Skip to main content

What you've created here is incredible.

Fantastic Four
(2015)

(SPOILERS) The hatchets seemed to be out for the Fantastic Four reboot from the get-go, with antagonistic mumblings about the liberties director Josh Trank was taking with the source material, then the welter of rumours over a troubled production leading to widespread prophecies of (doctor) doom and a salivation over the property’s potential return to the Marvel fold if the box office went tits-up. So the post mortem on why this is a disaster was pretty much written even before its release. Which is a shame, as it isn’t really that bad and even has quite a bit going for it.


Even for being an (not again) origins tale and a dour and po-faced one at that (see also X-Men), Fantastic Four feels tonally quite fresh. Trank has taken a different tack to the bright and breezy Marvel tradition (of which Fantastic Four is generally seen as the exemplar, reflected in the previous big screen iteration, although the recent Ant-Man is the absolute definition of a lightweight superhero movie) and I can see that if you’re a dedicated follower of the foursome you may well take serious issue with the seriousness of his picture. Trank’s coming from a different place to the self-important grimness of the DC movies; he doesn’t really even have the conviction to honour the Fantastic Four as superheroes per se (which is why the ending, where these traits are enforced, is a really awkward gear change).


His tack (the screenplay is courtesy of Trank, Jeremy Slater and Simon Kinberg) derives from the same “What would the effects be of such powers?” two-edged sword starting point he previously explored in his really very good Chronicle, infusing the picture with foreboding at not just their potential for misuse but aslo the side effects of the powers themselves. And he wasn’t kidding with his invocation of Cronenberg.


The opening sequence (taking place all the way back in 2007!) could be Dante’s Explorers played straight (one thing Trank doesn’t exhibit, perhaps surprisingly for someone allegedly partial to Mary Jane, is a capacity for a good giggle) as young Reed Richards develops a teleportation device. Flashing forward, he’s transformed into Miles Teller and is talent spotted by Reg E Cathy’s Dr Franklin Storm, who sets him to work with his daughter Sue (Kate Mara), son Johnny (Michael B Richards) and wayward prodigy Victor von Doom (Toby Kebbell). When their experiment is a success, transporting life to and from a parallel dimension (the imaginatively named Planet Zero) and it looks as if it will be taken out of their hands and sold to NASA (goddam NASA!), Reed, Johnny, Victor and Reed’s childhood friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) take a jaunt to the planet and, of course, physiognomy-changing events ensue.


I rather liked that the picture takes its time to establish its scenario and characters, although it seems many have found this rather boring. Trank is intent on establishing a certain rigour and verisimilitude to his storytelling, however at odds that may be with the source material. That’s not to say there aren’t some serious problems; the dialogue is frequently clumsy and obvious, and the character beats can be crude or clichéd (Johnny’s a hot-headed Fast & Furious fan, Victor has dropped out and lives in a garage, unable to locate a razor amidst his technological wizardry).


But there’s an admirable sense of aiming for something tonally different. Sure, we follow their preparations through customary montage, and there’s never any real finesse, but the trappings of science fiction/exploration do give the picture something of an Altered States meets The Andromeda Strain by way of Spielberg vibe. And the actual trip is good stuff, in an early ‘80s alien-planet-on-an-obvious-sound-stage kind of way.


The strongest aspect comes when they return and all hell breaks loose in their upset bodies.  This kind of 12A body horror may not be in keeping with the upbeat bent of the comics, but it handles such themes much more astutely than, say, the recent Robocop remake (which boxed itself into an existential corner it then couldn’t get out of). Sure, it drops the ball in having Ben (apparently) sweepingly come to terms with his craggy form by the end credits, but there’s a palpable sense of loss and mutilation perpetrating his unwieldy form, one that welds itself to other objects and even himself. We never do find out if the Thing has a rock winky (one assumes not or he’d wear briefs, so that’s another thing for Ben to be down about). Reed’s distended limbs could easily have looked ridiculous and goofy, but his first realisation in particular takes on the kind of queasy terror of coming to realise one has been in a terrible accident and life will never be the same again.


