The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Review #2405: The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Cast: 

Pedro Pascal (Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby (Sue Storm / Invisible Woman), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Ben Grimm / The Thing), Joseph Quinn (Johnny Storm / Human Torch), Julia Garner (Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer), Sarah Niles (Lynne Nichols), Mark Gatiss (Ted Gilbert), Natasha Lyonne (Rachel Rozman), Paul Walter Hauser (Harvey Elder / Mole Man), Ralph Ineson (Galactus), and Matthew Wood (H.E.R.B.I.E.) Directed by Matt Shakman.

Review: 

Sure, you might know that 20th Century Fox was behind those ridiculous attempts at making Fantastic Four movies based on the team that on each occasion (2005, 2007, 2015) somehow managed to flounder more than if the unreleased 1994 movie had been given the shot it deserved.* It took six years from the acquisition of that studio (and subsequent pausing of any plans to do a Marvel-based movie) and one cameo from a different Reed Richards (hey, remember when they let Sam Raimi do a movie with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [2022]?) but here we are again. The director for this film in Matt Shakman (remember that Jon Watts was once tapped for the film before dropping out) had previously directed one film with Cut Bank (2014) that was in the midst of plenty of television from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to whatever "WandaVision" is (his family-centric pitch, for already established heroes is what you get here, and you can infer further here). For whatever reason, there are five writers listed for this film: Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan, Ian Springer, and Kat Wood for the story and Josh Friedman, Pearson, Kaplan, Springer for the screenplay.

I wanted to wait a while to see the movie because what the hell is this movie doing being released so close to the other superhero movie of the summer? Was this movie rushed in the belief that it just had to meet a late July slate? It can't even last for over two hours (114 minutes might sound like I'm only technically correct, but still), what exactly happened here? Sure, it does have a few interesting moments to go with a resourceful style (speaking of which, how idiotic must one be to not have included H.E.R.B.I.E. in one of these previous movies?) and so on, but there is something that you either will believe should've been done years ago or is not nearly as grand as it should be. Maybe it is the over-saturation that had been present in the past few years (if I have to spend time streaming a show in the attempts at going with an alleged film universe, I would rather learn how to knit instead), maybe the general feeling that setting it in a different Earth when an "Avengers movie" is already imminent seems a bit silly, maybe it just is an okay film. Do you ever watch something and in your mind, you think it is making all the "right moves" and yet somehow just doesn't click every box you want for a really good time rather than just "fine time for a rental"? Was the bar so low for a Fantastic Four movie that didn't suck (in a way, the best family-led group of superheroes for a film...is still The Incredibles [2004])? But let's at least start with positives: it does have a neat quartet of characters, mainly thriving on the qualities of Quinn and Moss-Bachrach in interactions that protrude worthwhile confidence (as one does for a hothead and a guy that happens to be a rock-man) to make the Pascal and Kirby seem just as interesting to contrast in "staid" nature. I like the look of the movie quite a bit, right down to the hero costumes that protrude confidence in actually wanting to stick out for a period piece. Garner makes a quality Surfer in  The showing of powers (mostly with the Invisible Woman) do look pretty good and actually give credence to the idea of this family being a formidable, nay, fantastic group to possibly see further (not exactly in "Avengers", I mean a good ol' Fantastic Four sequel). 

My quibbles may probably ironic: in its attempts to feature a different main adversary (i.e. no Doom) and different "hook" (i.e. a baby Franklin), there is a mish-mash of ideas that are begging to taken to bigger levels that somehow feel short of greatness. I don't care what folks say about comic book logic, "Earth-insert number here" does undercut things a tiny bit ("oh, the Earth is in trouble! Not our Earth, some other Earth that happens to have different names and people that look like us, but an Earth!") in tension, but my real complaint is that I don't find the idea of tying the movie around Franklin to be particularly refreshing. It just seems like something cribbed from the second or third movie of a rejected pitch more than what is meant to be high tension because it (to me, anyway) undercuts the fact that I want to see the core four that one saw in the opening that dealt with, well, villains. I like seeing Hauser as a Mole Man, what was wrong with that as a main villain? Don't tell me that the Fantastic Four only has two villains (look, we can talk about the next Doom antoher time) man, sometimes you want a small plate before you get to the main course (Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), a better example of the "let's not do the whole origin thing", didn't choose friggin Doctor Octopus or the Goblin in the first movie, they went with the Vulture). Galactus (you might remember in the 2007 film resembled a cloud where here he towers a bit over the Statue of Liberty) only has, what, three whole scenes? I like Ineson fine, but this is ridiculous. Hell, maybe the movie would've been better if he actually won in consuming the Earth, what else is the point of having a "Earth-whatever" if you're just going to swing the Four onto a different place anyway? Multiverses and different timelines should be for animated material or maybe, just maybe, we just have a group of heroes that just go with the flow of being a tight-knit group. The movie looks and sounds nice and has some entertainment (i.e. pacing out its effects sequences for patience that I'm fine with, albeit with quibbles for the climax*) that may just be neat for you. As a whole, it may not hit as many of the marks you would want in for a truly spectacular movie (or even a cosmic soap opera), but it has enough to ultimately carry it to the finish line of general entertainment to inquire further with these folks.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

