Skip to main content

Fourth Time's the Charm

The Fantastic Four have had a rough time in the movies. Though an incredibly significant superhero unit in the comics -debuting in 1961 as the “First Family” of the Marvel brand, efforts to translate them to film have been as rocky as The Thing. Roger Corman made an attempt in the early 1990s, aborted before it could be released. Fox then produced a pair of mildly successful through critically maligned films in the mid-2000s. And finally in a meagre effort to hang onto the brand, Fox produced a reboot in 2015 that was a disaster on every level. Then Marvel Studios managed to wrest back control, and almost forty films into their cinematic universe have now given it their own shot -at a time when they not only need it to be good for its own sake but for the studio’s pervasive credibility going forward, which has taken a hit in recent years due to a variety of factors.
The Fantastic Four: First Steps couldn’t possibly be everything it needs to be for Marvel right now -and indeed what would have been a sold-out opening night screening six or seven years ago was more than half empty. But the movie actually crosses a chunk of the necessary threshold regardless.
Taking a break from all the baggage of the wider Marvel universe by sequestering itself in its own self-contained world of 1960s retro-futurism, the movie introduces its Fantastic Four a few years after their ill-fated space mission where they are now major celebrities and beloved superheroes. Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby) and Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal) discover they are expecting a child and not long after they are met by the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) pronouncing to the planet its imminent doom at the hands of the planet-eater Galactus. The Four embark on a mission to bargain with Galactus, though they may not be prepared for what that entails.
The film is directed by Matt Shakman, whose career as a television director was capped by Marvel’s WandaVision, on which he demonstrated a finesse for recreating retro aesthetics of American media, something he brings to The Fantastic Four in spades. It's not just that he colours the world of this film in a 1960s pastiche, but he draws on that aesthetic in several instances for his approach to the storytelling and visual character of the piece. For example, the use of moving split-screen in montages or as transition effect hearkening back to vintage ads, or the frequent framing via analogue television. The role of the Fantastic Four within this world is conveyed concisely and organically, with their origin cleanly exposited by a TV host and the extent of their fame illustrated by marketed action figures and a cartoon show -which is apparently the origin of The Thing's catchphrase much to the dismay of Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach). It's fitting that this movie should come out so close to James Gunn's Superman, as their approaches to world-building are remarkably similar. They both drop the audience into an established context, they both show an overdue degree of consideration for the ordinary people the superheroes are meant to safeguard, and they are both unafraid to lean into the sillier sides of their comic book sources.
There is a minor figure they go up against in this movie called Mole Man, played by Paul Walter Hauser, who is the leader of the underground nation of Subterranea -to give a sense of where this movie is surprisingly willing to go. Glimpsed on montage are several other weird and goofy threats these heroes had to face and it is appropriate. A team with this hokey of a name and those corny costumes, led by a man with stretching powers nearly impossible to portray with a sense of gravity or cool -they necessitate this kind of a tone. And while the movie is light and funny, it tends more away from the tired style of humour of past Marvel films -apart from maybe in the personality of Johnny Storm (Joseph Quinn). Still though it feels liberated, with not one reference point or bit of homework continuity tying it into the broader MCU. It is a movie strictly interested in its own story at hand.
That story largely revolves around Reed and Sue’s baby -who is born during the course of the film and ultimately named Franklin- as a kind of macguffin; his parents and Galactus, voiced incredibly by Ralph Ineson, deeply concerned about the powers he might possess. And while the actual narrative around this might be a bit under-cooked, the themes it grapples with around the anxiety of parenthood from Reed and the fierce protectionist instinct of Sue are quite compelling -especially how they factor into a critical though controversial Sophie’s Choice made by the team that they have to deal with the ramifications of, including to their own adoring public. It is ultimately dealt with much too cleanly, but it was still interesting to see, and the complex psychological side of this most unusual parenthood still informs the characters, relayed well by the deft performances of their actors.
Pascal and Kirby have great chemistry, indicative of a lived-in romantic history that feels unusually tangible for one of these movies. It feels pointed and specific in their dynamic together, both domestically and in action, and especially so in scenes indicating their points of contrast. Quinn has fun in his role as the dopey (though still dignified) younger brother, but Moss-Bachrach is a scene-stealer -a rare case of the comic relief providing a genuine relief that feels built out of an actual personality. Each character has their own subplot, and Ben's -in which he nurtures a crush on a school teacher played by Natasha Lyonne, and is just a little self-conscious of his appearance- is my favourite.
Superheroics are kept to a few individual stretches of action -one of the bolder but more beneficial choices of this movie is to emphasize its characters as people first -their hero names are barely ever mentioned in the movie. The intent is in relating them as a family, building for the audience a connection in advance of contention. Their superpowers aren't ignored however, and in particular it is thrilling to see them highlighted in curious ways, such as Sue being her own ultrasound device and Ben shaving the rocky stubble from his face (and eventually choosing to grow a stone beard). Reed is somewhat the exception to this, as even Marvel Studios can't make his elastic power look anything other than corny. It is showcased as sparingly as possible in the movie’s embarrassment of it, though it needn't be. It fits fairly well the tone of this comic reality.
The effects-heavy beats and action scenes are about on par for Marvel in structure, albeit with a couple choice distinctions that lend a little versatility. Though the stakes are high for the climax, I appreciate that it retains a certain buoyant charm in how it is plotted out, the Four essentially working to hoodwink a planet-eating behemoth. Some of the narrative-building pre-empting this point, around things such as the obligatory tragic backstory of the Surfer and a lack of difficult engagement with the movie's own raised ethical dilemma, dims the movie a touch -reminding you of the general conventions and mores of Marvel that still keep the studio from taking serious risks. But they aren't so prominent in light of everything else -especially for a movie with a cute robot housekeeper called H.E.R.B.I.E., Marvel's answer to WALL-E.
The Fantastic Four: First Steps is a needed breath of fresh air for Marvel -their first product in the post-Endgame era to honestly signal a sustainable path forward for this franchise. It's been some time since a Marvel movie has felt quite this alive, and it owes a lot to the re-calibration of formula, the abandonment of interconnectivity, and a lean into strong choices of aesthetics and character over mere narrative efficiency. The Fantastic Four have finally been done justice on screen and astonishingly at the hands of a company otherwise at a tangible low point. The film hasn't saved Marvel or mitigated a lot of its other myriad issues, but it has handed them a valuable lifeline. It remains to be seen if they know enough to hang on.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more