PeterDavid.net

GREAT! Now I can't wait to go see this film on Saturday!

Hmmm...since I'm one of those oddballs that doesn't mind if a movie is just "fun," I'll try and get to it if the car co-operates.

- Chris

That's exactly what I want the FF movie to be!
Sounds like Dr. Doom didn't make it through the Hollywood blender in one piece, but you can't have everything.
FF shouldn't be X-Men or Batman. I don't understand fans thinking it should.
The FF has always been bigger, broader, and out there.
I want a fun FF movie with the same passion I wanted a serious Batman movie.
My two kids, 7 & 11, can't wait to see it.
We'll be there this morning.

Eh.

I screened it a couple hours ago. It was fun, yes, but I'd put it in the "guilty pleasure" category. The cheese is laid on thick, so that might turn a lot of people off.

My problem with it though, is how unambitious it is. Yeah, they captured the family dynamic of the FF, but not the sense of adventure you always have in the comic. Maybe I've been spoiled by Waid's recent "Imaginauts" run, but that's as essential to the FF, in my opinion, as all the family bickering.

No grand adventure in this movie though. Just generic action scenes in New York. Doom's turned into a generic metal villain that shoots lighting bolts. Yawn.

I liked the cast though. They made the cheese work. I could see them in a much better movie, one that didn't think so small.

All that said, at least it's good enough for kids. I'll be taking my six year old to watch it this weekend, probably.

(oh, and while The Thing looks cool, most FX involving Reed look cheeeeeeeeeeeeap)

Ovnio

My daughter is already wanting to see it - she likes Sue Storm (she reminds her of Violet from The Incredibles - guess how many conversations we've had about which came first).

I really was hoping that Ioan Gruffudd would manage to do more with Reed - we're fanatics about the Hornblower TV movies he has done (I'm convinced they paved the way for the success of the Master and Commander movie).

Your review is interesting. Others I've seen go the other way: they say the action is fine, but the characterizations of the main four aren't there. I guess we'll have to find out for ourselves.

On my way over to see it after I drop the clone off at school. I don't WANT it to be too serious. Actually, that was really my only gripe with X2, the characterizations were a little darker than usual. Nightcrawler is the clown of the group usually, or at least has a sense of humor. That and I wanted to see more of Colossus.

But I think it's sad that a movie just can't be fun anymore without being trashed for being out of touch. Movies are supposed to be FUN by and large. And that's why my wife isn't allowed to pick movies anymore. All she ever picks are ones where you come out feeling either INCREDIBLY depressed or guilty for not having gone through what the characters went through. UP WITH FUN!

I haven't seen the film yet (I plan to this weekend, if a certain minor storm system doesn't interfere), but I have to take exception with this comment: 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.
I have seen the Thing on a big screen--the trailers for the film before other movies. Unless the film was *still* undergoing some late post-production work, I haven't seen anything of it that says anything other than "man in a rubber suit".

"Mr. Moviephone" didn't care for it, and his main criticism resonated with me: plot. When I tried to describe what the movie is about after reading the book, the best I could come up with was "origin story". Not to malign the book, it was a fun read. But it really was all "beginning" with almost no "middle" or "end".

Anyway, I'll be seeing it this afternoon.

My wife and I are going to see FF this weekend, but I'm just wondering if I should go by myself.

I figure, most likely, she isn't going to like it (she doesn't like Alba or Chiklis anyways), and I'll really hear about it after the movie.

And this from a woman who really enjoyed Daredevil *sigh*

Any blood (I mean at ALL)? My son wants to see it, but he'll hit the floor if he sees blood. (Last night he was pitching for his All Star team when a teammate spouted a bloody nose. I told Ben not to look, but he saw enough - then held the image in his head like a pink elephant. Watching him struggle with that, clearly in mental anquish, and still throw strike after strike was great. They must have been strikes since the batters were hitting them all over the park...)

Any bedroom scenes? There's some smooching, I'm sure, and I'd pay money on a bet that Susan has to strip to be invisible before the suit.

Peter, I've always enjoyed your novelizations, many times moreso than the movie itself. But enjoyable reads of "Hulk", "Batman Forever", and "Return of the Swamp Thing" (Yes, folks, the book was GOOD!) still had me wondering about the quality of the film.

What I can say is that, I've enjoyed the novelization, and every single trailer I've seen I can trace directly back to a scene in the novelization.

Tell me Maria Menounos strips out of her pink ski-bunny suit in the film, and I'll be the first in line tonight. :)

David van D.: I'd be surprised if it were more than "origin story". Astonishing as it may sound, there are a lot of people out there who have never heard of the FF, and need the background (beside the fact that for the movie, the background had to change - the original version of Doom would've taken almost half the movie itself!). Assuming there's an FF2, that's where you'll probably see the plots start to work...

Robbnn: It's stated in the commercials that the way the movie Sue does the invisibility is by using her force field to bend light around her body. This will work no matter what she's wearing. Yes, I'm disappointed that there won't be any nekkid Jessica Alba in there too. :(

However, Jonathan and Robbnn, both the novel and even some of the teasers, show Jessica Alba stripping down to bra and panties to be fully invisible. And while the teaser shows Reed mentioning the "bending light" it does not show Sue's very insightful response about... well, other problems associated with invisibility that throw his little theory in the trashcan.

with a disclaimer that i've not yet seen the movie, but based on what i've seen in the trailers and read online...going in with high expectations:

i don't mind that they messed with Doom's origin. A movie is an adaptation of a story. A movie studio has to find that happy medium between keeping comic fans happy, and creating something that's appealing to the general public as well. whatever their motivation was for changing the origin, that's fine (within reason, obviously).

Peter - as far as your contention that Doom now has a legitimate reason to blame Reed...that may be true. But so would Ben (we know that in the books, he does), Johnny and Sue. Reed screwed up, plain and simple.

Still, I don't know that this fact gives Doom any more 'legitimate reason' to become a villain. It'd be just as easy for Ben, Johnny, or Sue to flip Reed the bird, and say "screw you...I'm taking advantage of these powers and use them for personal gain regardless of the cost/harm to others." But they don't.

It's still about choices. Life deals us lousy cards sometimes, whether it's our fault or through absolutely no fault of our own. Arguably, the 'easy route' would be to remain bitter, point fingers, assign blame, and become destructive. It's the hero that, in spite of whether or not he/she "deserved" what happened, rises above it all and further sacrifice themselves in order to do what's "right" and what benefits the greater good.

Maybe I misunderstood...but if you're saying that the storyline in the movie justifies Doom becoming a villain...I respectfully disagree.

"Any blood (I mean at ALL)? My son wants to see it, but he'll hit the floor if he sees blood."

I've been searching my memory and I absolutely cannot remember any blood. The closest one comes to "ick" is that you see a metal shell forming under Von Doom's skin and a growing scar on his face. But I really don't remember blood.

And no bedroom scenes. Yes, Sue strips down to basically the equivalent of a two piece bathing suit, but y'don't see nothin'.

"Maybe I misunderstood...but if you're saying that the storyline in the movie justifies Doom becoming a villain...I respectfully disagree."

I'm not saying that it justifies it. What I'm saying is that in the comics, Von Doom has no reason whatsoever to despise Reed. That's one of the underpinnings of his character: That Von Doom screwed up his own life, but his ego made him so incapable of admitting he'd made a mistake, that he misplaced his anger onto the guy who actually tried to stop him from making the fatal mistake that resulted in his scarred face. That's part of what makes him such an archly great villain.

