Watchable, even enjoyable . . despite what you've read.

Rating: 7/10 (12 July 2005)

I made a decision to read a few online reviews before seeing this movie, and my reaction in the theater was "wow, what a relief" as the film is nowhere near as weak as some (pro and amateur) critics would tell you. Sure, The Torch does not ponder the possibilities of being able to incinerate the atmosphere . . but who in a Marvel comic ever would? I read the comic when I was a kid from 1974-1987, and caught up on the 'Kirby years', so I am pretty familiar with the original storyline.
I enjoyed the casting / representation on screen of both The Thing and Reed Richards, I thought the casting, acting & dialog were all fine, even great!
Dr Doom: okay, they changed his origin to tie him in tighter for the 2 hour storyline. I was fine with the changes (so now he's not just a crazy person with an ugly face), I thought the dialog and Julian McMahon's acting were all acceptable.
Sue and Johhny Storm were another matter. I felt the movie stretched the limits of Jessica Alba's skills in interpreting the material. She is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful people in Hollywood today, but the material required more. She fared better in scenes where she had little or no dialog, just action (she seems to do fine with the physical nature of the job here). Minor quibble: she hardly looks like the Sue in the book to me. Chris Evans, the actor playing the Torch, did not look like the comic persona either. His charisma, looks and acting skills are undeniable but (compared to the comic) he seemed older and more athletic - an attempt to modernize him I suppose. He should look obviously younger than Sue (by the book), but he does not.
A lot has been said about the effects in this film and (as a 12 year Photoshop user and 19 year professional artist) I think far too much negative criticism has been leveled at the film. Nothing like "Mr. Fantastic" has appeared on film to date that looked 100% realistic, period - and he is the only weak spot visually in the film. His comic-book is at the extreme threshold of believability, I assure you; and I think he will look fine on video. He looks at least as realistic as (the puppet) Yoda to me! All the flame, invisibility , and force field effects looked state-of-the-art, so those two are covered! I thought the Thing as portrayed "in a suit" rather than animated was a very good idea. He looked weightier and more subtle than Ang Lee's Hulk, so what is all the crowing about? Kudos to Michael Chilklis as well!!
No one even mentioned the sets, the Baxter Building looks absolutely perfect.
I sure hope that all the criticism does not kill off chances of a sequel. Spiderman 2 and X-Men 2 were better than their predecessors, and I think given the chance that the same will happen here.
I also hope my boyhood idol Stan Lee is proud of the film, he has every right to be.
Now, someone please release the 90's low-budget FF movie so everyone can see how good this current film is by comparison?