Fantastic Four

Secret Agent Man

Well the "The World's Greatest Comic" opens Friday in theaters! What does everyone think of it so far!? They true to the comics with the costumes and Doctor Doom! So what does everyone think!?

asio

My brother is taking to day off work on Thursday to go see it.
From the trailers, it looks like it's fairly spot on with the comics. And I'm glad it underwent a re-write. The original script had Victor Van Damme as Dr Doom (just like in the Ultimate Fantastic Four comics). I, and most others, prefer the original FF universe.

darenhat

I have to say I'm a bit dissappointed in the look of Ben Grimm. It looks too much like a prosthetic suit and not like a hard rock substance. Part of it is the actor Chiklis' inability to perform in such a heavy handed costume. This is a case where I think CGI would have served better in giving the character more capability.

I am a Ioan Gruffud fan and I'm looking forward to see how he does in such a strong mainstream role.

Hardyboy

I'll see it, but I'm a bit wary--from the trailer the outer-space scenes and the spaceship interior both look incredibly cheesy, like they escaped from a film from the 1950s. And I'm with darenhat on The Thing--I'm not so much bothered by the fact it's Chiklis in a suit, but WHERE THE HECK IS HIS BROW RIDGE?! Well, who knows, FF may be great, but somehow I doubt it will hold a candle to Batman Begins.

Willie Garvin

Fantastic Four looks very good and has every chance of being successful.They have an excellent cast,a good storyline and some very impressive special effects.The Incredibles borrowed heavily from the FF (in fact,according to Entertainment Weekly some sequences in the FF had to be reshot so they wouldn't look like they were copying The Incredibles),but it'll be nice to see the original team in action.Look for FF creator Stan Lee cameo as Baxter Building mailman Willie Lumpkin.:)

By the way,I've seen a bootleg of the Roger Corman FF movie that almost always gets slammed, but for it's time and considerably smaller budget, it's really not bad at all.And in THAT one,The Thing has a ridge where his brows should be--just like in the comics....:)

darenhat

Willie Garvin wrote:

By the way,I've seen a bootleg of the Roger Corman FF movie that almost always gets slammed, but for it's time and considerably smaller budget, it's really not bad at all.And in THAT one,The Thing has a ridge where his brows should be--just like in the comics....:)

I met with the producer of that FF film, a gentleman by the name of Brian Patrick O'Toole. His production company specialized in make cheap horror movies for a one million dollar budget, and then making profits by selling straight to video. He told me and my friend that John Hughes (of Home Alone fame) paid the company BIG bucks to not release their FF movie because he planned on making his own. That was ten years ago. I guess Hughes never got to see the project all the way through.

asio

Very interesting Darenhat, I've never imagined a Fantastic Four road trip movie before.
Speaking of the 1994 & 2005 films, I have now managed to get autographs from both actors to have played Reed Richards, and both actors to have played Ben Grimm!
In case you're interested, they are:
Reed Richards #1: Alex Hyde-White
Reed Richards #2: Ioan Gruffudd
Ben Grimm #1: Michael Bailey Smith
Ben Grimm #2: Michael Chiklis

Mr Martini

I've seen previews for this movie more and more. When I first saw the preview I thought to my self, "That's a movie I won't be seeing." Then I saw the preview again and again. Now I'm at the point where if I don't see this movie I think I'll be missing out on something really cool. So I'll probably make my way to see this movie. Just one problem, I don't know the history of the Fantastic Four. Can someone enlighten me please? Briefly. Thanks in advance.

Alex

Mr Martini wrote:

I've seen previews for this movie more and more. When I first saw the preview I thought to my self, "That's a movie I won't be seeing." Then I saw the preview again and again. Now I'm at the point where if I don't see this movie I think I'll be missing out on something really cool. So I'll probably make my way to see this movie. Just one problem, I don't know the history of the Fantastic Four. Can someone enlighten me please? Briefly. Thanks in advance.

One of Stan Lee's first creations for Marvel during the Golden age. The group acquired their powers manning an experimental rocket.

You've got Reed Richards, (Mr. Fantastic) His fiance, later wife, Sue Storm, (Invisible woman, who was hot) Her younger brother Johnny, (human torch) and the best character, Ben Grimm, the introverted and soul searing Thing.

I've always disliked playboy Johnny and pious do gooder Reed, while The Thing's in agony over his appearance, the former was living it up and the latter was telling him to be patient.

"It's clobberin' time!!