In the movie, Von Doom's actions against Reed--while not justifiable from a moral point of view--are rooted in a reasonable gripe. Reed was the one who put Von Doom in harm's way. For that matter, we could argue the cosmic rays may have contributed to Von Doom becoming unbalanced, since there's nothing to suggest he was homicidal earlier. The Doctor Doom who tries to kill the FF and then is trashing NY would never have existed if Reed hadn't (a) talked Von Doom into going up into the storm and (b) completely miscalculated the speed or intensity of the cosmic storm.

Compare it to, say, Burton's "Batman." Yes, the Joker's creation was a result of Batman dropping him into the chemical vat. But at least Batman was trying to stop him from falling in, and besides, "Jack" was a criminal anyway. And furthermore, the Joker was depicted as having killed Bruce Wayne's parents. So the balance of "evil," if you will, remains with the Joker.

Or, dare I say it, consider "The Incredibles." Yes, Mr. Incredible was responsible for the "creation" of Syndrome. On the other hand, he was genuinely acting in what he believed was Buddy's best interests by sending him home after the kid nearly got himself killed. The fact that it festered in Buddy and drove him to become a supervillain is his own lookout, especially since--even as an adult--he saw it as a personal rejection and slight rather than an endeavor to keep him safe and out of harm's way.

So as I said, the FF's major mission is to combat a villain who wouldn't have BEEN a villain if not for the set of circumstances that the FF's leader himself set into motion. It's damage control.

PAD

I saw the movie in a screening last night too (were we at the same one, I wonder?) and basically agree that the movie is light-hearted fun, but flawed.

I loved Chiklis as Ben Grimm and as the Thing and liked the Human Torch (both the effects and the character) and liked the sniping interaction between the characters. I cared less for Reed and Sue, partially because I seem to become so old and curmeudgeonly to think things like "No way can a person *that* young be such an accomplished scientist/businessperson/genetic researcher, etc." and partially because I didn't feel any chemistry between Alba and Gruffudd (or between Alba and McMahon for that matter...)

I do think that Dr. Doom as villain is the weak point of the movie. Not only, as PAD points out, if anything, Doom has a right to be pissed at Reed. But additionally, the film proposes multiple bits and pieces of his motivation, but they don't seem to add up to enough reason for him to do what he does--is he mad at Reed for destroying his company? For stealing his girl? For scarring his face? Does he want to use Reed's experiments to heal him, or to further empower him? As it comes off (to me, at least) he's motivated by a bit of all these things, and not enough by any one thing.

Steve Saffel once opined to me that a Fantastic Four movie needs to play on the family aspect of the team--that that's the defining element of the FF. I suppose the movie gets to a point where it does that pretty well, but I think also part of the appeal of the FF comics is that they're at the heart of a world filled with adventure--Mole Men and dinosaur islands and alien Skrulls and Negative Zones and Atlantean invaders--this movie doesn't come anywhere near capturing that aspect of the FF appeal, but then again, it might not be reasonable to expect any movie to be able to do that...

I look forward to see this movie.

I always thought a FF movie should be like the "Back to the Future" trilogy. Fun, light, and way out there, but also *smart* and knowing instead of campy and cringe-inducing, hopefully.

Well, Doom not being a self-made monarch is something I tried to get used to ever since I heard of it, so it probably won't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

A pity no one liked Reed, PAD. In the original run he wasn't as interesting as the Thing and the Human Torch, but Reed Richards kinda grew up on me when John Byrne first made the comic closer to a "real" science fiction feel.

Also, much about Reed's human side hang on his relationship with Doom, Sue, and Ben. Supposedly we can scratch Doom, I want to see how he interacts with Sue and Ben in the movie.

Thanks, Peter.

S'funny, I've been reading a graphic novel collecting JB's run on the FF and while I loved them during the original run, my word, they're ponderous! Lottsa words, slow plotting. A good editor could have reduced those stories to a few pages...

When I read Ebert's FF review Thursday, I sensed quite a bit of snobbery in his tone. He ripped the film, but he seemed to be doing so because it wasn't the dark, "adult" fare he has apparently come to expect from comic book-related films. Personally, I think such an attitude stems from a basic insecurity many long-time SF and comic fans, like Ebert, have about the material they grew up loving. As with the Hulk, they feel such films must be drenched with dark, adult-oriented themes to be “legitimate.” I say horse patootie! I raised just such an issue during a mail interview with Jack Kirby in 1974, and he wholeheartedly agreed that (superhero) comics should be exciting and entertaining first and foremost. It stands to reason then that their celluloid kin should be approached the same way.

I’ll be seeing the FF film tonight, and I hope it is just like a Kirby comic, rather than, say, Ang Lee’s Hulk film.

It was my understanding that Reed didn't have much choice in Von Doom's joining the crew; further, it was Von Doom's space station, and one would assume he was the one who designed the inner chamber shielding, which failed him.

I read the comic adaptation, and was horrified. I didn't have too much hope that it would even be a cut above the Roger Corman movie (why yes, I do own a copy, and it's everything you've heard...and less).

I think the problems was that I've been spoiled by "gritty" comics lately *cough*InfiniteCrisisTie-Ins*cough* and couldn't enjoy anything Silver Age-y. If I decide to give the flick a shot after all, I'll try to keep it light.

Better than expected but I really didn't expect much.

And it could have been SO GOOD. The should have had PAD do the screenplay and Michael France & Mark Frost do the novelization. Tim Story seems like a nice guy in interviews but he brings the same visual flair to this that he showed in TAXI and BARBERSHOP. Doing a comic book movie takes a certain style. Singer has it, Nolan has it, Raimi has it coming out of his ears. Singer, not so much.

I understand that the story of Doom would take too long to tell...then again, I'll bet that Raimi could have shot a 2 minute montage that would have covered all the bases (I love how every Evil Dead sequel gives you the previous movie in the first 5 minutes or so). This is DR freaking DOOM we are talking about here. THE Marvel super villan. It's not like they mucked with the origin of Stilt Man.

And yet, conversely, I kinda wish they had mucked around a bit with the costume. Without Jack Kirby swirling it up what you have is a guy in armour with a green cape. Maybe if they always had him standing on air vents or in front of the Fans Are Us shop, but as it was it just sort of drooped and looked sad.

The Thing and Torch, as everyone has noted, stole the show. If FF doesn't do well how about having Torch show up in the next Spidey movie and I'll bet a Hulk vs Thing movie could rescue both franchises.

Compare how Mr Fantastic is used to Elastic Girl in the Incredbles and it's obvious which movie had the talent. Mr Fantastic could have been awesome--again, hire PAD and the artist of his choice, give them a room for a day with pizza and beverages and then just film the fight scene they come up with.

But one cool thing came out of this--THING HANDS!! Just as cool as the HULK HANDS! Now you and a buddy can re-enact your favorite issue of Marvel 2 in 1, smashing away at each other! They even have Thing Feet--get your local cryptozoologist all excited by stomping around in the mud!

But the dolls blow. The Thing looks ok, the Torch looks like Melted Candy Apple Man, the Invisble Girl...well, if I were the toymaker, I'd just sell and empty box, but that's me. And Reed? Christ, it's awful! He has two long hands reaching out to you in silent supplication as if begging you to turn the box around to hide his shame. He doesn't look at all like a superhero, maybe the world's most successful waiter but that's it. Let it sit on a furnace for a fe hours and you have a much better and more accurate action figure (CAUTION-Let it cool first. Dumbass.)

Any blood (I mean at ALL)? My son wants to see it, but he'll hit the floor if he sees blood.

There goes any chance of him borrowing DVDs from his Uncle Bill's collection...

