connoisseur series500 Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 I saw its premiere this evening in Toledo. Very enjoyable. Anyone else catch it? Quote
connoisseur series500 Posted July 9, 2005 Author Report Posted July 9, 2005 jlhoots said: FWIW Ebert says one star. ← Is he generally accurate? I think that often our sense of enjoyment (or lack of) is determined by what we bring to the movie. In my case, it was an outing with my 12 year old son. I managed to pry his sleep-deprived hands from the computer mouse... Quote
chris olivarez Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 connoisseur series500 said: jlhoots said: FWIW Ebert says one star. ← Is he generally accurate? I think that often our sense of enjoyment (or lack of) is determined by what we bring to the movie. In my case, it was an outing with my 12 year old son. I managed to pry his sleep-deprived hands from the computer mouse... ← That'a good way of looking at it. Quote
Alexander Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 My wife is on vacation this week, so she and I went to see it this morning. Being a fan of the FF comics, I was unimpressed with the film as a whole. It certainly wasn't "Spider-Man 2," "Sin City" or "Batman Begins" (three of the best comic-book-based movies in recent years). I would put it more on the level of "Daredevil," although that showed more respect for its source material. The idea of Victor Von Doom going up in the spaceship with the FF is completely wrong. Doom is a *non-superpowered* villian. His only assets are his genius and his boundless ego. This Doom was a joke. There was none of the moral ambiguity that makes the comic character so interesting. As to the members of the FF, I liked how they handled Ben and Johnny, but Sue and Reed were horrible. They made Reed into a wimp! And there was no indication that he was as smart has he's made out to be. Where was the technobabble? Where were the elaborate battle strategies? As for Sue, she was handled best during the John Byrne years. She's supposed to be a strong woman, but really more of a mother figure. She and Reed really should have been older. The effects were dissapointing too. Not on the level of Ang Lee's "Hulk," but pretty fake looking on the whole. Quote
RDK Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 Hoping to catch this tomorrow. I've been awaiting it eagerly, but with great dread. Quote
Free For All Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 Haven't seen it yet, but from the clips I've seen the Thing doesn't look "rocky" enough. Someone said you could see the suit wrinkle every now and then. I loved the comic though, so I'll probably see it eventually. I'm still hopeful for...... Quote
Soul Stream Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 Slightly off topic. But can anyone explain to me the Hollywood obsession (or is it ours) with comic book super heros? Personally, I don't get it and think it's pretty repeatitive stuff. Quote
jazzbo Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 Mike I think there are many reasons. One is that the comic book companies themselves have targeted making movies and have become better at getting them made year after year. Another is that there is a built in potential audience. A popular comic is almost guaranteed a certain draw from fans who are curious as to how this particular book will translate to the screen and the movie experience can sometimes mirror the reading experience which can be very satisfying. These are fantasies, and can definitely be good escapist trips away from everyday drudgery. I sure use them as that; I wish I didn't but I have everyday drudgery that I like to escape from. And I grew up reading comics (my father's early ban on them only fanned the flames) and they invaded my imagination and I honestly believe that these superheroes serve as mythological heroes for our age in a way that more classic heroes did in earlier ages. And many of the comics and the movies that are based thereon serve as minimorality plays. . . .There is a hunger for this type of thing for many. . . . I'm less and less excited by the FF movie the more trailers and commercials I see. . . . I too feel that the storyline change is crippling the character strength. . . . I'm sure to enjoy the movie, but am also pretty sure I will wish it had been handled differently. I'm likely to see it in a few days. Quote
connoisseur series500 Posted July 9, 2005 Author Report Posted July 9, 2005 Yes, the movie could have been handled better. Reed was definitely a wimp. Ben's marriage quickly falls apart when his wife sees his new condition. She dramatically takes off her wedding ring amongst a crowd and drops it on the ground. Ben's fingers are too large to pick up something so small. I can't say that she acted very nobly at all; and there was no character development. I felt that part was very weak. On the other hand, Johnny (human torch) was great. There was a great scene as he was being chased by a heat seeking missile. He had some great lines. The movie wasn't very deep, but I wasn't looking for a deep movie. I wanted a fun distraction for an evening out with my kid, and that's exactly what I got! Cripes, you guys want depth, go pick up a Faulkner novel. I watch movies for fun. I still recommend the film. Quote
