# Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer (spoilers)



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2007)

Fantastic Four began showings last night at midnight.  What did you think?


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2007)

The first hour of this movie was pretty good popcorny comic book stuff.  The only parts I hated for this hour was Jennifer "couldn't act herself out of a box but boy does she look good" Alba.  Her casting for the Invisible woman is remincent of Halle Berry's casting as Storm. The movies may have not been greenlit without the star power, but their presence is unbelievable (as they are portraying older women) and brings down the believablity of the story.  It really makes Reed look like one of those old pervy guys who get young women instead of dating someone on his intellectual level.  

But, I chuckled through her bad acting and orgasm like face grunts right up until the last half hour, when th the writers, audience and myself realized that they have no clue has to how to end this movie nor any idea of what galactus is.  

First, deux ex machina, the power switching saves the day. Apparently, the human torch is able to absorb everyone's power to beat the goofy acting Dr. Doom (look i got your surf board nah nah). This really seemed silly considering the entire time they explained that they could switch powers, not absorb them.  In every scenerio I thought of at least one person would have had to have one of the powers other than Johnny.  Then he drained power from a dying Invisible Woman, which given how my strain the power swapping seemed to took would have killed her.  

Then there was the galactus cloud and the silver surfer miraclous distruction of galactus.  It was a very silly ending.  
"What's that, I have a choice. Man, I thought i didnt. Well why didn't I just kill this guy from the beginning instead of wasting my time being his servent. Oh that's right, now i have a choice and it ws inspired by your two minute conversation".  

I'm glad I"m not a big marvel fan.  I couldn't imagine anyone satisfied with a cloud as the baddest villian in the universe. And then having him destroyed by a person whom only has part of his powers.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jun 15, 2007)

Um, that's *Jessica *Alba BTW. 

And yes, I do agree that casting her as Sue Storm was one of the biggest mistakes the filmmakers made.  :\ Damn it, personally I don't think there's anything wrong with casting star power to help bolster a movie's profile. But good lord, is it too much to ask to cast the right star for a role? Alba is attractive I'll admit (notice I don't use the word *hot*, as I don't see what the big deal is with her), but her acting is weak and she lacks any real screen presence. My original choice for Sue, the more talented Naomi Watts, would have been a better choice by far.  

As for the movie, I've not seen it yet, but your review DonTadow has not raised my hopes for it any. *sighs* It's saddening to see the F4 movies being treated this way. _Fantastic Four _was the book that put Marvel Comics on the map. If anything it's the Marvel property that should be getting the most care when creating a movie off it. :\


----------



## Pozatronic (Jun 15, 2007)

*Worse Than Spider-Man 3*

I never saw the first FF flick, but my friends said it was "enjoyable" (bad in a fun way), so I agreed to go with them to see this one, because it did actually look pretty enjoyable.

ugh.

Alba as Invisible Woman wasn't the only bad casting choice, for my money. That gimp who played Von Doom was awful, and I never did like that Chickles (spelling?) guy. The only actor I enjoyed was whoever that guy playing Johnny was. He was spot on and pretty enjoyable. The Surfer looked pretty good, as did Ga Lak Tus, even though he was just a giant cloud. Surfer's powers seemed a little different that his comic ones; and since when does he have a movie projector on his stomach? I can see how this could have been an "enjoyable" movie, but the writers were kind of hack.

"Like catching a fish in a net!"

ugh.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 15, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> The movies may have not been greenlit without the star power, but their presence is unbelievable (as they are portraying older women) and brings down the believablity of the story.  It really makes Reed look like one of those old pervy guys who get young women instead of dating someone on his intellectual level..




Reed is older than Sue - even in the comics.

But yeah the movie sounds like fun even if the endings is stoopid


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Reed is older than Sue - even in the comics.
> 
> But yeah the movie sounds like fun even if the endings is stoopid[/QUOTE
> True, but not that much older.  She's an astronaut which makes her at least in her early to mid 30s (the youngest astronaut has been 32).  He's probably a half decade older than her.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 15, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> True, but not that much older.  She's an astronaut which makes her at least in her early to mid 30s (the youngest astronaut has been 32).  He's probably a half decade older than her.




The Ultimate Universe Sue might be an astronaut, but the 616 universe Sue wasn't, nor was Johnny. They were just Reed's girlfriend and her brother, whom he snuck onto the rocketship with him.

Sue was still pretty young when Reed was going to Empire State University and he first met them (renting a room from the family, I believe). He was originally supposed to be something like 6-10 years older than she is.

Jessica Alba was horribly cast in the role, though- and from what I've seen of the trailers, her faux-blond hair looks even more unnatural in this movie than the last.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 15, 2007)

Just got back from seeing it...

Overall, a big improvement over the first. Its fun, doesn't take itself too seriously(just like the FF comics), and has a good sense of humour with some great action. The Silver Surfer was done great, and I hope the rumours of him getting a solo movie turn out to be true.

Yes, him turning around at the last second was kind of odd...but that is what happens in the comics. He's taken Galactus to world after world and its only when he meets the FF that he turns around. Of course, in the comics he gets banished TO Earth, but still. The sudden turn around for him is how it should be.

Power swapping was played for good humour and a nice Super Skrull nod without all the baggage. They did mention it had to do with the same kind of cosmic radiation that gave them their powers, thus giving a not-so-technical explanation for 'why' that drove the other thread on for so long. Wasn't similar in the comics, no, but it is here.  As for the power swapping killing Sue...there wasn't any indication that it put a strain on them, just a surprise the first times it happened, so it wouldn't have hurt her at all.

The only two problems are Sue and Galactus. As everyone has said, Jessica Alba is just not Sue Storm. They wrote the character right, she has the perfect attitude to BE Sue, but the actress behind it just plain isn't. The worst part of it all is the nailed the casting for the rest of the FF perfectly.

Galactus...well, he wouldn't have been so annoying if Marvel hadn't had people say multiple times that we'd see more than a cloud. Arguably, we did. There were hints of the classic shape of him here and there, including at the very end with the fire inside in an almost-Galactus form, but its just not the same. Have to admit that it wouldn't be a problem with me if the Ultimate Alliance game hadn't done a realistic looking Galactus so damn well and showed it could be done.

But beyond those two things...its good, quirky FF fun. Yep, its cheesy and really out there with science things...but that's the FF and how they've always been.


----------



## Megatron (Jun 15, 2007)

oh god i lold


----------



## bento (Jun 15, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> The Ultimate Universe Sue might be an astronaut, but the 616 universe Sue wasn't, nor was Johnny. They were just Reed's girlfriend and her brother, whom he snuck onto the rocketship with him.
> 
> Sue was still pretty young when Reed was going to Empire State University and he first met them (renting a room from the family, I believe). He was originally supposed to be something like 6-10 years older than she is.
> 
> Jessica Alba was horribly cast in the role, though- and from what I've seen of the trailers, her faux-blond hair looks even more unnatural in this movie than the last.




I'd suspect in the original Marvel Universe, their ages would be greatly different.  In the mid-1960s there were stories that Reed served in WW2 as an agent of the OSS.  Ben served as a marine pilot, which is where he learned to fly.  After the war they both attended ESU where they roomed and met Von Doom.  So Reed was probably born around 1922 and was 39 years old when the FF first took flight.

From what I recall about Sue, the Storm family provided bording to Reed when he attended college, probably for his Masters or PHD, as he lived with Ben in a dormitory during his undergraduate years.  I recall she was a young teenager at the time, maybe 15?  So if Reed was attending grad school, this would be the early 1950s, so 15 years earlier would place her birth around 1938.  That would place Sue about 23 at the time they first took flight.

So their age difference might have been a 16 years difference.


----------



## Megatron (Jun 16, 2007)

> IESB: IESB: We talked about it earlier today, the announcement of Laurence Fishburne being the voice of the Silver Surfer, Fox has said that they don't know if Galactus will even have a voice, can we address the rumor that Galactus is a giant cloud or something like that, is there any truth to those rumors?
> 
> Arad: You know, that's why they call them rumors (laughter), you will see more than a cloud, you will have enough Galactus to rejoice (laughter).





LOL PWND.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2007)

> I'd suspect in the original Marvel Universe, their ages would be greatly different.<snip many good observations>
> 
> So their age difference might have been a 16 years difference.




Possibly even more- the RR character is based on the classic 50's archetype of the distinguished & older scientist with the much younger girlfriend/wife.


----------



## Ibram (Jun 16, 2007)

*Ga-lac-tus*

I loved Galactus in this... a huge, world eating, Lovecraftian horror... worth the 9$.  Other then that though the movie lacked any real tension, everything just seemed jamed together.  I did like Emperor Palpatine... I mean Victor Doom at some points in the movie, but the actor lacked any real menace.

