'American Assassin' Is As Dull As It Gets - (2017) Review

Read A Book: You're better off staying home, saving your money.

'American Assassin' is a mess. Not a great way to start a review. You can probably tell where this is going. It's the story of 'Mitch Rapp', played by 'The Maze Runner' himself, Dylan O'Brien. A tragic, superhero-esque origin story sees Rapp lose the love of his life to a mass shooting on the beach. It's told in graphic detail and is likely to evoke some intense reactions from the audience. For anyone looking to escape the all too frequent tragedies on the nightly news, perhaps skip 'American Assassin'.

As hard as it is to watch, for the first half of the film, the violence feels earned. Rapp becomes a vigilante, touring the world to stop evil, one terror cell at a time. You understand his motivations clearly, and Dylan O'Brien gives a good portrayal of a man with Punisher levels of unprocessed grief. It's also in that first half that 'American Assassin' has one of the more interesting training montages I've seen in a while, as Rapp develops his relationship with Michael Keaton's character, Stan Hurley. A man who has the training style of Mr. Miyagi, but the bloodlust of John Rambo.

For a while, it seemed like my worst fears about 'American Assassin' were gone. The film had maintained my interest, given me decent characters, and interesting action. It had defied comparisons to Jason Bourne, and other spy thrillers and become its own animal. Unfortunately, it soon devolved into one of the least interesting movies of this kind I've seen in a long time, with a tepid second half that devours the impression made by the first.

The only people who might suffer more than the audience is the cast. They're flung into a movie that takes itself far too seriously and doesn't have the legitimacy to back it up. The actors are left to give it their all, for a story that ultimately amounts to nothing. It has nothing new, or even compelling to say about the war on terror, and in fact, is even outdated in certain aspects. Had 'American Assassin' come out in 2008, starred Shia LaBeouf, and a Gene Hackman, it would've been exactly the same film.

Eagle Eye 2: The Revenge

The more 'American Assassin' goes on, the worse it gets. It builds up a certain level of goodwill and feels like a spy thriller for the modern day. This generation's international man of mystery, with an axe to grind. It turns out to be quite the opposite, as by the end of the movie, 'American Assassin' revisits tropes from the early 2010s, the mid to late 2000s, and even has an ending that even the action movies of the 90s would call too extreme. For a film that’s based on a book, it’s probably best that you stay home and read one.

Rating: Read A Book.

Read More

'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' (2017) Review: A Story Best Left Untold

Read A Book: Just skip this and go rewatch Guardians of the Galaxy.

Guy Ritchie seems to be a director who is his own worst enemy. His style no doubt marks him as one of the most distinctive directors alive, and his ability to frame dialogue like a well-crafted action sequence, is nothing short of mesmerizing. The 2009 'Sherlock Holmes' was taken as a sign that his filmmaking could be translated onto any property, however recently the English director has not been so fortunate. 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E' had all the telltale Ritchie quirks, but instead of an overall enjoyable picture, the film was decent with a few bright spots.

Sorry to say his latest picture is even worse than that, as 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' brings the summer movie season to a screeching halt. After the promising start of 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2', this film serves as a harsh reminder of the worst a blockbuster can be. Director Guy Ritchie of 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' fame is at the helm of this retelling of the classic story. It follows Charlie Hunnam as Arthur, as he grapples with the responsibility of wielding the mighty Excalibur, the sword he pulled from stone.

Thor Arthur must wield the mighty weapon Mjolnir Excalibur to rule over Asgard Camelot.

On the face of it, 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' should be easier to watch than it is. The film takes Guy Ritchie's frenetic style and captivating dialogue, and mixes it with the stunning visuals and atmosphere of 'Game of Thrones' or 'Lord of the Rings'. Rather than being a match made in heaven, the film is a mess. Never before has a film felt so chaotic. The over reliance on quick cuts and slow motion effects make following the movie's plot a downright chore.

