![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI owe you a Fantastic Four: First Steps review, don't I?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four
This is a film that I was admittedly very much on the fence about seeing. I've not seen a Marvel film or a superhero film in theaters since...roughly, I can't remember? I think the last one was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. III? I'd gotten a tad burned out on the genre. And so many of the films felt repetitive. And well, it's the Fantastic Four - and I've always been ambivalent of the comics and the team. I read a few here and there, curiosity and well, I'm an X-men comics fan since roughly college, and there's cross-overs. But I wouldn't call myself anything approaching a fan or expert? So I went into this with mixed feelings, low expectations, and for the most part blind. I hadn't really seen the trailers and I knew very little about the film - outside of who the villains were, who the cast was, and that it was retro-futuristic 1960s from the posters, whatever that meant.
The film, directed by Matt Shackman, and written by Josh Fredman, Eric Peterson, and Jeff Kaplan - is among the tighter of the genre entries to date (and believe it or not shorter). Clocking in at just under two hours. The plot clicked along, it had just the right amount of suspense, and emotional gravitas for this genre. It wasn't overly predictable, nor convoluted. It did a good job of setting up both its world and the characters without inundating us with too much unnecessary exposition, and it was fun. There was in short, no huge information dump, yet at the same time - it introduced the story to those who may never have read a comic or seen a Marvel flick or television series (a rarity for Marvel). It also had an almost childlike innocence to it - which is true of the early 1960s comics and 1970-80s superhero flicks - which some may find silly, but I oddly enough found refreshing? It may just be that I'm tired of dark grim films and content, the world can be depressing enough all on its own. In some respects this film reminded me of another era - the films released in the 1940s and in the 1960s, films depicting a better world, where problems can be solved with a smattering of cool science and cooperation, a kind of cartoon escapism.
I often want to escape it for a bit - when I go to the movies - and that's what the superhero genre does best. That's not to say that the filmmaker's had nothing to say - they did. Fantastic Four shows a world that comes together to fight a common threat, and in its world - everyone is equal, race, religion, gender. The head of the United States is a Black Woman, and it is Sue Storm who speaks to the assembly and is the diplomat and leader, and public spokesperson, not Reed. Sue, Johnny, and Reed are scientists, and Grimm is an expert pilot. It's the world we want, not necessarily the one we have. Albeit in a 1960s retro-future, straight out of those old sci-fi comics and cartoons, if possibly a far less sexist one.
And much like the 1960s, it has that kind of hopeful political innocence which at times I feel we've lost in tangle of negative spin-doctoring, engineered mis-information and targeted advertising.
The retro-futurism is difficult to describe - but it reminded me a lot of 1960s and 50s science fiction drawings of the 21st Century. Often the previous century is far more hopeful of the next one, or so I've discovered. Those drawings with their bright colors, Frank Lloyd Wright among others inspired art deco architecture, and cute robots as seen in the cartoon the Jetsons and Lost in Spce. Add flying cars. And 1960s outfits and hair styles, not to mention powderpuff blue outfits. All expertly done, and consistent throughout. The art direction alone was a triumph to behold. I almost think the movie is worth seeing just for that? Along with the special effects, which went more for the cosmic awe value than the standard video game standard CGI.
As previously stated, clocking in at just under two hours or an hour and fifty-four minutes, it's among the shorter superhero action films of late, actually I'd say it's among the shorter films period. Keep in mind, my last film in the movie theater was Oppenheimer, which was three hours. And this movie theater was far more comfortable. Try sitting for three hours in hard seats, and not a lot of slant or leg room. While in direct contrast, this movie theater was a delight. It had comfy arm chair seats, and plenty of space for the legs. Also, cool bathrooms, which were easier to get to then I'd realized. Add to the above, we were in the second row - and it wasn't a problem - I felt like I was seeing it in IMAX, plus surround sound. I actually felt the footsteps of Galactus from my seat, the theater appeared to vibrate with each step the giant villain took and his voice radiated around us as if we were in the same space. For once, I could hear the movie - without either wanting to put in ear plugs, or to struggle to figure out what they were saying. It was an immersive experience with few distractions, outside of late movie-goers, which is common to all movie theaters. Cjlasky and I were pleasantly surprised, we'd gone in with trepidation, because it was advertised as a dine-in-movie theater. But apparently, you can either eat at the restaurant at the top of the complex before or after the film, or order and take the food with you into the movie theater. Unlike Nite Hawk and Alamo Drafthouse, no waitresses bugged us. You get it before the movie starts. We were bad movie goers - we ordered nothing, and ate somewhere else prior.