In retrospect I can almost see another movie hiding under this one.  a Doctor Doom disrupting the Richards/Storm wedding bit that was reworked abit to add SS and Galactus.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 16, 2007)

My hope for the movie being better then "meh" was obliterated when Stan Lee popped on screen and said "I'm Stan Lee.  No, really I am.." then realizing that two minutes later we got to see the movie's uncut trailer for the 1 billionth time.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 16, 2007)

Ibram said:
			
		

> I loved Galactus in this... a huge, world eating, Lovecraftian horror... worth the 9$.



Problem is, to a lot of folks, Galactus is no supposed to be a carnivorous outer-god  like  nebula. It is a great thing to see such a creature that well executed on screen, but it belonged in the movie no more than a lipstick  wearing giant in purple armor  belongs in Cthulhu's tomb.


----------



## Ibram (Jun 16, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Problem is, to a lot of folks, Galactus is no supposed to be a carnivorous outer-god  like  nebula. It is a great thing to see such a creature that well executed on screen, but it belonged in the movie no more than a lipstick  wearing giant in purple armor  belongs in Cthulhu's tomb.




It is more in line with the Ultimates Galactus (which I prefered), rather then the original one.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 16, 2007)

Ibram said:
			
		

> It is more in line with the Ultimates Galactus (which I prefered), rather then the original one.



Ultimate Galactus demeans the idea of galactus.  
Powerful entity that destroys and eats planets vs. an intergalactic army of one mind (wow! you know its bad when you're stealing ideas from star trek). Plus the intergalactic army has been done to death in the marvel universe, why destroy one of your best villians to do it again.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 16, 2007)

I liked the first one, and I liked this one even better. The interaction between the characters, the humor, some fantastic action sequences, etc. I'd have liked for them to remember that Sue is a biologist, but she did show some extremely cool uses of her power. In fact, all the various power displays are miles ahead of the first movie.

I liked Galactus just as well, especially the glimpses of the classic form you get in the heart of the devouring vortex. The whole 'it's just a cloud' nonsense is just the wailing of useless 'net wanna-be naysayers; it's a pretty awesome thing looking at it on the big screen. You could look at that whole titanic thing as an updated version of the classic Galactus carrier nimbus. I think maybe, maybe you could pull off the classic look if you went with a look like he has in the video game, but seeing Galactus as a more primal force was cool as well.

I liked the Frankie Raye easter-egg, there  Johnny's long-time girlfriend and next Herald


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 16, 2007)

I thought this was a great, great movie.

One of the best supers movies ever. Right up there with X-2 and Spider-Man.

They got the FF right, they got the Surfer right, they got Doom right (unlike the first one) and they even got Galactus right.

That and Andre Braugher doing his best Colin Powell makes this a huge thumbs up for me.


----------



## Megatron (Jun 16, 2007)

*jesus christ...*



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> I thought this was a great, great movie.
> 
> One of the best supers movies ever. Right up there with X-2 and Spider-Man.
> 
> ...




I seriously hope you're joking.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 16, 2007)

Megatron said:
			
		

> I seriously hope you're joking.




I loved it. 

Um... Sorry?

Seriously, the world would be boring if we all liked the same things. 

Chuck


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jun 17, 2007)

Also,

Put another Vote for well worth it (at least the Sat Matinee Price).

I thought it was very, very good.  Not Great.  But close.

Much better than the First one (I thought OK Rental, but that's about it).

Jessica Alba, who can provide a decent performance upon occasion, fails to be able do anything to make me think "Sue Storm".  It doesn't help she has a 10 Buck Peroxide Dye Job & some sort of Blue Contacts.  Mr Fantastic LOOKS like Mr. Fantastic.  That's half the acting job right there.  Jessica least resembles her Comic Book Counterpart, thus requiring the best performance to pull it off.  She fails miserably.

Everything Else I really liked.  I thought it was pretty spot on.

Let me quantify as to "Spot On" as regards to the F4.  My exposure comes from 2 sources:

1. Various Sat Morning Cartoons as a kid (a la Spiderman & his Amazing Friends).

2. My wife's Uncle's Comic Collection.  Which Begins with Fantastic Four #4 & Silver Surfer #1 and continues on pretty unbroken for a couple hundred Issues each.

Von Doom as Cheesy.  Most recurring villians under the Comics Code kinda had to be cheesy & incompetent.

The Thing was Spot on.  Way he tends to kids, feels aobut his 'condition' vs his Duty as a Super Hero.  And he doesn't have quite the Nerf Suit form the 1st movie (or else I've gotten use to it) All fits in perfect.

Johnnie Storm also fits in just fine.  Marketing is just something he'd pull.

Mr Fantastic?  Looks so much like him, he doesn't need an Oscar Worthy Performance.

Silver Surfer.  He gets his name in the Title for a Reason.

Galactus.  I'd have like more hints about the Form in the Cloud.  More distinct Outlines, a hint of color here or there.  THe cloud looked really cool, I would have like a bit more definition at the end.

I'd give it 7 out of 10 (and 2 of that minus is Jessica Alba).


Spoiler:

Whats this "Stealing Sue's Power Kills her" Stuff.  She'd just had a Lance of Cosmic Power through her Left Aorta.  That's kinda Nasty.  It take awhile to drop from Neg 1 unconsious to Neg 10 Dead.  She died to to massive trauma not "Torch has my powers".  In fact, Johnnie realizes that he has to take her Powers BEFORE she finally dies & they disappear.  It's a good scene.

That's also when Silver Surfer has his "I's Stands all I can Stand & I cant's stand no more" & decides to give old Lard Butt a Cosmic Power Colonics Treatment.  I think Sue was more the Straw that Broke the Camel's Back than a DC 500 Diplomacy Check.

Everyone in the theatere (including 2 Gaming buddies more up to date than me on F4) seemed to really like it.  Overhearing them, there were a lot of at least casual Comic Fans that thought they really did a good job.

My vote is go.

It an Above Average Movie.  Not just an Above Average Comic Book Movie, but a Above Average movie regarless of genre.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 17, 2007)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> Also,
> 
> Put another Vote for well worth it (at least the Sat Matinee Price).
> 
> ...



HOw long does it take to die from a blast of cosmic energy through the chest?  Her death was the worst longest death since Trinity in the Matrix.  

Reviews like this humor me.  You give the movie a 7. Yet say it was slightly above average, which puts it as 5 or 6.  You had some major gripes but made yourself enjoy it?  Drip writing like this will continue so long as the public does.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 17, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Possibly even more- the RR character is based on the classic 50's archetype of the distinguished & older scientist with the much younger girlfriend/wife.




Yeah, Reed was a Captain in the OSS during WWII (in classic Marvel continuity). 

I think the Wikipedia page on him still has the scene with Capt. Reed Richards meeting with Sgt. Fury. So if we say Sue is 21 in 1966, and Reed was, say, 21 in 1944, that would make him um... 22 years older than her?


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jun 17, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> HOw long does it take to die from a blast of cosmic energy through the chest?  Her death was the worst longest death since Trinity in the Matrix.
> 
> Reviews like this humor me.  You give the movie a 7. Yet say it *was slightly above average*, which puts it as 5 or 6.  You had *some major gripes* but made yourself enjoy it?  Drip writing like this will continue so long as the public does.




I put a Few Things in Bold in the above Quotes.  

7 Yep.  Everything Else I really liked. I thought it was pretty spot on.  I'm sure how that translates to Average, but that was not the impression I wanted to make. 

As for the Death Scene.  My Grandfather served as an Advance Scout in WWII.  His Jeep was hit my a Mine 2 Miles behind Enemy Lines.  He managed to Crawl 2 Miles with Multiple Fractures, a Punctured Lung, and Massive Internal Bleeding (the Docs don't know how he managed to actually do it, but I'm here as proof).

Sometimes, people survive things that seem impossible.  That's what Super Hero movies are about.  I never once thought "When is this going to end".  The Camera moved around enough to keep my mind off that.

I went.

I had a very fun time.  Laughed out loud.  Amazed by visuals.  Well aware of Comic Book Plotlines.

I had a few minor (as in Rapid Star Trek Fan Nik-Pick) things that in no-way limited my enjoyment of the film.  Aside from Miss Alba I had NO MAJOR GRIPES.  

The only real gripe that took away from my enjoyment was Jessica Alba.  Due to her Screen time, I gave it a 7.  Had they (or her performance) been Spot On, I'd probablly give this a 9.

Of course, I'd have given the 1st one a 4.  

So it might be a little bit Relative.  (I gave Spidey 3 a 5, yet Spidey 2 a 9; X-2 a 8, X-2 a 2).

So it may have been lowered expectations.

There were a lot of parts where the ENITER Theater erupted in Laughter.  Their were parts where the Entire Audience said "Ohhhh, Ahhhhh."

I'm also only a Marginal fan of the F4.

But, I'm more of a Fan after seeing the Movie (The same cannot be said of X-men after X-3).

You hated the movie.  Raelly hated.  I really liked it.

My wife really liked it (though more of a Spidey fan).

My 2 Gamer Friends I saw it with (both nig Marvel fans) liked it.

I didn't hear a negative reaction coming out of the theatre, but lots of good ones.

Call it Drip Writing if you want...

