that don’t mean I exactly agree with you, since I do like yesteryear’s style, and as far as the FF is concerned, I think John Byrne is God (well, okay, Stan and Jack are God, Byrne is more like Christ then).
But not even God is infallible. The “moving to the suburbs” sub-plot seemed at the time as if it would be a big change for the FF, but it went nowhere. It started from a logical development (Reed and Sue worrying about Franklin), but it lasted very little.
I suppose Byrne simply came to the conclusion that secret identities just don’t work for the FF, so he mercifully dropped it. But still we had the Mephisto story to wrap it up that I think was pretty cool.
I also agree with not laying B&R on Clooney. Dislike him if you want because he hasn’t shown a lot of range (I hear seeing him in Solaris changes that opinion of his talent), but don’t put the demise of the Bat Franchise on him.
Well, the Bat Franchise is now back from the dead.
Like I said before, Schumacher did suck as the director, but I fail to see how that redeems Clooney. He phoned in a wooden, dull performance. Saying he had a crappy script and poor direction to work may be true, but it’s not an excuse.
Renee, I left out the Doctor Octopus issue in the trade that was very good, one of my favorites of JB’s run. I didn’t say I didn’t like it, either, just that it was ponderous (I was amused that the galaxy’s best justice system, in the Trial of Reed Richards, starts with the assumption of guilty until everyone feels you’re innocent. No reasonable doubt or anything).
Maudlin just doesn’t work for action movies, and SuperHero movies are action movies. (TMI follows: caffiene and popcorn shrink my bladder to the size of a walnut, making at least one trip to the can during a movie necessary. Normally choosing the spot to go is agony… no such problem here, but apparently I missed the Doom blowing a hole in a guard).
The comics story of them pursuing adventure in a space ship – then a hyperdriven space ship – hints at the adventurer’s spirit that infuses the FF. These guys don’t go on patrol, they go on adventures! While seeking to improve human DNA is a nice goal, Reed Richards – Researcher doesn’t lend itself to much.
If they do a sequel, I’d go with the Skrulls. I’d love the Inhumans, but budget problems wouldn’t allow much. The goal would be visual bad guys who don’t wear full face masks.
“The comics story of them pursuing adventure in a space ship – then a hyperdriven space ship – hints at the adventurer’s spirit that infuses the FF. These guys don’t go on patrol, they go on adventures! While seeking to improve human DNA is a nice goal, Reed Richards – Researcher doesn’t lend itself to much.”
No doubt about it, a sense of adventure and awe has always been a Lee/Kirby trademark, specially on the FF. I only disagreed with the implicit assumption that except for Ben the FF was/should be happy and well-adjusted and elated to have powers.
There was a pretty cool combo in 60s Marvel, equal parts awesome adventures (associated with Kirby) and angsty, tortured heroes (associated with Lee). People usually associate think only Spider-Man and the X-Men had problems, but really it was everywhere. Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, they were all incredibly angsty.
Re: “Trial of Reed Richards”. That was great, though controversial. I certainly wouldn’t want to be tried by those aliens. Not only you start from guilt and has to struggle uphill, but you’re only scott-free if you completely convince EVERYONE attending it that you’re innocent. Talk about draconian. 🙂
Reed was miscast and boring – inactive, hesitant characters make for boring characters.
I think it has more to do with the character than the actor. Reed is an introspective thinker, which can work well in comic monologues, but hard to translate to the screen. Gruffud took a similar character (Hornblower) and did wonders with it, so I think it’s as much the script as anything else.
Clooney did indeed have something to do with the suckitutde that was Batman & Robin.
The first sign I had that it was going to be a really bad film was during an interview Clooney gave during post-production, when he said that his interpretation of the character borrowed heavily from the man he thought played Batman best – Adam West.
Adam freaking West, for crying in a Bat-bucket!!
That might have worked if the movie series was supposed to be a badly-written, campy parody of action flicks and superheroes – but it wasn’t. It was supposed to be an adult, shadowy, respectful treatment of the Dark Knight. Even Michael Keaton was more believable as a conflicted almost-anti-hero!
Schumacher had even more to do with almost destroying the movie franchise, of course. (Note to Joel: We get it. You’re gay. Thanks for the bulletin. Guess what – we don’t care. Do what you want in your private life – just don’t screw up an icon with your personal obsessions, ‘kay?)
