Fantastic Four (2015).

Review #2476: Fantastic Four.

Cast: 

Miles Teller (Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic), Michael B. Jordan (Johnny Storm / Human Torch), Kate Mara (Sue Storm / Invisible Woman), Jamie Bell (Ben Grimm / The Thing), Toby Kebbell (Victor Von Doom / Dr. Doom), Reg E. Cathey (Dr. Franklin Storm), Tim Blake Nelson (Dr. Harvey Allen), Tim Heidecker (Mr. Richards), and Dan Castellaneta (Mr. Kenny) Directed by Josh Trank (#152 - Chronicle)

 

Review: 

"I don’t regret any of it. It’s a part of me."

Oh sure, this is an easy target. But why not? 20th Century Fox saw two Fantastic Four movies make a little bit of money and thought they could start over, finally settling on Josh Trank to direct in 2012, as he had made quite the impression with Chronicle. While Jeremy Slater (who actually had provided a bit of input in the script of that film) was initially tabbed to do the screenplay, it went nowhere when they clashed over what they wanted the story to be as Slater wanted to go for a tone akin to the recent release of The Avengers (2012)...which Trank hated, because he apparently had only seen the 1990s animated series and wasn't exactly a comic book movie fan. Simon Kinberg was hired as a co-writer and co-producer in 2013. The movie was filmed in 2014 over the course of 72 days but Trank had a hell of a time trying to balance the workload and internal pressure, with varying level of reports over how stressful it was in production (whether his behavior was erratic is up to debate - the casting of Jordan as Storm riled a few people on message boards and Trank resorted to carrying a gun on his nightstand). The apparent first cut of the film was "morose" and not to Fox's liking which led to reshoots and re-writes; ultimately, Trank, Kinberg, and Slater were credited for the screenplay. Trank did negotiate a deal to at least make his own cut while Fox got Stephen Rivkin to make a cut assembled from certain takes, which Trank claimed were picked deliberately to be cheesy. One day before the release of the film, Trank posted on social media about having had a fantastic version of the film in mind that would probably never be seen. The movie made a bit of money but obviously did not generate desire for a sequel* while Trank didn't return to directing until Capone (2020).

I can't even tell just who is most at fault for this piece of junk. How bad was Trank's first cut that they went with a version that never actually goes into first gear? 100 minutes go by with four lead characters that have chemistry on the level of when you encounter a homeless man on the street. The movie looks and feels so dreary that it makes the 2007/2009 Fox efforts actually look like high-effort features, right down to an opening sequence that has "it's clobbering time" used first....when Ben Grimm is hit by his brother. What was the second idea, Johnny Storm having a fear of fire because his mom got burned to death? Sue Storm being afraid of being alone because of a traumatic clown experience? The movie is basically a wind-up toy that goes nowhere, says nothing, and accomplishes nothing. Apparently, Trank's experiences living in a "racially intense Los Angeles where we were used to seeing white superheroes", combined with being a director with control, led to him casting Jordan as the Human Torch (actually, he also wanted to cast a black woman to play Sue Storm too but was overruled). It's funny that the one really noted name that Trank got for the film did get to be in a successful film for 2015...with Creed, which was released months after Fantastic Four. Sure, nobody pulls off a quality performance of the four, but he probably is the least affected, I suppose. It isn't even worth crapping on Teller, what exactly is he supposed to do in a movie where he doesn't register any sort of energy? The chemistry between him and Mara actually is transparent in how thin it feels, and Mara almost does accomplish the act of seeming invisible...except for the fact that Bell accomplishes even less with a rock-man that inspires chuckles at how it looks. Kebbell has two hurdles to stumble over: a pathetic characterization of Victor Von Doom (as last played by Julian McMahon to mild results) and a Dr. Doom that is in the movie for less than 15 minutes that doesn't get an interesting motivation when he is turned into a grey-green goo man. When the most involved person in the movie is Cathey in a thankless role, you are in trouble. It can't even be a cheesy movie like the 1994 unreleased feature, no, it has to try to be a failed imitation of stuff like Batman Begins (2005). The climax of the movie is probably the most cobbled-together and it happens to have the one noted line: a stupid line about "fantastic" that became a "meme". You would think after four Fantastic Four movies, you would get one that has a friendly quartet and interesting action and production values, but oh no, not quite. As a whole, Fantastic Four (2015) is a movie fit for nobody. It is made of nonsense that will come and go with absolutely no impact except maybe to the psyche of Josh Trank. It does however make a good film to make fun of, at least.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next for Thanksgiving: A Sound of Thunder.

*Ten years later, Marvel did The Fantastic Four: First Steps, a bare minimum for a decent movie. No, I'm still a bit mad that they went with having that dopey baby in it.

The Adventures of Tintin.

Review #1560: The Adventures of Tintin.

Cast: 

Jamie Bell (Tintin), Andy Serkis (Captain Archibald Haddock / Sir Francis Haddock), Daniel Craig (Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine / Red Rackham), Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (Thomson and Thompson), Toby Jones (Aristides Silk), Daniel Mays (Allan), Mackenzie Crook (Tom), Gad Elmaleh (Omar ben Salaad), and Enn Reitel (Nestor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence)

Review: 
Every aspect of Hergé's great talent are part of my approach: Hergé's humour of course, and the body language, which is so important. There's no plan to change that. We religiously respect his art, even for the supporting characters."