If you do manage to follow along with the film's narrative, your reward will be a horrible truth. The truth that underneath the stylized filmmaking and slick presentation lies a film as generic as they come. Even the strong cast can't save this film. Hunnam's Arthur is easy enough to follow, but the trouble comes with the character of Vortigern, played by Jude Law. Law plays the role with as much subtlety as a sledgehammer. Then again, with the dialogue he's given to work with, not much else could've been expected.

But is it any fun? Plenty of movies have all the bad elements that make up King Arthur, but they're still enjoyable enough. Sadly, the movie takes so few risks that it ends up feeling sanitized. It doesn't have the air of weirdness that might propel it to being so bad it's good. It's just a bad film. Utterly boring in some moments, as you're fed the same hero's journey that gets blasted on the silver screen every year. With nothing new or original distinguishing this from any other sword and shield epic, you're better off watching the surreal and truly memorable 'Excalibur'. Yes, this movie is bested by one that is 36 years old.

Knights of the Round Table watching this movie.

For a film intended to be the first in a series of 6, 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' is an alarmingly bad start. If this is the rock which a franchise is to be built on, it shall indeed crumble. At times, Ritchie shows the signs of what could have been, with a handful of scenes showcasing his abilities at their best. When a movie is this bad, it's hard to recommend it. Viewers should skip this one and read a book instead.

Rating: Read A Book

Read More

'Unforgettable' (2017) Review: So Bad It's Terrible'

Read A Book: Don't go see it. Seriously. Don't think to yourself "It can't be that bad". It is that bad.

It seems there's no such thing as a bad movie anymore. Everything from the live action cartoon of the modern 'Fast and Furious' movies, to the incredible true story of "coloured folk" sending a man into space, can find an audience. Gone are the days where creators had to painstakingly design their artistic vision to ensure mass appeal. If absolutely anything can be entertaining, what is the barometer of quality? That's the approach taken in the big budget lifetime original, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks style, of 'Unforgettable'.

Huh. Look at that. Makes a mess.

Perhaps refreshingly, albeit regrettably, 'Unforgettable' is a reminder that yes, bad movies do still exist. Although with one so aggressively bad as this one, it almost seems done out of spite. 'Unforgettable' is the story of Julia, played by Rosario Dawson, a woman with the perfect new life. She's about to marry the man of her dreams and become step-mother to a little girl she adores. The only problem is ex-wife Tessa, played by Katherin Heigl, who threatens Julia's perfect little life in ways she couldn't possibly imagine.

How fortunate for Julia, since Tessa's actions never shock or surprise the viewer. From the first 15 minutes of the film, the events of 'Unforgettable' aren't a question of "What?", they're a question of "When?". You see all the parts fall into place, as slowly as the film will allow. With the best thrillers, the viewer feels pride in being clever enough to figure out the plot. Here, you feel cheated that what the movie does is the best it has to offer.

Apologies to the films 'When The Bough Breaks' and 'The Perfect Guy', whose ratings have been increased in the wake of 'Unforgettable'

Even if the movie had an idea worth watching, the performances are so insincere, it renders the film's events inert. The characters make bafflingly bad decisions, even by horror movie standards. Made worse by the fact that the actors either decide or are directed to be as exaggerated as possible. Heigl's Tessa does not feel like a genuine character for a single moment in the film. Neither is Geoff Stults' David, as the husband who is charming as he is stupid. The script does nothing to help these characters, but the performances behind them only worsen what's there.

The one soul who seems as tortured as the audience is Dawson's, Julia. Julia is the only character who is somewhat relatable, simply for behaving like a functioning human being rather than a walking plot device. Rosario Dawson even plays her believably and is so remarkably normal compared to her co-stars, who feel 1/4 baked. You feel worse for Rosario Dawson than Julia for being in this film, and Julia gets a scar on her face!

Dawson when she read the script for the movie after she already signed on to do it. 

2/3 of the way into 'Unforgettable', I was done. Finished. The movie had nothing to offer me, except another 30 minutes of blank stares, both by me and the characters. Still, with a film like this, you at least want to wait for the stunning climax, where all the thrilling pieces come together. Even this, the simplest element that elevates a film of this ilk to the heralded tier of being "so bad it's good", the movie fails miserably at. Credit is to be given, for a final twist so shocking, it has yet to set in, days after the credits have rolled. Had the movie been filled with moments like this, it would have been the trashy thrill ride of my dreams. This movie is indeed unforgettable, but in the absolute worst way.