Bill, I agree about the "action" figures...boy, do they blow. That's usually not a good sign. That Batman Begins line is really cool, despite 90% of the stuff coming out can at best be said to be "inspired by" the film. But the FF stuff? It's been out for weeks now, and I've just started seeing the 8" invisible woman figures...they do, indeed, stink. All of them look like they were based on Paul Gulacy depictions...the nostrils are HUGE on them all.

You can usually judge how well a movie will do based on what the outside marketing looks like. If McDonalds options the Happy Meal rights, it's usually a hit. Burger King (as is the case with FF) 50-50...although the Amazon Cash cards is a very good idea. If you're movie's is picked up by Taco Bell, KFC, or Hardees, well, welcome to the $5 DVD bin in a few months.

You've already addressed the blood question, but can you tell us if it's appropriate for kids? My six-year-old is a huge superhero fan, desperately wants to go, but I can't afford to go by myself first to preview it and make sure it's okay for him. He likes X-Men, but I wouldn't take him to see BATMAN BEGINS, much as I liked it - the Scarecrow and Evil-Batman faces would be a bit much.

Sorry to put you on the spot. Unfortunately, most movie sites that allegedly report on the kid-safe nature of a movie concentrate on "moral themes" and freak out about cinema violence if someone throws a punch.

Having read the novelation (excellent job, btw), I have serious reservations about the film. I felt they really missed the mark with Doom. Here was what is arguable the greatest villain of all time in the Marvel Universe, and they turn him into a jerk who goes postal because Sue dumped him. It's not to the very end of the movie that he becomes a villain, and we get no sense of anything really bad happen (other than killing the FF) should he succeed. No secret plan to take over the world, no doomsday device (pun unintended), etc. Also, what I felt was the strength of the novel was Peter's excellent characterizations of the FF, and am unsure as to how well they will be presented on the big screen.

Other Jon: Sure, but compare it to Batman Begins. That's also an origin story with a lot of depth to the telling, but BB manages to have a fairly strong plot in addition to the origin story (i.e. two idealistic men with radically different ideas on how to save the world clash in a battle to see whose plan will get to play out).

FF does have a conflict, but the conflict seems to be more about establishing a rivalry than about using one to tell a story. And it just doesn't spring readily to mind.

I haven't seen it yet. I will see it, probably late next week.

But, the Fantastic Four is my favorite comic book, bar none. It was the first comic I collected - starting with #260, which I picked up at the local newsstand, then bought a subscription to the magazine starting with #263 - right at the start of the Secret Wars thing, and at the height of Byrne's run. LOVE it.

So, I will like the movie, period. Whatever I need to do to enjoy it, I will do. You bet I'm prejudiced - rose-colored glasses all the way.

I absolutely cannot remember any blood.

Actually, there was blood. When Sue strained herself containing Doom, blood started trickling out of her nose.

I agree that Ebert's review was too harsh.

As both a movie freak and FF buff for decades, you could say I've been waiting for this movie most of my life. Doctor Doom as portrayed here was not that menacing of a villian. I had no problem with Ben... he looked fine. Just got back a few minutes ago and have not soaked it all in yet.

The best superhero movie of all time is still Spider-Man 2. This one ranks far below...

Peter's mention of the Incredibles reminds me of my overriding thought about superhero movies in the middle of Dash's sequence near the end of that film: "MAN do I want to see this bunch do a Flash treatment."

"S'funny, I've been reading a graphic novel collecting JB's run on the FF and while I loved them during the original run, my word, they're ponderous! Lottsa words, slow plotting. A good editor could have reduced those stories to a few pages..."

Oh my word! You where actually required to read? How dare John Byrne create a classic superhero series, not equaled since, that actually gave the fans their money's worth of entertainment! Scoundrel!

Padding, at its fans, need to be "edited". Damn I’m glad folks like you where not in charge of comics back then and still aren’t…wait. Shit. Well, at least you weren’t back then…

Having read the novelization, I fully intend to see the film and give it a chance. However, there was one thing that didn't grab me about the story and it's certainly no fault of PAD's, but more of the script itself; Maybe it translates differently in the film, but I didn't get any real sense of "Dire peril" from Doom. Yes, he attempts to destroy the FF in his quest for personal power, but I felt that there was something missing... No huge, diabolical act of super villany to raise the stakes like we as comic readers have become accustomed to. Granted, in an origin story we can't really see something on the sale of launching buildings into space, but since that's what we've come to expect from the likes of Doom, his movie counterpart doesn't quite come off as the world-threatening menace we expect him to be.

Still, as long as it's a fun ride, I won't think too hard on it.

Saw it with my kids this morning.
We, And the audience, loved it. It's nice to hear people laugh when their supposed to at a comic book movie. And applauded when it's over.
Reed, Ben, Johnny, and Sue were all there.
As far as them missing the "Imaginauts" aspect, That was the whole beginning of the film.
You don't have time for a trip to the microverse or negative zone AND have time to show them developing their powers. Save that for the sequel.
And if the audience was any indication at my suburban theater, than there will be one.

Yeah, okay, my bad. On the blood thing, I totally forgot that at the very end of the film, Sue is concentrating so hard on her forcefield that two, maybe three small drops of blood trickle from her nose. I was picturing violent sequences, like Johnny getting punched or Von Doom throwing people around, and trying to remember if they bled. Clean overlooked Sue's very minor nosebleed. I hope that doesn't send the young viewer in question into shock or anything.

That said, I saw kids four, five and six years of age coming out of the screening last night looking perfectly happy and talking excitedly about wanting to buy the toys. So I think taking a six year old is simply not a problem.

PAD

I'm going to see it sometime soon. I have modest expectations, and it sounds like it might be fun. "Superman" without the camp should be very much to my taste. Besides, I've never been that big a fan of the comic - I love the Lee and Kirby stories circa the mid-late 1960s, I love the handful of stories by Wolfman and Byrne, I think Simonson's run is as underrated as Byrne's solo run is overrated. I don't know what this Imaginauts thing that people are talking about is, because up until a few months ago, I had been away from comics for several years. Could someone please tell me? If Mark Waid was involved, I'd be interested, I'm a fan of his writing.

"S'funny, I've been reading a graphic novel collecting JB's run on the FF and while I loved them during the original run, my word, they're ponderous! Lottsa words, slow plotting. A good editor could have reduced those stories to a few pages..."

I'm among those fans who think Byrne in the FF was pure perfection, but I see what you mean. Whenever I go read a comic from another decade, I must go through a period of re-adaptation.

I felt the same when I re-read Byrne's Man of Steel. Lotsa captions, thought baloons, and expository dialogue. I've been spoiled by the more cinematic style from current comics.

And the most funny thing is, from the 80's writers, Byrne was one of the more economic in his words. It was simply a different time. Compared to Claremont, or Englehart, or deMatteis, or deFalco, or Thomas, JB was a mime.

The reason for this style, of course, was because the comics where written so they could be enjoyed by very young readers…as well as older readers mature enough to accept this very altruistic set up.

It's interesting that many of the fans in the letter pages back then, the older ones, seemed to accept this as appropriate for the genre without question, and simply accepted the comics for what they where. I also find that many of those fans where more insightful, intelligent, and complex than many of today’s older fans like to think of themselves as being.

"The reason for this style, of course, was because the comics where written so they could be enjoyed by very young readers…as well as older readers mature enough to accept this very altruistic set up.

It's interesting that many of the fans in the letter pages back then, the older ones, seemed to accept this as appropriate for the genre without question, and simply accepted the comics for what they where. I also find that many of those fans where more insightful, intelligent, and complex than many of today’s older fans like to think of themselves as being."