I still haven’t seen Fantastic Four, but with the horrible reviews, I’m wondering if I shouldn’t just wait for the DVD.
And if you rely solely on the reviews, you would think this movie only made about $10 million this weekend.
But it made $56 million.
It was well earned.
While I read critics rewviews as much as anybody, I think, as I said before, these guys really missed the point: this isn’t meant to be a serious, dark, completely angst-ridden movie like Batman Begins and (to a degree) Spider-Man.
It was meant to be fun.
I think critics have forgetten what it’s like to go to a fun movie.
While I can’t say for certain whether every single critic in the country has forgotten what it’s like to go see a fun movie, I have to wonder if the huge openning weekend has more to do with the tremendous amount of hype put behind this movie.
Besides, popular doesn’t always = quality.
I’ll watch the movie eventually and then judge for myself.
Well, carp, Den, I can’t dig up the link…I found it at least enlightening. I’d always just blamed Schumacher. After reading that it was the studio’s (WBs) decision to radically alter the franchise away from the Burton vision, I spread the blame around. WB instructed Schumacher to inject more color, more camp, and lighten the tone from serious back to “comic-ey,” because the PTB at the WB felt that Elfman’s take just wasn’t commercially sustainable.
And to a certain point, I think they were right. The original Batman took in $251 million, Returns $162 million, and Forever $184 million. Returns was a failure on a lot of levels, and while Forever wasn’t that much better, it at least showed some improvement.
If you take the understanding that Schumacher was making a movie following the PTB at WB, at least so far as Returns goes, he made a good movie. Not from the comic-fans view, and not from most mainstream movie audiences, but enough that it warranted another shot. B&R, in opting to follow (and most would say one-up Forever) was doomed from the beginning. Clooney’s decision to ape West was in keeping with the overall tone of the production: They WANTED to channel the BIFF! POW! of West and Ward. But, again, I’d lay that more on the hands of the studio producers, and not so much the talent.
Just be thankful we didn’t get a late 90’s Superman movie that ended with a non-long-johned Supes battling a giant spider…..
In many ways, I think Burton’s vision of Batman was every bit as flawed as Schumacher’s, with the horribly miscast Michael Keaton. Plus, Burton isn’t exactly my first choice to direct an action movie. Unless the action revolves around a quest for a hug.
Then again, maybe I should be happy he didn’t insist on Johnny Depp.
Oh well, as they say, fifth time’s the charm.
Well, maybe they’ll say that now that we finally have a Batman movie that gets it right.
As for the Jon Peters Superman: Yeah, we dodged a serious bullet there. I think WB is finally waking up to the fact that the people down in that little comics shop they own might actually known something about what makes these characters popular.
Catwoman might have something to do with that.
My opinion: I liked it! I read all of these negative reviews and excepted it to be crap. I was suprised when it wasn’t.
My complaints: It need more action. The final action sequence was way tooo short. 5 minutes? Also. Dr. Doom need a ‘voice.’ Victor Von Doom was Christain Troy the whole movie. Even when he was Dr. Doom, he was Christian Troy.
Other then, I’d recommend it!
-Oscar
I’m willing to accept the horrible idea that was Catwoman if it means more films like Begins. And as much as I loved Burton’s Batman at the time (might have been the first movie I went to see more than once), I’ve really come to dislike it. It’s a decent movie, especially for it’s time, but not what I’d call a good Batman movie. I always thought of Batman and Returns as Elseworld’s stories.
Maybe Depp couldn’t pull of Bruce/Bats…but could he do a villian? Mad Hatter maybe?
Regarding Johnny Depp in Batman:
As someone once said about a different actor, “I’d cast him as Thomas Wayne, that way I could look forward to seeing him get shot.”
I was thinking having him show up in the beginning as Mad Hatter (his Charly outfit as Wonka makes me think of Jervis all the time) and getting taken out with one punch, hauled off to Arkham, and never seen again. Just to get things started, like a Bond film, where the little vignette at the beginning can have nothing to do with the rest of the film.
**WARNING** Will contain some semi-spoilers!!!!!!
OK, saw it this weekend. It would have been great if they had Doom trying a grand scheme from Latveria and another villain under Doom’s command being the villain focal point.
