Why oh why did I see "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer"?

I have witnessed my share of poorly made .. no… ill-conceived… hmmm .. ok, down and out BAD films in my life. I calculate that for every 10 films I see, I might enjoy one out of 10. This also seems to be the pattern of the critics as well from the looks of rottentomatoes.com. I have already railed against the horrific blunders with regard to comic book films that currently litter the cinematic landscape. These include, but are not limited to, “Daredevil,’ “Hulk,” “Ghost Rider,” “Elektra,” “The Fantastic Four”, “Spider-Man 3”, and “The Punisher.” Lest you think that I am being unfair to Marvel Comics (whose properties were the subjects of the aforementioned examples of comic book cinematic detritus), we also have DC films such as “Batman Forever”, “Batman and Robin (my personal choice for worst comic book film ever made)”, “Catwoman (perhaps I spoke to soon)”, “Steel”, and “Superman Returns.” What is so hard about making a good comic book movie? The directors who “get it” respect the source material without letting ego get in the way. They understand comics to be a storytelling medium that is the perfect marriage of artwork and prose, yet time and again, these “filmmakers” take it upon themselves to “improve” comic book story cannon and to put their own imprint on someone else’s creation. Often, the results are disastrous.

To be fair, the worst of the films are often hamstrung by the comic creators themselves. Let’s face it-origin stories are boring for the most part. There seems to be a need by directors and filmmakers to “explain” why a hero is a certain way. Despite the success of the superhero masterpiece that was “Batman Begins,” I must say that I no longer feel as if directors have to follow the usual pattern of "origin/training/crisis/resolution using super powers" that they have come to rely on. At the same time, I am more willing to give a second chance to a filmmaker who made a bad origin film because, as I said, they might have been hamstrung by the origin story with nowhere left to turn. Such was the case with Tim Story’s “Fantastic Four.” For the first film, I was willing to give him a pass (unlike many other comic fans) because this was the first time he had made a movie with such a high profile. The weaknesses of the first film had more to do with a lack of direction story wise and with a lack of discernible skill from Julian McMahon and Jessica Alba (other than, in Alba’s case, to look good wearing spandex) than with the director himself. I loathed the first film, but I was willing to give the second a chance. There was nothing else in the theaters that I wanted to watch, and I as visiting Aaron (also a huge comic fan who hated the first one) in Cleveland. I also thought that this might provide me with some enjoyment if the film were horrible, as Aaron and I usually break into a MSK 3000 riff when the going gets tough (i.e., movies end up reeking to high heaven). So Aaron, Jessica (one of Aaron’s assistants and a friend of ours) and I went to see FF 2 on opening weekend. We arrived at the not-even-close-to-full theater on time and watched some pretty good trailers (especially the new Harry Potter trailer…wow).

That was the high point of the movie going experience.

The film starts off by ripping off the opening of “Superman Returns (which itself ripped off the opening of “Superman: The Movie”) and then proceeded to rip off “Armageddon” (Who rips off a movie as crappy as “Armageddon”? I mean, REALLY!) and the original “Batman” film (where, in the role of the Joker, we have Dr. Doom). The filmmakers succeeded in taking the pathos and epic scope and feel of the FF’s first adventures with the Silver Surfer (recounted in the classic Fantastic Four issue #s 48-50) and making them pedestrian, mundane, and ludicrous all at once. The characters of Reed and Sue supposedly represent pure intellect versus pure common sense (and brains and beauty), but Alba left her brain at the door when she was pouring herself into her FF catsuit, and the sight of Ioan Gruffudd’s Reed Richards dancing at a nightclub was enough to make anyone cringe. The filmmakers really treated the audience as idiots. I mean, the atmosphere in the aforementioned nightclub scene had all of the posh elegance of a high school dance. Aaron was most insulted by a scene where, in a German forest, the Thing faces down a grizzly bear.

That’s right. I said a grizzly bear. In Germany.