Rating: Read A Book

Read More

'Jack Reacher: Never Go Back' Review (2016) By Naadir Joseph

Read A Book: The wrong way to do a Jack Reacher movie.

There was always something incredibly awesome about the lines he says when the phone rings. The movie starts out in this cool way and leads to a more grounded and human Jack Reacher. Through his travels, he finds more trouble as usual. It is what he does. Ex-Major Jack Reacher, they make that too much of a fact to know, seems interested in Major Turner played by Cobie Smulders and in doing so, hurls himself into a case of espionage.

Along with the espionage, Reacher finds out some unsettling news making him question his humanity and his place in the world throughout the entire movie, excluding the parts when he is in attack mode. There is not much depth to the movie other than that. He is an efficient fighting machine that does get hit now and then, but I felt the more I watched, the more they took away from the mysticism of Jack Reacher.

In the first rendition of the character, he was the guy you don’t mess with as he was just that good. We didn’t need to know more about him. We just wanted him to show off his skills and be the action hero that he was. In the sequel, they changed it up and made him a normal human being. I don’t see anything wrong with this approach as I felt it was a great way to continue with the character. I only have a problem with the execution of the approach.

Throughout the movie, I felt myself urge him forward and ask, “Where’s the man from the first movie? You were such a great soldier and now, you're just this thing I see before me.”

Tom Cruise was not bad in this role as I love him as Jack Reacher. The rest of the acting was kind of flat with the exception being Cobie Smulders. It was the perfect way to start off the sequel and the rest of it was just far away from any plot that could have grounded him. I know one thing is for certain, I will pretend that this movie doesn’t exist and I will enjoy the first one on its own as the beauty that it was.

Rating: Read A Book

Read More

'Keeping Up With The Joneses' Review (2016): They're Boring

Read A Book: Look it's not horrible, but really just don't waste your time. 

I don't know what it is but spy comedies never seem to do it for me. I think on the face of it, movies making fun of spies, or just playing with the espionage genre could be great. There are plenty of tropes to make fun of, but I've never really seen it done well. I haven't seen last years 'Spy' so maybe that would tickle my fancy, but by and large, making light of spy movies has never really been watchable. Any time I see Mike Meyers say groovy I want to hurl something at the screen.

Who doesn't want to punch those fake teeth to the floor?

That's not much different with this film, although less throwing, more groaning. Zach Galifianakis can’t seem to catch a break these days. I haven’t seen ‘Masterminds’ myself, but from what I’m hearing, it’s not much better than the movie this review is focused on ‘Keeping Up With The Joneses’. Both feature Zach playing everyday characters who get thrust into a life of dangerous adventure. This is the one where he discovers his neighbours are spies, and helps them out with their spying.

If you’re thinking ‘Why would spies need Zach’s help, he’s really not equipped for that kind of job” you’d be right, and the movie doesn’t seem to care. Many times I was burdened by questions like that, only for the movie to slap me across the face, punishing me for daring to take it so seriously. Silly me.

Get it together Damian, you're a professional for God's sake.

Which granted is fair. It’s a comedy with a wacky premise. It doesn’t exactly have to be grounded in realism if it’s funny. It’s not funny. In fact, it’s really dull. The main base of the humour is comparing the ho hum life of soccer moms and dads to the devilishly accomplished & attractive couple of Gal Gadot and Jon Hamm as the Joneses, new neighbours who move in to spy on Galifianakis and his fellow co workers. Those jokes get old very fast.

So it’s not very believable, and it’s not very funny. Are the characters any good? Well, actually, that’s probably the only thing the movie has going for it. There’s a sense of who each character is, and the cast does their best to bring that out. It’s just when the situations they’re in feel so illogical and unfunny, it doesn’t really matter. I know they're chickens, but I don't care why or how they cross the road.

