|
(Reviewer Rating: 3.5 out of 10) Originally I was going to warn that this might contain spoilers. But really, what could I spoil? Nothing shocking occurred in the movie. This movie didn't have anything even REMOTELY shocking. In fact, it was so watered down and transparent, as someone who knows the Fantastic Four, I was insulted; but from someone's perspective who doesn't know them, well, they still don't, and for that they should feel robbed.
I work with a fellow who grew up reading the Fantastic Four in the 60's. I don't have his background with the players involved, but I am quite familiar with them. We had a conversation something like this after we had both seen the movie:
| ME: |
"Fantastic Four - Hated it". |
| HIM: |
"What? I enjoyed it. Sure, some things were changed, and the characters weren't that well developed, but I thought it was good none-the-less." |
| ME: |
"Come on! The whole thing was a cheese fest. Completely campy and often stupid." |
| HIM: |
"Well, from what I remember, the comics were very much like that; catch phrases and silly situations. It didn't make sense most of the time, and it didn't have to. I think you want every comic book movie to be dark and gritty like Sin City and the most current Batman movies. What's wrong with the campy styles of the 1960's Comics?" |
| ME: |
"Hmm..that aside, they changed quite a bit of the story and tried way too hard to fit in some paper thin subplots, like Thing's romance with Alicia Masters, and some made up love triangle with Von Doom, Sue and Reed." |
| HIM: |
"Like they didn't stretch some origin stuff for the Superman movie, which you liked, right?" |
 It was a good conversation, because it made me think about both the issues he raised. First, that comics were originally very silly and rarely had much continuity. Was I jaded because I started reading comics in the late Eighties, right after the release of "Dark Knight Returns", which single handedly created a new genre of gritty, hard-edged comics? And secondly, am I also jaded by my bias for the DC Universe, allowing Superman to slip under my radar just because it's Supes?
Silly viewer, comic book movies are for Kids!
To the first point I answer this. The Fantastic Four was created in 1961. Comic's were a simpler art form back then. They employed silly or cheesy stories, hoping to appeal to their target audience, 8 to 13 year olds. At best, the stories would go on for two issues, and even that was a rarity. This was just the beginning of the industry's silver age, and no one had much respect for the comic book reading audience. They were regarded as unsophisticated. Based on that standard, this movie is good likeness.
The problem is that comics today don't disrespect their audience like that. The reason that comics have lost that innocence is because the readers demanded that comics evolve, and they did. Even younger comic readers appreciate when a story is more realistic and has continuity, but the fact of the matter is, most comic book readers aren't children. Not anymore. Get with the times. A rich story would have been easy with the characters you had at hand, but you dropped the ball.
Isn't Lex Luthor Bald? And who's that "Squeal Like A Pig!" guy supposed to be?
I have since re-viewed both Superman I and Superman II, and while I still like them a lot, they aren't good movies. They do have a special place in my heart, because, hey, "It's Superman, dammit!", but they aren't good movies. They are cheesy and campy and, where the hell did he get that Superman Cellophane? What makes this different? First off, Superman was always superman. His core character didn't change much, even in the campy story structure. He was strong and smart and invincible and, well, super. Secondly, Superman was one of the first comic book movies. They didn't want to take any chances with that franchise. They didn't have the success and failure of others before them to see what worked and what didn't. And finally, it was Superman, one of the most iconic characters in comics and probably as easily identifiable as Coke around the world.
With a movie like "The Fantastic Four", a comic book movie that focuses on a group rather than a single individual, you walk a dangerous line of watering down every character in your rush to sell toys for the entire group. In the case of FF, they soundly hopped the line and then ran at full speed towards oblivion. Brian Singer seemed to realize this, focusing in on a couple of character origins in X-Men, but making a good story for those characters to unfold in. That was missing from this movie. X-Men should have taught a lesson that the story is what's important, no matter which heroes are involved.
We have the special effects now-a-days to make anything look half-way decent, and in some cases, truly great (Smeagol, take a bow.) The Thing looked like a guy in a rubber suit (only slightly more convincing than Roger Corman's version) and Reed's stretching powers looked crappy with two exceptions.
The biggest problem with this movie, is that it made 150 Million domestic. This will be viewed as a success, not a failure. And even though it was a success, technically, I think it would have been a much greater success if a little more care had been taken with the story and the characters.
|
|
|