Doom was the worst part of the film. He didn’t seem menacing and the voice acting after he donned the mask was entirely wrong. They should have made him talk with a different voice or inflection. The audio was done so badly that it didn’t even sound like he was talking in a metal basketball that is the mask.
Another Doom plotline I didn’t like. Why do they write the same villain storyline for the Marvel movies? Ok, here’s an example from FF – Corporate mogul has something go horribly wrong and he loses his company, money, etc. He then goes insane for revenge and powerlust that he puts on a costume and hunts down the hero(es).
Wait… That was Spider-Man 1, right?
Thank goodness there was only one real “What happens to a toad when it gets hit by lightning – same as everything else” from X-Men 1 type of dialogue at the end.
Other than that, the FF actors were pretty good together. Johnny and Ben stole the show, though. The interaction between those two was excellent.
Maybe Depp couldn’t pull of Bruce/Bats…but could he do a villain? Mad Hatter maybe?
To go by the TV ads, Depp already is playing the Mad Hatter in the new Charlie & the Chocolate Factory movie — all you’d have to do would be to dub in different dialogue.
(I have all manner of reservations about that movie, and the degree to which Depp’s Wonka looks like Michael Jackson does NOT help. But it looks much too visually cool not to see on the big screen.)
Um…re: George Clooney. He SUCKED as Batman. However, the one scene in the movie that I liked was him as Bruce, sitting at Alfred’s bedside.
“Not sure why it got a PG-13.”
From what I understand it’s Sue Storm’s adventures with her invisibility, in which she has to strip to slink away unnotices, is caught briefly in her underwear, and is then imagined to be naked.
If true, that’s just ridiculous on the MPAA’s part.
For what it’s worth, according the to MPAA website, the film got a PG-13 “for sequences of intense action, and some suggestive content.”
The “intense action” they’re talking about is probably the general summer movie blockbuster stuff (stuff blowing up, people being endangered) and the “suggestive content” is probably Johnny & Sue’s sorta-nude moments, to say nothing of the joke about Reed being able to stretch any part of his anatomy.
“…to say nothing of the joke about Reed being able to stretch any part of his anatomy.”
Which just reminds me of one of the lines from an early Straczinsky issue of Amazing Spider-Man, as Peter is soliloquizing to himself about carrying things:
“Why didn’t I design this suit with pockets? The FF have pockets in their suits. Reed’s alone are huge. But that’s because he has to carry interdimensional doohickeys and thingamajigs in them. Or maybe he’s just real happy to see Sue…”
Craig…
I can also see another Batman & Robin…
What? Y’mean Akiva Goldsman wrote the FF movie, and Joel Schumacher directed? Man…it’s worse than I thought. 😉
But seriously…despite B&R being the only movie to ever make me want to walk out (including years of film classes), I still believe that Clooney could’ve made a great Bruce Wayne/Batman if he were given a decent script and a competent director.
I can also see another Dude, Where’s My Car?
I can’t. ‘Cuz I’ve never seen the first one. 😉
But, I have seen the American Pie movies, and still think he could pull it off.
*******************************
KET…
The “big deal” HAS ALWAYS BEEN her exotic beauty. And if you can’t see that…well, dude, then maybe you need to get some glasses or something. 🙂
Have some. And a recent eye exam. 🙂
But, I still find her “exotic beauty” to be overrated. As I said earlier…”food court” hot…not “international sex symbol” hot.
But, hey, whatta I know…I always preferred Alyson Hannigan to Sarah Michelle Gellar or Charisma Carpenter. 🙂
Well, frankly, if you haven’t even seen the movie yet, then you’re simply making a false assessment.
I suppose you could see it that way. However, the way I see it is that I’m making an assessment based upon my reactions to past performances I’ve seen of hers. Now, maybe…just maybe…she’ll turn my reaction to each and every Jessica Alba performance I’ve ever seen on its head. Or, maybe…just maybe…she’ll prove to me that I was right in feeling she can’t pull off playing the “first lady of the Marvel Universe,” by showing me Sue in Alba’s standard, “lookit the li’l sex kitten” portrayal.