I think I agree with you, my friend.

While this dialogue style isn't realistic, it did a good job of making the story always easy to follow, not only for younger readers, but also for occasional readers.

Captions and thought balloons used to always establish where the characters were, and what they were feeling, and what it was all about, and who was who and what was what.

Hmmm... and the only point I disagree with the poster who started this discussion, is that the "old" style seemed to result in stories and sagas being shorter, instead of longer.

Nowadays, if you want to transmit an idea to the reader, you can't use captions or thought baloons, and even dialogue baloons are more realistic, so you have to "show, not tell" and it usually takes longer to introduce characters and situations.

Not saying that one style is "better" than the other, though.

pete

how do you compare the novel to the finished movie???

Re: Imaginauts.

Well, basically, Waid's run approached the FF more as scientists than typical superheroes, which is exactly what I think the movie should have done. No, you don't need a trip to the Negative Zone or whatever, but you need to give us a sense of adventure, something to set the team apart from any other superhero teams. The plot of the movie is reduced to them trying to get rid of their powers and them trying to stop Doom's rampage in New York. Unimpressive, to say the least.

I say, screw the origin setup. Like I read somewhere else, this is a movie where they could have benefitted from hitting the ground running, like in The Incredibles, giving us the team at their best, and dealing with their origin in flashbacks, if at all. Of course, the movie I'd like the FF to be would have had a much bigger budget and a director with an actual voice. Imagine what someone like Spielberg could do if he wanted to.

As for the movie being appropiate for kids . . . Like I said, I'm taking my six year old (who I wouldn't take to Batman Begins). Scarier than the blood running from Alba's nose is Doom's murder of his physician, but there's no blood there and it's really not that bad.

And I just read Ebert's review . . . He might be too harsh, but I agree with him on the fact that the Fantastic Four are underwhelming. And that's a HUGE flaw.

Ovnio

I COULDN'T TELL IF I WAS WATCHING THE FANTASTIC FOUR OR AN EXTENDED EPISODE OF THIRTYSOMETHING.

LOOK: MILES DRENTELL IS TRYING TO KILL MICHAEL STEADMAN AGAIN. MICHAEL, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP PUNISHING YOURSELF FOR YOUR DEAD FATHER'S BUSINESS FAILURES AND QUIT WORKING FOR SUCCESSFUL EVIL BASTARDS OUT TO STEAL YOUR WORK AND KILL YOU?

LOOK: HOPE IS NAGGING MICHAEL ON YET ANOTHER OTHER ISSUE HE'S STONEWALLING. MICHAEL, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE A STAND ON WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD BE RAISED JEWISH OR INVISIBLE?

LOOK: ELIOT'S MARRIAGE IS FALLING APART AGAIN, NOT BECAUSE HE HAS BRIGHT RED HAIR, BUT THIS TIME BECAUSE HE'S MADE OF BRIGHT ORANGE ROCKS.

LOOK: GARY IS ON FIRE. GODDAMN IT GARY, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SLOW DOWN ENOUGH FOR MELISSA TO LOVE YOU? BY ALL RIGHTS MELANIE MAYRON'S LOVE BELONGS TO ME.

Good movie.

So when is PAD finally going to get to write the FF in comic book form? not a prequell FF story but the main book... Cuz i'd love to read what he comes up with

1About the blood thing... yes, alba's nose trickles and there are some violent parts mentioned above... but everyone seems to be missing how Doom takes his SECOND life... the banker feller in the parking garage... .that REALLY bugged some people in the audience I was in. Both times... it's a pretty good date movie, guys! It's a rather dark turn for a light hearted movie... I don't want to do a spoiler but part of teh scene IS in the trailers. Some young'uns who have issues... or parents who think their kids SHOULD have issues with certain things might be bothered. Just a warning.

There is one word to use to describe this movie: FUN. I could deal with the changes to Doom, and I thought that they really nailed the team. And Michael Chiklis IS Ben Grim, the ever-lovin' blue-eyed Thing. F4 may not have the character/dramatic depth of the X-Men movies, or the pathos of the Spider-Man films, but it is FUN. Highly recommended, and I look foward to owning it.

Oh yea, one other bit, after seeing the "blood" mention. There is once scene where Doom blows a huge hole through a guy's chest. It's not terribly graphic, but he does stand there long enough to register the hole before he keels over. So there's that and the two nosebleeds when Sue strains too hard that parent's might be concerned about, but not too much.

I'm looking forward to seeing it. I saw the previews when I saw WOTW (I have no idea where the bad reviews for THAT came from) and it looks good. As it stands, that looks like the only other movie I am gonna see this summer. I will just wait for anything else to come out on Netflix. I would have seen it without your review Mr. David, but now I feel better about it.

"how do you compare the novel to the finished movie???"

I would guess that he prefered the novel, seeing as he wrote it. I have a feeling, based on Mr. David's other novelizations, and his other books, that I will too. He has a way with words and backstory that makes the whole thing even better.

"Superman" without the camp should be very much to my taste."

WHY DOES EVERYONE COME DOWN SO HARD ON "SUPERMAN??" I liked it. (admittedly, I was ten when I first saw it, but I still liked it.)

Is Reed responsible for Doom? I'm not so sure he entirely is. Partially in that they wouldn't have been there if not for Reed's proposal. (Then again, there was the suggestion from Ben that Victor may have sabtogued Reed's contract with NASA forcing him to go through Doom's company. If that part is true, then I would say that Reed is even less at fault. However, that's not my main point.)

Victor was safely behind the shielding when the cosmic rays hit. The shielding failed. Perhaps this is a reverse of the comic version where the FF was exposed, because Reed's shielding failed (or did he forget to put them in.) Here, Doom's shields failed to do what they were advertised to do. Doom's mutations are at least partially his own fault.

Though I do agree that most of the movie is "damage control", especially the whole bridge scene.

I saw a matinee show of FANTASTIC FOUR at a matinee (benefit of working 2:30-10), and I thought it was a decent movie. [Lots of spoilers follow, but this far down that's par for the course.] On the plus side, Michael Chiklis was absolutely perfect, both as the human Ben and as the rocky Thing. (I agree with PAD -- he looked awesome!) Jessica Alba, while providing an eyeful, was also a strong female character, something pretty lacking in most movies we've gotten this summer. Chris Evans had fun with the most fun role (the daredevil and sexual addict for whom the powers are a godsend), and Julian McMahon was perfect as Doom. (Sorry Ioan, but you got stuck playing the stiff, responsible character.)

The movie's big plus is that they kept the family dynamic of the comic book: Johnny as the fun-loving troublemaker, Ben as the sullen, angry loner, Reed as the mature father/leader, Sue as the mother who's responsible but not as stiff). Watching them together, argue, make up, and bond worked just fine.

My biggest complaint: not enough action. I know it's supposed to be an introduction, but there's the opening scene on the bridge, the showdown at the end, and... that's it. (Contrast that with THE INCREDIBLES: the opening with the jumper, Mr. Incredible battling the first droid, Elasti-Girl breaking into the base, the kids fending for themselves...) You'd also think someone as influential and powerful as Doom would have some henchmen, or robots (even if not Doombots), instead of just himself and a rocket launcher.

I gotta disagree with PAD about Reed being fully responsible for what happened. Ben pointed out that the storm's acceleration was a fluke that no one could have anticipated, and when Reed suggested aborting the mission Victor was the one who kept things going. Plus Victor saw everything he had (the business) going down the tubes, exactly when the media was showing Richards and his friends as heroes. It made more sense than the comics' "You scarred my face, now I will hate you forever" origin.