A good movie theater can make all the difference. If you have an IPICT Movie Theater near you - I highly recommend.
A review of Fantastic 4 would be lacking without mentioning the previous efforts, and the problematic nature of an adaptation. Of the comic book properties out there, this is in some respect among the hardest to adapt. Fantastic 4 is also among the most popular and universally adored of Marvel's comic franchises among comic fans. I had a former co-worker, about twenty years younger than me, and a POC, who adored them and wanted a movie very badly. There have been a more than few attempts to adapt the Fantastic Four comics into a film, mostly its been done as a cartoon (a version is shown at the end credits of the film, and in the film itself on a television set (1960s retro-future television set). But they've not been that successful for various reasons. Although the first released film is arguably a serviceable effort and for the most part enjoyable obtaining enough success to warrant a sequel - the sequel is far less so, and the third film to be widely released (a reboot, and completely unrelated to the first two films) was a disaster, bombing at the box office, and universally considered a failure. They all made the same mistake of setting up the Fantastic 4 as stubborn moody hot headed individuals, and introducing Doctor Doom as the main antagonist, a kind of foreign version of Lex Luther and a rival scientist, far too soon. In prior films, they aren't quite a family unit yet, and bickering like the Avengers, as opposed to the warm, caring family unit that supports each other that was universally loved in the comics. There's two ways to go with a story - either start with everyone meeting and slowly becoming a family unit, or start with a family unit and show some of the cracks within it, while at the same time showing the unbreakable strength at its core. The first approach works better in television shows, or serials, while the second approach works far better in a film - film's are slices of life, or akin to a novella or short story or comic book. They aren't an arc. Also the conflict in the first three films was basically everyone obtaining their powers and struggling with them along with each other and how the world viewed them - this gets old after a bit and again works better in a serial format, not in a two hour movie. And it doesn't leave room for much else.
But that was before the MCU. Now, with the MCU firmly in place, it's even more problematic to adapt Fantastic 4. For a lot of reasons, part of the problem is the comics essentially take place in a retro-futuristic 1960s verse, and utilize the 1960s era's take on science and space travel. [They were initially written in the 1960s after all.]
I vaguely remember brithistorian writing a post about how it would be difficult to do the film in the modern era - because the gamma ray explanation for the team's powers doesn't play within the current MCU - particularly after not one but three Guardians of the Galaxyflicks, and Endgame, not to mention the Marvels had all sorts of people bobbing about in space without the need of gravity suits and no issues with gamma rays. It's kind of hard for the audience to buy that the four were mutated and changed, while Tony Stark, Star Lord, et all weren't. The gamma ray explanation really only worked in the 1960s timeline that the comics are set in. We were pondering how Marvel was going to get around that issue and pull it off - and one possibility we came up with was to set it in an alternate universe or timeline, or in the actual 1960s in the MCU verse, which doesn't quite work either for other reasons. Before all of the advances. Marvel opted for the former, the alternate universe, but in the 1960s - which allowed them to play a bit more. This solves multiple problems - among them, Marvel doesn't have to worry about linking it to what is currently happening in the MCU. There is no mention of Infinity War or Endgame, and no reference to the Avengers or any other superhero teams. In this verse, it's just the Fantastic Four and assorted villains they've defeated over time.
Also, Marvel is able to bring in villains notably absent from the MCU, and it works, because multiple films prior are about the multi-verse. Yet, at the same time, it stands on its own. Fantastic Four: First Steps is actually the first Marvel film (with the possible exception of the Spiderman franchise) in years that you can watch without having seen any of the other films. It stands completely on its own. This was the main problem with The Marvels and Brave New World - both were a bit too dependent on folks seeing television shows on Disney +. You shouldn't have to subscribe to a streaming service to see a movie. Thunderbolts had a similar problem.