Off topic but of interest:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-stein10jul10,0,7035737.column?coll=la-sunday-commentary
“However, the way I see it is that I’m making an assessment based upon my reactions to past performances I’ve seen of hers. Now, maybe…just maybe…she’ll turn my reaction to each and every Jessica Alba performance I’ve ever seen on its head….”
…or most likely, this role still won’t change a thing about those earlier ‘naive ingenue’ performances (which, in my mind, didn’t require much of an ‘acting’ stretch). That still doesn’t take away from Alba’s accomplished work in THIS film, though.
KET
The “intense action” was obviously the violence, especially Doom’s murder of the Board member. Be thankful that PG-13 exists. Otherwise, it could have been an “R,” and that would have definitely betrayed the fun aspects of this film.
Since most of these posted comments are spoiler-laden, let me ask this:
Am I the only one who noticed that Stan “The Man” Lee actually got to play a character that HE CREATED instead of a generic walk-on character written for the film adaptation? Willie Lumpkin was always among my favorite “comedy relief” characters in comics and it was nice to see Stan play him, especially since he was too old to play J. Jonah Jameson in both Spiderman films.
I personally believe that Ebert and his “brethren” missed the boat on this film because they have a pre-conceived idea of what a comic book film should be about: guys in tights beating up other guys in tights and that’s it! Didn’t Stan & Jack create the FF to break the comic stereotypes in the first place? Instead of a teenage sidekick, have a teenage hero who’s just as vital as any other superhero? Instead of the stereotypical girlfriend of the superhero who ALWAYS needs to be rescued(my one major gripe with “Batman Begins” by the way: haven’t we seen this BEFORE?), make her a superheroine in her own rights and have her rescue the GUYS for a change? Instead of a superhero who’s handsome, how about one that looks like a MONSTER…before The Hulk was created? Perhaps these “know-it-all” critics should do their homework as they do with high-profile directors and on-camera superstars… or would that be too much like “work” for them?
Perhaps these “know-it-all” critics should do their homework as they do with high-profile directors and on-camera superstars… or would that be too much like “work” for them?
I dunno…it’s obviously too much work a lot of comic fans, who were pretty much missing the same things (and more) pre-release.
I dunno…it’s obviously too much work a lot of comic fans, who were pretty much missing the same things (and more) pre-release.
Agreed.
I was at a Bruce Campbell book signing / movie screening last night, and the guys sitting behind me were talking about FF and how terrible they thought it was because they thought it was “fluff”.
It seems like alot of fans have raised their expectations as well (due to films like Batman Begins, Sin City, and Spider-Man 2) and even they cannot simply enjoy a more lighthearted comic book movie.
And now everybody wants to compare every comic movie that comes out to the ones I mentioned above, and, to be blunt, it’s pathetically unfair.
Actually, I think critics just want a good movie. Well written, well directed, well photographed, well acted. As long as those things exist – or a reasonable combination of a few – you have a good movie. This movie did poorly on such things as dialog, story compression, pacing, tension, action, suspense, stakes, and scope – and that’s just the script (and some direction). They are judging it on the merits of HOLLYWOOD, not Marvel. It can be as angst-ridden, and off the beaten path as you want, as long as it’s done well. This wasn’t. It’s better than the Corman film – at least the effects and costumes – but that’s not saying much.
You know what makes the FF great? The fact that they are completely dwarfed by their adventures. Their stock powers are just the constant in a book that boasts the Negative Zone, the Hidden Land, the Micro-world and Wakanda. I don’t know if any movie is going to go as far out as Kirby did.
Well, with the barely whispered phrase, “Please, Mommy, don’t let this suck TOO bad…”, I checked it out.
And I did like it as the beginning of a franchise.
The highs: Michael Chiklis as the Thing (inspired casting!). Chris Evans as the Human Torch. Any scenes with those two in it. Ben’s seduction by Doom drawn straight out of the comics. The cool Baxter Building. Stan Lee as Willie Lumpkin. The rescue on the bridge. The “4” in the sky. “No, IT’S CLOBBERIN’ TIME!”
The lows: The absolute waste of one of the most iconic villains in comics. Nonsensical theft of the iron mask. After all that arguing, suddenly she accepts Reed’s proposal??!! Tim Story’s uninspired direction. No scenes in Alicia’s studio (now impatient for the DVD).
