 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 6, 2015 - 4:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mr Greg
(Member)
|
Just saw it....going to keep it in spoilers for now as I know it's early in the run....
I say this with the greatest of respect for Josh Trank. It's pretty crap. It's not ALL crap, thank goodness...when it's being a Josh Trank movie it's actually very good, and some segments are as good as anything in Tranks' frankly excellent "Chronicle". But I just have the feeling that this was a bit of an Alien 3 situation....one can almost imagine the suits in the background during shooting watching and nodding, the having a conversation between themselves and going up to the crew and saying "we love it, but now we have to do this bit....", and they come in with the obvious Super Hero/F4 Comic Book tropes...and that's where this movie earns it's crapness. The ham-fisted shoehorning of these tropes is pretty awful, and on occasion downright shite. Some of them are dropped in the movie with all the tact and grace of stepping in a dog turd. Up to the point where Ben Grimm is now Thing and begs reed for help before Reed escapes, the crapness is kept to a pretty good minimum (and, though a little slow in places, the movie up to that point is generally nicely exectuted andf shows a director who seems confident with where he is going with it)....but after that point the shitness comes thick and fast, with some truly groanworthy moments that I was not alone in groaning out loud at. I really get the impression that there was a lot.....and I mean a lot....of interference in the second half of the movie.
Somewhere in here was a good movie...but this isn't it. I would rather have just seen the movie without the subtle-as-a-housebrick Superhero/Comic Book tropes and have it titled "Chronicle 2"....it might have worked better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 6, 2015 - 5:05 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
drop_forge
(Member)
|
You imply the suits as being mostly responsible for this thing being a piece o' dung, but by and large Trank, who is anything but a veteran director, has plenty do with it, too. Maybe he's another M. Night, with one good movie and a string of failures (however, he still has two make two more good movies to even get to Night's level)?
From what I've read, the way Sue Storm, Ben Grimm and [Doctor] Doom are handled is completely wrong. Like I said in the other thread, this movie is Fantastic Four In Name Only.
Another thing to remember is that this movie was made so Fox could hold on to the rights. Now they can make another movie (completely up in the air) or just sit on the rights until they decide to try again for 2022.
I also hear this movie has no middle act, just a first act and a (too brief) third act. The first act is overlong and tediously rolls out the origin. That explains the 90-minute run time (not counting titles and credits scroll). Movies like this need to be a minimum of 120 minutes or something is going to be sacrificed where characterization and exposition are concerned. For a reboot, this movie shouldn't have even had Doctor Doom. He should have solely been the focus of the second movie. As far as superhero tropes go, well, it is a movie based on some of Marvel's oldest characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 6, 2015 - 5:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
You imply the suits as being mostly responsible for this thing being a piece o' dung, but by and large Trank, who is anything but a veteran director, has plenty do with it, too.
There are reports of him not being in touch with the studio and so forth, so I suspect he was in over his head with a big studio picture like this -- probably why he was dropped from a Star Wars movie as well. That said, a while back he had his cut of the movie, 120, 130 minutes he said it was. It was released a good half-hour shorter than that after numerous re-shoots, so I have to imagine that he had a cut with which he was reasonably happy with, that the studio was unhappy with, and that they cut vast swathes of his film and forcibly replaced them with some patchwork re-shoots. Obviously I cannot confirm that but that's the impression I get.
I hope to see the flick sometime next week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 7, 2015 - 12:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mr Greg
(Member)
|
You imply the suits as being mostly responsible for this thing being a piece o' dung, but by and large Trank, who is anything but a veteran director, has plenty do with it, too. Maybe he's another M. Night, with one good movie and a string of failures (however, he still has two make two more good movies to even get to Night's level)?
That's certainly the way it comes scross on screen....though Trank's responsibility for the "shoehorning" (and pacing problems that these cause, particularly at the conclusion) is evident.