RogueAgent

I would've preferred that the Thing was altered somewhat with CGI ala, Hulk & Mr. Hyde(LXG, Van Helsing). The lack of the classic brow he has bothers me as well but those are just the nitpickings of a hardcore comic fan. However the film has piqued my interest to check it out.

Willie Garvin

darenhat wrote:

Willie Garvin wrote:

By the way,I've seen a bootleg of the Roger Corman FF movie that almost always gets slammed, but for it's time and considerably smaller budget, it's really not bad at all.And in THAT one,The Thing has a ridge where his brows should be--just like in the comics....:)

I met with the producer of that FF film, a gentleman by the name of Brian Patrick O'Toole. His production company specialized in make cheap horror movies for a one million dollar budget, and then making profits by selling straight to video. He told me and my friend that John Hughes (of Home Alone fame) paid the company BIG bucks to not release their FF movie because he planned on making his own. That was ten years ago. I guess Hughes never got to see the project all the way through.

Maybe Hughes couldn't figure out a way to make an FF movie cast with children exclusively...;)

IanAndOut

The Thing's lack of brow ridges brings up somthing that has been bothering me with super hero films. The "improvement" on the comic book look by production or costume designers. From Bat-Man's rubber suit (fine for short skinny Keaton who needed ready made molded muscles), but Bail was buff enough for the gray cloth bat suit, Superman's new colours, which brings a darkness thats not needed and the Hulk's overly hulkyness. The coustumes betray the designs I have loved since my childhood. Spiderman's looks great because it is Stan Lee's design. The only coustume that was redesigned but works is Wolverines, Singer knew that yellow spandex and the mask (cool as they are) could not work in real life. Well I've ranted enough. I am worried about all the super hero films comming out, hope they don't get tired

RogueAgent

IanAndOut wrote:

The Thing's lack of brow ridges brings up somthing that has been bothering me with super hero films. The "improvement" on the comic book look by production or costume designers. From Bat-Man's rubber suit (fine for short skinny Keaton who needed ready made molded muscles), but Bail was buff enough for the gray cloth bat suit, Superman's new darker colours, which brings a darkness thats not needed and the Hulk's overly hulkyness. The coustumes betay the designs I have loved since my childhood. Spiderman's looks great because it is Stan Lee's design. The only coustume that was redesigned but works is Wolverines, Singer knew that yellow spandex and the mask (cool as they are) could not work in real life. Well I've ranted enough. I am worried about all the super hero films comming out, hope they don't get tired

I truly, truly feel your pain... 8)

SPECTRENumber1

I beg to differ about it being the best comic adaptation. SIN CITY holds that title.

asio

My brother (who took the day off from work especially for this film) just phoned me as he was leaving the early morning screening (he turns his mobile off during the film, by the way).
He's brief assumption was that the film was "fantastic", that the start and the end "were amazing" that the middle "drags just a little bit" and that hard-core comic book fans like he & I will "go nuts" because it's just that good.
So there's a 7PM screening at my local cinema I'm going to check out tonight.

Hardyboy

Uh-oh. . .it may indeed be clobberin' time--for the critics. Only a handful of reviews are in on Rottentomatoes at the moment, but they're pretty dismal. Even the best of the reviews seem to take a "Fantastic Four coulda been worse" approach. Keep watching the reviews, true believers. . .

MBE_

Hardyboy wrote:

Uh-oh. . .it may indeed be clobberin' time--for the critics. Only a handful of reviews are in on Rottentomatoes at the moment, but they're pretty dismal. Even the best of the reviews seem to take a "Fantastic Four coulda been worse" approach. Keep watching the reviews, true believers. . .

"It's not great but it's not utter crap either." Think they'll put that "positive" review in the ads?

Pretty much though what I expected from all the early buzz. Reportedly Michael France's initially positively reviewed script is said to have been almost completely tossed with rewrites during shooting. They also had recent large re-shoots after some bad test screenings. The cast is what I'd call rather underwhelming except for Chiklis and the commercials have been cheeserific -- especially when Alba (completely miscast) actually speaks. She's cringeworthy and McMahon isn't much better.

It will probably open well though since it's the only light non kids big film of the summer except for Mr & Mrs Smith.

MBE

Willie Garvin

Hardyboy wrote:

Uh-oh. . .it may indeed be clobberin' time--for the critics. Only a handful of reviews are in on Rottentomatoes at the moment, but they're pretty dismal. Even the best of the reviews seem to take a "Fantastic Four coulda been worse" approach. Keep watching the reviews, true believers. . .

