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?