There were a couple of instances where the film rose (albeit briefly) about the bad script. Doug Jones’/Laurence Fishburne’s Silver Surfer was spot on. He was majestic, grand and noble. Once again, Chris Evan’s Johnny Storm was one of the solo bright spots in the film, and his character even got a chance to mature. Michael Chiklis’ Ben Grimm was wonderfully realized (albeit a lot smaller than in the comics). Beyond these 3 performances, however, I had the distinct feeling that Tim Story and the studio brass at Fox have the utmost disdain for comic book fandom . The examples include any scene that included Doctor Doom. In the comics, Doctor Doom is a genius, the ruler of Latveria, and a man who seeks to merge science with sorcery. He is a megalomaniac of the highest order, but his character does not lend itself to throwaway quips. He always sees the big picture. The Doom from the comics would not be using the Power Cosmic to fly around on a silver surfboard. He would instead use the Surfer on the board to trick Galactus into saving Earth (with Doom as its ruler and with Doom wielding the Power Cosmic). This utter and complete failure to understand the motivations of the principle villain rivals that of Bryan Singer’s version of Luthor (played by Kevin Spacey) in last summer’s “Superman Returns.” Story also fails once again to understand the characters of Reed and Sue. There is also no point to the story. A herald for a galactic destructive force comes to Earth, but it seemed so small. I mean, there was no “panic in the streets” a la “Independence Day” or “Armageddon.” Granted, both of those movies were bad, but at least one got a sense of the scope of the problem. Here, the audience is treated to substandard CGI of a giant space cloud (OOOO..scary) engulfing what looked like a toy globe in front of giant star curtains. I guess the filmmakers spent their special FX budget on the Surfer. There never seems to be any sense of immediacy to the story, and the story failed to engage me as a viewer.

I think the largest slap in the face had to be the Fantasticar, Reed’s creation for getting the characters from place to place. Product placement was EVERYWHERE in the film. Now, I am not adverse to product placement in films so long as it does not take you out of the film itself. Johnny’s new costume replete with sponsor ads a la a NASCAR driving suit almost seemed to parody the need to put such ads in films. The Fantasticar ad placement, however, completely pulled me from the movie. How can a non-existent hovercar be considered product placement. Apparently, Reed did not build it. It was build by Daimler-Chrysler. No wonder Daimler-Benz sold the Chrysler Corporation-it was building non-existent hover cars with hemi engines and seats embroidered with the Dodge logo. I am not making this up. This was ridiculous.

There are many reviewers out there who are applauding the return of heroes who are not “dark and mopey.” Some reviewers have even deigned this version of the Fantastic Four to reflect Stan Lee’s original stories from the 1960s with the ludicrousness therein. My answer to all of them is that this film does not service the rich publication history of the Fantastic Four. The comic launched the Marvel Comics that we know, and without its success (real heroes with real problems), we might never have had Spider-Man, Iron Man, the Hulk, or the Avengers. I would not have a problem with a happy superhero story, but any story that is based on source material should at least reflect that material. When will so-called Hollywood geniuses get this?

"Ocean's 13"

Films do not have to surprise us in order to entertain. Sometimes we can enter a darkened cinema armed with the knowledge of the complete plotline of the film we are about to experience (one does not merely “watch” a film) and yet still enjoy the ride even where there are no surprises. Sometimes the surprise is the thing and the journey that manipulates us is the point of the film (as in “The Usual Suspects”, “Memento”, and “The Shawshank Redemption.” Sometimes, however, we enjoy our time with a predictable story because the fun is in the interplay of the actors, the wittiness of the dialogue, and the knowledge that, in the end, we will leave the theater having been completely entertained for our 2 hours and our $8. “Oceans 13” is such a film.