I also had a few quibbles that make me want to read PAD's adaption. Why give Alicia drawing tools if she didn't draw anything? Did Doom have a plan, or was he just going to walk through Manhattan blowing stuff up? Wasn't it too fast that Reed proposed to someone he hadn't been involved with for two years? (I love my ex-girlfriend, but we'd have to go on quite a few dates again before I pop the question.) Is Ben going to stay comfortable as the Thing? (The comics had him agonizing over his condition for years.)

I agree with the poster who said the movie toys are fairly weak. The Thing looks great (though who wants to wear Thing feet?), the three Invisible Woman variants (visible, half-invisible, fully invisible) are nice, and the Torch is decent. However, Mr. Fantastic has features not in the movie (hammer hand? buzzsaw hang?), and there's no Doctor Doom figure!

I suppose it's progress of a sort that there's more male skin than female skin. Yes, Jessica Alba shows up once in her underwear (yayyyyy!!!) and gets walked in on in the bathroom. But Chris Evans walks around more in the skin-tight suit, is topless in the snow, and turns up holding a strateggically-placed newspaper as his only article of clothing.

So, who'll the villain be in the sequel? I could see the Mole Man and his armies, or Diablo. Galactus would be a bit much at this point, and the Reed-Sue wedding makes the Namor love triangle a bit moot (unless he interferes with the wedding plans).

The critics were so harsh! I don't get it. I suspect that part of the problem lies with the nature of the Fantastic Four itself. In order to make this film more "grown up" they would have had to distance themselves from the comic more than they did. These critics wouldn't have liked the FF comic either is my guess.

There is one thing that this film did better than any other super-hero movie so far: a real "team battle" at the end. It was wonderful to see Reed directing them against Doom as they used their powers as a team. Hard to pull off, and well done.

I saw FF this evening and I really enjoyed it! The entire theater clapped after it ended, and as we were filing out, I heard a group of pre-teen boys saying stuff like "I'm the Torch," or "I'm the Thing" -- stuff I didn't think kids that age argued anymore.

In my opinion, the dialogue in this film, more than any other Marvel-influence film to date, is the closest to capturing the snappy patter and spirit of a 1960s Lee-Kirby comic -- and that includes either Spider-Man I or II.

My advice to those who have yet to see the film: Approach it like a 1960s FF comic, i.e., don't try to intellectualize or critically analyze it, just enjoy the ride.

Oh, yeah. As I suspected, Ebert snobbed out when it came to his review of this film. Personally, I give it a solid thumbs up.

Enjoyed the movie. Tightly run, which was good because the plot wasn't thick enough to support much bloat. Alba was competent and not totally unconvincing. Effects were good.

I think the lack of a strong non-origin plot is why it's getting all the Reviewer Hate. Only indie films are allowed to be slice of life.

PAD,

I'm glad to hear you say that taking a 6 year old is okay as my 8 year old daughter is taking me to the movie on Sunday as a Father's Day gift. My 12 year old daughter took me to Batman Begins as a Father's Day gift. Kids are great!!

Dennis

Okay, so I was worried. I tried to tell myself to not let the reviews effect me. Go in with an open mind. But I was worried. Though they've just been average and not awful, I was ready for my favorite heroes to fall on their faces.

I went with my 10 year old nephew and 9 year old neice to a 1:30 matinee that was PACKED. I hope that bodes well.

From the first we get to see Reed and Ben interact... it's really amazing. I loved the tension between Sue and Reed and Victor. Then the Johnny/Ben stuff was just perfect. I loved Johnny's cockiness. Ben's gruffness. His protectiveness of Reed. Reed's cluelessness. Sue's strength.

It's all there. The plot - well, there's not much. This is true. Heroes get powers. Fight bad guys. That's really enough. There was a good amount of humor, which the crowd reacted great too. There was some great action. The special effects were excellent overall, though there is some semi-obvious green-screen in a few places, but its very few and far between.

I'm so excited for a sequel!!! Hopefully the FF will get more time and more money to polish off the few production problems and by 2008 we'll get a truly awesome FF movie.

But this was a beautiful start. And how exciting is it to see people KNOW the names of my favorite characters? How exciting to see their faces everywhere. How cool to see people leaving the theater laughing and cheering and saying how cool it was.

If you think about it they didn't have to change the origin that much... or doom's motivations...

They could have easily had Reed and Doom involved (seperately of course) with the Space Transport Contest that NASA put on... you know building craft like "Spaceship One" and the like... Gives Room for both Ben to be the Pilot, Reed to be there and since the goal is to bring civilians up as well a spot for both Sue and Johnny... Johnny cold even be a pilot too... Doom could have his own rocket... and Reed could reveiw Doom's specs and in typical Reed fashion point out a flaw in Doom's designs which Vic would of course laugh off... and ect... Rocket explodes or crashes leaving Doom scarred... blaming Richards... meanwhile the future FF rocket into space with Reed's rocket they succeed but the sheilding fails against the cosmic raystorm and they crash back to earth having gained powers...

I know I know... I shouldn't be back seat riding or anything... but whats a fanboy to do... I liked the movie but there was such an obvious modern day correlation... instead of the weak "hollywood-DNA-mystic-science" they gave us...

Sorry for the double post....
but to clarify... I did enjoy the movie... and I should learn to proof my posts better...
riding should be writing...

"I agree about the "action" figures...boy, do they blow. That's usually not a good sign." you know...I disagree with your statment about the action figures. I bought the 26 inch tall "Thing" and its friggin awsome! I put it on my landing and now everytime someone runs up the stairs they come around the corner at my new plastic "Thing" midget. Some of the toys are cool!

"So, who'll the villain be in the sequel? I could see the Mole Man and his armies, or Diablo. Galactus would be a bit much at this point, and the Reed-Sue wedding makes the Namor love triangle a bit moot (unless he interferes with the wedding plans)."
You just know its going to be like X2...more Doom and another classic villan , which should all lead up to a killer part 3, hopefully with Galactus cause thats gotta be the BIGGEST adventure ever.

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. As I've said before to people online, I don't care how good it is. What I care about is that there's one action movie out this summer that isn't dark and serious. Look at what there's been so far. Revenge of the Sith: Dark. Batman Begins: Dark (if it weren't, the fans would go on a destructive spree). War of the Worlds: looks dark. Right now, I'm just in the mood for a popcorn movie that's entertaining and doesn't take itself too seriously.

And honestly . . . I don't care enough about Dr. Doom to be pissed off at what they changed. I know, it's comic book blasphemy, but I really don't care for Doom all that much. He's got too much hype for me to care about him, I think. In fact, I find him really kind of annoying in the comics. That's me, though.

Saw the film last night. Enjoyed it but did feel what I always felt when I read the comics. They should just become the Terrific Three and dump Reed. What a wuss.

Thing was great, really the only 3-dimensional character in the movie. I liked the interplay between he and Johnny, only I missed the way Johnny would apologize in the comics. This kid, an astronaut dropout at 19 or however old he is, never apologizes for anything. Guess he graduated from John Wayne High.

I don't think I will go back for a second look but will buy the DVD. I hope they do a sequel. I'd like to see more character development for the others in the group. Ol' Clobbering Time was just about perfect as far as I am concerned. On a par with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine portrayal.

In fact, I yelled out loud when he finally said "it's clobbering time." My 23-year-old nephew poked me!