But it stars a Living Stretch Armstrong Doll for Pete Sakes.  Shakespeare it is not.


----------



## Richards (Jun 17, 2007)

I _really_ don't like the whole "Galactus as a cloud" thing - that really bothered me quite a bit, especially after having read about Mr. Arad reassuring the worried fans that no, no, Galactus isn't a cloud in the movie, that's just a silly rumor, you silly, gullible fanboys.

But here's what I disliked even less:  Silver Surfer destroying Galactus by flying inside the cloud and blowing himself up (only not in such a way that the Surfer himself was actually permanently damaged - got to leave room for a sequel or a spinoff!).  So apparently, the movie genesis of the Silver Surfer went something like this:

1.  Galactus shows up at the planet Zenn-La, intent upon devouring it.

2.  Norrin Radd says, "Hey, I'll make a deal with you: if you spare my planet, I'll serve as your herald and find other planets for you to devour!"

3.  Galactus thinks it over, and says, "Okay, deal!  Here, let me fill you with the power cosmic and give you this nifty surfboard.  And you know what?  I think I'll even give you enough power to destroy me any time you want to."

Way to go there, Galactus.

Johnathan


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 17, 2007)

Richards said:
			
		

> Way to go there, Galactus.
> 
> Johnathan




Eh... I saw it more as him just driving Galactus off, not killing him. Maybe he went to the moon, met the Watcher, got the Ultimate Nullifier and used that? Just off camera? 

I admit there were plot holes in the movie. I still loved it. Having seen the first one, I wasnt expecting high art, just something to go with my cheese steak sub. And it was awesome.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 17, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I admit there were plot holes in the movie. I still loved it. Having seen the first one, I wasnt expecting high art, just something to go with my cheese steak sub. And it was awesome.



I, too, really enjoyed this movie.  MUCH more than the first, even though the first was fun if vastly flawed.

It's not better than X2 or Spidey 2, but better than X1 and Spidey 1.

I hated Doom in both moves and agree that for all her hawtness, Alba isn't right at all for Sue Storm (forget the look/age thing).  She's not horrible but has no chemistry with Gruffudd, who BTW was much better in this movie (he found his nutsack!) than the first and actually stood as a major point of entertainment along with Johnny & Ben.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 17, 2007)

Richards said:
			
		

> I _really_ don't like the whole "Galactus as a cloud" thing - that really bothered me quite a bit, especially after having read about Mr. Arad reassuring the worried fans that no, no, Galactus isn't a cloud in the movie, that's just a silly rumor, you silly, gullible fanboys.




Actually, Arad's response was some clever wording there.  He never did say that Galactus WASN'T a giant cloud monster.  He DID say that there would be enough of the classic Galactus in there for the fans.  We got a "classic" shadow on Saturn as the monster approached Earth, and when the Silver Surfer confronted Galactus's "heart" we see hints of the classic look.

No doubt it was spin control to allay fears of fans, but Arad didn't lie, he just spun words to avoid telling the truth!

Besides, a purple giant approaching Earth would have looked pretty stoopid INMHO.  I liked the way they did Galactus in the movie.

Gasp!  I just admitted I liked the film!  I hope some of the posters here don't try and take away my comic fan member card!


----------



## JRR_Talking (Jun 17, 2007)

Just got back from it

I liked it.

7/10


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 17, 2007)

It wasn't just galactus as a cloud, it was galactus as this big bad threat and he was essentially blew away by the Silver Surfer.  

The entire film did a good job of setting upthis big bad confrontation. Something omnipotent is coming.  Then it shows up, doesn't do anything,we have no idea what the holes were for, we have no idea how this thing destroys planets.  We see no real power from this creature, he passes over every planet in our solar system.  Gets there and is killed by a creature that supposedly onlyhas a minor fraction of the creatures power.  Earlier in the movie, the silver surfer says that his people are enslaved but he "didn't have a choice". The enslavement and torture of his fiance is not enough to change him but a 30 second heart to heart is?

Then there's the power switching, which doesnt make sense if the way they have set it up is, the powers are switched, meaning someone always at least gets a power.  

It's not as much about it being the cloud, its the lack of the payoff to the big setup. I think some people are just happy sometimes with looking up at a screen and seeing graphic processors at work.  
"wow this doesnt make a bit of sense but those colors sure are pretty.... 7" 

When did we as a society get to the point of not caring about the stories we see and read so long as they have pretty movie pictures.  It's like we've reverted back to the 1920s and are excited about this new moving picture craze.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 17, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> When did we as a society get to the point of not caring about the stories we see and read so long as they have pretty movie pictures.  It's like we've reverted back to the 1920s and are excited about this new moving picture craze.




This is twice now that you've said this.

I have a response: SOME OF US JUST LIKED IT.

Ok?

That doesn't mean western civilization is going to hell in a handbasket. People who liked a movie you didn't are not a sign that America is becoming soft and stupid.

Please stop insinuating that everyone who liked the movie just convinced themselves they liked it or were drooling into their popcorn going "ohhh pretty pictures". 

Your tastes are not universal. Some of us liked it, you didn't and that's... ok.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 17, 2007)

Actually, DonTadow is Lord Oscar of the Academy, returned from the dead to bring enlightenment about what quality movies really are. His word is law.

. . .

In truth, I haven't seen this movie, so I can't judge this discussion, but I'll agree with Don that a HELL of a lot of terrible movies lately have gotten great reviews for reasons I can only chalk up to the 'pretty colors' factor, Spidey 3 being the most memorable culprit.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 17, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> This is twice now that you've said this.
> 
> I have a response: SOME OF US JUST LIKED IT.
> 
> ...



I"m not saying my tastes are. I"M saying if you like the movie it would be nice to see people say why they liked the movie and why it deserves a 7.  Why is this this movie good. Heck, with your review, why is this movie the second best comic book movie ofa ll time.  From what i gather they didn't screw up TOO much and though everyone admitsthat they seemed to have a ton of plot holes that didn't make sense.

Well, if the story had glaring plot holes and didn't make too much sense, what more is there to like but the special effects? Which makes me think that most people seem to come on here and review the movie based on special effects.  

Just seems that a couple years ago, people actually had more to say on here about the movies that came out.

The ratings of the movie don't reflect the reviews i'm reading.


----------



## Megatron (Jun 17, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> People who liked a movie you didn't are not a sign that America is becoming soft and stupid.




Yeah, actually it's a pretty good sign in this case.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 17, 2007)

Dr. Doom going after the Silver Surfer's power is a classic 1970s story arc. Cloud or no cloud, it's nice that they have this shout-out to the classics, despite what a weirdo they made Dr. Doom.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 17, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> We see no real power from this creature, he passes over every planet in our solar system.




There's actually a reason for that, and for Earth, that involves a whole load of stuff that just wouldn't make sense in the movie.  At least in Marvel-Prime, Earth is basically an egg, with a growing being called a Celestial inside.  Galactus destroys the Celestial, and in the process destroys the planet.

...

I'm a total geek.    :\ 



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> In truth, I haven't seen this movie, so I can't judge this discussion, but I'll agree with Don that a HELL of a lot of terrible movies lately have gotten great reviews for reasons I can only chalk up to the 'pretty colors' factor, Spidey 3 being the most memorable culprit.




I haven't seen it either, in the interest of full disclosure.

I think added on to this, there's an attitude that genre (sci-fi, fantasy, supers) stuff gets a more than a bit of a pass.  I suppose it's because that it's because there's not a whole lot of it out there, and a whole lot of dramas and comedies in various permutations.  It's unfortunate for two major reasons.  The lesser one is that giving sub-par movies a pass because they're genre means we keep getting more crappy movies.  The bigger one though, IMO, is that when these movies _are_ good, you don't just see the fans go out and see it, you see everyone going out to see it.  Exposure to these genre films isn't just good for movies, it's good for books and games as well.

Also, because I _know_ someone will say something - you don't just see this with the genres that are popular here.  It can be seen in pretty much any genre, and even among any group of fans.  Heck, look at how many people will excuse poor sports teams because they have an interest.  Anyway, I'm of course focusing on the applicable genres to FF4.


----------



## Tarthalion (Jun 17, 2007)

So what I'm seeing here is that if we have the temerity to actually like this movie we are somehow helping to usher in the Apocalypse...

Wow...get over it people.  Some of us liked it; including me.  It was certainly better than Spiderman 3.  

So if by that admission I have just become a Horseman of the Apocalypse then I want to be War...

Seriously though...liking this movie is not causing the world's collective IQ to drop.  I'd blame internet messageboards for that before I blamed movies.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 17, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Heck, with your review, why is this movie the second best comic book movie ofa ll time.




First, I think people are just saying they liked it. And you want to cross-examine them like we're in court and make them JUSTIFY liking it. It's not that people don't have reasons for liking it, it's that they're responding to your initial post which was "hey what did ya'all think", not the extremely aggressive "you must prove my dislike of this movie is WRONG or you didn't really like it" posture you adopted like one post later. 