Maybe the critics simply hadn't had their naps that day and were really cranky when they saw this movie.

Anyway,Larry King will give this movie a rave review-- along with Gene Schalit and Joel Siegel.Of course,they usually give everything a rave review because they like to be quoted on the movie posters and in newspaper ads.;)

I've read that this film had to be rewritten in places because there were moments where certain scenes unintentionally resembled those in "The Incredibles."

Sir_Miles_Messervy

Well Roger Ebert has given it 1 star with the fans of his website giving it 2.5.

Some thoughts from Ebert:

"It's all setup and demonstration, and naming and discussing and demonstrating, and it never digests the complications of the Fantastic Four and gets on to telling a compelling story. Sure, there's a nice sequence where the Thing keeps a fire truck from falling off a bridge, but you see one fire truck saved from falling off a bridge, you've seen them all."

"Are these people complete idiots? The entire nature of their existence has radically changed, and they're about as excited as if they got a makeover on "Oprah." The exception is Ben Grimm, as the Thing, who gets depressed when he looks in the mirror."

"But the Thing looks like Don Rickles crossed with Mt. Rushmore."

"And the really good superhero movies, like "Superman," "SpiderMan 2" and "Batman Begins," leave "Fantastic Four" so far behind that the movie should almost be ashamed to show itself in the same theaters."

RogueAgent

Sir_Miles_Messervy wrote:

Well Roger Ebert has given it 1 star with the fans of his website giving it 2.5.

Some thoughts from Ebert:

"It's all setup and demonstration, and naming and discussing and demonstrating, and it never digests the complications of the Fantastic Four and gets on to telling a compelling story. Sure, there's a nice sequence where the Thing keeps a fire truck from falling off a bridge, but you see one fire truck saved from falling off a bridge, you've seen them all."

"Are these people complete idiots? The entire nature of their existence has radically changed, and they're about as excited as if they got a makeover on "Oprah." The exception is Ben Grimm, as the Thing, who gets depressed when he looks in the mirror."

"But the Thing looks like Don Rickles crossed with Mt. Rushmore."

"And the really good superhero movies, like "Superman," "SpiderMan 2" and "Batman Begins," leave "Fantastic Four" so far behind that the movie should almost be ashamed to show itself in the same theaters."

Coming from a more docile and mellowed Ebert...my response would be a resounding..."ouch"...



I predict this movie will do well the opening weekend out of curiousity and diehard comic fans and then will taper off quite considerably. 65 million for the summer.

Secret Agent Man

Sir_Miles_Messervy wrote:

Well Roger Ebert has given it 1 star with the fans of his website giving it 2.5.

Some thoughts from Ebert:

"It's all setup and demonstration, and naming and discussing and demonstrating, and it never digests the complications of the Fantastic Four and gets on to telling a compelling story. Sure, there's a nice sequence where the Thing keeps a fire truck from falling off a bridge, but you see one fire truck saved from falling off a bridge, you've seen them all."

"Are these people complete idiots? The entire nature of their existence has radically changed, and they're about as excited as if they got a makeover on "Oprah." The exception is Ben Grimm, as the Thing, who gets depressed when he looks in the mirror."

"But the Thing looks like Don Rickles crossed with Mt. Rushmore."

"And the really good superhero movies, like "Superman," "SpiderMan 2" and "Batman Begins," leave "Fantastic Four" so far behind that the movie should almost be ashamed to show itself in the same theaters."

He also said that the Human Torch was like the Flash and that Invisible Woman was like Storm! When the Fantastic Four came first! |)

Sir_Miles_Messervy

Yes, and Ebert also compares Thing to Hulk.

It has nothing to do with who came first, and everything to do with appearing original. The fact of the matter is the X-Men movies were big hits and Hulk was popular as well (as for The Flash, well I was a big fan of the TV show years ago, honestly he's not hugely popular right now). Basically regardless of who was put into print first you don't want your audience to feel like they're watching something stale. This is especially important with casual fans (i.e. non-comic book readers and/or superhero cartoon fanatics).

Hardyboy

Willie Garvin wrote:

Anyway,Larry King will give this movie a rave review-- along with Gene Schalit and Joel Siegel.Of course,they usually give everything a rave review because they like to be quoted on the movie posters and in newspaper ads.;)

Willie, your psychic powers are enough to qualify you as the fifth member of the FF. I opened the movie section of my paper this morning, and what should I see on a Fantastic Four ad but,

"BRILLIANT! Fantastic Four-Everyone."