7/4 Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 connoisseur series500 said: Yes, the movie could have been handled better. Reed was definitely a wimp. Ben's marriage quickly falls apart when his wife sees his new condition. She dramatically takes off her wedding ring amongst a crowd and drops it on the ground. Ben's fingers are too large to pick up something so small. I can't say that she acted very nobly at all; and there was no character development. I felt that part was very weak. On the other hand, Johnny (human torch) was great. There was a great scene as he was being chased by a heat seeking missile. He had some great lines. The movie wasn't very deep, but I wasn't looking for a deep movie. I wanted a fun distraction for an evening out with my kid, and that's exactly what I got! Cripes, you guys want depth, go pick up a Faulkner novel. I watch movies for fun. I still recommend the film. ← Was there a guitar solo? Quote
RDK Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 Soul Stream said: Slightly off topic. But can anyone explain to me the Hollywood obsession (or is it ours) with comic book super heros? Personally, I don't get it and think it's pretty repeatitive stuff. ← Lon pretty much said it all. As for Hollywood's "obsession," it has nothing to do with superheroes per se but - like any successful business - with making money. So yeah, when a Spider-Man movie makes $400 million, it's pretty safe to say that the obsession is indeed "ours." As to why there are so many superhero movies now, it's simply because the technology now allows us to make them properly. Quote
BruceW Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 connoisseur series500 said: The movie wasn't very deep, but I wasn't looking for a deep movie. I wanted a fun distraction for an evening out with my kid, and that's exactly what I got! Cripes, you guys want depth, go pick up a Faulkner novel. I watch movies for fun. I still recommend the film. ← Ditto, Enuf said -_- Quote
bluesForBartok Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 I haven't seen the movie but I had the pleasure of building the site for the Fan 4 Soundtrack. Everyone at the record label I work for all went to a screening the other night (couldn't go as I was on baby duty) and everyone I spoke to gave a big thumbs down. The general opinion was also that it was nothing but a set up for a sequel. It's too bad these movies keep missing the mark. I was a big fan of the fan 4 comics as a kid and when I heard this was in production I was really hoping they were going to keep it set in the early 60s which would have made it much hipper and accurate to the original series. Oh well Quote
Kalo Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 Who fucking cares. I saw the preview and it looked like a piece of shite. Who could have predicted 20 years ago that the best TV would be more adult and eclipse all but the best films AND that the music in commercials would be hipper than what gets played on radio? At least the world still holds surprises... Quote
RDK Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 Well there's absolutely no reason to set this (or any Silver Age) superhero movie in the 1960s - all that does is make the period and setting more important than the characters, who should have a "timeless" quality about them. That and the fact that most of these characters are still going strong in contemporary comic book stories, read by both kids and adults today. Anyway, saw this earlier. Not good by any means, but also not as bad as I feared. What saves it is it's sense of fun. You can't take it too seriously, so the horrible plotting, inconsistent tone, and fairly poor direction isn't as objectionable as it would be in a more "serious" movie. The matinee I saw today was packed with kids, most of whom seemed to really like it. As one fan/critic wisely pointed out, your dislike of this film may be proportional to how big a fan you are of the comic book. I would tend to agree. Quote
bluesForBartok Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 (edited) Quote Who fucking cares. uhhh was that pointed at me? And RDK I agree with the idea that there should be a "timeless" quality to these characters but I think it would have been a nice touch to give it a period feel. Edited July 10, 2005 by bluesForBartok Quote
Kalo Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 Not pointed at anyone. Just tired of these crappy CGI-driven pseudo-movies. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 Well, since my "hardcore Marvel fan" days were the 60's, they'd pretty much have to make it a period piece for me to enjoy it. Still, I prefer my comics on the printed page. As for why the obsession with comic characters, the real reason is that conglomerates. Ever since DC became a small corner of Time/Warner, they already have the property, and it's all about exploiting your property, so we get comics on the big screen. Along with sixties sitcoms, of course... Quote
Kalo Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 They remind me of the early "talkies" where no-one ever shut up. Enough, already. Quote
Kalo Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 Jazzmoose said: Well, since my "hardcore Marvel fan" days were the 60's, they'd pretty much have to make it a period piece for me to enjoy it. Still, I prefer my comics on the printed page. As for why the obsession with comic characters, the real reason is that conglomerates. Ever since DC became a small corner of Time/Warner, they already have the property, and it's all about exploiting your property, so we get comics on the big screen. Along with sixties sitcoms, of course... ← What he said. Today the pre-sold property is all. Quote
Kalo Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 I'm just waiting for the movie based on a "classic" commercial. "Choo-Choo Charlie" perhaps, or "I Can't Believe I Ate the Whole Thing: The Movie." It's inevitable. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 Kalo said: "Choo-Choo Charlie" perhaps... ← Don't be messin' with my Good 'n' Plenty, bud! Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.