But since you missed the reasons for my like of this movie (that I mentioned earlier btw):

1. I really felt this movie got a lot of things right. I think Mr. Fantastic, Johnny Storm and the Thing were all *perfectly* cast and the banter within the family was spot on. 

2. I am a huge Andre Braugher fan and really liked his dripping disdain for Reed Richards.

3. The surfer was *awesome*. The look, the voice, the characterization, spot on. 

4. Doom was doom in this movie. I also liked the way the four never trusted him. Their reactions to doom made him seem menacing. I also *like* the guy from Nip/Tuck they cast to play Doom and think he did a good job in both movies. But I liked him better in this one than the last, because he was Doom, not an evil Enron exec with powers. 

5. I like Galactus. I don't think a giant white anglo-saxon dude in purple armor with purple lipstick walking through the universe would really work in a movie. So making Galactus mysterious was just fine with me. 

6. I liked the relationship between the characters. The FF isn't just four individuals, it's a family of four that really love each other, but are borderline disfunctional and fight a lot. All that was on display here.

7. I liked the power switching played for comedy, occasionally for tension and then finally as something the group used to their advantage. I also loved seeing all their powers merge. It was almost a shout-out to the SuperSkrull. 



> From what i gather they didn't screw up TOO much and though everyone admitsthat they seemed to have a ton of plot holes that didn't make sense.




No, I outright said the movie got a ton of things right in my earlier posts on it. That you characterize it as me saying it "didn't screw up too much" says more about your opinion than mine. 

Which is fine, just don't try and say I said something other than what I said. 



> Well, if the story had glaring plot holes and didn't make too much sense, what more is there to like but the special effects? Which makes me think that most people seem to come on here and review the movie based on special effects.




I did love the FX, and I loved seeing geeky things like the Fantasticar. But, as I listed earlier, those aren't the reasons I think this movie is great. I really thought the casting was just about perfect. I also thought the group dynamic was perfect. 

And yeah, I recognize that there was a plot hole in the movie. It just didn't bother me. If it doesn't bother me, it's not a big deal. Some of the plot holes in the first movie DID bother me. 

But overall, I thought this movie was really great, for what I go to see a comic movie for: it captured the essence of the comic it's based on.

Given that the comic in question is a freaking CLASSIC, that makes the movie really good. 



> Just seems that a couple years ago, people actually had more to say on here about the movies that came out.




People are saying why they liked it in most of the posts Im reading, but a few are of course just saying "it was good". 

Both are fine. 



> The ratings of the movie don't reflect the reviews i'm reading.




People don't have to justify their ratings. Saying "I liked the movie, it was a 7", does NOT mean you have to "prove" that somehow.

You really hated it. I really loved it.

Those opinions are completely compatible.


----------



## Tarthalion (Jun 17, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> People don't have to justify their ratings. Saying "I liked the movie, it was a 7", does NOT mean you have to "prove" that somehow.
> 
> You really hated it. I really loved it.
> 
> Those opinions are completely compatible.





You wouldn't know that from the reactions in this thread.  It's kind of like people are DARING anyone who liked it to post a 500 page dissertation on the precise reasons WHY...it's nuts.  Now I can't like a movie because some people I never met might think I'm dumb...I'm losing sleep on this...honest.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 17, 2007)

I think it's fair to judge this within the categories it falls.  This isn't Casablanca or The Bridges of Madison County.  It's a genre flick.  A popcorn movie.  How could anyone expect something else?

I will judge it based on its own merits and shortcomings.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 18, 2007)

Tarthalion said:
			
		

> You wouldn't know that from the reactions in this thread.  It's kind of like people are DARING anyone who liked it to post a 500 page dissertation on the precise reasons WHY...it's nuts.  Now I can't like a movie because some people I never met might think I'm dumb...I'm losing sleep on this...honest.



NOt saying that put put an approrpiate rating.  If you liked the movie but no it was bad, give it a 5 or 6. SAve the 7s and 8s for movies you really liked and 9s and 10s for movies you think were supurb.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 18, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Well, if the story had glaring plot holes and didn't make too much sense, what more is there to like but the special effects? Which makes me think that most people seem to come on here and review the movie based on special effects.




I find that usually people who complain about minor plot holes are either nitpickers or simply were not *paying attention to the movie*; in their head they were already writing out their awesome internet post about how the movie sucked rather than pay attention to what they were being shown and not shown.

To wit: 



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Then it shows up, doesn't do anything,




So you missed all the scenes of imminant destruction as the thing bears down on Earth and is stopped in the nick of time? The 'not doing anything' means Earth is still here and the Surfer stopped it in time.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> we have no idea what the holes were for,




It's quite clear what the holes are for; they allow Galactus to bypass the crust and go for the interior of the world to rip it apart in order to consume it's life force. The cloud/machine tendrils are clearly shown going for the holes. We see this several times at the end and partially at the beginning.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> we have no idea how this thing destroys planets ... We see no real power from this creature,




You missed that whole first part where he destroys a planet on screen? 



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> he passes over every planet in our solar system.




Galactus only feeds on planets that have life on them. Dead worlds like everything else in our Solar System don't interest him. He consumes the life force of a planet as well, that thing - what ever it is - that allows a planet to generate and sustain life. 

Another thing: we don't know if the Surfer destroyed Galactus or simply dispelled him. But this idea touches on another point. Two points, really. 

In the original series, the Surfer rebels but Galactus is ultimately driven off by the appearance of the Ultimate Nullifier, which Johnny gets when the Watcher on the Moon decides to interfere. I defy anyone to present that sequence of events to an audience and have them follow it. 

Other times, Galactus has been swayed by pity for the life forms he must consume. We'd hear howls over this, too, 'oh noes, the mighty Galactus defeated by the power of LUV!'. 

The Surfer is a creature that has despaired. He saved his planet but became this thing that has led to the deaths of countless other worlds. He may have had the power all along to break his servitude but could not. 

See, in good fiction real characters are often their own worst enemeies. They don't behave like automatons, always chosing the 'smart' path. This is why we are able to empathize with them, because they are not perfect. I often see this kind of reaction among people who have little real world experience or who are not very empathic; they're people who 'don't understand people'. Well when it comes to fiction, that's a crippling disability because that means you're unable to understand the motivations and foibles of well-drawn characters.

I can live with the ending quite well enough; because Sue awakens memories of his former life in him, the Surfer can reach down within himself and do what must be done. He finds the will and desire to briefly become something much more than a set of statistics. It's Dramatically Appropriate, and people who can't reconcile with that are missing something inside themselves. 



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Just seems that a couple years ago, people actually had more to say on here about the movies that came out.




I usually try to hold my tongue as the level of pure stupid from the various naysayers (who seem to have been suckled on the teet of AICN talkback) is just too daunting. The bashing and nitpicking has really soared to a level that makes me yearn for the eyerolls smilie. No film or book is perfect, but the people that rail on and on about plot holes and all the various other armchair director antics has just gotten silly. I mean, jeez, is there _anything _ these people like _at all_? 

Let me let the persistant naysayers in on a little secret. When you think everything is crap, it's not the 'everything' that has something wrong with it. It's you.

Yeah, there are some truly bad movies out there; I've done my own reviews of some really amazing stinkers but the stuff I see more and more of are people railing on and on and on about stuff that is decent. Millions of other people think it's pretty darn decent as well.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jun 18, 2007)

Well that pretty much sums up my position - thanks Wayne!


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 18, 2007)

The movie did commit one of the cardinal sins of a comic book movie. Namely that of not having Dr. Doom wear the dammed outfit throughout most of the movie. IT'S A DAMMED COMIC BOOK MOVIE! COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS WEAR THE DAMMED OUTFITS!

I thought it was stupid that in "Judge Dred" the movie, that Sylvester Stallone didn't wear the Judge Dred outfit, but when you're a Hollywood money man and you're paying $20 mil for Stallone, I can at least understand wanting to see his dammed face. 

However the guy playing Doom is a nobody. He's in a basic cable TV show, a moderately popular one, but so what? It's not like it's even as popular as Monk. Why the HELL did they have him out of the outfit for 2/3rds of the movie? In the first movie at least they were doing the origin and he wasn't "Dr. Doom" yet, but they don't even have that excuse this time.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 18, 2007)

6.5 for me and while better than the first, just a popcorn 90 minute flick, McD's happy meal to feed to the general masses.

There were holes in the plot, the actting just on level of a bad TV show.  Special effects were great, I would have loved to see Galactus, come on, how many of the viewers would know the differance.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 18, 2007)

> there's an attitude that genre (sci-fi, fantasy, supers) stuff gets a more than a bit of a pass. <_snip_> It's unfortunate <_snip_> giving sub-par movies a pass because they're genre means we keep getting more crappy movies.



*
Amen!*


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 18, 2007)

(Moderator mode)  Lots of things to say here.

1)  No one really has a right to force, or verbally call out someone that puts an abbreviated post.  Provided that this is not a perpetually thing or a postcount++ style continual annoyance, which the moderators look out for, allow that someone might be posting a quick comment in their 30-seconds or so browsing while at work or feeding the baby (which is also work--you try shoveling applesauce into a moving target).

