The Crushing Disappointment of "Fantastic Four"

There are bad films that were a bad idea from the start. Then there are bad films that started out as a good idea before stumbling over their own shoelaces and often falling flat on their faces somewhere on the path to the big screen. These are the kind of creative misfires that break your heart, because the filmmakers were so very close to creating something special.

Fantastic Four is that kind of disappointment.

A large contingent of comic book fans had it out for Fantastic Four before the cameras even started rolling. The decision to cast an African American actor, Michael B. Jordan, as Johnny Storm (a.k.a. The Human Torch) -- a character that had been white since his comic book debut in 1961 -- was not well received. Rumors that the team's iconic antagonist, Dr. Victor Von Doom, had been re-imagined as Victor Domashev, an anarchistic blogger operating under the handle 'Doom', caused an uproar of fan disapproval, so much so that his traditional name was later restored during reshoots (more on those later). And then Kate Mara, cast in the role of Susan Storm (a.k.a. The Invisible Woman), committed the cardinal sin of suggesting the film would not adhere to the source material.

Comic book fans are a notoriously tough crowd to please when it comes to the film adaptations of their beloved characters, and many have been sharpening their knives for Fantastic Four.

I was skeptical myself up until the first teaser trailer was released. After two cartoonish attempts at bringing the Fantastic Four to the silver screen, I was on board with a more grounded approach to adapting Marvel's 'First Family'. Just from the trailers it was clear that the filmmakers were drawing inspiration from Ultimate Fantastic Four, a modern comic book series that presented a re-imagined version of the famous superhero team. The most noticeable change was how the foursome came to be so fantastic. Instead of a mission to outer space and exposure to cosmic radiation, it became a fateful trip to another dimension via teleportation that would change their lives forever.

While others were rooting for it fail -- either out of spite for a perceived lack of respect for the source material or out of some hope that the rights to the franchise would revert back to Marvel to be a part of their cinematic universe -- I was crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.

Unfortunately, Fantastic Four is a tragic tale of two hairdos.

What the heck do I mean by that? See for yourself:

The image on top is Kate Mara with blond hair. The image on the bottom? That is Kate Mara in a blond wig. Allow me to explain. There have been reports that director Josh Trank had a tumultuous relationship with 20th Century Fox during filming. And their differences came to a head when the studio balked after previewing the first cut of the film and forced significant portions of the film to be re-written and re-shot. The actors were called back to Louisiana to complete the reshoots, and because she had returned to her natural red hair color and cut her hair in the time since filming initially wrapped, Mara was forced to wear a wig, and a painfully obvious one at that.

The problem? The best parts of the film are the ones without the wig.

The first half of the film, in which Mara is without the wig aside from one or two scenes, is by no means flawless, but it is a promising opening act. The performances are all top notch, the motivations for each of the characters make sense -- even if we don't get to know them quite as well as I would've liked -- and their early interactions lay the groundwork for the team to come together later on. Once the team has returned from their unauthorized excursion to Planet Zero -- the dimension that their teleportation machine links to -- and each of them comes to discover the horrific consequences of their actions, the immediate aftermath is terrific. The stage is set.

And then, for some inexplicable reason, the film skips ahead a year, effectively bypassing the entire second act, and everything falls apart. This is the point in the film where the wig becomes a regular fixture, and you're left to wonder how Trank, after such an engaging first act, could have possibly botched the rest of the film to the point where the studio felt it needed to step in. It is difficult to imagine Trank's original vision being much worse than what the final product delivers.

Bizarre choices render much of the film's second half inert. The characters are kept apart for much of the entire second half, and are never afforded the opportunity to build chemistry as members of a team, aside from a contrived final action sequence. The film neglects to show the characters coming to terms with their new abilities or even getting acclimated to their powers, and instead trots out an unimaginative plotline about the military wanting to weaponize each of them for combat purposes. Ben Grimm (a.k.a. The Thing), in particular, is relegated to a footnote throughout the film.