Going to see it this afternoon. I was depressed by posts on the ff comicboards that revealed that some of my favorite scenes from PAD's novelization were left on the cutting room floor (Alicia's gallery show..gone? What are they thinking?!?) but I guess 2 hours plus is a bit of a run time.

As far as the blood, I've a VERY young son who just happened to turn FOUR on opening day. He wants to see it something awful, but I'm afraid of the scene with Doom and the Doctor that he 'wants a second opinion' from. Is his demise in the film the same as the book?

Overall I'm very excited to see this movie. I thought the novelization was very good and have high hopes that it'll be the fun family fare that has made me an FF fan since the mid 70's

Haven't seen it yet. And, I certainly don't mind fun in my movies.

But, I'm going into this one with incredibly low expectations. They've had me worried ever since announcing the horrible mis-casting of the terribly overrated (in all ways) Jessica Alba, and have added more worries ever since.

Still, I have an overwhelming compulsion to see the bugger. If nothing else, by going in with low expectations, I can be pleasantly surprised, but not disappointed.

hey there pete, i was reading that you've written a few screenplays and/or teleplays, but i can't find any of your work on IMDb, how come? and what screen stuff have you written?

I watched the movie and it was everything I expected to be. The typical cookie cutter summer movie. I really wanted it to more. Now lets all gear up FF2.3..4 and suck money out the viewers pockets....

You know who they really needed in the movie? The nurse who was in the room in one of Marvel's Origin Of Dr. Doom stories. The one who drops whatever it is she's carrying and says something like "That face! How horrible!"

Worst. Nurse. Ever. No wonder the guy is so bitter.

In my opinion, the dialogue in this film, more than any other Marvel-influence film to date, is the closest to capturing the snappy patter and spirit of a 1960s Lee-Kirby comic -- and that includes either Spider-Man I or II.

You know, I didn't realize it till after Spider-Man 2 came out, but the one thing missing from the two Spidey movies is the insults.

How many great one-liners does Spidey throw out between the two movies? One? Maybe two?

It's part of his characterization in the comics, and the one part that was pretty much totally lacking in the movies.

Yeah, Craig, I noticed that too. I think part of the problem is that the villains in both movies don't lend themselves well to it--Goblin is a murderer and Doc Ock is kind of tragic.

Now if I were in charge of the next Spidey movie (in other words, if the folks at Sony lost their collective minds) I'd open with a battle between Spidey and some third of forth tier villain--the Vulture (Partrick Stewart), or Stegron the Dinosaur Man, or the Hypno Hustler, or (Please God, oh pleasepleaseplease) Stilt-Man, and Spidey could be thorwing all kinds of funny lines. Just to show we remember.

But the main fights with the main villain will probably invlove death and doom and other weighty stuff, no fun at all.

Well, it was nice to see the Thing and the Human Torch in a movie. I'm not sure who those extra-dimensional impostors claiming to be Reed, Sue and Dr. Doom were though.

(If they are going to steal another movie badguy's origin for Doom, why not use Magneto's? After all, the more layered Magneto story owes something to Doom.)

I came in thinking it was would be totally crap, and so I found myself pleasantly surprised by some the Johnny and Ben stuff. If I had gone in expected a good movie, I'd have been very disappointed.

It wasn't Catwoman bad. But it still felt very paint-by-numbers.

Allen

Well, it was nice to see the Thing and the Human Torch in a movie. I'm not sure who those extra-dimensional impostors claiming to be Reed, Sue and Dr. Doom were though.

(If they are going to steal another movie badguy's origin for Doom, why not use Magneto's? After all, the more layered Magneto story owes something to Doom.)

I came in thinking it was would be totally crap, and so I found myself pleasantly surprised by some the Johnny and Ben stuff. If I had gone in expecting a good movie, I'd have been very disappointed.

It wasn't Catwoman bad. But it still felt very paint-by-numbers.

Allen

On reflection, comparing FF to "The Incredibles" does an enormous disservice. Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, Frozone, even Violet and Dash, all start off knowing what their powers are, and used to a world in which there are superhumans.

The FF may or may not exist in the same movie NY that's home to Spider-Man and/or the X-Men, but even if they are, it's still not the sort of costume-bustling busyness that Metroville was in "The Incredibles". Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben all have to get used to the idea that 1) superhuman powers exist, and 2) they've got 'em. I think an inter media res opening, such as that used in "The Incredibles", would have given the FF short shrift. The next movie can open that way, though - maybe opening with Our Heroes defending their home against an attack by the Silver Surfer, thus starting the setup for Galacticus' appearance in the third film... :)

"The critics were so harsh! I don't get it. I suspect that part of the problem lies with the nature of the Fantastic Four itself. In order to make this film more "grown up" they would have had to distance themselves from the comic more than they did. These critics wouldn't have liked the FF comic either is my guess."

Yeah, you gotta take the critics with a grain of salt. One critic complained that Victor von Doom was a silly name, for instance. That is like when Mark Waid talked about the basic suspension of disbelief you gotta have to start to enjoy the superhero genre.

Still didn't saw the movie, though.

I just got back from seeing FF.

I really enjoyed it. My wife said it was "ok", but she was smiling and laughing along with everybody else.

Overall, I like the approach they took to the film. I felt they did well enough to really show each character and such.

As for Doom. Well, he never impressed me in the comics, and I think this movie actually does a good service for him - it actually shows the man behind the mask, something I've never personally seen in the comics. Sure, it may not be the same man as in the comics, but it's something.

Tying the two together in a single origin works well as well to keep the story going.

As for SS and Galactus in the next film, I suppose that would depend on who has the rights. I thought I read that somebody did pick them up, and I'm not sure it's Fox.

Just found an article via a yahoo search saying Chris Columbus (who was executive producer on FF) is attached to direct a Sub-Mariner film. But it's for Universal, not Fox.

So, while Sub-Mariner is a logical choice as a hero/villain in an FF sequels, you'd have to see a pretty unique agreement when the rights to the characters are owned by two different companies.

It's why Ulrich (sp) in the Daredevil movie doesn't work for the Daily Bugle.

It sucks, and I'd love to see some stuff mentioned between movies, but these studios aren't about to do that unfortunately.

Nice site, no forum though. You might want to visit this site: http://www.adelaidecomicsandbooks.com and have a read of the blog - it's a discussion about PAD's latest Hulk comic...not nice.

[quote]As for SS and Galactus in the next film, I suppose that would depend on who has the rights. I thought I read that somebody did pick them up, and I'm not sure it's Fox.[/quote]

Yup, Fox has both of those characters. I've read several interviews where Tom Rothman (Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairman) has said that Silver Surfer will be the next big Fox/Marvel project after [i]X3[/i] and that Galactus will be a part of that story.

As to FF, I haven't seen it yet...I've been busy trying persuade my non-fan wife that we should go!

avi arad says they are thinking about puppet master right now for the sequel

Puppet Master? Eh.

I say go big--if you can't do the Surfer and Big G, go for the Inhumans, or the Kree/Skrull war. Or Him. Maybe Her. Oh heck, make it Them.

20 million dollar opening on friday. Not too shabby.

I, and about half of Cumberland County, saw the movie this afternoon. PAD, if success for the film benefits you, you should be happy; by the time I got there, the first five or so showtimes had sold out, and since most of the people in the ticket line with me seemed to be families, rather than soldiers, I doubt it's a Fayetteville-specific phenomenon.

I really enjoyed the movie. FF was never a comic series that I followed closely, so the departures from comic canon didn't disturb me (and I probably only noticed half of them). The screenplay had the audience cracking up (on purpose, as someone noted above, which puts it ahead of some comic adaptations). I think the writers actually handled Reed's stretching power pretty well. All of the FF have terrible superhero aliases ("Mr Fantastic?" Please.), but there's not a lot the screenwriters could do about that except have Johnny make fun of them.

