The Fantastic Four.

Review #2401: The Fantastic Four.

Cast: 

Alex Hyde-White (Reed Richards / Mr. Fantastic), Rebecca Staab (Susan Storm / Invisible Woman; Mercedes McNab as Young Susan Storm), Jay Underwood (Johnny Storm / Human Torch; Phillip Van Dyke as Young Johnny Storm), Michael Bailey Smith (Ben Grimm), Carl Ciarfalio (The Thing), Joseph Culp (Victor Von Doom / Dr. Doom), Kat Green (Alicia Masters), Ian Trigger (The Jeweler), and Annie Gagen (May Storm) Directed by Oley Sassone.

Review: 

“I just sent an email to the cast. We’ve remained really good friends over the years, and we’re still astounded that this movie won’t die, 25 frickin’ years later, man. We’ve been interviewed by I don’t know how many outlets, magazines, the BBC, you name it. It just keeps coming.”

Time enough at last. You might wonder just why I would elect to do this movie, one that was not released in theaters but has persisted with bootleg recordings. Well, it seemed apt to deliver justice in the smallest form possible to a movie that unfairly shelved, so screw it. You might know that the team was created by Stan Lee (writer/editor) and Jack Kirby (artist/co-plotter) in 1961 that apparently had its first steps come because magazine/comic publisher Martin Goodman heard about the growing success of the comic series Justice League of America in 1960. In the 1980s, Bernd Eichinger and his production company Constantin Film obtained an option for a movie based on the comic book series The Fantastic Four. Apparently, Constantin's option was to expire on Christmas Eve 1992 and he either needed to start shooting or lose the option. Enter Roger Corman, who agreed to join forces on a production that was to be done for $1 million with New Horizons Pictures to help distribute. Production started three days before New Years Eve 1992 (after starting casting in December of that year) under the directorial work of New Orleans native Oley Sassone, who went from being a musician to actually shooting music videos and even doing a few cheapie movies with 1991's Final Embrace and Bloodfist III: Forced to Fight. The movie apparently was shot in less than four weeks in California with a screenplay by Craig J. Nevius and Kevin Rock. So yes, the movie was shot quick and cheap, but there were people making it that at least wanted to try and make it look like a comic book (such as its costume designer). The trailer of the movie was shown in theaters, and the cast and director did a promotional tour for the movie, by the way. There was meant to be a world premiere on January 19, 1994 that would have charity proceeds. Then the studio confiscated the negatives and told folks to go home. It apparently was exhibited once on May 31, 1994 before it was eventually purchased by Marvel executive Avi Arad and "burned". People have argued over whether the movie was meant to be released. Lee (who visited the set and even mentioned it to people in public) said it wasn't, Corman said it was and his contract had to be bought out, Eichinger said it was meant to be released. Hilariously enough, the next attempt at making a Fantastic Four movie would take a long time to do, since 20th Century Fox spent ten years in hiring people to try and direct / write the thing. In 2005, with Constantin Film as one of the production companies involved, Fantastic Four was released in theaters. Twenty years (and two more Fantastic Four flops) later, the next attempt at making a film adaptation is coming with The Fantastic Four: First Steps, the first of these films that isn't set in contemporary times. Sassone never got to direct a big movie, but he didn't leave the film business, directing a litany of small films and plenty of television. Somehow, somewhere, someone made efforts to do a bootleg for people to spread around of the film and it has been that way ever since, with a red-carpet showing of the movie (no paid tickets) even being done in New Orleans as late as 2019.

You have to be kidding me, right? This is the movie that couldn't get released? Even with all of the "good" movies I've seen, there are still movies I've also seen that are considerably of lesser value than what you see here. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) was basically an unfinished product, and it still got released! Besides, was it really going to be a bigger low point for Marvel than the 21st Century Film Corporation flop with Captain America (1990)?* I don't know if I could go as far as to say this is better than the turgid 2005 Fantastic Four movie, but it is so funny to see a movie that deserved better in its inspired efforts. The names of Hyde-White, Underwood, Staab, and Smith / Ciarfalio should be remembered as the first live action Four or at least acknowledged by Marvel; Arad apparently didn't even watch the movie before it was burned but thank heavens that bootleggers have persisted in making sure one can see the movie at all. It's almost a punk thing if you think about it, a movie that exists for the public as if it was an act of defiance. Criticizing the movie is like asking the guy who smells like he has beer in his pants if he is drunk: you already know the answer. The movie doesn't quite have the pacing to really make for great drama, but there wasn't exactly a great outline to work out a team comic book movie yet; having a ten-year gap that has a young Sue is not exactly ideal if you think about the age gap between her and Reed (notice how she apparently isn't a scientist here). The effects are wonky in the sense that The Thing is probably the highlight effect in looking and sounding adequate, at least when compared to the "trick" used for the Invisible Woman or the computer effect used at the end with the Torch, and the less said about Mr. Fantastic, the better. Due to, well, not being completely and totally finished in post-production, the voice work for Ciarfalio and Culp is, well, not ideal, but at least they look pretty cool for a bit. As a movie, it is all over the place in hokum that couldn't quite go with "mole men" but could do "jewelers" and it definitely lacks tension, but a little polish and a little more appreciation beyond "make this quick" in a era where you really needed time/more money to make an adventure, and maybe you would have the recipe for a "cult classic". As a movie, it is a corny one but it also is a well-intentioned attempt at making a movie for folks to enjoy that clearly deserved better than what it received.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Supplemental (i.e. no rating but just for you guys): as a treat, I also viewed the 2015 documentary Doomed!: The Untold Story of Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four, which was directed/written by Marty Langford as funded in some part by Indiegogo that interviewed the cast, Sassone and several others. The documentary is pretty cut and dry about a subject matter that is, well, distinct from the usual "making of / story", but at least you hear from people who at least seem interested in getting their words out there about a production that sure seemed like it was going to be just another job (or for some, one they wanted to use to springboard further). The documentary may just be a "heh, we did make a movie", but you don't exactly have people clamoring to hear about the 2005 or 2015 Fantastic Four productions, do you? I can't exactly give it a rating, because it is more a thing you would watch on the Internet (85 minutes) rather than compare it to say, "The Making of [X]", but if you are curious about the 1994 movie, this will be interesting to view right after that as a solid "fine" curiosity.