The most egregious offense in the entire film is the criminal underuse of Toby Kebbell in the role of Victor Von Doom. Kebbell is one of the most talented actors in the cast, and while he makes the most of what he has to work with, even he can't redeem the character's abrupt turn into a one-dimensional supervillain. Doom vanishes from the film after suffering a tragic fate during their initial trip to Planet Zero, but his return for the climax is nothing more than a plot device to send the team into action for the first time. Few of the character's choices make sense once he has transformed into a full-fledged villain, and his motivations for wanting to annihilate Earth are even less clear.

Having not been present for all of the behind-the-scenes drama, all one can do is speculate what went wrong with Fantastic Four based on rumors and hearsay -- and wigs, of course. As the negative reviews started pouring in, Trank responded with a Tweet that he deleted within minutes, lending credence to the idea that studio interference is to blame. But there were also rumors of Trank being difficult on set, including accusations of mistreating his cast and crew. We'll likely never know the truth. Instead, what we're left with is a disappointing film that left so much potential untapped it is difficult not to wonder what kind of film we would've seen under less turbulent circumstances.

*sigh*

A Female Ghostbusters? Bring It On.

I feel shame.

I have not blogged since February 18. It is now July. I'm like one of those people who purchases a gym membership around New Year's and vows: "This is the year!" Come January, I'm all about the blog, but after a few months, life happens and the blog inevitably drops down the ladder of priorities.

And now here I am, feeling shame.

The problem I encounter is that I can't bring myself to write for the sake of writing -- at least when I'm not being paid to do so. When I sit down to blog, I must have something worthwhile to share. I don't consider this blog to be a pop culture diary I have to update on a daily basis, regardless of whether or not what I'm writing about merits being shared with my limited readership.

But I think the drought is over -- and I have Paul Feig to thank for that.

Who is Paul Feig? Feig is a writer and director who cut his teeth behind the camera on acclaimed television shows like Freaks and Geeks, Arrested Development, and The Office, before graduating to film with Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy, and now Ghostbusters. Feig has become the punching bag of comments sections everywhere in recent months for one simple creative decision:

The four leading roles in his Ghostbusters reboot are all female.

Now, few of the fans who are aiming their torches and pitchforks at Feig and his reboot will outright admit that the source of their misgivings is the gender of the new Ghostbusters, but enough of them have confessed as much that I feel comfortable in identifying that as their chief complaint.

My simple question is this: What is wrong with a female Ghostbusters?

I'm as big a fan of Ghostbusters as anyone. I tend to ignore the sequel, but I adore the original. It is the ultimate Bill Murray role in my opinion. I've aspired to be Peter Venkman for most of my life. I've watched the film more times than I can count -- even multiple times in a single day, on occasion. Yet, I have no qualms with what Feig is doing with this beloved franchise.

I've come to terms with the fact that Hollywood is going to reboot whatever classics it can, and I don't buy into the argument that a poor remake or reboot compromises the sanctity of the original product. If the new film sucks, you can just forget about it and keep watching the original. No one is rounding up all of the copies of the original and burning them in the street.

With the passing of Harold Ramis and no interest from Bill Murray in returning to the franchise, we're not going to see the original cast suit up again, so it isn't like this all-female version is standing in the way of a reunion. And with more than two decades having passed since the last film, I don't know that geriatric Ghostbusters would even be a good idea. I mean, did you see Dumb and Dumber To?

I'll get to the point: I've seen the male version of Ghostbusters. I love the male version of Ghostbusters. But I'd much rather see a filmmaker go in a different direction than try to recreate what has already been done. Is a gender swap a surface level gimmick designed to signal a new beginning for the franchise? Possibly. I'm not guaranteeing that the film will be good. But I'm certainly willing to give it a shot. Feig has a slew of successful comedies under his belt, and the last time Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy were on screen together, the results were hilarious.

The challenge is for Feig and crew to prove that this new female Ghostbusters is more than a cheap attempt to revive a dormant franchise with a fresh set of faces. It has to bring something worthwhile to the table and justify its existence. And even if it fails, we'll always have the original.

Barring an abominable marketing campaign and poor word-of-mouth, I'll be there opening weekend to see what Wiig, McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones can do.

And The Oscar (or Blake or Ian or Matt) Goes To...