There are a few other things they do right as well - as previously mentioned, they managed to shift the focus from the team as individuals, to how they work together as a family and their inter-relationships with each other, but didn't lose their individuality in the process. Each character has its own individual moment to shine, and there are small touches here and there that tell the audience who they are, and that fully develop them without taking up too much screen time. I left the theater knowing the characters, and seeing them clearly in my mind. In prior films there's a bit too much emphasis on the Thing's (Ben Grimm) inability to handle his changes and appearance, in this one, he's more or less made peace with it, and while it is still an issue - it's not a source of conflict, and while it may tear at Reed, it doesn't tear at Ben. And, Sue Storm is given a spot front and center, and is allowed to shine in her own right - Sue's the heart of the team, not Reed. And a leader in her own right. This may be the most modern take yet, since prior movies put her strongly in a supporting role. My difficulty with both the comics and prior films, was she always felt weak to me, here it's the opposite. Pedro Pascale also surprised me - he lends a certain empathy and humor to Reed Richards, we've not seen previously. Pascale is skilled at emoting with his eyes, and getting across his thoughts and feelings by doing very little. Finally, Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm was a pleasant surprise, as was Julie Garner as the Silver Surfer. Both quietly got across volumes with very little.
Finally, it is not a busy movie, as so many tend to be these days. Most films, including the most recent Superman flick (which I've yet to see) are packed full of villains and side characters, to the point in which the main ones almost get lost. A two to three hour movie really isn't a good platform for multiple characters to shine. This film keeps it simple. We have one villain not three or worse, ten. And the villain is actually developed not a simplistic villain. He's also quite scary, and "cosmic" in scale. So the film becomes more about how to defeat him, and less about fisticuffs. And they try multiple methods before landing on something that finally works. It's also not overtly political, the politics is there, but more subtle, and doesn't hammer the audience over the head, the humor is also more subtle, and less juvenile than a lot of superhero films.
Overall, the film is worth a watch, particularly on a big screen and in a good theater. And well, if you are an MCU, Marvel or most importantly? A Fantastic Four fan? I'm certain there's a few of you out there?
The Fantastic Four, often abbreviated as FF, is a superhero team appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The team debuted in The Fantastic Four #1 (cover-dated November 1961), helping usher in a new level of realism in the medium. It was the first superhero team created by artist/co-plotter Jack Kirby and editor/co-scripter Stan Lee, and through this title the "Marvel method" style of production came into prominence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four
This is a film that I was admittedly very much on the fence about seeing. I've not seen a Marvel film or a superhero film in theaters since...roughly, I can't remember? I think the last one was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. III? I'd gotten a tad burned out on the genre. And so many of the films felt repetitive. And well, it's the Fantastic Four - and I've always been ambivalent of the comics and the team. I read a few here and there, curiosity and well, I'm an X-men comics fan since roughly college, and there's cross-overs. But I wouldn't call myself anything approaching a fan or expert? So I went into this with mixed feelings, low expectations, and for the most part blind. I hadn't really seen the trailers and I knew very little about the film - outside of who the villains were, who the cast was, and that it was retro-futuristic 1960s from the posters, whatever that meant.
The film, directed by Matt Shackman, and written by Josh Fredman, Eric Peterson, and Jeff Kaplan - is among the tighter of the genre entries to date (and believe it or not shorter). Clocking in at just under two hours. The plot clicked along, it had just the right amount of suspense, and emotional gravitas for this genre. It wasn't overly predictable, nor convoluted. It did a good job of setting up both its world and the characters without inundating us with too much unnecessary exposition, and it was fun. There was in short, no huge information dump, yet at the same time - it introduced the story to those who may never have read a comic or seen a Marvel flick or television series (a rarity for Marvel). It also had an almost childlike innocence to it - which is true of the early 1960s comics and 1970-80s superhero flicks - which some may find silly, but I oddly enough found refreshing? It may just be that I'm tired of dark grim films and content, the world can be depressing enough all on its own. In some respects this film reminded me of another era - the films released in the 1940s and in the 1960s, films depicting a better world, where problems can be solved with a smattering of cool science and cooperation, a kind of cartoon escapism.