I also hear this movie has no middle act, just a first act and a (too brief) third act. The first act is overlong and tediously rolls out the origin. That explains the 90-minute run time (not counting titles and credits scroll). Movies like this need to be a minimum of 120 minutes or something is going to be sacrificed where characterization and exposition are concerned. For a reboot, this movie shouldn't have even had Doctor Doom. He should have solely been the focus of the second movie. As far as superhero tropes go, well, it is a movie based on some of Marvel's oldest characters.
There is quite a clear begnning, middle, and end act (though it's actually the end that suffers, not the earlier parts). I did not find the first act overlong or tedious in the slightest, except for a couple of notable passages. It was the best bit of the movie.
Doctor Doom was dealt with OK I guess, but yes I agree he didn't really belong in this movie.
And yes, I know the tropes have to be there...they just do....my problem is with how they are done. First Avenger, Iron Man, and (especially) Incredible Hulk did them just fine. Winter Soldier was in danger of re-writing the manual on these, they were handled that well. But here, it just comes across as a shame.
All of this said, I have to say that there will be a space for the movie on my shelf....but it might not be one I revisit much.
How I would dearly love to see Trank's Director's Cut....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I saw the film ...
Is it as bad as the last two FOX produced films...NO
Is it as good as say ANT MAN...No.
The Cast is GOOD, the movie spends A LOT OF TIME on Character over Action...The score is quite good.
The Paciing is really slow at the start and all of a sudden takes off like a rocket towards the end.
The finale is more then a little lackluster, but I Liked the characters and to be honest a SEQUEL might well correct many of this film's flaws.
Clearly it was a troubled production, but is it a DISASTER, NO.
Disappointiong, YES
I'll watch it when on Cable over the last two films.
Ford A. Thaxton
I'd give it at it's best 2 and Half Stars out of Four.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unlikely. The film will be an embarrassing flop for Fox
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 8, 2015 - 5:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TominAtl
(Member)
|
OK, I saw the film ...
Is it as bad as the last two FOX produced films...NO
Is it as good as say ANT MAN...No.
The Cast is GOOD, the movie spends A LOT OF TIME on Character over Action...The score is quite good.
The Paciing is really slow at the start and all of a sudden takes off like a rocket towards the end.
The finale is more then a little lackluster, but I Liked the characters and to be honest a SEQUEL might well correct many of this film's flaws.
Clearly it was a troubled production, but is it a DISASTER, NO.
Disappointiong, YES
I'll watch it when on Cable over the last two films.
Ford A. Thaxton
I'd give it at it's best 2 and Half Stars out of Four.
Ford, your sentiments and review hit the nail on the head for not only myself but my 3 film going companions. It is not nearly the so called DISASTER or PIECE OF SHIT that has been thrown around. Yes, it is slow going at first, and yes for the vast majority of the film, it is primarily a set up for the team. The cast is quite good as are the effects. I thought Ben's effects were spot on as were Mr "Fantastic". This was certainly better than the previous 2 goofy outings but as Ford said, not nearly as much fun or clever as "Ant-Man".
This was my comic book series that I read growing up so having 2 swings and a miss and now this is frustrating. But going in expecting the worst certainly helped in that it is not a horrible movie. If they make a sequel I hope by then they get it right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I ploughed ahead with both Batman and Robin and The Lone Ranger in spite of the critics, this time I haven't the interest. They have messed around way too much for the sake of it with the characters. Who the hell wants a teen Reed, a black Jonny Storm and Jamie Bell as The Thing??!! The first cast was great. They should have kept them and improved everything else. Namely getting Dr Doom out of his crappy green duffle coat and restoring Galactus to a decent image. I hate this constant rebooting of everything all the time.
I felt on original release the critics were right about Batman and Robin but way wrong with The Lone Ranger. Now B&R isn't so bad. For one it's in the past, and the last time I saw it I had fun. The series goes up and down in quality and style, basically mirroring the strip it's based on. The Lone Ranger was great with just a few irksome annoyances but not enough to make me remotely dislike the film. And Zimmer's wonderful score is one of the best for MANY years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