The awards never go to the right person. Why? Because there is no right person. This is important to remember as we approach the 87th Academy Awards, airing on Sunday. There is no mathematical equation to determine the winners. Voters vote based on their own personal opinion. So why bother predicting the winners? You're just guessing whose opinion is going to win out. Instead, I've teamed up with two other close friends and cinephiles -- aspiring actor Ian Goldsmith and former Warner Bros. Studio tour guide Matt Bauerly -- to name winners of our own.

Welcome to the first annual Matt, Ian, and Blake (or MIB) Awards! Not be confused with the secret organization dedicated to monitoring extraterrestrial activity on Earth.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Blake: Few films from last year surprised me more than Whiplash. Just when you think the script is about to take a familiar turn for the sentimental, it takes a hard left turn in the other direction. It all builds toward a stirring conclusion that caps the film with a crescendo.

Ian: I’m going to give this one to Guardians of the Galaxy. Hands-down the funniest action movie I’ve ever seen. I was literally crying from laughing (and also crying from crying at moments, too).

Matt: This is where I will give Whiplash it’s due. Short and sweet with powerful performances. I’ll take that over buildings blowing up any day.

Best Original Screenplay

Blake: Birdman and Nightcrawler both merited consideration here, but Snowpiercer ultimately brings home the hardware. This post-apocalyptic actioner packages issues of class inequality and global warming in an exhilarating and violent thrill ride that never hits the brakes.

Ian: The Grand Budapest Hotel. It hasn’t been until recently that I learned to appreciate the genius of Wes Anderson, but I’m quickly learning that few other people in Hollywood match his ability to tell delightly hilarious, enticing, absurd stories.

Matt: The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson. It’s a film I would want to write and direct. Wes’s originality is only matched by Tim Getting.

Best Supporting Actress

Blake: Some will argue that Emily Blunt is the female lead of Edge of Tomorrow, but I don’t care. I’ve been a Blunt fan for a while now, and this is like nothing she has done before. She makes for a badass action hero and manages to upstage even Tom Cruise.

Ian: All three of us picked at least one unorthodox choice in the acting categories (spoiler alert?), so this category will be mine with Jennifer Lawrence in X-Men: Days of Future Past. Let’s be real, J-Law rocks pretty much every role she ever does, and the badass yet heartbreaking Mystique is no exception. AND she does it all with not much more than green screens and a blue jump-suit.

Matt: Keira Knightley for The Imitation Game -- I’m all in. Imitation Game fanboy.

Best Supporting Actor

Blake: The Academy will get this one right. I’ve been a fan of J.K. Simmons’ work for a long time now, and he delivered the best performance of his career in Whiplash. Psychologically abusing impressionable music students has never been more gripping or compelling.

Ian: Unfortunately I have yet to see Whiplash… I have heard and read nothing but admiration for J.K Simmons’ performance. With that said, I need to give this to Edward Norton in Birdman. He played the pretentious actor stereotype to perfection; yet no matter how heinously annoying he became, I still felt almost sympathetic. My favorite performance in a film full of great performances.

Matt: Godzilla for Godzilla. That growl though… I will admit Blake gave me this idea. It’s the right choice for me in this category.

Best Actress

Blake: Rosamund Pike for Gone Girl, please. For the sake of spoiler-phobes, I won’t go into great detail, but Pike is sensational as “Amazing” Amy Dunne. As ridiculous as the plot’s twists and turns became, I never once doubted what her character was capable of.

Ian: I’m really anxious to see Julianne Moore’s performance in Still Alice, as I’ve heard she is awe-inspiring (which is not surprising, considering she has swept all of the awards this season). But alas, I can’t deny that Rosamund Pike was great in Gone Girl.

Matt: Rosamund Pike for Gone Girl. She was the best part of the movie I was most excited to see in 2014.

Best Actor

Blake: I could give this to Michael Keaton, Jake Gyllenhaal or David Oyelowo and feel I made a good choice. But instead, I’m going to go with the underappreciated Andy Serkis. His motion capture performance as Caesar in Dawn of The Planet of The Apes was truly remarkable.

Ian: In a year dominated by powerful portrayals of real-world men (Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking, Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing, David Oyelowo as MLK, Steve Carell as John DuPont, Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle), I gotta give my love to Michael Keaton for his portrayal of fictional Riggan Thompson in Birdman. Ironically, Riggan nearly mirrors Michael’s real-life career; but more than that, Keaton’s performance flawlessly walks the line of ruthless yet sympathetic, boisterous yet subtle, painfully dramatic yet laugh-out-loud comedic.