Pursuant to the discussion above regarding the violence in the film, I would note that there is one particularly nasty moment where Doom offs a corporate executive. There's no blood, and it's some sort of sci-fi directed energy death, but it is something people MIGHT want to consider before taking their kids. The film is still probably less violent than your average Star Trek DS9 episode, though.

I don't understand the critics on this one. It doesn't deserve rave reviews or anything, but it's a helluva lot better than Daredevil (which got much better reviews). It's also much better than Punisher, and it looks like FF will finish with the same type of reviews as that movie. Oh well.

The main problem with the movie is the look of it. Direction is pretty bland, effects/production values mediocre. That said, the movie concentrates on character interaction, and I thought they pretty much got the characters right. Evans steals every scene he's in. Chiklis is good in and out of the costume. Doom is changed, but I thought McMahon did a good job in the movie.

The final fight was pretty anticlimactic, though.

I very strongly doubt they'll have Galactus as a villain in any live-action FF movie. Apart from the tremendous amount of CGI that the big purple guy would take, he's literally too powerful a villain for the FF to take. In his first appearance, it took the Silver Surfer (who they're probably working on a movie for by himself).

My vote would be for a mail villain with an atmy behind him or her -- Super Skrull leading the Skrulls, the Mole Man and his army of mutants, Namor and the Atlantean forces... or yes, Doom and the Doombots.

And who else wants to see Jessia Alba dressed up as, and acting as, Malice?

I'd like to see:

The Negative Zone with Blastaar and Annihilus

The Sub-Atomic Universe of the Psycho-Man

The subterranean hordes of the Mole Man

The Skrulls framing the F.F. by committing crimes in their heroic identities

The Kree with Ronan The Accuser and the Sentry Sinister

And who else wants to see Jessia Alba dressed up as, and acting as, Malice?

Wouldn't this require her to first be able to...y'know...act? ;-)

(Sorry...I'm one of those guys who just doesn't get what the big deal is about her. I find her to be attractive on the scale of, "Hey, man...there's the hot chick that works in the food court." as opposed to the "millions of men bow down to her" scale.)

Can I take two 5 year olds to the New FF movie? The only PG 13 movie we went to with them was last years Harry Porrer movie.

Nytwyng wrote, "(Sorry...I'm one of those guys who just doesn't get what the big deal is about [Jessica Alba]. I find her to be attractive on the scale of, "Hey, man...there's the hot chick that works in the food court." as opposed to the "millions of men bow down to her" scale.)

While I'm not a fan of her bellybutton piercing, I think she has a great face and nice body. She's made herself a permanent comic book fan fave vixen by playing Nancy and Susan Storm. And it's not her personality that got her on the covers of ROLLING STONE, SHAPE, MARIE CLAIRE, and SEVENTEEN -- this month!

Everyone who said it was FUN is absolutely correct. I felt that it slanted way to much on the Fanboy side, but there nothing bad about that for me at all. It was like Daredevil. After seeing it I thought "Well we got our Blade (unexpectedly),we got our X-Men, we Got our Spider-man, I got my Hulk (stupid movie origin aside), okay I can live with the Daredevils. (I couldn't with the punisher. AFter all the mindless straight to videa and blockbuster action movies they made, that mess THAT up? The PUNISHER? How hard was it. Big guns, lots of death, lots of explotions - what was the problem?). I knew exactly where Catwoman was going when I read the first interviews with Holly Berrie saying she never read the book, was going by the Michele Pfieffer role (which I HATED with a fanboy passion) and that the idea behind the story was that there were MANY Catwomen (SUCKED!). That was just the trailer. The movie left no surprises for me at all.

Where the smaller, more "B" movie get their charm is from just remembering the elements that made us love the stories when we were kids (did any of us actually "grow up?") That is what the FF was. The actor playing Reed seemed uncomfortable with the role, I didn't mind Cole and Dr. Doom, but I wish they had went a different direction. Jessica Alba can do no wrong, I am completely waist-down biased when it comes to her so I say what I always say SHE WAS PERFECT.

An Aside: I didn't mind Jessica as Susan Storm. But a geneticist? Common. I am not saying the the actress might not have the ability, for all I know she could be spending all her money finishing 4th year Microbiology. But let keep the American cheesecake, cheesecake. No offense to Denise Richards, Hollie Barry, Jessican Alba, but you all started off as the cheesecake (yeah, Jess, I fell in love with you in Idle Hands). But you do not make convincing Psychialtrists, Nuclear Physicists or Geneticists. Why didn't they just make her a business woman who saw the practical sides of Reed's inventions or the accident that gave the powers or the media attention. I just couldn't buy her a scientist, God Bless my cheuvinistic soul.

Chiklis, Ben - PERFECT. I didn't care about the size, the character was NAILED.

Alicia Masters - I enjoyed the movie, so I'll leave my personal gripes elsewhere. But if they make Puppet Master a Brother Voodoo knock off, I'm on the tower with a high powered waiting for the unlucky director, producer and I'll even throw in the Key Grip.

I don't know how well it will do, it was really FANBOY at it core and in and everywhere else. But I know I had a hell of a time, and I'll own the special director's cut DVD with two disk set and special features when it comes out.

Craig J. Ries:

You know, I didn't realize it till after Spider-Man 2 came out, but the one thing missing from the two Spidey movies is the insults.

That's the one complaint I had about the Spidey films from the start. Well...that and he still sounds exactly like Peter Parker.

I realize that part of it is that during a real-time fight there's not as much time to spout wisecracks but it'd be nice if they figured out a way to slip some more in there somewhere.

Chris
(side note: nice that the Typekey thing seems to be working nowadays...but I'm still not getting any sort of Preview to work so I'm hoping this comes out like I wanted.)

Enjoyed the movie, particularly the characterizations--there were several points where I literally had my fist stuffed in my mouth to keep from laughing too loud and disrupting the movie for everyone else. One thing I was particularly impressed with was the exterior shots of the Baxter Building--a wonderful "updating" of Kirby's depictions of the exterior while still keeping a lot of the recognizable shapes intact.

"And who else wants to see Jessia Alba dressed up as, and acting as, Malice?

Wouldn't this require her to first be able to...y'know...act? ;-)"

Actually, I thought that Alba nailed Sue Storm's maternal instincts quite capably. But as is usually the case for actresses who sport stunning and exotic physical features (such as Alba or Angelina Jolie), it's always going to be their beauty that folks will take more public notice of instead of their acting ability.

KET

Posted by Batman:

hey there pete, i was reading that you've written a few screenplays and/or teleplays, but i can't find any of your work on IMDb, how come? and what screen stuff have you written?

Take a look at:

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0203035/

I took my 11-year-old daughter to see it today. It wasn't as bad as the critics made it out to be, that's for sure.

Well, for my money, all of the main four were right on. Sure, Reed was a geek, but (I guess because I am a geek) I enjoyed watching Reed coming to grips with the fact that there are risks worth taking. The Johnny-Ben interaction was probably the best part of the movie (the crumpled car and the pie had to be my favorites). Sue didn't really change much in this movie, except that she realizes she has to hit Reed over the head more.

Doom, on the other hand, was bland, IMHO. Corporate bad guy on the verge of losing it all blames the hero. A little more depth to the character would have been nice. Most superhero movies rise or fall because of the bad guy. That's FF's main weakness this time out (I'm assuming there will be a sequel).