It’s a nice touch too that Reed, the nominal leader, turns tail and flees (one expects him to have come up with some plan to save his friends, but it seems he’s merely mired himself in guilt and self-loathing during the subsequent the year gap). Ben’s dalliance with the military carries an agreeably cynical vibe (and an Ang Lee’s Hulk moment with a tank), while Johnny’s fierce defence of the value of his skills provides an effective counterpoint. Sue’s rather one note in all this (she doesn’t even get to go to Planet Zero); she barely uses her invisibility and mostly just flies about in an energised hamster ball. 


Bell and Jordan are fine (there were concerns about the former’s vocal performance as the Thing, but as a non-purist I had no issue with it), Mara rather forgettable (which is better than being annoying, my usual response to her performances). It’s only Teller who really makes a strong impression, particularly in embracing across Reed’s more Aspergic literalness.


As for Victor, Kebell is always good value, but he’s unable to extract much nuance from Victor’s student activist rants (I did like his line about their experimenting be used for waterboarding in the fourth dimension). He goes from someone protesting the debasement and destruction of the world to one who wants to destroy it, presumably for the sake of a de rigueur CGI whirlwind finale.


The Thing’s design is pretty good, but the same can’t be said of mutated Doom. The concept is suitably icky (his survival suit has fused to his body), but he more accurately resembles someone in a Marilyn Manson Halloween mask. His return, head-splattery rampage and subsequent portal gubbins attempt to suck the Earth dry translates as the desperate manoeuvring of a studio distrusting what they had and attempting to sexy (or pixelate) it up. It’s rushed, messy, semi-incoherent, and what is coherent is cheesy in the extreme. Reed gives his guys a pep talk along the well-worn lines of, Victor’s “stronger than any of us. He’s not stronger than all of us”.


The ending is also rather abrupt in establishing the team in their new base with a clumsily brandished announcement of their super-brand. It made me conscious that such clenched-teeth cheerfulness is probably a Fantastic Four movie I don’t want to see. I lay most of the blame for the pervasive mediocrity of the previous Fox Fantastic Fours at the door of Tim Story (Chris Evans was far more appropriately cast there than as Captain Bland), but there’s also something rather banal about their primary coloured family values (particularly so when you have a character trapped inside a grotesque shell but in entirely the wrong group and tonal environment to really express his pain).


Tim Blake Nelson is very watchable as lizard-eyed Dr Allen; any chance he’ll reprise his role as Samuel Sterns from The Incredible Hulk some day? I also liked the Marco Beltrami/Philip Glass score (I’m thinking that’s more the Glass side of the equation than the Beltrami), which lends the proceedings a suitably tantalising, disturbing new-horizons quality.


I’m not sure Josh Trank really needed to follow Chronicle with something that charted a similar course of the dark side of being superheroically endowed, particularly when the result offer diminished returns (not to mention the unfortunate fall-out with regard to his Star Wars duties). But his directorial chops are still much in evidence. This is visually a much more interestingly composed superhero movie than… well, most of them aren’t all that (I guess Man of Steel, even if it kind of overdoes its handheld look). Hopefully he won’t be consigned to permanent director jail as a result, as the biggest failings of Fantastic Four are the eschewing of its more grounded and interior canvas for the CGI blur of the final 20 minutes (likely studio mandated; Trank tweeted the possibly optimistic self-appraisal, “A year ago I had a fantastic version of this. And it would’ve received great reviews. You’ll probably never see it. That’s reality though”).


If we’re to assume Fantastic Four doesn’t make the readies to warrant a sequel, it will be interesting to see how Fox attempts to integrate them into the X-franchise (one well overdue a makeover; First Class was a first class false dawn but alas we’re back to Bryan Singer’s late-‘90s leather fetish); it would be more desirable for Trank’s aesthetic to seep into the X-Men than vice versa.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.