Matt: Benedict Cumberbatch for The Imitation Game. He killed it. Loved his confidence and his name.

Best Director

Blake: How can I award this to anyone but Phil Lord and Christopher Miller for The LEGO Movie? What could’ve been a feature-length advertisement for LEGOs was instead a clever spoof of the “chosen one” narrative that proved entertaining to both kids and adults alike.

Ian: Alejandro González Iñárritu for Birdman. (I’m glad I could Google how to spell his name, otherwise this award may have gone to someone else.) I hate to keep giving all my love to the same film, but Inarritu’s single, unbroken, tracking-shot style was visually astonishing. However, its purpose was more than just cinematic wizardry; the style gave me a sense of intimacy and immersion I don’t feel with most films, almost like I was watching a stage play. Plus, those long shots must have required hella amounts of meticulous coordination.

Matt: Wes Anderson for The Grand Budapest Hotel. I have a great respect for his films. This one was probably my favorite.

Best Picture

Blake: I’m tempted to go with The Interview here, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t dole out top honors to Whiplash. I know I’m bordering on excessive hype, but this is as close to a perfect movie as I’ve ever seen -- and it more than held up on a second viewing.

Ian: This will come as no surprise based on my other answers, but the best film I saw this year was Birdman. It may have been a case of “right person, right time” for me… but when I left the theatre on that chilly November night, I knew I had just seen something unlike any movie I had ever seen before.

Matt: I’ll pull a Blake and say “I’m tempted to go with The Grand Budapest Hotel" because I really like Wes Anderson and want to give him his due. But I can’t forget how much I loved The Imitation Game.

---

CUSTOM CATEGORIES

Why let the Academy dictate what categories we can use for our own awards? We decided to cook up some custom categories of our own to recognize a few of our favorite films that might've been otherwise ignored during awards season.

Most Fun Movie

Blake: Comic book movies can rule the box office and win awards, too. Guardians of The Galaxy was the most impressive effort thus far from Marvel Studios, with a recipe for success that included a gun-toting raccoon, a tree that walks and talks, and a Walkman.

Ian: The LEGO Movie. This is one of the best animated movies ever made. With an endless cast of lovable careers, any person of any age has a blast watching this side-splittingly funny thrill ride.

Matt: Watching the Kansas City Royals make it to the World Series was some serious fun for me. In the cinematic world, I guess I will have to go with The Grand Budapest Hotel. Admittedly, a lame choice for this category. Special mention: Edge of Tomorrow. I really enjoyed it.

Best Sequel

Blake: This is a tough one. But I think I have to go with X-Men - Days of Future Past. It was the most ambitious sequel of the year, with a huge risk of failure. But the return of director Bryan Singer to the franchise helped repair the damage from less-than-stellar previous installments.

Ian: 22 Jump Street. I rarely go out of my way to watch modern comedies. The first Jump Street well-exceeded my low expectations, but the abundantly self-referential sequel puts its predecessor to shame.

Matt: Not a lot of good choices. I feel like I’m stretching here but I will go with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Always been a fan of the franchise and really enjoyed this year’s installment.

Most Disappointing Movie

Blake, Ian, and Matt: Foxcatcher.

Special mention from Matt: I really disliked the ending of Gone Girl. Like big time, because I wanted more from David Fincher.

Special mention from Ian: In addition to Foxcatcher, I was relatively disappointed by Interstellar. Good movie, but definitely not great. Chris Nolan’s worst movie in my opinion (but hey, if that’s his worst movie, he’s had a damn fine career).

Special mention from Blake: I felt like I needed to contribute a special mention also, since all the cool kids were doing it. Kevin Smith's Tusk was not as good as I had hoped.

"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is Worth Remembering

Gosh, I love Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It rivals Wedding Crashers as one of the funniest movies that I've ever seen. It's one of those movies that never gets old, no matter how many times I see it. I was watching it the other night with my fiance as the culmination of our early Valentine's Day extravaganza, and once it was over, she asked with genuine curiousity: "Why do you like it so much?"