As for my daughter, she liked the movie a lot. Her favorite powers (hey that's what all kids think of, right?) are invisibility and elasticity. See PAD: there's someone who likes Reed :)

It wasn't as bad as the critics made it out to be, that's for sure.

Between the box office gross of $56 million and all the positive fan reviews, I'd say the critics missed the point.

Actually, I thought that Alba nailed Sue Storm's maternal instincts quite capably. But as is usually the case for actresses who sport stunning and exotic physical features (such as Alba or Angelina Jolie), it's always going to be their beauty that folks will take more public notice of instead of their acting ability.

Considering I don't see the big deal about her appearance, her acting ability's on display front and center to me.

I stand firm behind my earlier statement regarding her being miscast as Sue. I don't feel she looks the part...I don't think she's capable of performing the part (and doing it justice).

In all fairness, I really only think one bit of casting was dead-on perfect, and that's Chiklis. The other four central roles just seem like they'd fit other actors like gloves....

Clooney wanted the part of Reed, and I can see that working.
Elisabeth Rohm of Angel and Law & Order would make for a great Sue alongside Clooney's Reed.
Seann William Scott would make for a great Johnny.
And, Goran Visnjic from ER would make a great Latverian Doom.

But, hey...difference of opinion's what makes horse races, right? :-)

I stand firm behind my earlier statement regarding her being miscast as Sue. I don't feel she looks the part...I don't think she's capable of performing the part (and doing it justice).

Well, Alba did better as Sue Storm than Hallie Barry has done in two movies with Storm.

Clooney wanted the part of Reed, and I can see that working.

I can also see another Batman & Robin...

Have not seen FF yet but all this talk about sequel villains has me thinkin': The Impossible Man! For all our superhero films there's not one Bat-Mite or Mr. Mxyzptlk (that i can think of). Not really a bad guy but can annoy the heck out of heroes...?

I hope that Puppet Master isn't the villain. I'm sure that Doom will still be in the mix (ala Magneto in the X-men films) and then they'll have a secondary villain. I think Moleman would be cool (maybe they can get Harry Knowles to play him!!!) mostly because we could have some big Subterranean creatures and some exploration of Subterranea. Big monsters and exploration are FF classics.

Puppet Master could be interesting, if he played a conflicted villain to counter Doom's villainy.

I saw the movie this afternoon. Good ride.

Applause:
Well thought out effects. I can't imagine how else it should look when Reed wraps up Ben when Ben's pissed. The Thing's makeup chould have been a little closer to Chiklis' size so Chiklis could better rip out my heart strings...

Gripes:
Casting. Right Ben Grimm. Right Johnny Storm. Wrong Reed Richards. Wrong Sue Storm. They just look too young. They played it as best as they could.

Doom. How stupid *IS* this guy? He severly injured a doctor when Doom should have bought him off. Doom fries the head banker, and several other bankers for taking their money and going home. Hey Doom! Ever heard of blackmail? And when Doom tries to kill the Torch? A heat seeking missle. An off the shelf heat seeking missle. This is *Doctor Doom*? Must have gotten his diploma off the internet.

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. Of course, I was a long time Iron Man fan so I may be used to a better brand of Doom. They should have left Doom for FF2 and went with the Mole Man and his Island...

Stunned:
This movie had *how* many stunt people? I stayed to watch the credits and was shocked at the number of stunt people. I think it was twice as many people as the regular cast list not counting extras.

The Puppet Master? How about Geoffrey Holder from Live and Let Die? You know, Baron Samedi, ah ha Ha HA!

"Considering I don't see the big deal about her appearance, her acting ability's on display front and center to me."

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. :)

"I stand firm behind my earlier statement regarding her being miscast as Sue. I don't feel she looks the part...I don't think she's capable of performing the part (and doing it justice)."

Well, frankly, if you haven't even seen the movie yet, then you're simply making a false assessment.

One of my favorite Alba moments in the film is when Sue has to break up a fight between Torch and The Thing in public. Shortly after, she chases after Ben, half-apologizing for her brother: "Johnny didn't mean it. You know he's always been a hothead." And Ben reacts angrily, "It's not him! It's them!", while waving at the crowd surrounding them. Ben goes on to wish that HE could turn invisible, and Sue's facial reaction reflects total empathy, even though he thinks she wouldn't even begin to understand his situation.

"But, hey...difference of opinion's what makes horse races, right? :-)"

What horse race? It's a movie.

Yet too many folks these days have a bad tendency to prejudge based on what things are NOT instead of what they ARE. That's why so many movie critics basically SCREWED UP when they reviewed FF this past weekend.

Saw the movie last Saturday with my wife, 4:30 PM, cinema was packed! Wonderful, light-hearted, family-approved film! Well worth the price of admission!

The audience laughed in all the right places. The movie was full of witty one-liners reminiscent for the Lee/Kirby/Byrne issues. Fun-fun-fun for 2 hours, you'll hardly ever notice that 2 hours have actually gone by!

Top 10 FF movie moments...

1. Cosmic storm: AWESOME effect, and you could really feel for Ben and Co. as the storm was about to hit the space station.

2. Movie Johnny Storm: THAT WAS JOHNNY STORM!

3. Movie Thing: You'll believe a man could ROCK!

4. Movie Sue: The first time Jessica Alba walks into the room in the FF space suit...HUBBA HUBBA. and she can act!

5. Movie Reed: 'Boring' and geeky at the start until he loosens up to Sue's charms. Not so boring in the end, as the geek ends up with the girl. Revenge of the nerd, indeed!

6. Those staple FF moments from comics: Reed ties up a raging Ben; Johhny's practical jokes on Ben; FF logo on NY skyline; "It's Clobberin' Time!"; and many more!

7. Those small things: Ben can't 'dial' the numbers on the pay phone; Ben can't pickup small objects with his huge fingers; Johnny burning up his clothes; Reed snoozes, and waks up with his face deformed; Sue nosebleeds under extreme pressure...intense!

8. Ben accepts Doom's offer to turn him back to human (which he does), and later on gives up his newfound humanity to save his best friend: may seem cliche but still well executed.

9. Unlike the 2 other Marvel films which exploded at the box office (X-Men 1/2 and Spidey 1/2 --- which I loved), Fantastic Four never seemed to tkae itself too seriously. It just kept the humor and FAMILY DYNAMICS rolling. It may not be the best superhero movie, but if a perfect superhero movie ever required it to be "fun to watch" nad "all ages (SUPERHEROES ARE FOR KIDS! ...and I'm already 31!)", FF is hard to beat!

10. My wife, and the kids in the movie theater loved it!

Go see it already!

Well, I posted on another board that I utterly hated it. But after reading PAD's and other comments here, I think what I was reacting to the blandness of Doom (and, really, Chiklis aside, the smarminess of the acting). Also, how they actually stopped Doom made no sense to me, and they didn't even bother with a "gotcha" moment (or, for that matter, an on-screen Thing transformation). I still dislike it. But less now. So thanx.

James--did you REALLY want to describe Reed as stiff? Seriously?
And for whoever described Iaon Gruffudd as uncomfortable in the role--that's part of the character, or, as an actor, that's how I saw it, because in the books Reed's uncomfortable with himself, and i thought that came off pretty well.
Too many people worry, though, about established stuff and it keeps them from being entertained. The movie is not the book, nor vicey versey. Trust me, I've seen enough fanboys and girls out there trashing every Trek episode for not being canon to last a lifetime. Just enjoy the story!

Last thing, I gotta go to work, but Jessica Alba...seriously had my doubts when I first heard about her. Well, not the first time I was wrong.

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. ;-)