Give Us Your Worst, Part 21: The Fantastic Four

I want to be crystal clear: this movie isn't to be confused with the 2004 movie, "Fantastic Four", which also deserves consideration in this series, but this is rather its predecessor from a decade earlier. Produced by Roger Corman for an estimated 1.5 million dollars and never released or shown in any official capacity, "The Fantastic Four" is infamous as one of the worst superhero movies ever made.

There's a rumor that it was never even intended for release; that it was filmed simply in order to retain the movie rights. It's a good story, but it's not actually true. This was made in order to utilize (and presumably retain) the rights, but there's no indication that the producers didn't intend to screen it. What is accurate is that they were paid to not release it (more accurately, the studio with a long-term interest in the franchise bought the rights to the movie in order to bury it).

The question you're probably asking is, "Was it really that bad?"

Disappointingly, the answer is: not entirely. Don't get me wrong: this is definitely low budget. The effects are abysmal, and the production values are laughable. It's a B-movie, through and through.

Actually, if it weren't for a few sequences of awful computer effects, this would be indistinguishable from something made for TV in the 70's or 80's. But... here's the thing - if that was its origin, if this had been made in the 70's and aired on NBC, it would be a cult favorite. People would remember it from their childhood and adore it. It may not have been good, but it's more watchable than the live-action 70's Spiderman or some of the direct-to-video superhero flicks of the 80s.

Of course, this wasn't a made-for-TV production from the 70's, so it's hard to overlook how bad everything looks. But strip that away and you're left with something that's fun almost as often as it's tedious. The script's certainly not great writing, but it's got far more right to the name Fantastic Four than the 2004 film. The origin story for the team and Doom are straight out of the comics (no random lightning powers for Victor, either). Likewise, the leads do a decent job with the material. I wouldn't say they deserve any awards, but the team sure felt a lot closer in spirit to the Fantastic Four I know than the cast assembled a decade later.

I don't want this to come off as too positive. There are things in this movie that are painful. When the camp isn't carrying it, the tedium sets in. There are also scenes in this movie that are painfully out of place, sequences where an actor overacts to the point of absurdity or there's an extreme tone shift.

This isn't good; not by a long stretch. But, as a campy superhero comedy, it's nowhere near as unwatchable as its reputation suggests.

Like most in this series, there's no reason to seek this out unless you're a serious (and I do mean serious) Marvel fan interested in all the minutiae of the Fantastic Four's history. Then again, same goes for the 2004 movie and its sequel.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 20: Steel

It took me a while, but I finally got around to Steel, the 1997 movie starring Shaquille O'Neal. I don't think I need to tell you this is a bad movie. I knew what I was getting into when I went in: history has judged this movie and it has done so fairly.

My biggest issue with the movie is that I happen to like the DC character it's based on quite a lot. In the comics, John Henry Irons was introduced as one of four "replacement" Supermen during the arc where Superman died fighting Doomsday. Irons was a former weapons designer who quit after having a crisis of conscience. Inspired by Superman's example and sacrifice, he built a power suit and started fighting evil. He's essentially become the Tony Stark of the DCU.

The movie, of course, threw out all but a handful of details. Irons still starts out as a weapons designer, though he's portrayed as significantly less cutting edge than he is in the comics. The movie implies the real genius behind the weapons is a new character, Susan Sparks (more on her in a minute). Needless to say, the connections to Superman are severely cut back. There's actually a little more than I'd anticipated - Irons has a Superman tattoo containing the phrase "Man of Steel." It's strongly implied this is the source of his costumed name, too. For what little it's worth, I appreciated the nod.

Setting that aside, it's pretty clear the filmmakers were bigger Batman fans than Superman. Steel's mask bears some resemblance to versions of the live-action Batman masks, and his power level is dropped to something closer to the Dark Knight's.

And then there's Susan Sparks, the super-genius red-head who suffers a spinal injury in the first five minutes of the movie then goes on to help Irons build his crime-fighting gadgets and uses a computer to monitor his progress and hack into everything from traffic lights to illegal weapons auctions.

So, yeah. They more or less put Oracle in this movie. And, shockingly, they didn't do a horrible job with her. Granted, it's about the only thing in the movie that isn't horrible, and it's still a long way from good.

The movie's pace drags even more than you'd expect. It takes more than forty minutes for the suit to be built, and things don't pick up when it's constructed. The costume is among the worst I've ever seen in a superhero movie, and the fights are astonishingly boring. For the most part, combat is reduced to Steel and bad guys shooting at each other. I've read some quotes suggesting the director had no interest in superheroes - it shows.