So what the heck do I like so much about Forgetting Sarah Marshall? In the spirit of Valentine's Day, let's find out. I could go on and on about what I like about it, but I've pinpointed a few of the big elements that I consider to be the most important. Read on and check it out!

It's a break-up movie from the male perspective. Before writer/producer/director Judd Apatow burst onto the scene with The 40-Year-Old Virgin -- ushering in a new era of bro-centric comedies with Seth Rogen positioned as the new face of the slobbish everyman -- the target audience for romantic comedies tended to skew female. Now, don't mistake this as a criticism of romantic comedies geared more towards women. Universal appeal is overrated, and there is nothing wrong with hedging your bets on the people likely to be most interested in your product. Forgetting Sarah Marshall was a breath of fresh air -- for me, at least -- because it engaged both sexes.

Peter Bretter is not the tough and rugged male protagonist we've come to expect from past romantic comedies. In fact, he is quite the opposite. In the immediate aftermath of the break-up, he spends much of his time in his apartment weeping and wallowing in sorrow. His ill-advised attempts at asserting his masculinity -- going clubbing with his reluctant but supportive stepbrother in search of a one night stand -- all go up in flames and fail to fill the gaping hole in his heart. Part of the reason that Forgetting Sarah Marshall succeeds so well is because it flips the script and subverts the traditional pre-ordained roles that have become an all-too-familiar staple of romantic comedies.

The "ex-girlfriend" is more than a cardboard caricature. This is never more apparent than in the conversation between Peter and Sarah towards the end of the film, in which Peter is forced to acknowledge the role he played in the death of their relationship. I'm not condoning the fact that Sarah had an affair (and never would), but I can at least understand the motivations behind it, as she was in a relationship that was becoming increasingly unfulfilling. I never hated Sarah, a rare feat in modern romantic comedies, where vilifying the ex as a terrible human being has become standard procedure. In a lesser film, Sarah might've been painted as a controlling shrew who relishes in making others miserable. Here, she is vulnerable and insecure and appears to have genuine feelings for Peter. Her Achilles' heel is that she never looks in the mirror when assigning blame -- whereas Peter spends most of the back half of the film accepting his flaws and coming into his own.

The film is an actualized version of what we all go through after a break-up -- no matter where we go, we can't stop thinking about the person that left us. In this case, Peter is so desperate to rid himself of painful memories that he seeks refuge in Hawaii, only to come face to face with them again in the form of her actual physical presence. Not to mention the fact that she has also brought her new boyfriend with her. And we are then able to see, from both sides, how each compares their current relationship to their last one. After Rachel Jansen from the front desk has a warm response to hearing one of the songs from his rock opera, Peter has a flashback to Sarah's less than enthused reaction. When her new beau Aldous Snow refuses to wear the new shirt she bought for him, Sarah has flashbacks to several occasions where Peter made a point to appreciate her gifts, regardless of whether he liked them or not. Small but truthful touches like this are what set Forgetting Sarah Marshall apart.

To me, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is less about romance and more about how much people can learn about themselves when going from one relationship to the next.

The near complete lack of lowest-common-denominator humor. There isn't a single fart or poop joke in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Go back and check the tape, and you'll see that I'm right. Toilet humor -- or at least, what I would consider to be toilet humor -- is largely absent. And through some strange miracle, the film still manages to be laugh-out-loud hilarious, and the humor holds up even after repeat viewings. Make no mistake, people, this is a modern miracle. Instead of relying on low-hanging fruit, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is all about having fun with interesting characters in situations that are ripe for comedy. The awkwardness alone of being on a hotel resort with your ex is what serves as the source of most of the humor. And let's not forget the fact that Peter is writing a musical version of Dracula -- with puppets. Now that is being creative.

Anything I missed? Let me know!

Saying Goodbye To "Justified"

It is no secret that I worship FX Network. The Americans, Fargo, The Strain, and American Horror Story are all shows that I watch on a regular basis. Sons of Anarchy, The Bridge, Terriers, and The Shield are series that I've watched from beginning to end, with Rescue Me and Tyrant among the lone outliers that I tuned out of after a while. I also plan on watching all of Damages sooner or later.

But it all started with Justified.