As aimless as this movie.

I feel like I'm being too hard on a movie that's really harmless. I don't hate it at all, I just can't recommend it. It's what the rating 'Read A Book' was made for. It just plainly is, you should be reading a book rather than watching this movie. It is a waste of your precious time, something I considered walking out of simply due to feeling done with it. I'd seen everything the movie had to offer in the first 20 minutes.

All in all, this movie is just sort of nothing. It’s not going to make you angry that it exists, but it’s not gonna make you happy either. It simply occupies space and time but leaves no real effect on you. A month from now I’ll remember it as that movie that came out a couple years ago. That’s how distant it’ll be in my mind.

Rating: Read A Book.

Once again this is a movie that I don't hate, but really isn't very good. Here's a podcast I did about movies, I really do hate.

Read More

'Mechanic: Resurrection' (2016) Review by Naadir Joseph

Read A Book: The action movie that should not have been made

The classic action film that was at a high during the 80s and 90s faded when audiences began to desire complex storylines with a relatable and intriguing villain. Jason Statham’s action movies were on the rise in the new age, offering something different like the first ‘Transporter’ movie; ‘The Mechanic: Resurrection’ was a film very much like the ones of old.

Sprinkle a few fights, typical of a Statham movie, and the same plot of a normal action movie and you get this movie. I found myself in very few waking moments as it never offered me anything really to bite into in terms of story. Enter ‘Bishop,’ an extraordinary hitman that is in hiding then found by someone who wants specific people killed. Because ‘Bishop’ doesn’t have much of a weakness to force him to do anything, the movie gives him one. Enter Jessica Alba.

Through the movie, ‘Bishop’ shows off his skills as this amazing hitman while dealing with an issue he chose to put himself into. I feel like this kind of movie has been done before and in my memory, the movie ‘Hitman’ featuring Timothy Oliphant based on the video game stands out. Writers always feel like they should ground these kind of characters and it bothers me. I would much love to watch ‘Agent 47’ or ‘Bishop’ doing what they do best and turn the movie into espionage regarding their agencies or a higher up where people with similar skills would be much more difficult to take out, but I digress.

This movie was difficult to digest as it has been done before and rarely offered anything new. The reason why an action packed series like ‘The Fast and the Furious’ franchise does so well is the absurdity, it’s your connectivity and one should never forget, family! This film tries to do absurdity, but not too much. I do think that this sequel shouldn’t have been made as the first was great to watch, but the typical situation nowadays is to extend and prolong worlds and milk money out of the consumer.

If they had a different crack at it, I would have preferred a much more in depth view at the world that this character inhabits – the mythology of a hitman of his stature, different contacts and the amazing skills. So, therefore, I would say if you’re an action junkie, you’ll probably watch this anyway and if you’re not that hooked on action, don’t watch it. There is not much story here.

Rating: Read A Book

Read More

'Suicide Squad' (2016) Review: Please Don't Watch This

DO NOT DOWNLOAD: A movie so bad you shouldn't even seek it illegally. 

Movie fans will know, August is a horrible month to be in. It's the time when popcorn flicks come out that are undeniably the worst of the summer. If summer is the slip n slide of movie seasons, where we dive headfirst with childish abandon into movies that succeed based on fun; August is the end of the slip n slide where the water has run out, yet the slide continues, leaving us afflicted with friction and wondering why we slid in the first place. Sometimes though that slide has an extra burst of slip, and you get movies like 'Rise of The Planet of the Apes', that buck the trend of August movies being unadulterated trash.

'Suicide Squad' does not buck that trend. At all. Set sometime after the events of 'Batman v Superman', 'Suicide Squad' is a movie that tries to shift the focus away from heroes, putting the spotlight on the villains. The idea is, in a world where super people are showing up, and cities are being destroyed, the world needs a way to fight back. Enter the suicide squad, or 'Task Force X' as the movie calls them. A team of super-villains, forced to either comply with the mission at hand, or die from the bomb in their neck.

A simple salary wouldn't do?