The acting is pretty awful for the most part, but I can't imagine anyone expected otherwise. The direction's even worse, but - again - no surprise there. The movie's tone is uneven: it can't decide whether it's supposed to be serious or a farce.

I'm glad I can cross this one off my list, though I'm not sure I can say I'm glad I saw it. It was pretty awful, but I've seen worse.

Someday, I hope Steel gets a chance to appear on screen in a film that does him justice. I'd love to see him introduced in a Superman movie (maybe in Man of Steel 3 - I'm hoping the next installment is reserved for Kara). Irons is a great character, and he deserves better than this.

Movie Review: Monsters University

I think my wife called this one: when we walked out of the theater, she said it felt like a really good direct-to-DVD sequel. Before everyone assumes that's strictly a negative, I do want to stress the really good part of that summary: Monsters University is a lot of fun. There's some great world-building on display here, and the core story is really effective. But there's no denying the movie is extremely unambitious in scale.

It's definitely worth seeing if you enjoyed the original. But unless you loved the first movie, I don't think you need to see this in the theater. And it kills me to say that. You see, I do love the original. I skipped it when it was in the theaters, dismissing the colorful trailers as cheesy. When I finally watched it on DVD, I immediately swore to never again miss a Pixar movie until the company started to disappoint me.

After numerous successes, they finally faltered with Cars 2. Yeah, I actually kind of enjoyed that movie, but there's no denying it was pretty bad. And now, a few years later, it's becoming clear that Pixar has grown stagnant.

Sure, they're still making enjoyable movies. Brave was really good, despite what critics continue to say, and - like I've already said several times - Monsters University was good. But I don't think anyone could seriously claim it's great.

Let's get into the details. The movie's setting is topnotch. It builds on the world of Monsters, Inc., expanding it in new directions. The character and building designs are a lot of fun: the rival fraternities and sororities are awesome. The main characters are incredibly interesting, both as earlier versions of the characters we met in Monsters, Inc. and on this movie's own merits.

As a fantasy, it almost crosses that line into greatness. But this isn't a fantasy, at least not solely. First and foremost, it's a comedy, and as a comedy, it's disappointingly mediocre. A large segment of the supporting cast are over-the-top caricatures: the exact type Pixar used to be famous for avoiding. The jokes are mixed - there are several hilarious gags, but there are at least as many that just aren't funny.

The rivalry and eventual friendship between the leads saves the movie. It's more Wazowski's movie than Sullivan's this time, which works a hell of a lot better than making Mater the main character of Cars 2. The theme of the film is also impressive. Remember when Incredibles called bullshit on the notion that "everyone is special?" This time they're putting the notion that anyone can achieve their dreams on the chopping block. And it's about time: that poetic turn of phrase probably does more damage to kids than any of the other lies they're fed.

So, in summary, this is a good little movie, but it's not something you absolutely have to go see in the theater. I'm glad I saw it - I did have a good time - but it's certainly not a classic. All said, I'd still go see a movie about Mike and Sulley in a retirement community if Disney decides to cap off the trilogy.

Before I wrap this up, I want to mention the short that prefaced Monsters University. It's a brief, sweet piece called "The Blue Umbrella" that invokes old Disney cartoons. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but that's not why I'm bringing it up.

When the short finished, I leaned over to Lindsay and asked her whether it was live action with some digital effects or if was entirely computer generated. I honestly couldn't tell, and she couldn't either. Apparently, it was entirely digitally created.

Okay, I'm impressed.

Movie Review: Man of Steel

Between the movie's sub-60 freshness level on Rotten Tomatoes and my lukewarm response toward the trailers, I wasn't expecting to have a great reaction to this. Most of what I saw beforehand suggested a hard-SF spin on Supes; another in a long line of DC superhero movies embarrassed of being a DC superhero movie. But it turns out while Warner's marketing department might be having cold feet, Zack Snyder was making a comic book flick through and through.

Sure, this is a different interpretation of Superman and Krypton than Donner's. And, yes, the costume looked better with the red shorts (I suspect the director secretly agrees: there were very few shots showing Kal-El's waist clearly). But, overall, this adaptation of Superman felt as valid and as authentic as any live action version that came before it. Maybe more so.

All the talk about this being a new version of the story is bull. The Superman on display here is one generations of comics readers have imagined. It's a darker spin than we got in the older movies, but it's nothing new to the comics, where Superman has had to face incredible odds - and often stark reminders of his limitations - for a long time. On some level, this is the story Superman II tried to tell in 1980... it just does it much better.