I often want to escape it for a bit - when I go to the movies - and that's what the superhero genre does best. That's not to say that the filmmaker's had nothing to say - they did. Fantastic Four shows a world that comes together to fight a common threat, and in its world - everyone is equal, race, religion, gender. The head of the United States is a Black Woman, and it is Sue Storm who speaks to the assembly and is the diplomat and leader, and public spokesperson, not Reed. Sue, Johnny, and Reed are scientists, and Grimm is an expert pilot. It's the world we want, not necessarily the one we have. Albeit in a 1960s retro-future, straight out of those old sci-fi comics and cartoons, if possibly a far less sexist one.
And much like the 1960s, it has that kind of hopeful political innocence which at times I feel we've lost in tangle of negative spin-doctoring, engineered mis-information and targeted advertising.
The retro-futurism is difficult to describe - but it reminded me a lot of 1960s and 50s science fiction drawings of the 21st Century. Often the previous century is far more hopeful of the next one, or so I've discovered. Those drawings with their bright colors, Frank Lloyd Wright among others inspired art deco architecture, and cute robots as seen in the cartoon the Jetsons and Lost in Spce. Add flying cars. And 1960s outfits and hair styles, not to mention powderpuff blue outfits. All expertly done, and consistent throughout. The art direction alone was a triumph to behold. I almost think the movie is worth seeing just for that? Along with the special effects, which went more for the cosmic awe value than the standard video game standard CGI.
As previously stated, clocking in at just under two hours or an hour and fifty-four minutes, it's among the shorter superhero action films of late, actually I'd say it's among the shorter films period. Keep in mind, my last film in the movie theater was Oppenheimer, which was three hours. And this movie theater was far more comfortable. Try sitting for three hours in hard seats, and not a lot of slant or leg room. While in direct contrast, this movie theater was a delight. It had comfy arm chair seats, and plenty of space for the legs. Also, cool bathrooms, which were easier to get to then I'd realized. Add to the above, we were in the second row - and it wasn't a problem - I felt like I was seeing it in IMAX, plus surround sound. I actually felt the footsteps of Galactus from my seat, the theater appeared to vibrate with each step the giant villain took and his voice radiated around us as if we were in the same space. For once, I could hear the movie - without either wanting to put in ear plugs, or to struggle to figure out what they were saying. It was an immersive experience with few distractions, outside of late movie-goers, which is common to all movie theaters. Cjlasky and I were pleasantly surprised, we'd gone in with trepidation, because it was advertised as a dine-in-movie theater. But apparently, you can either eat at the restaurant at the top of the complex before or after the film, or order and take the food with you into the movie theater. Unlike Nite Hawk and Alamo Drafthouse, no waitresses bugged us. You get it before the movie starts. We were bad movie goers - we ordered nothing, and ate somewhere else prior.
A good movie theater can make all the difference. If you have an IPICT Movie Theater near you - I highly recommend.
A review of Fantastic 4 would be lacking without mentioning the previous efforts, and the problematic nature of an adaptation. Of the comic book properties out there, this is in some respect among the hardest to adapt. Fantastic 4 is also among the most popular and universally adored of Marvel's comic franchises among comic fans. I had a former co-worker, about twenty years younger than me, and a POC, who adored them and wanted a movie very badly. There have been a more than few attempts to adapt the Fantastic Four comics into a film, mostly its been done as a cartoon (a version is shown at the end credits of the film, and in the film itself on a television set (1960s retro-future television set). But they've not been that successful for various reasons. Although the first released film is arguably a serviceable effort and for the most part enjoyable obtaining enough success to warrant a sequel - the sequel is far less so, and the third film to be widely released (a reboot, and completely unrelated to the first two films) was a disaster, bombing at the box office, and universally considered a failure. They all made the same mistake of setting up the Fantastic 4 as stubborn moody hot headed individuals, and introducing Doctor Doom as the main antagonist, a kind of foreign version of Lex Luther and a rival scientist, far too soon. In prior films, they aren't quite a family unit yet, and bickering like the Avengers, as opposed to the warm, caring family unit that supports each other that was universally loved in the comics. There's two ways to go with a story - either start with everyone meeting and slowly becoming a family unit, or start with a family unit and show some of the cracks within it, while at the same time showing the unbreakable strength at its core. The first approach works better in television shows, or serials, while the second approach works far better in a film - film's are slices of life, or akin to a novella or short story or comic book. They aren't an arc. Also the conflict in the first three films was basically everyone obtaining their powers and struggling with them along with each other and how the world viewed them - this gets old after a bit and again works better in a serial format, not in a two hour movie. And it doesn't leave room for much else.