Right there that's an interesting premise for a superhero movie. It takes the best part of a superhero movie, the villain, and puts their colorful, larger than life characters centre stage. 'Suicide Squad' takes that premise and shoots it in the foot almost immediately. It does this by taking its team of mostly brawlers and hit men and pitting them against yet another pillar of blue light in the sky in a world ending plot by a seemingly all powerful villain.

Why are they there? What purpose does a man whose skill is throwing really sharp boomerangs have against a witch with powers that are essentially whatever the script wants her to have. Even the more impressive of the team like Will Smith's Deadshot seem pointless. Yes the movie pits the squad against an army of mindless zombies so that there's some action before the big finale, but even that seems a touch above what someone like Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn should be capable of handling.

Army of magic zombies vs...a baseball bat?

There's just a distinct lack of cohesion to the movie. The first half bombards you with information overload as it tries to give you the basic rundown of each character and their abilities. It's the type of thing most ensemble movies struggle with that really makes the pacing feel off. It's a full hour until you get into the actual mission of the movie. By then you'd think the ball would be rolling, and everyone could have a good time, but instead, all the information you were fed at the beginning, now has to be re revealed to the characters left in the dark.

For all that you learn about the characters though, the less you actually know. Every revelation only leads to more questions. Questions that go unanswered. Then there are the characters you learn nothing at all about, except through vague statements about them. Example: This movie features a man with skin and teeth like a crocodile and a tendency to eat people. That's all you'll ever learn about him. Except of course that he's apparently black, since his demand for a job well done is access to BET. Not cable. Not TV. BET. Specifically.

Raised as a subterranean animal so you make him...black?

There are of course stand outs, and those are the characters played by the biggest stars. Will Smith's Deadshot and Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn are the most developed and most entertaining parts of the film. Harley's brand of chaos refrains from being a nuisance as her character could very well be, and Deadshot's above it all professionalism is so massively cool, it elevates the movie when he's on screen. My personal favourite though is Jai Courtney's Captain Boomerang just for the sheer fact that he's the least qualified to be there and the guy who seems to be enjoying it the most.

As far as the action goes, it's actually not bad. David Ayer has shown his capability with directing an action scene in the past, and although there's moments when they're incomprehensible, I thought they were a nice distraction from the movie's character and plot flaws. It's also a movie that tries to have a distinct comedic tone, the type that is casual with violence and criminal activity. It mostly succeeds at this, but would've been all the better if it had more character to go off of.

One thing I did like about this movie is the way it expands this universe. The way it presents these characters as having existed without being known to the audience yet is great. I enjoyed casual mention of the different cities and events, as they made the world feel lived in. The best example of this is probably the inclusion of Batman as the Joker as largely background characters. There's not much to say about Leto's Joker, because I feel as though I'm still waiting for him to show some character to comment on. Then again I said the same thing for Superman after 'Man of Steel' and... yup still waiting.

It's not bad, just kind of there.

Of course, expanding a universe means nothing if the movie isn't worth watching.

'Suicide Squad' is a movie that has a lot that it has to do. It has to provide levity to the overly serious DC extended universe, it has to introduce a group of characters general audiences are completely unaware of. It has to be an action movie. Of course, it also has to be good. A lot of this, Suicide Squad fails at. Its problems are blatant and it's extremely flawed. I'd say it's so bad it's good, except a lot of the times I was bored by it. It did make me laugh at times, and I did enjoy parts of it. Largely though, I can't see myself recommending anyone see this movie, which is why recommend that this is a movie you do not download.

Read More

Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice (2016) Review: I Think I Hate Superheroes Now

The very first review on this blog is for Zack Snyder's 'Man Of Steel'. In that review, I compared the development of a new 'Star Wars' movie as being just as ambitious as bringing Superman back into the modern cinematic conversation. Not only by himself, but for the purposes of ushering in a new universe of superheroes that included some of the most recognisable comic book characters across the world. While the movie had it's problems, I nevertheless maintained that there was enough groundwork laid to give me hope for where this story could go, and that the mistakes made weren't so grave that they couldn't be rectified, with a little attention to audience feedback.