2)  No one really has a right to force someone else to continually justify their opinions, or insist that their rating scale is the correct one.  We're all individuals.  I might consider a certain level to be a "7 or 8" while someone else considers that a "5 or 6".  Uh, so what?  This isn't world peace we're after--we're discussing things from our own points of view.

3)  If you disagree with someone, fine, they're opinions, not discrete facts.  Let it go rather than chewing on something like a dog on a bone.  Speak your peace and move on.  Continually calling out other posters is not an endearing trait.  Civility is the hallmark here.

(Moderator mode off) 

Now, having said that, as a strictly personal aside (and noting that I won't get to see this for a few more days, probably), one might point out that "Citizen Kane", widely regarded as one of the finest movies ever made, if not the single best movie ever made rests entirely on a plot hole.  With any movie made, there is a certain amount of suspension of disbelief (let's start with the plot hole that a burst of cosmic radiation wouldn't give astronauts superpowers, but instead leave them with lethal cases of radiation poisoning).  There's an amount of deus ex machina going on in most movies.  Insisting that a fantasy adhere to reality takes the power from the fantasy.  While Aristotle might argue that things need to be plausible, or at least internally consistent, there's already a level of internal inconsistency with fantastic (heh, I made a pun) adventure movies.  The end result of any fantasy, after all, is to use a condition that is impossible, or at least, highly implausible, to explore some aspect of the human condition in a new way.  

Now, on my own rating scale, I might say a 7 or 8 is an enjoyable enough romp that isn't too campy (which nearly always annoys me) but doesn't reach a fundamental exploration of the human condition.  An 8 or 9 gets to the exploration of the human condition, but doesn't go as far as I believe it could possibly go.  (Edit:  I put Spidey 3 here because I think that we reach a good exploration of Harry Osborn's character.  On charitable days, I might say it's a "9", on less charitable days, I might go with an "8".)  A 10 reaches new aspects in the exploration than I have ever imagined and makes me rethink my entire personal paradigm.  You may not like my scale.  If not, then please refer to #2 above.  

Anything else that one might take an issue with in red above, I'll refer to e-mail or PM discussion--not for discussion in this thread, but the yellow is fair game.  (Provided my Comcraptastic internet doesn't fail for another day and a half, I'll cheerfully discuss with you.)

Edit:  The grammar!  It burns us!


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 18, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> However the guy playing Doom is a nobody. He's in a basic cable TV show, a moderately popular one, but so what? It's not like it's even as popular as Monk. Why the HELL did they have him out of the outfit for 2/3rds of the movie? In the first movie at least they were doing the origin and he wasn't "Dr. Doom" yet, but they don't even have that excuse this time.




Before he was on that basic cable TV show, he was a regular on a fairly successful as these things go 4th network show.  I don't associate him, especially in this role, with Nip/Tuck, but with Cole from "Charmed".  Maybe not Stallone caliber, but definitely face-recognition worthy.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 18, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I find that usually people who complain about minor plot holes are either nitpickers or simply were not *paying attention to the movie*; in their head they were already writing out their awesome internet post about how the movie sucked rather than pay attention to what they were being shown and not shown.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




WayneLigon, I think I'm in love with you.  In a totally non-gay way of course.  Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, but . . . . 

Ah, hell!  You've summed up my mounting frustration with cranky message board genre fans perfectly.  There's nothing I can add.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 18, 2007)

I give the movie a "7" on my personal scale.  I enjoyed it, it was fun.

I don't have a problem with Galactus the cosmic cloud monster, in fact I'm GLAD they didn't have a purple giant flying through space towards Earth.  And the nods they did give to the classic Galactus were fun and appreciated.

I thought the power switching was well done and fun.

I really don't think there were any major plot holes at all.  Not a perfectly tight script and it lacked a bit of oomph (just as the first movie did), but overall quite fine.

I love Jessica Alba, but thought she looked strange in both films with the hair and the too much makeup.  And I was very disapointed in the scene where she absorbed Johnny's power, ended up naked on the street . . . . and we didn't get to see Alba in all her glory!!!  I felt cheated.   

I had no problem with Dr. Doom.  I thought the actor who plays him in both films does a fine job.  Not an amazing job that makes Doom the next Darth Vader or anything like that, but a fine job.  And the fact he was out of his mask for a good part of the film was not only fine with me but in fact quite awesome.  I might have missed it in this or other threads, but did anyone notice that they actually transformed the "look" of Doom from the first film into a more classic look for this film!?!?!  They actually did it within the context of the story!  How cool and clever is that!

I'll probably pick up the film after the inevitable super-duper extended version comes out.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 18, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I liked Galactus just as well, especially the glimpses of the classic form you get in the heart of the devouring vortex. The whole 'it's just a cloud' nonsense is just the wailing of useless 'net wanna-be naysayers; it's a pretty awesome thing looking at it on the big screen. You could look at that whole titanic thing as an updated version of the classic Galactus carrier nimbus.




WTH?  I really tried to pick out details, but when they showed the reddish heart of the vortex, all I could see was a stupid mass of reddish clouds or flames.  There wasn't any identifiably Galactus-oid shape in them, unless it was really well-masked *to where it would only annoy* us fans who couldn't pick out the _horribly_ vague and stupid thing.  Bleh.  If there was any hint of Galactus' form in that, it was really stupidly handled and nigh-unrecognizeable.  Maybe if I could have paused the movie in the theater at that point and spent another 5 minutes studying it, I might've been able to discern a vague semblance of Galactus, but it would be 5 wasted minutes.  Stupid thing.

That said, despite massive disappointment with the crappy handling of Galactus (though Ultimate Alliance was a craptastic video game of extreme campyness in some parts, _at least_ it managed to have a decent version of Galactus that actually looked kinda cool), overall I liked Rise of the Silver Surfer.  Some parts definitely sucked, but for the most part I thought it was entertaining enough and all.  It was funny but not bust-out-laughing funny for me (the trailer for The Simpsons movie beforehand was closer to being that funny, really), and it had cool enough fight scenes and characterization.

Bad choices of actors for Victor and Susan, and the way the military just blithely took Victor at his word like some kind of _massively idiotic_ gang of morons playing at being Army officers was just plain stupid as all hell......  The power-swapping part at the end was kinda inconsistent too, but not too bad.  Victor wasn't menacing enough, as another poster said, and I really don't like to see actors from stupid TV shows in any movie that's supposed to be oriented toward a different crowd.

Susan should've done something, too, when she saw Victor apparently messing around with something in the lab when he shouldn't have been.  She should've been able to smash or hurl the junk on the table easily enough with her powers.  I'm not sure how Victor was supposed to have controlled the Surfer's board either, given that *he* wasn't the chosen Herald of Galactus, and had no special connection to it; just a very rudimentary capacity to project tachyon beams or something at it from his armband-computer or whatever.  It also seemed odd that the Surfer's power was apparently just about entirely connected to the board, leaving him with just the most marginal of personal ability without it, despite him being empowered as Galactus' Herald (I don't recall if this has anything to do with the comics).


I felt the movie spent too much time on the Surfer and Doom though; things were entirely too peaceful and uneventful during the long stretches of chatter and drama, with apparently just the Silver Surfer causing trouble, and being pretty much untouchable.  We really see no reason for why the Fantastic Four are so popular and all, especially considering that the military apparently doesn't regard Victor von Doom to be dangerous in this movie.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 18, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I find that usually people who complain about minor plot holes are either nitpickers or simply were not *paying attention to the movie*; in their head they were already writing out their awesome internet post about how the movie sucked rather than pay attention to what they were being shown and not shown.



We are not talking about the fantastic four's uniforms not matching up right. We are talking about major gaps in the logic of the story.  We're talking about holes that made little sense at the end of the movie and aren't beginning.  There's one thing to have a solid story and another thing to just end a movie.  



> To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> So you missed all the scenes of imminant destruction as the thing bears down on Earth and is stopped in the nick of time? The 'not doing anything' means Earth is still here and the Surfer stopped it in time.



 No what I missed was an actual threat to Earth.  There were no scenes of people on any of the planets he destroyed.  There was no threat to life.  We just see this cloud moving through and eating dead planets, so when he moves in on earth you wonder why he didn't eat any other planets.  Again, this is coming from me watching it as a common movie goer. Yeah, comic book knowledge i know he heats planets full of life, but you don't see that in the movie, thus you're left with a midnight audience whom are perplexed.  





> It's quite clear what the holes are for; they allow Galactus to bypass the crust and go for the interior of the world to rip it apart in order to consume it's life force. The cloud/machine tendrils are clearly shown going for the holes. We see this several times at the end and partially at the beginning.
> 
> You missed that whole first part where he destroys a planet on screen?



 Clear to who? certainly not the audience i was with and certianly not myself or anyone i was with.  It was a cloud.  I think this is showing a problem of people too famliar with the comic inserting their own "points" instead of watching the movie.  The movie does not explain this and leaves it open.  we don't even see tendrils on the cloud.  