--Gene Shalit, Today

Got any stock tips?

Sir Hillary Bray

Ah yes, good ol' Gene Shill-it. He and Siegel have no shame.

Willie Garvin

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

Ah yes, good ol' Gene Shill-it. He and Siegel have no shame.

I've often thought that they are really the same man.Has anyone ever seen Shalit and Siegel together in the same room?

Then there's Larry King, who's never seen a movie he didn't like...:)

IanAndOut

He also said that the Human Torch was like the Flash and that Invisible Woman was like Storm! When the Fantastic Four came first! |)[/quote]

Not to sound too much like a geek (I know I will) but the Flash came out in Jan 1940 (comics golden age) 22 years before FF4 (silver age).

Secret Agent Man

Yeah thats right IanAndOut! I wasn't thinking about Flash back then!

But I thought Fantastic Four was great! I liked Doctor Doom's new orgin and if your a Human Torch fan then I think you'll enjoy seeing him!

8.5/10

Willie Garvin

Secret Agent Man wrote:

Sir_Miles_Messervy wrote:

Well Roger Ebert has given it 1 star with the fans of his website giving it 2.5.

Some thoughts from Ebert:

"It's all setup and demonstration, and naming and discussing and demonstrating, and it never digests the complications of the Fantastic Four and gets on to telling a compelling story. Sure, there's a nice sequence where the Thing keeps a fire truck from falling off a bridge, but you see one fire truck saved from falling off a bridge, you've seen them all."

"Are these people complete idiots? The entire nature of their existence has radically changed, and they're about as excited as if they got a makeover on "Oprah." The exception is Ben Grimm, as the Thing, who gets depressed when he looks in the mirror."

"But the Thing looks like Don Rickles crossed with Mt. Rushmore."

"And the really good superhero movies, like "Superman," "SpiderMan 2" and "Batman Begins," leave "Fantastic Four" so far behind that the movie should almost be ashamed to show itself in the same theaters."

He also said that the Human Torch was like the Flash and that Invisible Woman was like Storm! When the Fantastic Four came first! |)

True enough although Invisible Scarlett O'Neil predates the FF's Invisible Girl/Woman by decades and so does Plastic Man--whose unique stretching ability was later given to Mr.Fantastic.And Marvel had a Human Torch long before Johnny Storm--he was a synthetic man created by a Professor Horton(he even said,"Flame on!").The Thing is modeled on the many equally grotesque monsters and alien beings Jack Kirby drew years before the FF.

What made the FF original wasn't the members' individual powers but the 1950s/early 60s science fiction movie influences along with light-hearted approach Stan Lee gave them along with the revelation that the 4 chose not to use secret identities.They were one of the first dysfunctional families in comics.

Hardyboy

Secret Agent Man wrote:

I thought Fantastic Four was great! I liked Doctor Doom's new orgin and if your a Human Torch fan then I think you'll enjoy seeing him!

8.5/10

Well, SAM, you might be speaking for the majority. According to this article and others, Fantastic Four actually put an end to Hollywood's 19-week decline in revenues. Go figure--Batman Begins received great reviews; Episode III and War of the Worlds had pretty good ones; but FF, which was trashed by just about every critic with a pulse, rakes in the dough! Well, then again, so does every Adam Sandler movie that comes along. . .

Nikolai_Diavolo 05

I don't go by reviews. They hate stuff I love, and they love stuff I hate. FAntastic 4 not only had Character bonds, but other problems with other than superpwoers. I loved it. Also actionpacked and great humor. And if you're just going to see Jessica Alba, you won't be disappointed...

darenhat

I have finally seen this movie, which had eluded me in theaters since it was released. My take: it was "okay"

I never quite got a grip on what Doom was all about (in the film, I mean) Yeah I know he hates Reed, and if you're knowledgeable about the comics, you know that Dr. Doom can be a downright evil guy. But Julian McMahon sounded way to chipper in that mask. He was jerk, sure. And we see him hurting innocent bystanders...but after he got rid of the FF, what next? I, as the viewer, never felt "threatened"

The Thing seemed more reminiscent of how he appeared in the original comics, but I would have liked to see the Ben Grimm we've all come to love today. (Chiklis was perfectly cast BTW)

And Jessica Alba pulled it off. I was nervous about her in the role at first. But she was likable, very pretty, and sufficiently irritated with Reed Richards to make it work for me.

All in all...worth an evening's entertainment.