60 years of material for 90 min. of this?!

Rating: 4/10 (10 July 2005)

Even when I walked into F4 today I didn't have many high hopes - i.e. I was not impressed with the uninspired choice of Tim Story to direct (what happened to all of Marvel's great choices for directors: Ang Lee, Bryan Singer), I was on the CGI Thing bandwagon, Julian McMahon as Dr. Doom; what? - but there was still that little hope inside of me that this film was going to completely turn the tables on me and be much better than expected. I even went as far as to avoid any and all reviews for the film; as well as keeping myself from the F4 page on IMDb. I wanted to give this movie every chance in the world because, honestly, Marvel and Fox have 60 some years of absolutely wonderful material here. The problem is that they dumbed it down incredibly. I would be happy with the changes they made worked, but they didn't. The first ten minutes -something I consider CRUCIAL in a film - were absolutely dead of any real challenge and felt bland; as though the production just wanted to skip ahead of all of the science and characters and jump straight ahead to the powers. Each character was given little to no set-up; especially Ben Grimm, what was the point in following Reed Richards around everywhere? The choice to make Victor Von Doom the CEO of some big shot corporation was also very uninspired as well; it seems that these superhero adaptations are doing it too much nowadays. And the fact that his subplot is SO similar to Norman Osborne's in SPIDER-MAN makes me frown. I felt that if they kept Doom in Latveria the film still could have been pulled off without a hitch, even if the real big shots in Hollywod think that a megalomaniac ruler of a country is so not scary; yet the CEO is terrifying? This still bothers me to this moment because Dr. Doom is already perfectly set up. If Richard's ran into the problem of NASA not funding his little space experiment, what would he be able to do with an entire countries resources and money? The experiment also bothered me as to why it wasn't set up enough. You never got a full and clear reason why the experiment was necessary to study the evolution of genes, but then again, it could be me. I also abhorred the fact that McMahon's Doom was not a frightening or imposing character at all. In all honesty, I get scared just looking at my Marvel Legends Dr. Doom action figure and what he would be like in all of his evil fury upon the big screen. Shall I suggest someone with a more sinister voice: Ralph Fiennes. Not only is he a superb actor, but he can embody Doom perfectly. I refer you to RED DRAGON. It appears as though I will have to wait for his characterization of Voldemort in the upcoming Harry Potter to get my perfect Doom. As far as the actors go, none of their performances particularly rang convincing in my head; not even Michael Chiklis as the Thing, and I am a great fan of THE Shield. While Ioan Gruffold is a great casting choice, he just wasn't that believable; I would have liked to see more Chris Reeve as Clark Kent moments for the nerdy scientist. I have nothing against the choice of Jessica Alba as Sue Storm, but give her something else to do instead of an excuse to catch her with her clothes off or look cute. Chris Evans as Johnny Storm was believable as a hothead, but he got to be a bit to extreme. And I mean that in the fact that if I saw another extreme sporting moment, my head would have burst with that awful soundtrack they set each one to. What happened to the good old days of a score, dubbing, and sound effects-only soundtrack? Speaking of scores, John Ottman's original score felt like a contrived mess of rejected X2 themes and I will keep that opinion until I get my copy of the score in the mail in the next few weeks. Oliver Wood's cinematography felt like a blatant copy of Don Burgess' lighting from SPIDER-MAN. The fact that Tim Story lacks any particular vision is also a huge setback, considering that comics are such a visual medium with great artists who personify their characters. I would give the example of Ang Lee's HULK, but many don't like the film. I am perfectly fine with the Hulk that I was given and felt every inch was done with expert craftsmanship and understanding of the dual nature of the character. I didn't feel that way in F4. It felt like a rushed studio attempt at a great thing. The lack of a true plot was also a great setback, considering that it could have been a great one. Very little seems to happen in the course of the 90-minute film (and it's only 90-minutes, that should tell you something), and the final and only confrontation with Doom is a cheap gimmick and feels so small as opposed to the epic it could have been with a better director, more inspired casting choices, characters that mattered, and a really sinister villain that you want to hate.
All in all, Fox and Marvel failed. They failed to bring Marvel's first beloved characters to the big screen; they failed to deliver a satisfying thrill for the fans and the average moviegoer; they failed to make a good thing great. I would go as far as to say that they failed to make a popcorn movie roller-coaster fun. Seeing as that I got my tickets free with the new DVD releases of MAN ON FIRE and I, ROBOT, it was the only way that I would have seen this movie had I known it would be this disappointing.