Oh what precious innocence hath left me today.

For starters, I'll make this review brief. Odds are you're already planning to see the movie called, 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' (henceforth known as BvS) if for nothing else than to get a glimpse of the titular battle between these two huge counterparts. This review isn't going to stop you and neither should it, your opinion is just as good as any. So this piece of writing isn't for you, it's for me. Therapy is expensive and this is next best way to express my trauma.

#WhoWillWin #WhoCares

Following the events of 'Man of Steel', BvS imagines a world where the events at the end of that film spark the philosophical discussion of Superman's role as a protector. In what I believe is in no doubt a reaction to the reaction of that film, the destruction of Metropolis is depicted as a 9/11 status event. One that completely changes the global conversation. As Clark Kent struggles with his need to do good and the world's perception of him, Bruce Wayne and his uber paranoid self, plots the demise of Superman, as he doesn't trust anyone with all that raw, skyscraper destroying power.

That's just a morsel of the stuff going on in 'BvS'. There's also the subplots of Lois Lane's globetrotting journalism, Clark Kent's newspaper crusade against a now veteran Batman's brutal methodology (Batman brands criminals with a red hot batarang so that they'll be killed in prison), Wonder Woman's attempt to keep her history a secret, Lex Luthor's confusing hate for Superman, and of course, the inclusion of scenes solely for the sake of establishing a wider cinematic universe. If you're sitting thinking to yourself, "Wow it's impressive for a movie to take that much on and still be a coherent comprehensible film with an enjoyable narrative" you'd be dead wrong.

Screenshot from the movie^

The first act of BvS is so painfully rushed. Scenes occur with a sort of cliffhanger ending with lines and character decisions that only confuse rather than entertain. Those scenes are followed by completely different scenes that pretty much follow the same formula. It feels as though either the script was fundamentally flawed or the editor fell asleep and forgot where scenes were supposed to go. Either way, it was not a pleasant viewing experience for much of the movie.

That being said, plot has never interested me as much as characters. I don't really care about the how of a movie, I care about the why. This is what was the most frustrating thing about this movie, and was mostly my problem with 'Man of Steel'. I didn't understand what the motivations were behind these characters. Time and time again the movie will have a line that I think was supposed to be poignant, setting up the characters to make some sort of decision that will have an effect on their arc. Fine. Great. That's how a movie works. The thing it doesn't get is the next step, which is making that decision, so that in the final act I feel as though I understand what these characters are about and I'm invested in their plight.

The final act of this movie is a good one, it's fun, it's exciting, it has really good superhero action. On the face of it. Underneath there's no substance to anything that happens because the characters don't really exist. They sure look like Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, but they aren't. I'm not even talking as someone who reads comics. The characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe take liberties with their source material all the time, and I have literally zero problems with characters being changed for their adaptations, in fact, I prefer it (I actually like the neck thing from Man of Steel), but these characters in BvS aren't even established in this movie.

The movie tries to have it both ways. It tries to skate by on the fact that you know these characters from the thing the movie is based on. You know the comics, you know the movies, tv shows, lunch boxes, all that stuff, so it should be easy for you to fill in the blanks. The problem is it also tries to change the characters so much, that what you're left with is the film equivalent to a goddamn mad lib.

And the world's worst script writing tool!

Not to mention, the dialogue in this movie was abominable. You know how in Christopher Nolan Batman movies, and even in the Captain America films, characters will have dialogue about what it means to be a superhero, and it comes across as really powerful. This movie tries for that and it fails almost every time. Everything in the movie feels empty, and when it tried to get me to rally behind it, I was wondering when we got to this point. When did we cross over from set up to pay off, because the lines were pretty damn blurry.

I don't want to keep dogging on the movie since I guess I liked a few things in it. Like I said the action is good if you don't think about why it's happening, and the interaction between Ben Affleck's Batman and Jeremy Irons' Alfred is a high point in the movie. Affleck actually impresses as Batman, if his character made any sense in the movie. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was maybe 60% entertaining, 40% annoying. Yeah that's pretty much it.