What I missed was him destroying life.






G







> alactus only feeds on planets that have life on them. Dead worlds like everything else in our Solar System don't interest him. He consumes the life force of a planet as well, that thing - what ever it is - that allows a planet to generate and sustain life.



 I'm glad you read the comic book, but in the movie that is not explained. Again, seperate your comic book knowledge from what actually happened in hte movie.  


> Another thing: we don't know if the Surfer destroyed Galactus or simply dispelled him. But this idea touches on another point. Two points, really.



 We know that there was no more galactus, its safe to assume from a movie goer standpoint that he killed it.  Since silver surfer was denied lines and didn't get to explain what he was doing, we can only assume that the threat was over and that galactus is dead, esle he could just come back. 



> In the original series, the Surfer rebels but Galactus is ultimately driven off by the appearance of the Ultimate Nullifier, which Johnny gets when the Watcher on the Moon decides to interfere. I defy anyone to present that sequence of events to an audience and have them follow it.
> 
> Other times, Galactus has been swayed by pity for the life forms he must consume. We'd hear howls over this, too, 'oh noes, the mighty Galactus defeated by the power of LUV!'.



 Ok, what happened in the movie. I realize youre a fanboy, but there's still a movie on screen and none of this background knowledge is known by the audience.  Perhaps next time, if this was the directors logic (they already know the comic book and can feel in the blanks) they can provide the comic books so the majority of the disappointed audience can read up after they left about all these glaring plot holes. 





> The Surfer is a creature that has despaired. He saved his planet but became this thing that has led to the deaths of countless other worlds. He may have had the power all along to break his servitude but could not.
> 
> See, in good fiction real characters are often their own worst enemeies. They don't behave like automatons, always chosing the 'smart' path. This is why we are able to empathize with them, because they are not perfect. I often see this kind of reaction among people who have little real world experience or who are not very empathic; they're people who 'don't understand people'. Well when it comes to fiction, that's a crippling disability because that means you're unable to understand the motivations and foibles of well-drawn characters.



 Good fiction gives the protoganist proper motivation to overcome these inner demons. A 2 minute heart to heart is not that type of motivation.  If saving the lives of your people is not enough motivation, what is.  Saving your family and your wife should have been enough. Jessica Alba is easy on the eyes, but certainly not beautiful enough to sway me to do something that saving my wife and family could not.  



> I can live with the ending quite well enough; because Sue awakens memories of his former life in him, the Surfer can reach down within himself and do what must be done. He finds the will and desire to briefly become something much more than a set of statistics. It's Dramatically Appropriate, and people who can't reconcile with that are missing something inside themselves.



Wow, this sounds like a great movie. Please inform me when they release this one. Because I didn't see any implications of released memories in this one, I didn't see him reaching down. I saw a bad guy just decide at a moment that he had enough power to kill this big bad whom he was the slave of.  It's appropriate only because the end of the movie was near and the director realized he didnt know how he would kill galactus. Heck, he made up some cheezeball goofey (going against his movie mythos) way to take the board back from the idiotic dr. doom. 

I







> usually try to hold my tongue as the level of pure stupid from the various naysayers (who seem to have been suckled on the teet of AICN talkback) is just too daunting. The bashing and nitpicking has really soared to a level that makes me yearn for the eyerolls smilie. No film or book is perfect, but the people that rail on and on about plot holes and all the various other armchair director antics has just gotten silly. I mean, jeez, is there _anything _ these people like _at all_?
> 
> Let me let the persistant naysayers in on a little secret. When you think everything is crap, it's not the 'everything' that has something wrong with it. It's you.



You should probably continue to hold your tounge especially when you're not saying much, and you certainly aren't reading.  No one said the movie was complete crap and a critic does not think every movie is crap. YOu look at the movie and you judge it based on what you saw, not what you interpretted and drew from references in the comic book.  If the movie didn't make sense to you, if there were glaring plot holes, its certainly not a movie that should be ranked along the batman begins and spidermans, which are solid 7s, 8s and 9s.  It should be average at best, which is your 4, 5, and 6 range. My problem is people lacking the knowledge of the rating system of 1-10.  



> Yeah, there are some truly bad movies out there; I've done my own reviews of some really amazing stinkers but the stuff I see more and more of are people railing on and on and on about stuff that is decent. Millions of other people think it's pretty darn decent as well.



 Spidey 3, that was a bad movie, this movie was average. Again, i thought the first hour was pretty good. But the last act was rushed, thrown together, incohorent and went out on a wimper.


----------



## Seonaid (Jun 18, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Clear to who? certainly not the audience i was with and certianly not myself or anyone i was with.  It was a cloud.  I think this is showing a problem of people too famliar with the comic inserting their own "points" instead of watching the movie.  The movie does not explain this and leaves it open.  we don't even see tendrils on the cloud.
> 
> What I missed was him destroying life.



I agree. I, as a comic book reader, but not a F4 fan, was confused. Why the huge holes? It actually *wasn't* explained. How did the Silver Surfer, if his board was the draw, not get consumed every time a planet was destroyed? I mean, the way they were talking in the movie, all they needed to do was get rid of the board--maybe put it as close as the moon--and Earth would be fine.

*Nevertheless*, I full enjoyed the film. I thought it was much better than the first one (which I saw two? days before I saw this one), and while there were some poor choices (especially Alba and her overly-dyed hair and overly-made-up face, and the lack of character development), it was great. I would give it a solid 7, for the reasons Vigilance has outlined already.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 18, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'm glad you read the comic book, but in the movie that is not explained. Again, seperate your comic book knowledge from what actually happened in hte movie




You're proving the point about not paying attention during the movie because it WAS explained which planets Galactus consumes.

Not only do we have the Silver Surfer above the planet call to his master and specifically point out this one planet is ready for him, but we also later have the Surfer explain that Galactus needs the thermal AND life energy of planets.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 18, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Yeah, comic book knowledge i know he heats planets full of life, but you don't see that in the movie, thus you're left with a midnight audience whom are perplexed.




There was also the part of the movie where the Silver Surfer tells Sue that Galactus needs to consume living things.



> Good fiction gives the protoganist proper motivation to overcome these inner demons. A 2 minute heart to heart is not that type of motivation.  If saving the lives of your people is not enough motivation, what is.  Saving your family and your wife should have been enough. Jessica Alba is easy on the eyes, but certainly not beautiful enough to sway me to do something that saving my wife and family could not.




And yet, it's the same thing that motivates the Surfer to stand up to Galactus in the comics. So you're left with either completely disregarding the Surfer as a character in all mediums, or else you accept that seeing Sue help him and fight to save her planet in the movie motivated Norrin in the same way that Alicia Masters helping him in the comics restored his humanity.

It could have been explored more thoroughly, yes, but it's the same fundamental motivation the Surfer has always had.

Also, on the topic of Surfer vs. Galactus, the ending really isn't all that clear (sadly) about what happens. We are led to believe from the Surfer's explanation that simply leaving the planet will draw Galactus away (as the board is the beacon), so it should have been over at that point, but then Reed comments it is too late, and the Surfer ends up doing... something, that seemingly discorporates both he and Galactus. For all we know, he could have just transported himself and his board elsewhere, drawing Galactus with him. The ambiguity was a bit annoying (as was, IMO, the fact that the Fantastic Four, our protagonists of the film, really didn't save the day- which is possibly my chief complaint with the story myself.)


----------



## Felon (Jun 18, 2007)

When it comes to depicting Galactus, I don't think there was a way to please everybody. Either they could go with something cool-looking but not true to the classic comics, or they could go with classic Galactus, and have everyone not familiar with the character laughing their heads off at the guy in the blue-and-purple plastic suit with the part-totem-pole, part-Grand-Poobah hat and the really big feet. Remember how bad The Hulk looked in CGI?


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 18, 2007)

Apparently there was a scene after the credits with the Silver Surfer. Did anyone else stay to watch this?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 18, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Apparently there was a scene after the credits with the Silver Surfer. Did anyone else stay to watch this?



 Yep.

It was just a very short scene of the board floating out in space. i.e. the Surfer is alive, and probably Galactus, too.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 18, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Apparently there was a scene after the credits with the Silver Surfer. Did anyone else stay to watch this?



Actually, it wasn't even really after the credits.  The credits did start and then they cut to the scene and back to the credits.  Or something like that.

Bottom line is that they did not make you wait around until the very end of the credits.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 18, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Also, on the topic of Surfer vs. Galactus, the ending really isn't all that clear (sadly) about what happens. We are led to believe from the Surfer's explanation that simply leaving the planet will draw Galactus away (as the board is the beacon), so it should have been over at that point, but then Reed comments it is too late, and the Surfer ends up doing... something, that seemingly discorporates both he and Galactus. For all we know, he could have just transported himself and his board elsewhere, drawing Galactus with him. The ambiguity was a bit annoying (as was, IMO, the fact that the Fantastic Four, our protagonists of the film, really didn't save the day- which is possibly my chief complaint with the story myself.)