Rescue Me was the first show that I ever watched on FX, but I couldn't stomach all of the gratuitous pain and suffering it inflicted on its characters after two seasons, so I dropped it and didn't look back.

Justified premiered back on March 16, 2010, and was the first FX show that hooked me from the first episode and never let go. If you haven't read the work of author Elmore Leonard, chances are that you've at least seen one or more of the films based on his work. Get Shorty, Jackie Brown, and Out of Sight are among the most popular films that used his novels as source material, but Justified -- which was based on Leonard's short story Fire In The Hole -- is the closest that anyone has come to replicating his unique style of writing for the screen, in my opinion.

Justified's final season began last week with the sixth season premiere on Tuesday night, and as I look back now on the entire series, I can't help but think that much of the show's success hinged on the performance of Timothy Olyphant in the role of Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens.

Olyphant, as Raylan, is as charismatic as he is bullheaded. Raylan is introduced in the opening scene of the series premiere as a swaggering lawman with a cavalier concept of the law better suited for the Wild West, gunning down a drug cartel gun thug after warning him to leave Miami within 24 hours or find himself on the receiving end of a much-deserved bullet. True to his word, Raylan follows through on his threat, with little to no regard for the legal ramifications of his actions.

In a world so pre-occupied with thinking before shooting that pulling the trigger has almost become an afterthought, Raylan represents an old school brand of justice, walking a fine line that makes life a living hell for those in his crosshairs but frustrates the exasperated colleagues to whom the task of cleaning up his messes falls. Though he never sinks to the level of indefensible corruption that blackened the soul of The Shield's Vic Mackey, his tactics are often at odds with standard procedure.

Olyphant's swagger and charisma are an integral part of how Raylan continues to be likable in spite of the fact that most people seem to regard him with a combination of contempt and begrudging respect. Olyphant portrays Raylan as a man confident in his unbending belief that he stands above the criminals he hunts, despite having grown up surrounded by them in the small hick town of Harlan, Kentucky -- including his own loathsome father. With a greater understanding of how his home town's criminal populace operates, Raylan is able to navigate their world with relative ease, never once stopping to consider if superficial differences are all that separate him from the dishonest denizens of Harlan.

While Olyphant is fantastic, one can't praise his performance without also calling attention to the underappreciated work of Walton Goggins, whose character Boyd Crowder serves as Raylan's chief foil and antagonist. When Raylan is re-located to Kentucky in the immediate aftermath of the series premiere's opening scene, his return to Harlan also functions as a reunion of sorts, as he crosses paths with Boyd. The two grew up together and even came to be friends while working in the coal mine as teenagers before following opposite paths, with Raylan a lawman and Boyd a career criminal.

Boyd was never supposed to survive the series premiere, but the producers were so enamored with the dynamic between Olyphant and Goggins that the decision was made to keep Boyd alive. Introduced as a bank-robbing white supremacist in the premiere, Boyd reveals himself to be an eloquent and intelligent chameleon, re-purposing different ideas and ideologies to further his own personal agenda. Dismiss him as a dumb redneck at your own peril. Boyd is the outlaw equivalent of a blue collar worker, doing whatever he needs to survive in the hope of securing a future for himself.

Boyd is positioned as Raylan's nemesis from the beginning, yet the two find their interests aligned on more than a few occasions. As often as the two have gone toe to toe, Raylan and Boyd have also had each other's backs, further complicating one of the most fascinating love-hate relationships on television. Raylan has made it clear that he intends to see Boyd behind bars -- or, better yet, six feet under -- when all is said and done, but over the course of five seasons, he has appeared willing to allow Boyd to run free, as long as there is bigger game to hunt.

Until now.

As far as what I'll miss most about Justified, it all comes back to Raylan and Boyd. Exceptional writing has been a staple of Justified from the beginning, but few performances on television have been as riveting as the work that Olyphant and Goggins have done here. The series has been hit-or-miss in terms of servicing its cast of supporting characters, but it has never failed to provide ample material for the two men whose characters are what hold this show together.

And, as you'll see in the teaser below, the final season has set the stage for a long-awaited showdown between Raylan and Boyd. You're not going to want to miss it.

The final season of Justified airs Tuesday nights on FX at 9pm.