The only person that Hergé, author of the comic book series The Adventures of Tintin, felt could do his series justice was Steven Spielberg. The Belgian writer was commissioned to write a story for Le Petit Vingtième, a youth supplement to the newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, with the first installment of what became known as Tintin in the Land of the Soviets being published on January 10, 1929, and it continued its serialization for several months alongside further serialization in countries such as France. It moved to the newspaper Le Soir in 1940 due to occupation of the country in World War II before eventually having its own magazine (published by Le Lombard), which went from 1946 to 1993. He would ultimately write 23 volumes of The Adventures of Tintin before his death in 1983, with his stories characterized by the author's extensive research done involving the locale where the stories would be set alongside the main character's well-rounded Boy Scout type of character. The way that Spielberg ties into all of this is because of (what else) a review someone did on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), in which it was compared to Tintin in its story (which led to him tasking himself to finding a bunch of the books, where he was dazzled by the art). Although he did not have the chance to formally meet the author in person (as he died the week a meeting was planned), there was an arrangement made between Spielberg and Hergé's widow made after a meeting to make a film on Tintin. There had been quite a few adaptations of Tintin on screen, such as three animated features (1947, 1969, 1972) and live-action films (1961, 1964) alongside a pair of television series and even documentaries and stage-shows. The development for a satisfactory script would take considerable time to develop, and it was only the entrance of the 21st century that he considered the idea of doing it with computer animation. It was approaching Peter Jackson and Weta Digital about trying to make a CGI Snowy that led to suggesting the use of motion capture to adapt the series to film. Ultimately, Spielberg would direct and co-produce the film with Peter Jackson and Kathleen Kennedy, while Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish would write the screenplay, which drew upon a few of the works (such as The Secret of the Unicorn, which is used as a subtitle for the film in some places) with a few distinct differences (such as the villain, for example).

It would seem it was worth the wait to make an adventure come to life in dazzling animation. It achieves a picturesque style of animation well-suited for adventure with warm atmosphere and capable enough leads to follow through with great finish for a bright and vibrant time for 107 minutes. It generates just enough interest and charm in its subject matter that makes one asking for more that works for numerous audiences without verging into anything too fanciful or too strange with its range of animation. One could probably imagine an adventure like this in live action, sure, but there is just something different about the detail that comes through here with what is shown (perhaps particularly if one saw it in 3D on release), and the humor generally does a fine job in reflecting that. Bell works well in what is needed in persistent curiosity and good nature needed without seeming inauthentic in do-gooder weirdness. In other words, he fits right in a story of a young man, his (CGI-created) dog, and a beleaguered sea captain going on adventures you could see again and again. Serkis pulls himself well with charm and coarse dryness that when around with Bell makes for a worthy double act that rides along with growing confidence. Craig proves a worthy adversary to finish out the main trio, making an eloquent presence in what is needed for what is required in terms of caper adventure with a stuffy presence for the past and present. Frost and Pegg do just as well in parts with a bumbling duo that contributes a key hearty laugh involving a bit of slapstick with Jones that make useful comic relief suited for this particular duo. It should prove worthy enough for a look because of what it achieves in enjoyment for adventure with the source material that makes for useful caper entertainment that leaves one interested in the imagination for what could go from there or for one to look upon the pages it borrowed from in the first place. As a first venture into animation, I would say Steven Spielberg did a pretty good achievement in that regard.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

King Kong (2005).

Review #1540: King Kong.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)

Review: 

"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."

I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kong, released the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience. 

Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Jumper (2008).

Review #1064: Jumper.

Cast: 
Hayden Christensen (David Rice), Rachel Bilson (Millie Harris), Samuel L. Jackson (Roland Cox), Jamie Bell (Griffin O'Connor), Diane Lane (Mary Rice), Teddy Dunn (Mark Kobold), and Michael Rooker (William Rice) Directed by Doug Liman.

Review: 
It is only fitting that a movie like this involve teleporting, since the film seems to like getting away from itself, constantly shuffling between two modes: erratic and plain. I can't say that the idea of teleporting wouldn't make for a good film (The Fly (#710), anybody?), but I can't say that this movie succeeds, mostly because there isn't much fun delivered with its story nor its contents. The film is based of the book of the same name by Steven Gould, who also contributed to the story (with a screenplay done by David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls & Simon Kinberg), and I imagine that the novel must've had some sort of energy and life to it that must've felt appealing to try and make a movie out of. To say the film feels jumbled is an overstatement, such as the "Paladins", the villains of the film that don't really have much development besides some vague reasoning, or "jump scars", since I guess jumping leaves a trail (or something like that). This is a stunted narrative that can't make us care about what is going on; it's not so much that the film's plot is insulting in a dumb way, it's just that the plot is bland and not particularly involving, with a lack of focus.

In a way, the flatness of the characters means that you can't put all of the blame on Christensen, who delivers a stiff performance that in no way helps the movie get any sort of life, although his character isn't even easy to go for. His character never does anything that makes you really want to root for him, and if it wasn't for the hunting by the paladins, you could re-write him into a villain, complete with a bratty nature and an even more boring amorality, complete with his first lines of the film that describes how he was a normal person, a "chump, just like you" (good start). He doesn't seem to be a terrible actor, but he definitely isn't good in this film. Bilson doesn't bring much energy to a role that feels stiffer than a board, complete with no real chemistry between her and Christensen. Jackson can't really make this villain character anything other than a cliche - where his grey hair is the most noteworthy thing about him. I'd say Bell is the highlight - but that isn't giving the movie any real favors. The rest of the small cast is fairly standard, not doing anything too particularly amusing. The effects aren't terrible, but they also aren't anything that'll make the film any prettier to look at, particularly since the action sequences seem muddled and ridiculous (combined with no real stakes). Even the climax is dull, and the fact that it ends so anti-climatically and so lazily makes for a perfect capstone in this mess. You could likely have a laugh with this if you're in the mood to make fun of a paperthin plot, a cast that can't elevate said material, and 88 minutes to kill, but even re-watching RoboCop 3 (#006) over this dreck seems preferable.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.