The movie opens on Krypton and puts to rest any concerns about them taking too serious an approach. This is pure, unapologetic Burroughs science-fantasy. And it's fantastic.

When Krypton blows, the linear story-telling goes with it. Much of the movie is a series of vignettes, feeling almost like a silent picture at times. The movie's actually at its best when it embraces this, using images to build a cohesive world, characters, and tone. It doesn't quite succeed in delivering a fully cohesive narrative, but it doesn't really need one. Superman was never really about stories, anyway.

Man of Steel struck me as fundamentally true to the character and mythos of the world's first Superhero. Just as importantly, it delivered easily the greatest Lois Lane we've gotten outside of the Timm/Dini animated series.

This is absolutely worth checking out. It's got some issues - you'll roll your eyes at least a few times before the end credits roll - but the movie delivers a live action portrayal of comics' first hero a lot of us waited a long time to see.

Here's hoping Warner Bros. moves forward with plans to expand this into a fully realized DC live action universe, including a new Batman, Green Lantern, and - for the love of God - a long overdue Wonder Woman movie.

Only, if it isn't too much to ask... maybe give Superman his shorts back for the sequel.

Movie Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

J.J. Abrams' second Star Trek movie is more or less just what you'd expect: it's a very big, very loud summer action flick that mines elements from the original series and movies and rearranges them into a modern cinematic experience. It's sort of the big-budget Broadway musical version of Trek: operatic, a tad melodramatic, and about as subtle as a space ship crashing into a city.

Oh. It's also a hell of a lot of fun. That last part's kind of important: like the first installment, this is pure summer escapism. If you're in the theater looking for something else, you're either in the wrong place or the wrong era. Sorry.

Part buddy comedy and part action movie, Into Darkness is fairly unrelenting. It throws jokes at you faster than most slapstick (and with far more success), even as it manages to ratchet up the excitement. The effects are as good as in part one, and the action is even better. The returning characters do an even better job filling the shoes of the original cast than they did in the first movie. Sure, the movie is riddled with plot holes... but who cares?

Let's see how much I can talk about the villain without delivering any major spoilers. For the past year or so, there's been a question as to the identity of the movie's bad guy. Abrams consistently refused to answer, which only fueled speculation. By the time the movie was released, neither answer would really have felt satisfying or shocking.

Going in, I was irritated Abrams had bothered keeping this a secret. Walking out, I thought he was a genius. It was slight of hand: while we were busy speculating on this one little detail, he'd managed to distract us from asking about the rest of the movie. Our premise was wrong, anyway. The figure we'd been wondering wasn't exactly a villain in the traditional sense: he was a character in the movie. And a fascinating one at that.

Interestingly, Into Darkness addresses (at least superficially) one major critique of the first film: that it wasn't about anything. In the style of the original picture, this was actually a metaphor for a contemporary issue. I doubt it will silence the critics complaining this still doesn't feel like Trek, but they were always a small (if vocal) minority of fans, anyway.

In short, it's a great summer action flick and worthy successor to its predecessor (actually, I think I liked this one even more than part one). It's also a good omen: apparently, Abrams' success wasn't a fluke, which bodes extremely well for the future of Star Wars, the next franchise he's taking on. Hopefully Trek will find someone competent to pick up where he left off.

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

I think I saw Ben Kingsley give the best performance of his life yesterday. Not in Iron Man 3, though he was good there too, but in an interview on The Colbert Report where he lied his ass off about the character he was playing, The Mandarin. I don't want to go into too much depth, but the big screen adaptation of The Mandarin had a lot of parallels to the Dark Knight Rises's portrayal of Bane. The difference was that Iron Man 3 was competently written and directed, and it owned the rather substantial changes it made to the character. I know there are a lot of fans who hate what they did with Iron Man's most iconic villain, but I kind of enjoyed it. I was more irritated by how they treated Maya Hansen, honestly.

Iron Man 3 is a bizarre movie, but I think I understand how it came to be. Imagine you're an executive putting together plans for this. Note that this is happening before Avengers hits theaters. You have no idea that it's going to have the largest opening weekend of all time: you don't even know whether it's going to flop. So you hedge your bets. Avengers, like Iron Man 2 and Captain America, is made for the die-hard fans, the ones more interested in the Marvel Universe than Tony Stark. You want to be prepared for the possibility the public is going to reject the connections in that Universe.

So you put together a movie that isn't about them. It acknowledges what's happened (in fact, the events of Avengers had a major impact on Tony's personality), but the expanded Universe didn't really show up, even when they probably should have: where was S.H.I.E.L.D. during all this?