No joke, this is the first picture that comes up when you google 'Dumb Superman'

There's a line in this movie where Clark Kent is in protest over the kind of newspaper the Daily Planet has become, (a plot that goes nowhere), and thinks that the paper should mean something. Laurence Fishburne's disgruntled Perry White gives him a response akin to the world is different than it was in 1938 and maybe then Clark would have a leg to stand on. 1938 is the year Superman first appeared. I have no doubt this was a jab and people who had a difficulty swallowing the new Superman created in 'Man of Steel' but... What? How does this make sense? The filmmakers are yelling at their own Superman for...wanting to be like the old Superman? Why does...What? Anyway.

That's pretty much how I felt for most of this movie. Like I said, see it or don't. I don't really care. I probably hate movies now. Why even bother. There's an audio review at the bottom. It's got some yelling in it so there's that. Thanks for reading.

Arbitrary Numerical Rating: Q (4/10)

Read More

'Fantastic Four' Review (2015): Fantastick a Needle in Both My Eyes

Superhero movies have come a long way in the last ten years, since the release of the original 'Fantastic Four'. Since then Batman has become the dark knight he was always meant to be and the galaxy is now sufficiently guarded. The genre has evolved past it's origin of cringe-worthy dialogue and now garners the attention of everyone from Robert Redford to Jeremy Irons. Aside from it's credibility, the genre has expanded it's storytelling horizons. Each one these days corners a different sub-genre. You have a conspiracy thriller in 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier', a fantasy epic in 'Thor: The Dark World' and most recently, a heist film in 'Ant-Man'. If superheroes are going to be dominating the release schedules of the next decade or two, it's a comfort to know they'll at least be interesting.The most recent of superhero cinema, Fantastic Four, seems to completely ignore all that goodwill and innovation.

The sun behind Ben Grimm is a metaphor for a good movie being made far far away from where they are...

The movie starts out with Reed Richards, established as a misunderstood boy genius. While every other kid says they want to grow up to be firemen, he says he wants to instantaneously travel across space. A bit of an overachiever right? His teacher mocks him, his parents dismiss him. The only respite he can find is through his friend and partner Ben Grimm. Together the two work over the next 7 years to perfect Reed's plans of teleportation. Eventually, this perfection catches the eye of Franklin Storm and his daughter Sue. They offer him a chance to work on an already existing teleportation project, except instead of moving across the planet, he'll be moving across dimensions...

There's a bit more to the plot but essentially, Reed fixes the machine and rather than leave the glory to an astronaut with no idea how the thing works, one night, while drunk, he, Johnny Storm, and Victor Von Doom decide to take the machine for a spin. If that sounds like a pretty radical move for a scientist to make, that doesn't translate very well for the character that's because it is and it doesn't. Not to mention, the only one in the scene who has any reservations about the whole thing, is Johnny, the one who's been established, literally by Victor, as a guy who "has problems with authority". Yes the decision to go on the expedition which gave the Fantastic Four their powers, is made with the same amount of zeal and intelligence as when you and your friends decide to get 24 hour drive through at 3 in the morning in your dad's car without asking.

"*hiccup* psssh we'll be back before you can say double whopper..."

The dissonance of character is a major problem with this movie, especially with the case of Reed Richards. Reed is presented as a misunderstood kid with a penchant for arrogance like any major scientist. The problem is he never comes off as likable in any of his scenes. His dismissive condescension makes it impossible to understand why anyone would want to be around him. This makes it all the more difficult to buy into the relationships we see him form in the movie. Not to mention Miles Teller is completely dead in the role. After his performance in 'Whiplash' I can't say that he's a bad actor, he just wasn't doing much of anything in this film. In fact, the only one out of the main cast that wasn't doing a "speak in a low voice and emote as little as possible" was Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm. Despite the controversy of his casting, I was grateful for his presence just so the movie didn't feel so monotonous.

