Fantastic Four (2015)

I'm not surprised that this movie failed to meet expectations. The release date was a big red flag to me because August is notorious for when wanna-be blockbusters are released. What surprised me was how big of a critical flop "Fantastic Four" was. After seeing the movie (for free by the way), I can see why critics hated it so much. As the release date of this movie approached, many began to voice their disappointment of the previous films that came out a decade earlier featuring these comic book heroes. Ironically, this reboot is rated worse on the Internet than those other movies. So whose fault is this failure? Director Josh Trank blamed the studio and the acting wasn't all that bad. I blame the screenwriters. The story wasn't fun or funny and nothing was done to allow the audience to accept the world or plot points that was being presented. There are many more flaws that I will later address so hang on. In order to best illustrate what went wrong with "Fantastic Four", I will have to make a lot of comparisons with other movies that were successful.

As mentioned the story was the worst part of this show and that to me is the most important element to any feature film. It is strange that something this bad came from Simon Kinberg because he has produced, written or helped to write some good movies previous to this. I can only hope his future projects turn out a lot better for all our sakes. Let's get started with the prologue. We learn where Reed and Ben originate from and how they met but there was no real sincerity behind these moments. The whole movie, including the opening scenes, felt like a bunch of plot points instead of a flowing narrative. The biggest problem with the script is that the four main characters are never all together until the very end of the show. In almost any story, we get to know the characters through their interactions with other characters. We also can relate to them by this on-screen interaction. In "Guardians of the Galaxy" for example, the characters are kind of stuck with each other and clash as a result which results in some great entertainment. One flaw with the hit movie "Frozen" has to do with Elsa in that her separation from others makes it quite difficult for the audience to relate to her and become acquainted with her. In the case of "Fantastic Four", Ben is away from Reed up until their first visit to Planet Zero. We also don't get enough foundational scenes at the start between Reed and Ben when they were kids. There was no romantic chemistry between Sue and Reed and the scenes where they were supposed to bond were poorly written. It is almost like they have nothing in common other than they're smart. What's more, the love triangle between Sue, Reed and Victor also is severely lacking. After the transformation, Reed flees, Ben works for the government and Sue & Johnny are both in training. How are they supposed to bond and learn to work together? "The Avengers" had a longer climax than this movie and earlier in that hit film, we had scenes where the heroes work together in smaller groups or clash upon first meeting. "Fantastic Four" not only failed to provide the interaction between characters that the audience desires but there was also a severe lack of character development. We don't get any scenes of Doom on the planet so we don't get to see how his thinking changed. We knew he had a dark side before his trip to Planet Zero but so did Anakin Skywalker. We got to see everything that turned him evil but with Doom, he was rescued and then suddenly revealed his true colors. Kinberg said he wanted to show how Victor becomes the villain and from what I have seen, he and the other writers failed. In the other "Fantastic Four" films, we have plenty of moments where Ben and Victor are not in "costume". These two characters have to be more than just rock and energy; we have to be familiar with who they are on the inside so that they aren't flat or stale. In those other films, you can still see their real eyes and that is a connection to who they were before. The Thing has very few lines after his transformation in this reboot but come to think of it, the same can be said for the scenes before his transformation.

"Fantastic Four" isn't fun to watch with practically no laughs at all. It also has 0% verisimilitude. Sure this is a superhero movie but is it so much to ask to 50%? For instance, how the characters end up working in the Baxter building felt forced. Johnny's reason for showing up at the Baxter Foundation in particular was the hardest to accept. Some might say that it resembles Kirk joining Starfleet in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" but Kirk wasn't doing it for money or just to fix his car? Kirk was accepting the invitation to make his life meaningful whereas Johnny was going to leave as soon as he could. Another scene that I couldn't accept as logical was when Reed, Victor, Ben and Johnny secretly visit Planet Zero. I can see Victor doing this alone or with Johnny but Reed is supposed to be smart. Scientists wouldn't do something so foolish as explore a planet without a team in headquarters monitoring them. Reed said so himself that he doesn't want to be famous; he only wants his work to matter. This secret trip puts his accomplishments at stake but the filmmakers had to give him and the others superpowers anyway they could, even if it meant some lazy storytelling. Here's another questionable part of the script: why jump to one year later. We don't get to see Johnny learn to fly and that was a very appealing part of the 2005 film as was Ben dealing with consequences of his new body. Seeing the other characters learning to use their powers and controlling them isn't featured as much as we subconsciously desire. Yet another sign of a sloppy narrative is a lack of conflict. Reed can fix the problems that the government is having with his machine in just ten minutes? To quote the film "It can't be that simple." The climax in this reboot was a small battle with a simple win for the good guys and accompanied by an easy return to earth. These characters work together once as superheroes on another planet with no one watching. Where is the climax in that? One could argue that the climax in the 2005 was also too short but it was in the middle of a busy street at least. The resolution after the climax in the 2015 version was too convenient, even after the mess of a film story that preceded it. Why is the government willing to let the team be? Even Tony Stark didn't get off that easy. Why does the government already have a building finished for the four heroes? The Avengers were still working on their building after their first movie together. Not only is there a speedy resolution but a lack of it. We have no verbal resolution to the animosity between Reed & Ben and no acknowledgement of the romantic relationship between Reed and Sue. There were two scenes at the start between Reed and Sue that obviously hinted that they were attracted to one another but there was no payoff in the climax or diminuendo. To cap it all off, I hate the corny way the team came up with their name. If you have a well-worn name for a superhero or a group of them and you want to create a successful film about said hero or heroes, you had better create a plausible origin for the appellation. In the original set of films, the press came up with the term "Fantastic Four" and that makes enough sense. Johnny comes up with their individual names and he calls upon his show-off personality to do so. Captain America got his title because he sold war bonds and the name grew on him. In a declaration of triumph over his foes, Ronan brands them as the "Guardians of the Galaxy". The ways that the Fantastic Four got their individual names in this movie were far from credible. Not only was there no mention of "Mr. Fantastic" or "Invisible Woman" and The Thing got his name from the government. I don't think they would have come up with that particular nickname for Ben.