But that was before the MCU. Now, with the MCU firmly in place, it's even more problematic to adapt Fantastic 4. For a lot of reasons, part of the problem is the comics essentially take place in a retro-futuristic 1960s verse, and utilize the 1960s era's take on science and space travel. [They were initially written in the 1960s after all.]
I vaguely remember brithistorian writing a post about how it would be difficult to do the film in the modern era - because the gamma ray explanation for the team's powers doesn't play within the current MCU - particularly after not one but three Guardians of the Galaxyflicks, and Endgame, not to mention the Marvels had all sorts of people bobbing about in space without the need of gravity suits and no issues with gamma rays. It's kind of hard for the audience to buy that the four were mutated and changed, while Tony Stark, Star Lord, et all weren't. The gamma ray explanation really only worked in the 1960s timeline that the comics are set in. We were pondering how Marvel was going to get around that issue and pull it off - and one possibility we came up with was to set it in an alternate universe or timeline, or in the actual 1960s in the MCU verse, which doesn't quite work either for other reasons. Before all of the advances. Marvel opted for the former, the alternate universe, but in the 1960s - which allowed them to play a bit more. This solves multiple problems - among them, Marvel doesn't have to worry about linking it to what is currently happening in the MCU. There is no mention of Infinity War or Endgame, and no reference to the Avengers or any other superhero teams. In this verse, it's just the Fantastic Four and assorted villains they've defeated over time.
Also, Marvel is able to bring in villains notably absent from the MCU, and it works, because multiple films prior are about the multi-verse. Yet, at the same time, it stands on its own. Fantastic Four: First Steps is actually the first Marvel film (with the possible exception of the Spiderman franchise) in years that you can watch without having seen any of the other films. It stands completely on its own. This was the main problem with The Marvels and Brave New World - both were a bit too dependent on folks seeing television shows on Disney +. You shouldn't have to subscribe to a streaming service to see a movie. Thunderbolts had a similar problem.
There are a few other things they do right as well - as previously mentioned, they managed to shift the focus from the team as individuals, to how they work together as a family and their inter-relationships with each other, but didn't lose their individuality in the process. Each character has its own individual moment to shine, and there are small touches here and there that tell the audience who they are, and that fully develop them without taking up too much screen time. I left the theater knowing the characters, and seeing them clearly in my mind. In prior films there's a bit too much emphasis on the Thing's (Ben Grimm) inability to handle his changes and appearance, in this one, he's more or less made peace with it, and while it is still an issue - it's not a source of conflict, and while it may tear at Reed, it doesn't tear at Ben. And, Sue Storm is given a spot front and center, and is allowed to shine in her own right - Sue's the heart of the team, not Reed. And a leader in her own right. This may be the most modern take yet, since prior movies put her strongly in a supporting role. My difficulty with both the comics and prior films, was she always felt weak to me, here it's the opposite. Pedro Pascale also surprised me - he lends a certain empathy and humor to Reed Richards, we've not seen previously. Pascale is skilled at emoting with his eyes, and getting across his thoughts and feelings by doing very little. Finally, Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm was a pleasant surprise, as was Julie Garner as the Silver Surfer. Both quietly got across volumes with very little.
Finally, it is not a busy movie, as so many tend to be these days. Most films, including the most recent Superman flick (which I've yet to see) are packed full of villains and side characters, to the point in which the main ones almost get lost. A two to three hour movie really isn't a good platform for multiple characters to shine. This film keeps it simple. We have one villain not three or worse, ten. And the villain is actually developed not a simplistic villain. He's also quite scary, and "cosmic" in scale. So the film becomes more about how to defeat him, and less about fisticuffs. And they try multiple methods before landing on something that finally works. It's also not overtly political, the politics is there, but more subtle, and doesn't hammer the audience over the head, the humor is also more subtle, and less juvenile than a lot of superhero films.
Overall, the film is worth a watch, particularly on a big screen and in a good theater. And well, if you are an MCU, Marvel or most importantly? A Fantastic Four fan? I'm certain there's a few of you out there?