I disagree. If all the Surfer had seen of humanity was the general, his "interrogators" and Doom, what would have happened to Earth? So the FF saved the planet by being decent human beings.

On how surfer saved Earth, Stan Lee has said several times that the surfer is a Christ figure. 

He bring sue back from the dead (I think she was dead anyway), and when he blows up, he strikes a crucifix pose just to make it clear to everyone, and then he dies, saving the planet.

And then of course, he will come back. 

Seems pretty true to the essence of that character to me.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 18, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> When it comes to depicting Galactus, I don't think there was a way to please everybody. Either they could go with something cool-looking but not true to the classic comics, or they could go with classic Galactus, and have everyone not familiar with the character laughing their heads off at the guy in the blue-and-purple plastic suit with the part-totem-pole, part-Grand-Poobah hat and the really big feet. Remember how bad The Hulk looked in CGI?





I haven't seen the movie, but for what it's worth, putting a huge suit Galactus on his huge floating barge, I doubt folks would have thought it silly. It's not like he's just some guy floating in space...


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 19, 2007)

Tarthalion said:
			
		

> You wouldn't know that from the reactions in this thread.  It's kind of like people are DARING anyone who liked it to post a 500 page dissertation on the precise reasons WHY...it's nuts.  Now I can't like a movie because some people I never met might think I'm dumb...I'm losing sleep on this...honest.



Just 'cause someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that you have to answer them. As someone said upthread, it's totally okay if people disagree about the film -- even if someone is demanding an explanation why, that's not really a mandate to have to explain your preference.

Don't get me wrong, it's cool if you want to... just don't feel you _have_ to.

Either way, if folks start insulting each other (and the "holding the tongue" repartee is included here), expect to be booted from the thread or suspended. Disagreeing shouldn't mean insults.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jun 19, 2007)

I thought that, just like the first FF movie, this one was not very well written from several standpoints and the acting was... shall we say, cartoonish?  But it is unarguable that the keepers of this franchise are NOT out to warm the hearts of rabid comic-book geeks by replicating previously published word.  NONE of the comic book franchises are.  FF:RotSS essentially achieved what it set out to achieve - a forgettable, but entertaining, big-budget summer movie for a wide demographic with little or no previous knowledge of the franchise needed.

Comic books and movies are different media.  Books in general are different media than movies.  They have differing requirements, audience expectations, and capabilities.  They share many traits but are not directly interchangeable in what you do with it, how, and why.  Being genuinely faithful to a comic when attempting to ADAPT it to a screenplay (note that word - ADAPTATION) is quite likely to make a film unwatchable.

Yeah, I kinda thought Galactus as an Evil Cloud Monster was a BAD choice of direction.  I had flashbacks to Star Trek: The Motion Picture.  <shuddder>  But as has been noted by others a big purple guy in a Poohbah hat and moon boots would have been even worse.  Don't measure these things for what they are not.  I.e., "It wasn't anything like the REAL Galactus," or, "Silver Surfer can do this but not that because that's what the comics dictate," and so forth.  It's like saying, "I don't like 3rd Edition D&D because it isn't 1st/2nd/Original Edition."  Judge them on their own merits.

Now, in this case those merits are really few and barely redeeming, but they ARE there.  You just have to start with the understanding that ACCURACY is way down the list of priorities in endeavors like this.

So yes, it is obvious that Jessica Alba is not much of an actress.  But it is equally obvious that the role of Sue Storm is not the same caliber as, say, Queen Elizabeth, nor Sophie Zawiskowski (Sophie's Choice), nor even Scarlet O'Hara.  This is a comic book superhero.  While comics CAN be literature, the vast majority are disposable action/soap opera entertainment.  I don't expect great acting (though it might be nice and give movies like this a little bit more respectability) for superhero movies and it's amusing to think there might be people who do expect GREATNESS from bubblegum.

JMHO


----------



## Felon (Jun 19, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the movie, but for what it's worth, putting a huge suit Galactus on his huge floating barge, I doubt folks would have thought it silly. It's not like he's just some guy floating in space...



Why wouldn't folks think it silly? To people who aren't familiar with or impressed by his pedigree (say, a jaded moviegoer), then yeah, he is just some big guy floating in space. That's a good way of putting it,actually.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 19, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't folks think it silly? To people who aren't familiar with or impressed by his pedigree (say, a jaded moviegoer), then yeah, he is just some big guy floating in space. That's a good way of putting it,actually.




What inherently makes that silly, though? Is it any sillier than a 25 foot tall gorilla? Or a 150 foot tall radioactive dinosaur? Or is it just the particular costume itself?

A planet-eating space giant doesn't seem as if it would be any great absurdity itself in a movie about people with superhuman powers, although I could certainly see the argument for making some alterations to his costume (though I do like the way they pulled off the version in Ultimate Alliance).


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 19, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> What inherently makes that silly, though? Is it any sillier than a 25 foot tall gorilla? Or a 150 foot tall radioactive dinosaur? Or is it just the particular costume itself?
> 
> A planet-eating space giant doesn't seem as if it would be any great absurdity itself in a movie about people with superhuman powers, although I could certainly see the argument for making some alterations to his costume (though I do like the way they pulled off the version in Ultimate Alliance).




Well, they could have made it work for sure. I thought the surfer would be super hard and they made him look all kinds of cool. If you can pull off a naked chrome guy on a surf board, you can pull off any Galactus you want.

Still, I actually liked the direction they took in the movie. IMO, first, dragging dust and debris from the worlds he's destroyed makes sense and is an evocative image. There's literally a cloud of dead worlds around him. Second, I just liked him being mysterious. What folks imagine him looking like is probably more scary than anything they could have come up with.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 19, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> The ambiguity was a bit annoying (as was, IMO, the fact that the Fantastic Four, our protagonists of the film, really didn't save the day- which is possibly my chief complaint with the story myself.)



They freed the surfer, got his board back to him *and* convinced him to act against galactus. That's saving the day just as much as pushing the button on the _Villian Destroying Maguffin_. It just so happens this plot device is sentient.

That marvel aliance game's galactus looked decent.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 20, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't folks think it silly? To people who aren't familiar with or impressed by his pedigree (say, a jaded moviegoer), then yeah, he is just some big guy floating in space. That's a good way of putting it,actually.





Well, for starters, there's a space ship. Not just one guy floating along... in addition, a space suit set of armor would not be unusual. Would the antennae be a little odd? perhaps, but not a big deal really.

We'll leave aside further comic book related stuff, and just deal with the movie folks, lets see whose sillier than "giant space armor guy";
1) Alba is hotness incarnate, yet they make her look alien, for some reason.
2) big orange rock guy
3) Silver blob guy with a surf board.

Sure, those are TOTALLY not silly. Much better than "hey, look at that guy, he's got armor on... and it's purple!".


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 20, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> You're proving the point about not paying attention during the movie because it WAS explained which planets Galactus consumes.
> 
> Not only do we have the Silver Surfer above the planet call to his master and specifically point out this one planet is ready for him, but we also later have the Surfer explain that Galactus needs the thermal AND life energy of planets.




I think that the giant holes were intentionally a bit mysterious at first.  A BIT.  Our heroes had no idea what they were for, AT FIRST.  But Reed did figure it out and it was explained BEFORE Galactus came to Earth.

I figured out, as an audience member, pretty much right away what the holes were for.  It was OBVIOUS.  It doesn't take a lot of brain power to watch Galactus eat a planet in the first few minutes by extending cloudy tentacles boring into the planet . . . . and then watch the Surfer create giant holes all over the Earth.  I almost immediately thought, "Ewww, those are for Galactus' big cloudy tentacle things!"  Then again, I was paying attention and didn't have any preconceived grudges against the film (not a knock on any individual's here, just the FF4:RotSS nerd-bashing in general).


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 20, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Sure, those are TOTALLY not silly. Much better than "hey, look at that guy, he's got armor on... and it's purple!".




Silver guy on a surf board?  Not silly, cool.

Big orangey rock dude?  Not silly, cool.

Alba with bleached blonde hair and too much makeup?  Well, okay, that's silly.

Giant armored purple guy floating through space?  Silly, not cool.

Did Galactus have a spaceship in the comics?  An armored dude in a spaceship who "eats worlds" seems rather silly, and not cool to me.  A giant cosmic monster who must eat worlds?  Totally cool, even seen it on Star Trek once or twice I think.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 20, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Silver guy on a surf board?  Not silly, cool.
> 
> Big orangey rock dude?  Not silly, cool.
> 
> ...




He's not floating through space, as I said.



> Did Galactus have a spaceship in the comics?  An armored dude in a spaceship who "eats worlds" seems rather silly, and not cool to me.  A giant cosmic monster who must eat worlds?  Totally cool, even seen it on Star Trek once or twice I think.




There was a large barge/spaceship at some points, so far as I remember. It seems to me that's a lot better than a guy who "eats" planets literally...