This young cast makes us doubt their intelligence. I know there is such as thing as a child prodigy but this is going too far. Before anyone points out Tony Stark's childhood, let me first say that we only heard about his childhood at the start of "Iron Man" and never saw it. This allowed his adult self to take most of the credit for his intelligence level and that creates a believable scenario. Hiro in "Big Hero 6" was believable mostly because of the animation genre but also he built robots like Stark, not inter-dimensional travel. Jane Foster in "Thor" had theories and studied space. The filmmakers on "Fantastic Four" would have probably had Jane create her own bifrost. What would "Back to the Future" be like if Marty invented the time machine? Typical young geniuses, even in the movies, have potential but not success right out of the education gate. I have already mentioned the lack of character development and interaction but now we come to the lack of chemistry between the cast members. The writers wanted to replicate a dysfunctional family coming together when they need to but this isn't relatable or positive unless you make it fun and resolving. Team chemistry also plays a significant part and there was none to be had in this movie. Why is Susan adopted? Why not stay true to the characters as they were in the comics? Another alternative was having both Susan and Johnny as African American. Josh Trank had worked with Michael B. Jordan before in "Chronicle" but Jordan's character in that movie was a lot more fun because of his interaction with the other characters. Jamie Bell is a good actor but this was one role that he was not suited to play. Today's technology can make any actor into any character but that doesn't mean you should. This could have been a problem in "The Incredible Hulk" but to put it simply, Bruce Banner and the Hulk are as different as Edward Norton is from Lou Ferrigno. Kiefer Sutherland was considered to play Ben Grimm and I find that appealing. It seems that some journalists think that this is Jamie Bell's first experience with motion capture and that he sought out Andy Serkis for advice. With a little research, it is easy to learn that Bell and Serkis were the main actors as Tintin and Captain Haddock respectively in the motion capture film, "The Adventures of Tintin". It may be true that Bell did go to Serkis to prepare for his role as The Thing but these two men have a pre-existing work relationship that appears to have been overlooked. Eddie Radmayne and Domhnall Gleeson were up for the role of Doom and either actor probably would have done better than Julian McMahon and certainly better than Toby Kebbell. Tim Blake Nelson's performance in "The Incredible Hulk" was so much better than in this comic book film. As a fun fact, Dan Castellaneta (the voice behind Homer Simpson) plays Reed's schoolteacher at the start of the show. As with the previous movies, the special effects were good sometimes and phony other times. The filmmakers took measures to save money with the special effects but that shows how little they were willing to work on this reboot. The motion capture was also below par and I saw other post-production flaws with the editing and ADR.

No substance, no thanks. Trank wanted a more grounded, more character driven, more emotional, and a little more dramatic kind of superhero film but he crashed and burned. While it may not be completely his fault, he is one of the people in charge so he does have some responsibility for this flop. Most of the blame goes to the screenwriters for assembling a bunch of plot points on a page. Sometimes critics can be at fault for a film success or failure. I believe that to be true for what happened to "The Lone Ranger" but in this case, the critics judged correctly. This was the worst superhero movie to date for me. It was just as bad as "Batman Returns" but after seeing "Fantastic Four", maybe "Batman Returns" isn't as bad as I had previously thought.

1.5 Stars