No, this is definitely not the worst of the Marvel films (that singular distinction belongs to THE PUNISHER, a film I can’t even talk about without slobbering like a mad dog). It’s still several steps below SPIDEY 2 and The X-films, and probably on an even kiel with DAREDEVIL. My hope is that the next film will see a vast improvement (better script, better director, better just about everything).
At any rate, I will be picking up the novelization, because I hear the author is pretty good silk purse out of a sow’s ear…
Holy Cripes. Call me when a new story has been posted. I’m bored to tears by talk of the FF.
Overall, I thought it was a fun movie, though I did not like what they did with Dr. Doom. I am also wondering whether Reed Richard’s financial situation will improve before the next film.
Since it made $56M on the opening weekend, I think the odds are reasonable that they’ll make a sequel. Now that the origin is out of the way, I hope they do one of their amazing adventures in the second film.
Neil
Den,
I am not saying Clooney was wonderful, just that nobody – Bale, Kilmer, Keaton or whoever you want – could have saved a movie with that script and that director.
Nonsensical theft of the iron mask.
Erm. I got the impression that the mask was in a case in Doom’s apartment. So, no theft involved. I mean, it did say on the plaque that it was a gift from Latveria and whatnot.
Jerome, I go one further and say that no one, not even Spielburg, could have saved B&R. Schumcher takes a lot of the heat…but I think (and I’ll keep looking for the website that has this information) that he made the movie he was told to make by WB. Consider some of his other films: St. Elmo’s Fire, Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down, A Time to Kill, 8mm, Phone Booth, and his latest, the film version of the Phantom of the Opera (admittedly, I’ve not seen it, but from what I heard, it was a faithful adaptation of the stage production).
Some of these are not just good films, but great films. Lost Boys is still one of my all-time favorite vampire movies. And some of these are decidely dark…8mm, Falling Down. And some serious drama…A Time to Kill is a pretty darn good movie.
I’d say that Schumacher’s resume’ proves he’s got chops. So, he was either, on some 20 other films, totally restrained by the respective studio, and only allowed to let his “true” colors shown in Forever and B&R, OR the studio hired him to make a more colorful, more comic-ey, more “fun” version of B&R. That the studio’s direction was woefully out of touch with what would sell at the time isn’t really the fault of any of the talent involved.
“Holy Cripes. Call me when a new story has been posted. I’m bored to tears by talk of the FF.”
Gotta agree BB. Actually, I have been rooting around in the archives. Lots of realllly cool stuff in there. I reccomend it to anyone who is bored.
Just gotta pipe in (first time on PAD’s blog), but I have to say that FF was a sloppy, poorly executed mess of a motion picture – a big step below Spider-Man, X-Men, and Batman Begins. I wasn’t expecting much – at least in regards Doom – but I was shocked at how contrived and slapdash the plotting was, with logical inconsistencies and plot holes galore. I didn’t mind the SFX (which many critics are harping on), but the characters, much as I’ve loved then for 30 years, were embarrassingly flat, with only Johnny and Ben occassionally standing out.
All that said, the movie’s saving grave was its sense of fun; it didn’t take itself too seriously. And by not taking it too seriously, I was actually able to enjoy the movie even though I thought it rather poor.
Ray
Ray, I guess that’s what keeping this a DVD film for me. I really don’t care that changes were made to characters and plots…I accept that as a given when it comes to comics. Whether a movie or a new writer comes along, some things are going to be different. It’s that the one constant behind the reviews is that it’s got some issues just being a good movie. This is, to me, what made Batman Begins the best comic origin movie yet: even taking all the Batman stuff out, and it was just a plain good movie.
FF seems like it has re-hashed things already done in other movies, and isn’t even trying to do them better. I’ve already given Marvel Studios well over $40 (seeing Spider-Man twice in the theater, then buying the DVD). I’m not going to give them another $20 (married now) to see the same movie with different colored tights. Marvel’s stable of characters has more than enough diversity that they should be able to, without much effort, produce movies that don’t repeat recent works. From all I’ve heard, FF is a decent summer film, and it looks like people enjoy it enough. But it could have and should have been better, and by not paying to see it in the theater, it’s my small way of trying to tell Marvel which kind of movie I’d like to see them make.