In short, this one wasn't made for the comic geeks: it was made for fans of the first movie who didn't like part two. How was Marvel supposed to know those people would love Avengers?


I saw this with a bunch of friends who - like myself - are major fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think all of us would name Avengers as our favorite movie of last year and Iron Man 3 as one of our most anticipated movies of this year. We're certainly not alone - there are a lot of Marvel geeks out there these days.

So... did we get what we wanted from Iron Man 3? Well, I'm not actually sure what we wanted. Maybe we wanted to be wowed, like we were for the Avengers. The movie didn't deliver that: it probably couldn't have. What it did deliver was a series of more modest surprises and twists, all wrapped in an classic Shane Black action-movie package.

As a pallet cleanser, it was kind of fantastic. It was what it claimed to be: a stand-alone film set apart from the rest of the Marvel Universe. It featured some great dialogue, and some amazing action sequences. Were they contrived? Of course - this is Shane Black, after all - but they were exciting and well executed. This was funnier than the previous installments while simultaneously being the first in the trilogy that didn't feel like a comedy: I was invested in the fights to a degree I haven't been in this series previously. The heroes felt more mortal, and the villains felt more threatening.

Was I bothered this was less a Marvel movie than a Tony Stark one? A little, honestly. But it was still a hell of a great summer action movie, and I'm no less excited about seeing Thor: The Dark World in November.

Huh. I feel like I'm forgetting something important about this movie. What could it be?

Give Us Your Worst, Part 19: X-Men: The Last Stand

I last saw X-Men: The Last Stand (more commonly known as X-Men 3) when it was in the theaters. Even with the generally low reviews and lower expectations, I found the movie a massive disappointment at the time, for reasons I'll get to in a moment.

In the meantime, I've assembled every other movie in the franchise on DVD - including X-Men Origins: Wolverine which I picked up for a buck or two last Christmas. When I came across a used copy of Last Stand on a clearance rack for three bucks, I felt obligated to complete the set. Besides, I wanted to include it in this series.

Overall, my reaction hasn't changed significantly since the first time I saw it. The movie is bad, but its most serious issues are in context: it seriously damages the franchise and fails to meet even a fraction of the promise of the previous installment. But I don't find it anywhere near as painful to sit through as most people report. Frankly, I think this is orders of magnitude better than Origins: Wolverine; again, setting aside the damage Last Stand does to its source material and Singer's franchise.

On its own merits, the movie is more bizarre than anything else. Essentially, this is Brett Ratner trying to prove he can handle serious material. For those of you unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes mess that led to Last Stand, here's a synopsis: Bryan Singer made the first two X-Men movies for Fox, despite serious problems with the studio (they cut half a year of production from the first film, gave both ridiculously low budgets for their exposure, and held off on green-lighting the third despite the fact the second was immensely successful). Singer got a better offer from Warner Bros. to make Superman Returns, so he took off.

As soon as Singer left, Fox fast-tracked The Last Stand. They cycled through a handful of directors before setting on Brett Ratner, who was willing to agree to a release date before Superman Returns. They also killed Cyclops off screen in the first fifteen minutes of Last Stand, presumably in retaliation for the actor signing on as a supporting role in Singer's Superman.

Watching Ratner attempt to fill Singer's shoes is weird. He fails, of course, but damned if he doesn't give it his all. The movie is filled with numerous asides and sequences clearly intended to instill a sense of gravitas and drama to the story. The result is mostly just funny, but at least he put in the effort.

The best part of the movie is Magneto. Despite working with a moronic script, Ian McKellen manages to remain interesting: no small feat. There were a handful of other sequences I enjoyed: I still say the danger room Sentinel fight at the beginning is kind of fun.

I mentioned at the start that I left the theater mad, despite going in expecting the worst. The reason wasn't what was in the movie, so much as what was absent... namely, Phoenix. Setting aside the fact Ratner completely undercut the character's concept, he couldn't even give us the visual of Jean Grey manifesting the fiery form that was promised at the end of X-Men 2. More than anything else, that pissed me off. I wanted to see the Phoenix brought to life, even if it was in the middle of a bad movie. Ratner couldn't even give us that.

Fox threw more money at The Last Stand than they spent on the first two combined, and the result wasn't half as good as either. It derailed the franchise, which is only now recovering (thanks in no small part to Singer's return). That said, this often gets high placement on lists of the worst superhero movies ever made, and I think that's a stretch. This is bad, but I'd take it over Wolverine, either of the two recent Punisher movies, Blade Trinity, either of the Schumacher Batman movies, Barb Wire, The Spirit, and others. It's bad, but there's much worse.