You might wonder what exactly the theme is for August: What better way to whip up another month of Season 15 than to also celebrate five years of trying to have an interesting theme for August than to just throw any theme imaginable for the month. Yes, for All-In-One August, you'll see a few movies reviewed for their "Anniversary in August", or as "Action in August" or "Around the World in August or "Acknowledged in August", or, well "2025". 

*Incidentally, the main four of that movie actually have cameo appearances in this movie, which just raises questions over why they hadn't been given their due years ago.

*SPOILER (in lighter text): it feels ridiculous to have a character die and make their sacrifice...only to be resurrected. By a baby. Blah blah blah Franklin is this in comics, again, I feel like they really wanted to do a family angle just so they had the trick of killing someone off only to see them revived right in hand. I assumed, with the Thunderbolts* "credits scene", that the Fantastic Four were going to escape their world after either Galactus won or something happened to make them go into our Earth. Instead, you get a bullshit revival of Invisible Woman, who you know wasn't going to die anyway! Really, only guys with barely a name or ones picked out of a hat (i.e. not Hawkeye, who was never cool) die in these movies! Or am I just insane?

Blade: Trinity.

Review #1667: Blade: Trinity.

Cast:

Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks / Blade), Jessica Biel (Abigail Whistler), Ryan Reynolds (Hannibal King), Dominic Purcell (Dracula / Drake), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Parker Posey (Danica Talos), Callum Keith Rennie (Asher Talos), Paul "Triple H" Levesque (Jarko Grimwood), Natasha Lyonne (Sommerfield), Haili Page (Zoe), Mark Berry (Chief Martin Vreede), John Michael Higgins (Dr. Edgar Vance), Patton Oswalt (Hedges), and James Remar (FBI Agent Ray Cumberland) Written and Directed by David S. Goyer.

Review:

“That was the most personally and professionally difficult and painful thing I've ever been through,. Having said that, I have incredibly fond memories of working with Ryan and Jessica and a lot of people on the movie. Ryan and I remain really good friends today. It was a challenged shoot, as has been reported. What can I say?”

You don't need any fancy sentences to tell you that this is the worst of the Blade trilogy. However, I will make one easy crack at it: Blade: Trinity is probably the dumbest third action installment of a film series since RoboCop 3 (1993), and it is appropriate given the link between main performances that might as well be played by robots. Each film effectively turned their title hero character into a joke while killing their franchise - it should only make sense that there are talks for a remake of Blade, considering that RoboCop got a remake as well (albeit a very mediocre one). Of course, there are a few differences that make this argument amusing: RoboCop 3 is actually quite amusing to watch, one that is a cheap thrill of hammy lines and effects from folks that did what they had to do with a PG-13 script. Blade: Trinity is a movie to laugh at, mindboggling in its attempts at finishing a trilogy that can't even be definitive in its actual conclusions while being plagued by an indifferent actor and a director/writer that also were producers. Oh, but one could be fair to David S. Goyer, because he actually had been a director one previous time before this film - Zig Zag was released two years prior. However, Snipes did not find favor with Goyer being selected to direct the third movie (after a previous director was selected), and production only rolled down the hill from there in terms of interference and breakdowns - if you listen to the grapevine of reports, Snipes at one point would only respond to the name of his character and communicate by post-it notes, although he has refuted these reports (made by cast members alongside a report from someone who spent time on set that claimed of extensive use of stand-ins for Snipes for anything that wasn't a close-up shot), since he was a producer on this film (among the other two). How about we just sum up the troubles like this: it is a movie so miserable that its main star sued the production for its choice in director, writer, and cast (a settlement was apparently reached, although it certainly left no one with a good taste of memory).