Giant Space Monsters are okay, but lack the feel that requires a Herald like Silver Surfer, IMO. I think the main thing is that it's not "silly" by default, but how they use it, and Armed Space Giant is a perfectly reasonable concept that could have been done well.


----------



## Fenlock (Jun 20, 2007)

*Regarding Galactus as a cloud*

I havent seen the movie, but regarding Galactus i thought i was a nice nod towards this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Cloud

//F


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 20, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Did Galactus have a spaceship in the comics?  An armored dude in a spaceship who "eats worlds" seems rather silly, and not cool to me.  A giant cosmic monster who must eat worlds?  Totally cool, even seen it on Star Trek once or twice I think.




Yes, he did; he's had several. His home base you can see it in the article I link to below; it's bigger than our entire Earth-Moon system. The world eating is really more of 'draining the life energy from a world', as you can see here. That funky thing wedged atop the Baxter Building is Galactus' life draining machine. From I remember he doesn't _need _ the machine; it just makes things go quicker and easier. I could be wrnog on that, though.

http://www.mp-shoot.com/comics101/27.html This is an extremely good capsule synopsis of what and what the Silver Surfer is, the first Galactus story, and all things related to it. As you can see from reading it, the movie actually does incorporate quite a lot of the original comic story beginning with the strange natural phenomenon (though not their cause) and ending with the Surfer's defiance of Galactus because of being inspired by humans.

Note that part where he's saying that his power has never been really tested. Having the Surfer follow through and being the one to drive Galactus off indeed makes for a _better _ story than having the Deux Ex Machina of the nullifier show up at the last second, something no-one has ever heard of before. It's like having an NPC suddenly defeat the Big Bad Guy.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jun 21, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> 1. I really felt this movie got a lot of things right. I think Mr. Fantastic, Johnny Storm and the Thing were all *perfectly* cast and the banter within the family was spot on.
> 
> 2. I am a huge Andre Braugher fan and really liked his dripping disdain for Reed Richards.
> 
> ...




Excellent points Vigilance. I agree completely. I have read a lot of Marvel and I think this movie, even more than the first, really nailed the F4. So far this is the most enjoyable movie I have seen all year, and so far the only movie that I would like to see in the theater again. I liked it much more than Spider-man 3. And I really wanted to like Spider-man 3, up until the end where the ending felt forced and unnatural.

And Jessica Alba, may not be the perfect casting for Sue Storm, but I didn't mind her at all. And she is very pleasant on the eyes....


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jun 21, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> And Jessica Alba, may not be the perfect casting for Sue Storm, but I didn't mind her at all. And she is very pleasant on the eyes....



She smiles more in this one - which is good because she can power small cities when she does that.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 22, 2007)

Am I alone in my belief that Gary Sinese (sp?) would have made a much more believable Reed Richards?


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 22, 2007)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Am I alone in my belief that Gary Sinese (sp?) would have made a much more believable Reed Richards?




Yes totally and completely alone. You're so alone that you make interstellar space look like downtown Tokyo on the weekend they release the new pokemon game.

Ioan Gruffudd rocks and made a terriffic Reed.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 22, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Yes totally and completely alone. You're so alone that you make interstellar space look like downtown Tokyo on the weekend they release the new pokemon game.
> 
> Ioan Gruffudd rocks and made a terriffic Reed.




Actually I agree Sinese would have been better. The guy playing Reed was possibly the worst part of the movie for me. Johnny Storm and the Thing were perfectly cast. Alba I like but not as Sue and Ioan I just didn't buy as a genius; he had no sense of dignity or intellect to me. Ditto for Doom-the man should be a powerful, prideful, megalomaniacal tyrant of epic intelligence, not a sleazy underwear model. 

Overall I found the movie pretty average. 3 out of 5 (or 5 out of 10 if you prefer).


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 24, 2007)

Now let it be said up front that I like comic books. I collect the Fantastic Four comic. I also did not like the first Fantastic Four movie. Julian McMahon's character Victor Von Doom was petulant and silly, and true to Hollywood biases, wasn't an Eastern European autocrat but instead a Western capitalist. Jessica Alba as Sue Storm was nothing less than painful to watch. The origin story plot was expected to be predictable given that it was written over 40 years ago, but it was also boring, which is the mortal sin of any movie. Considering all of this, it ought not be a surprise that seeing the sequel wasn't high on my list of things to do, but I have children. They lack my sophisticated tastes in comic book fare and movies.

I was pleasantly surprised by TRotSS, but the bar was set so low by the first film that almost anything would've been an improvement. Doctor Doom's characterization remains trite. The movie takes the Fantastic Four's greatest villain, a megalomaniacal dictator super-scientist, and turns him into a creepy frat-boy. Doom does little more than sneer, deliver juvenile insults, and then sneer some more. I kept expecting him to rat out Reed Richards to some vindicative college dean in order to have Reed's fraternity disbanded. This one character who ought to inspire fear manages to inspire little more than a desire to see him off camera as quickly as possible.

On the plus side, Jessica Alba's Sue Storm almost bearable. The writers wisely decided to remove virtually every hint of Sue being a scientist. Not only does this fly in the face of established comic book history, it also flies in the face of what Alba can believably portray. Alba doesn't project the brainpower necessary to give Paris Hilton much of a run for her money, let alone pass herself off as a scientist. Unfortunately the lovey-dovey wordplay between Reed and Sue remains saccharine drivel. It's not as bad as Anakin and Amidala in Revenge of the Sith, but that's setting the bar for romantic dialogue as low as possible.

The main storyline of the Silver Surfer's tragic plight as the Eater of World's herald is generally well done. Laurence Fishburne, who voices the Surfer, has sufficient pathos to give the largely CGI character emotional weight. The Human Torch and the Thing carry most of the film, and the former is critical to resolution of the movie's major conflicts. Andre Braugher makes an appearance as an obnoxious lieutenant general with much more testosterone than brains. After all, according to Hollywood, career military men seem to be invariably stupid and malicious.

BTW, the whole Galactus as cloud schtick fits with comic book continuity. Galactus's appearance does vary, and is culturally conditioned by those observing him. What humans see as Galactus isn't necessarily what another type of creature would see. That point aside, it isn't even established in the movie that the cloud is Galactus. It could just be a freaky big space cloud surrounding Galactus (whose classic purple helmet does briefly appear in the shadows).

All in all, I'd hestitate to give this movie more than 6/10, which is about twice what the first one deserved (which is being quite generous since the first one deserved to be taken out into a dark alley and shot in the head).


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 24, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Ioan Gruffudd rocks and made a terriffic Reed.



For me, half of the above statement is true. I love him as Hornblower, but hate him as Reed. Alas.


----------



## Capellan (Jun 24, 2007)

I found it a little disappointing. Obviously, I was never expecting a modern classic, but I was hoping for something with the same infectious fun and goofiness of the first film. This one takes itself a little too seriously, and has an ending a little too pat, for my tastes.

It's a bit like in X-Men 3, where at the end of the Jean Grey plotline, you kinda go "Hang on, is that it?" (it's nowhere near as disappointing a movie overall as X3 was, though)

My inner comics geek is a little sad that there were no purple-clad space giants in goofy helmets, though I can understand why that choice was made.


----------



## Prince Atom (Jun 25, 2007)

Several questions keep bothering me about the base where they take the Surfer.

Since when does the U.S. Military have a secret base in Siberia?

If it's super-secret, it must have cost a lot to keep hidden from the Soviets, assuming the base dates from the Cold War. If it's more recent than the Cold War, what did we have to give the Russians for permission to build it there?

If it's a UN thing, why is it in Siberia? Why aren't there Russian soldiers and scientists there?

It just seems like the writers went, "Oooh, hey, Siberia!" If they wanted something icy and remote, why not Alaska or Antarctica? We already have a presence there.

TWK


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 25, 2007)

The Whiner Knight said:
			
		

> Since when does the U.S. Military have a secret base in Siberia?




It's secret. You weren't supposed to know about it. 



> It just seems like the writers went, "Oooh, hey, Siberia!" If they wanted something icy and remote, why not Alaska or Antarctica? We already have a presence there.




Good question. I assume it is supposed to be something to the effect of "it couldn't be on US soil, because it would raise human rights issues" (even though they point out that the Surfer isn't human). 

I wouldn't think too hard about it, though.


----------



## Anthraxus (Jun 25, 2007)

Saw the movie yesterday. 

Caveats- I'm not a big FF fan, but I do read a lot of Marvel comics (like Silver Surfer). Didn't see the first movie.

I thought the actors picked for the FF worked pretty well as their comic counterparts, especially the Thing and Human Torch. Reed was Ok. Invisible woman(alba), not as bad as I thought, but still bad.   

I thought the actor playing Doom was WAAAY off from what he should have been. Hollywood-type, and not a deep voiced aristocrat of Latervia??? 

There were a few changes which I didn't really care for from the comic books, but could understand might have been necessary for a movie adaption. There were parts that changed from the comics, and I was merely annoyed at. 

Still, I enjoyed it. Probably a 6 out of 10.


----------