This is the first “Oceans” that I watched in the theater. I saw the first one on dvd, and I was captured by both the storyline and the characters (as well as by the actors who inhabited these characters). Part of the film was setting up minor “character info” cards for each one so that the audience knew of the backgrounds and the motivations. In the end, the movie succeeded due to the chemistry of the 2 leads (can there be leads in an ensemble film). I would enjoy any film that stars Clooney and Pitt because they are such personable actors. Danny and Rusty imbued the first chapter with life and propelled the story forward. Andy Garcia’s Benedict was a wonderfully hissable villain, and the con/heist of the robbery of the Bellagio was a wonderful roller coaster. The most memorable scene for me, however, was the final gathering of the thieves on the walkway in front of the Bellagio’s famous fountains. Slowly, one-by-one, they leave the scene after taking in the sight of their greatest heist ever. I loved that moment because in most heist films, we hardly ever get to see the revelry that follows a successful heist. In the end, “Oceans 11” succeeded because of smart dialogue, a fun script, and a story where no one had to be killed or shot in order to further the characters’ motivations. The unsung hero of the first film, however, was Law Vegas. The filmmakers lost sight of this and many other things in “Oceans 12.” Here, we had Catherine Zeta-Jones ridiculously superfluous character of a police inspector, a plotline set in Europe (Danny Ocean is a Vegas person), and a heist where most of the principles were behind bars. The success of the ensemble in the first film was not replicated to the detriment of the plot and the overall enjoyability of the film. There was too much angst, and the story was a little “mean.” The biggest fraud was the “gotcha” that the filmmakers pulled at the end of the film. I mean, it is one thing to pull the bait and switch on the audience when you have provided clues that they should have followed, but where the filmmakers seemingly pull a plot resolution out of their proverbial rear ends, the film fails as a heist caper. I was extremely let down by “Oceans 12” in spite of the wonderful dialogue and chemistry (once again) among Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Cheadle et al.

So, having watched the first 2 and having been disappointed in the second one, why did I go see this one? In the end, it was because of three plot points alluded to in the trailer. First of all, the story was once again set in Vegas. Secondly, the villain of the piece was to be played by Al Pacino (doing an uncanny Steve Wynn impersonation). Finally, it looked like the ensemble was going to be acting together again, with each cast member having something substantial to do during the heist. So, early on Sunday afternoon, Daisy and I made our way to the AMC River East 21 for a showing of “Oceans 13”. The film was completely predictable, and yet it was a blast. I laughed aloud several times during the show (at least 3x the number of times I laughed during “Shrek the Third”). With this being the third go around for the cast and crew, everyone was comfortable in their roles. Danny was still smarter than everyone else, but this time the story was not “lazy.” The ultimate payoff was satisfactory because the clues were planted for the audience to enjoy. Naturally, there were some bits of implausibility, but the suspension of disbelief was a small price to pay for enjoying the banter among the actors. There were many laughs that were the results of reaction shots of the actors where no words were necessary. My favorite such shots included Danny’s reaction to one of Benedict’s comments, Danny, Linus and Rusty watching television while waiting for their planes, and Rusty and Danny watching TV (a shot alluded to in the trailers). Furthermore, I have no idea how they integrated the shot of the Bank hotel into the Vegas strip, but kudos to the special effects crew. I actually believed that the casino was a part of the strip. There was also a marvelous bit of dialogue from Reuben when he awakens and paraphrases Don Corleone from “The Godfather.” As I was the only person in the theater who laughed at this piece of dialogue, 2 thoughts went through my mind: 1) the modern day movie goer is woefully ignorant concerning the classics and 2) to paraphrase Homer Simpson “everyone is stupid except me.”

There were some weak plot points, however. I found it hard to believe that Pacino’s Bank, a sharp operator, would not be wise to what was going on. A smarter casino owner would have had cameras pointed at all of the Ocean crew the minute they arrived on the scene. Bank was a bit too clueless for my taste. Bank was also too nice. Benedict was a person without morals, but Bank just seemed greedy and clueless. One almost feels sorry for him by the end…almost. The elaborate escape plan with the tunnel borer was also a bit over the top for my taste, and Benedict’s performance (not Garcia’s, but his character’s performance) should not have been believed by Bank. Finally, the minute that the disguised Rusty dropped off the seismograph in Bank’s office, Bank should have had it removed. Once again, Bank was a little too clueless for my taste. In the end, however, the film succeeded because I received exactly what I expected. A fun escape for 2 hours where no one was hurt (except maybe for David Paymer’s hapless hotel reviewer) and a happy ending was the result. Will this film win any awards? No. Is this in my list of top films? Not even close. Did it fulfill expectations? Yes. In the end, that is all that matters.

One more note. I have decided to design a “sliding scale” of sorts for my movie reviews. The movies will be slotted from 0-10, but there will be a movie at each slot and not just a number. For example, 10 would be something on the order of “Citizen Kane” while 0 would be just about any film from Madonna’s filmography.

I have not yet watched “Knocked Up,” but I hear good things. I will try to watch that and the new Fantastic Four film this week.