Of course, you have to remember what the Blade series was about in the first place: an adaptation of the comic book character of the same name (as created by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan) that first got his start in the comic series The Tomb of Dracula - Snipes really seemed in his element with a coolly collected hunter of vampires that had plenty of action to go with some dazzling over-the-top action with plots that hold up just enough to work out well as the first triumphant example of turning Marvel characters into movies. Blade: Trinity is none of that. Vampires have now progressed to running themselves in a big skyscraper with an interest in art that makes them want to bring Dracula into the fold (or more specifically, Dracula leading the vampires around). They have also decided to bring Pomeranians into the fold, which is probably worse than having those dogs as pets. Is this a movie that is supposed to be taken seriously? Perhaps the best argument against that is a scene involving Blade meeting the villain (Dracula, who for some reason is also referred to as Drake) after a long foot chase that ends with a confrontation with a baby being thrown; one gets to see the perspective of Dracula towards humans and vampires...and then he throws a baby at Blade that ends up with him going "coochie coo" after the catch. Actually, you could start as early as the first action sequence with Blade, since (are you ready for this?) he is fooled into taking down humans that were disguised as vampires. Blade has become so efficient at killing vampires that he can't even tell the difference between human and vampire anymore. Questions start to arise quickly? How about Whistler getting shortchanged and dying (again) 20 minutes into the movie? How about a character that engages in action with earbuds that blares music into her ear - who just happens to be the secret daughter of Whistler (a character who saw his two kids and wife get taken down by vampires)? How about a scene where Dracula goes into a goth store that is selling merchandise of Dracula from lunch boxes to cereal (before drinking a worker's blood)? The answer to everything is simple: There is none.

One could almost forget that actors are present in this film, really. Snipes probably didn't say that many lines in the first two films to begin with but consider one thing: him and Kristofferson are the only ones to star in each movie, let along star in two of them. Each movie is a different group to experience that just happens to have him paired with Kristofferson in diminishing ways, and the only way Snipes reacts to it is to persist on with trying to seem cool. This time around, it is a good thing I found out about the "stand-in" rumors after I saw the movie, because one could really be distracted by what counts as acting by Snipes and what isn't acting and never come out with a straight answer. Simply put, there is a balance of times where the lines will land as amusing that are either meant to be that way or are not intended to be but come off as unintentionally hilarious, as if the sunglasses are only there to hide displeasure at what is going on in the script. Before we get to the other main focuses, I have to note Kristofferson, because it seems almost any movie with him being featured should get a modest description of him - man, do I wish he wasn't short-changed in this feature. Perhaps it was always the intent to have his time with Snipes come to a natural conclusion...of course, he also was "shot" in the first film, and that last exchange was actually more meaningful than anything that came afterwards. Simply put, Kristofferson deserved better than to be cut down to a few sentences. Oh but Purcell deserves mention too when it comes to deserving better, because he has to play a role that has been done to death for over a century in Dracula, who this time around gets to walk in the sun and shape-shift on occasion before turning into a beast. That aforementioned scene in the goth shop is the easiest scene to highlight in embarrassment, not so much because it is meant to show Dracula's disdain for the modern world (uh huh), but because of the fact that you could trim it down to five seconds and probably miss nothing of importance. By the time he is fighting Blade with a blade, one isn't so much wondering how the fight will end but rather how silly it can get with beast-man Dracula in this duel of honor. Biel and Reynolds each were best known for roles on television series (7th Heaven and Two Guys and a Girl, respectively), although film roles were sprinkled between that. One can see where the idea for a spin-off could happen here, not so much because they are good, but because they might actually have more stage presence than the main star itself with their attempts at action hero dress-up. Reynolds is better in that the ad-libs are the easiest thing to remember in terms of lines (whether to groan at or not), even if they can't help be anything other than generic. Posey, who most might know for work within independent cinema, is certainly an interesting pick for a secondary villainous role - she seems fine with the role, treating it as something fun to do as one could see in a big dumb action movie without falling into the trap of scene-chewing (at least not too much, considering the film). Triple H, however, seems aptly appropriate for a movie this ridiculous, towering over all the folks with a goon presence that only a (WWE) wrestler could do with flourish. Everyone else is pretty much disposable, which seems appropriate given the propensity of the series to keep introducing people to Blade for help/hinderance only to see them not be seen again.