Going back to the characters, not a lot of what happens in the movie makes sense. It's always clear what's going to happen because, I've seen a movie before, but the motivations behind the scenes are non-existent. There's a scene where Reed Richards has gone missing and needs to be tracked down. Sue Storm is an expert on finding patterns so she is the only one who can find him. She's currently angry at Richards for leaving the team behind, so naturally, she should want him found. However, when asked to do so, she exhibits reluctance, because she doesn't want Reed to be found for...reasons? There's no rhyme or reason to any one character's actions. Any semblance of anyone's arc in this film is shattered by nonsensical plot development. It never manifests itself in a way that is in any way organic. Everything feels half baked and put out to serve while the inside is still mush.

BACK IN THE OVEN!

Aside from the characters, which are broken, and the acting, which is deplorable, 'Fant4stic' doesn't even follow the basics of film-making at times. Sue Storm is a bleach blonde with gold white hair in some scenes, and in others she's a dirty blonde. It's as if she went through the meticulous process of changing the hue of her hair constantly, sometimes in the same day! This no doubt stems from an irregular shooting schedule, but mistakes like that only serve to take you out of the movie. However, I'm not sure I mind that especially since the movie is so ugly to look at. With film being a visual medium, it's not wise to have your set design range between gray and silver lab environment, and brown and green space environment. There's a brief break between those two settings in the form of a panama forest, but it's so brief that it doesn't justify the prolonged sense of walking through what feels like the most drab psychiatric hospital in the world. I firmly believe that the reason this film is not in 3D is because it would be impossible to see with darkened 3D glasses.

Taking all this into consideration I suppose I should say something favorable about the film, and that's probably the effects. The scenes where the four show their abilities are handled well, especially in the case of the Thing. His rocky exterior detaches any sense of humanism to him and his design convey's not just the alien origin of his form, but also the pain inherent in being the Thing himself.
While these effects are good, they're put to little to no use. The film includes a total of two action sequences, both taking place in the second act. The first scene shows off a stretching effect for Mr. Fantastic that hasn't evolved much since the days of the 2005 version, the second is...the final battle. Yes the final battle for this film occurs at the end of the second act, as there is no third act to speak of in this 100 minute film. By the time the film is finished you're left with the same sensation one gets when they've eaten a meal too quickly, and they're still hungry. Except the meal is tasty. This isn't.

I'll let you decide which one represents this film, see if you've been paying attention

I wish I could find something else to tell you worth saying but the truth is this movie is nothing. It's 100 minutes of 100% pure, unadulterated mess that just keeps getting more and more complex as it meanders on. None of the dialogue is particularly gripping and in fact contains a good amount of gripes at the film's expense. That line I mentioned about Johnny having a problem with authority, is mocked in the film for sounding like something no one would say. Franklin Storm makes speeches about how the youth are there to save the planet ruined by an older generation, but this unintentionally comes off as a parody of inspiring speeches in movies. Despite everything that's been said I still get the sense that you're reading this and thinking "It can't be that bad", "There must be something worth seeing", "No one would spend time and money into making that", "Damian sure does use a lot of run on sentences". Listen very carefully: It is that bad, there is nothing worth seeing, a lot of money and but not a lot of time went into making this pile of fecal cinema.

No no, not this kind of fecal cinema...

Theeeere we go.

'Fant4stic', is the worst film to feature the titular team. While word of mouth had confirmed that this would be yet another waste of time and money, my dedication to this blog is so strong, I forced myself to sit through the trainwreck that was this moving picture. I say moving picture because technically that's what it was, however a movie is a term used for entertainment. Actually, no, I shouldn't go that far, because no matter how bad 'Fant4stic' was, I can't say I wasn't entertained. It's bad moments are hysterical with the right environment, like a bottle of jack and a few good friends, but it absolutely is not worth the price of admission.

Arbritrary Numerical Rating: 1.5/10

Be sure to listen to my new movie podcast Take 4, uploaded every Sunday 
In honour of Fantastic Four this weeks recording was about the terrible history of the Fantastic Four in film and above you can hear the entire crew give their thoughts on the most recent Fantastic debacle. You can send in any comments or questions about anything that you wish to be answered on the show at take4pod@gmail.com

Read More