*In 1993, Arad was named the president and CEO of Marvel Films, which did eventually become Marvel Studios in 1996.

The Phantom of the Opera (1989).

Review #2291: The Phantom of the Opera.

Cast: 

Robert Englund (Erik Destler, The Phantom of the Opera/Mr. Foster), Jill Schoelen (Christine Day; Nancy Fontana as the singing voice), Alex Hyde-White (Richard Dutton), Bill Nighy (Martin Barton), Stephanie Lawrence (La Carlotta), Molly Shannon (Meg [New York]), Emma Rawson (Meg [London]), Terence Harvey (Inspector Hawkins), Nathan Lewis (Davies), Peter Clapham (Harrison), Yehuda Efroni (The Rat Catcher), and Terence Beesley (Joseph Buquet) Directed by Dwight H. Little (#471 - Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers)

Review: 

The original Phantom of the Opera, if you remember, was originally serialized from 1909 to 1910 by French author Gaston Leroux. The 1925 Universal film is still the most famous adaptation of the novel in film form, even with further renditions in 1943 and 1962 to go along with ones with elements cobbled together (such as say, Phantom of the Paradise [1974]); people have made multiple renditions of turning the novel into a musical, most notably the 1986 attempt by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Really, this popped onto my radar only just this month, much to my amusement. How could I resist the urge to not cover a strange pairing: a rendition of Phantom of the Opera with a few elements of the slasher as played by Robert Englund. You might remember that he became a horror icon with the success of A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and its subsequent sequels. The movie was a production of 21st Century Film Corporation, which at that time had just seen Menahem Golan (from Cannon Films) become its CEO; the credits do indeed call it a Golan production, one made for roughly $4 million. Gerry O'Hara was behind the script of the film in practice, as his original intent was to have it set all in 1881 England. However, Duke Sandefur was brought in to write segments that would be set in the current day that start and end the film. Amusingly, this wasn't even the only film loosely based on the novel released in 1989, as Richard Friedman's slasher Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge came out in the fall of 1989. The Phantom of the Opera was not a big hit with audiences (who barely had less than a month to even see it!). 21st Century had planned to do a follow-up film called "Terror of Manhattan" (hence the Sandefur-penned elements, and somehow the sequel would've set itself in subterrain New York). While that did not come to pass, they apparently re-worked it for Englund to just star in the direct-to-video slasher Dance Macabre (1992).

So, you get a little bit of singing and a killer among the underground of 19th century England. Little and Englund really wanted to make a "saturated color homage" to the Hammer Phantom of the Opera film and ended up with a muddled mess of a movie that really needed polish. It may be cheap, it may be garish, it may honor something from the Hammer films, but it sure isn't enough to be a winner all the way around the corner. That framing device involving the lines of present-day and 1882 London is clunky in pretty much every way you would expect, particularly since the movie somehow this was going to be one of times where people would clamor for sequels. Either go for the present-day or go for 1882, it just doesn't work to try a bit of both. Schoelen just can't carry the film too particularly well (especially since she doesn't even sing anyway). Sure, you probably couldn't remember who starred opposite Lon Chaney in the 1925 film (Mary Philbin), but there just isn't much to really say about her when it comes to distinct mannerisms beyond puppet and "oh, I guess they don't get the guy". To say nothing of Hyde-White and others is not exactly a compliment. Englund is the one highlight because he does manage to evoke considerable curiosity over what his character is meant to be, since it goes for the "sold his soul to the Devil" angle when it comes to disfigurement (i.e. more slasher and less "Romantic"), complete with having to destroy his music. The phantom has a mask made out of flesh that he likes to adjust from time to time, which is probably the one defining feature besides music for this film, aside from attempts at quips and a bit of slasher stuff. But it never really rises above average for 93 minutes because it never seems to actually commit to something worthy enough for us to latch onto. Englund doesn't have much of a cast to really latch onto, and the opera elements don't really latch onto the viewer as a whole. In total, it is thoroughly mediocre in ways that can't quite win with its aims but you might find something worth looking into if one can look beyond the cheap but endearing aspects of it all.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.