Fantastic Four

Review by Zachary Keith Parker

    Like the X-Men, the Fantastic Four are not individual figures, but a team, a community, a family. Other superheroes such as Batman, Superman, Spiderman, and Daredevil are somewhat isolated saviors, though many writers make it clear none of them could survive without their family and friends. However, even then, most of their relationships are distant, or at least not as intimate as in a family.

    Obviously, the F4 team symbolically represented a family. Reed and Sue (Invisible Woman) eventually married, which was apparently the first time in any comic book. In contrast, Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson also married, but due to Peter’s narrow dedication to pursuing criminals instead of loving her, Mary Jane divorced him. Again, Reed and Sue’s marriage overshadows the ultimately selfish behavior of Spiderman and the rest, showing the strength their relationship rewarded them in their fight against injustice.

    Sue and Johnny Storm (Human Torch) were actually brother and sister, stressing the family ties in the team. While Reed and Sue are undoubtedly the “parents” of the team, Johnny seems to correspond to the foolish teenager. Like Wolverine, Johnny must learn to sacrifice his own desires, particularly his craving for independence, in submission to the “parents” for the protection of the whole team.

    If only comic book writers could have incorporated this element in the stories of the aforementioned isolated saviors, who at base, merely signify the autonomous, mysterious hero of the American monomyth. 

    Now we come to character, Ben Grimm (The Thing), who does not have clear place in the “family.” However, the Thing might just be the most essential member of the team. Certainly, he sometimes represents the family misfit with his emotional rage and depression. But more importantly, portraying Ben in the movie, Michael Chiklis complains about having to fix everybody’s lives. Thus he also acts as the family relative who more than often saves the family from self-destruction.

    In the film, the Thing contributes to a few of the problems, which eventually destroy this movie’s potential. Firstly, the movie’s primary fault lies in the absence of a satisfying story in which any character’s problems are clearly redeemed. The story only focuses on the powers granted to each character, including Dr. Victor Doom (Julian McMahon).

    Unlike the exceptional Batman Begins and other excellent films such as Spiderman and Daredevil, this movie does not introduce the heroes’ powers and then direct them to a “higher calling” of seeking justice. Accordingly, this monotonous story only revolves around their denial versus their acceptance of their new powers, confronted by Dr. Doom who “has embraced his destiny.”

    While McMahon portrays him as the steely tool he plays on Nip/Tuck, Dr. Doom is simply a rehashed version of Willem Defoe’s Norman Osborn from 2002’s Spiderman. There is more than one scene that almost directly quote from scenes in Spiderman. However, Dr. Doom lacks the intense psychologically complex behavior of Defoe’s Osborn; actually, Dr. Doom lacks character development period.

    Fighting against this cardboard villain, Sue (Jessica Alba) and Johnny (Chris Evans) are just as stiff. Neither receives any satisfying redemption for their own little errors and quirks. On the other hand, Reed (Ioan Gruffudd) and Ben (Michael Chiklis) are somewhat redeemed but not as convincing as say, the similar character situations in Spiderman 2 and X-2 respectively.

    It’s hard to believe that Ben’s wife, of whom he spoke of so lovingly, would see his new shape and divorce him so quickly without even asking what happened or if they could fix it. Then when one character suggests to Ben that Sue and Reed are spending more time together than they are trying to fix the problem, Ben immediately assumes it’s true and becomes furious with Reed. 

    It’s painfully obvious the writers and directors made some premature assumptions, instead of actually thinking of an insightful way to explore the common dynamics in a family. 

    Finally, Tim Story’s version of this family lacks redemption in the end. Either the writers and director do not care how the F4 family ultimately fares or they do not understand family, because this superhero family is by impression, only superficial. What Fantastic Four fails to competently realize, and what Batman, Superman, Spiderman, and Daredevil so admirably understand is sacrifice.

    It is somewhat wonky when in other comic book movies, the “isolated saviors” understand sacrifice better than the film about a superhero family. Nearly the only character who recognizes the need for sacrifice is the Thing, but that still leaves two-and-a-half characters in need of saving.

    Consequently, Fantastic Four’s ending is dreadfully anti-climactic, having set up many character problems but neglecting half of them in the end. Despite its enormous potential, it does not have much at all to reward the viewer. Director Tim Story should have done more planning instead of stretching this potential classic into a senseless excuse for a franchise.

    Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins and Francis Lawrence’s Constantine have been the only rewarding comic book movies in 2005, so if you want to see a good comic book movie from this year, go rent Constantine or go see Batman Begins in theaters.