Folks who remember the first film well enough will note that the third film has decided to use the "blood farm" idea that had been deleted from the first film's intended climax, in which the vampires had a solution to that whole problem of turning everyone into a vampire - just store some humans in a fridge and feast on the leftovers. Honestly, it still seems pretty silly to think about, but what is amusing is the fact that each side ends up having the exact same plan: wanting to wipe out the other side like the plague. It is bad enough to have resorted to Dracula as your final villain, but sure, let's just throw a plague out there in the open...and the movie can't even be definitive about anything, since the movie ends with Blade still going around trying to take down more vampires in a never-ending war. The action shots don't seem that much more interesting, as if to add insult to injury. Somehow, there are three different endings to this mess: the original ending involves Dracula being nice in honor of his death by making it look like Blade is dead for the authorities while Blade goes on to fight his never-ending war against vampires; the unrated ending ends with Blade attacking the authorities that makes one wonder if the thirst has returned, while a different ending involves a new enemy for everyone but Blade: werewolves (yes, you heard that right). There were ideas of doing a spin-off film with the Nightstalkers, because if you couldn't do anything else with Blade (aside from a subsequent television series that lasted one season), why not spin further away from things? In the end, 113 minutes cannot end fast enough for a movie that is an absolute headstone for a series that ran its course with failures in action and characterization that make for a laughable affair for all involved, going from Snipes all the way down to its director. But hey, at least a new Blade feature might come into your future to make things seem better.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

American Pie.

Review #1110: American Pie.

Cast: 
Jason Biggs (Jim Levenstein), Chris Klein (Chris "Oz" Ostreicher), Thomas Ian Nicholas (Kevin Myers), Tara Reid (Victoria "Vicky" Lathum), Eddie Kaye Thomas (Paul Finch), Alyson Hannigan (Michelle Flaherty), Seann William Scott (Steve Stifler), Eugene Levy (Noah Levenstein), Jennifer Coolidge (Stifler's Mom), Mena Suvari (Heather Gardner), Shannon Elizabeth (Nadia), Natasha Lyonne (Jessica), Chris Owen (Chuck "Sherminator" Sherman), and Lawrence Pressman (Coach Marshall) Directed by Paul Weitz and Chris Weitz.

Review: 
The fact that this movie (not to be confused with the catchy song of the same name by Don McLean) came out in the year of 1999 and not 2009 must say something about the progression of teen comedies involving certain body elements, or it must be more amusing that this film is nearly two decades old. I'm not surprised that it took me so long to get to this movie, but I suppose it was eventually going to happen after having seen films of its ilk such as Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Superbad along with lesser films such as Porky's and Sex Drive - and American Pie happens to fall alongside the middle, with some fairly successful laughs combined with some crude nature. Perhaps it is the fact that these characters seem interesting to follow along with that makes this a fair experience to watch, where they aren't used to just to push some gross-out gag without any sort of feel for who they are (or what they're meant to be, anyway). The main quartet of Biggs-Klein-Ian Nicholas-Kaye Thomas sure is an interesting one, having their fair share of moments together in showcasing their pact without coming off as obnoxious or too annoying to watch. Reid and Suvari prove fair in scenes with the others, making their plot-lines work to make the film run consistently without just resorting to over-stuffing itself in gags or weak plot-lines. Other highlights include Hannigan and her brief but amusingly useful time on screen, complete with spunky energy, William Scott and his arrogant but readily amusing time on screen, and Levy, who manages to play his clueless role with the right sense of tone that certainly comes off as amusing. While there are quite a collection of moments that some could consider disgusting, the film never goes completely overboard with being just a gross-out film, knowing when to spend some time to cultivate a quick plot or have the characters make a deserved laugh without cheapening itself. It's an uneven movie, but it is a movie that has enough points in its direction to come out okay. To the surprise of probably no one, the run-time for the movie is 95 minutes (while being made on a budget of just $11 million dollars), which is a fair thing to accept for anyone willing to let the movie showcase some laughs, with the crudeness working just enough to come out a winner.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.