Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025)

 

One of the guests on the Lambcast covering "Fantastic Four First Steps", quoted Theodore Roosevelt "comparison is the thief of joy." I can see how this is true in many respects, especially when looking at films from a similar genre. It is nearly impossible however to ignore comparisons when the film's open within a week of one another and both of them are comic book icons. Superman and the Fantastic Four come from different Studios, have slightly different sensibilities, long range purpose seems to be dissimilar enough that a comparison might be unnecessary. I think an exception has to be made however when both films embrace their comic book roots so thoroughly.

"Fantastic Four First Steps", like James Gunn's recent Superman film, accept the concept that they come from a comic universe. The Superman film features a pocket universe in a different dimension. Some of the threats that appear on screen are interdimensional beasts, which are Illustrated to be comic book monsters. In the Fantastic Four film, the universe is traversed by a faster than light spacecraft, and our heroes encounter a villain who looks like he stepped out of a Transformers movie, with pretensions to becoming a star of a Godzilla film. It is a completely wack idea, but it is straight out of the comic books of the era. That's what makes this retro version of the Fantastic Four so much fun.

I've created an artificial statistical measure, to trace the Joy from each of these films. 80% of my enthusiasm for Superman comes from the dog Krypto, a CGI character who is more realistic and which behaviors seem more real than most human actors are capable of achieving. I loved every minute of the Superdog in that movie. In contrast, about 70% of my enthusiasm for the "Fantastic Four First Steps", comes from the Retro stylings that have been pursued by the filmmakers. This movie personifies the aesthetic of a 1960s comic book set in a future world, as imagined by the artists of the time. The vehicles used by the Fantastic Four look like spaceships designed by imaginative 12-year-olds from 1960. There is a sharp pointed a trifold fin arrangement and a ring which encircles the vehicle which renders it capable of light speeds. Back at home, the Fantastic Four Drive a flying car that reminded me of George Jetson. The uniforms worn by the Fantastic Four looked like they could have come out of a Thunderbirds movie or maybe Fireball XL-5.

Vanessa Kirby plays Sue Storm (Richards since she and Reed are married and expecting. She is the Invisible Woman. There might have been some anxiety that she would be turned into a girl boss in a woke version of this comic. Instead she is the embodiment of 60s values, a loyal and loving wife and a fiercely devoted mother. The fact that she is competent in her job and cares for the family that surrounds her makes her a figure of sympathy and affection rather than a symbol of feminists rejection of a traditional male female relationship. In other words Sue is a hot woman with a husband that she loves and a job that she's good at. On top of that she's about to become a mother, and motherhood becomes the defining characteristic of this hero.

Pedro Pascal feels a little bit Overexposed at this time. In spite of that, I enjoyed him as Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic. He does bring a certain gravitas to the story even when we're talking about giant space monsters who eat planets. The other actors in the film were fine as well but it was clearly Vanessa Kirby who is making the greatest impact in the movie.

I also like the fact that this was mostly a standalone film, not dependent on a series of TV shows or prior films for me to be able to understand what the heck is going on. Although it will ultimately be connected to the larger MCU, at the moment it feels fresh and distinct enough that I think it could survive on its own as a film series, if people are willing to commit to it. I said it in my review of Superman that I enjoyed the film but I was not enamored with it, for the Fantastic Four I think I can say I enjoyed the film and I was enamored with it. That's a good feeling to leave a theater with. 

Napoleon

 

This is a late post, I left for an extended trip right after this and I am only now circling back to write about the film. Ridley Scott has usually been a reliable indicator for me that I should be seeing a film, but there have been some that just did not interest me to begin with (Exodus Gods and Kings and The Counselor come to mind as films I deliberately skipped). I am a bit of a history buff so the subject was strong enough to pull me in alone but with Scott navigating and Phoenix starring, I was relatively confident I'd be OK. 

As a longtime movie goer, I know not to get my history from a Hollywood production. Nevertheless, I suspect that a biopic is likely to have some major points about the subjects life correct and I have to admit that my knowledge of Napoleon extended only so far as his reign as Emperor and his final downfall and exile. The sketch of his rise to power in the revolutionary era was interesting, and I assume it was not too fictionalized, since it did not seem to effect any of the personal story plotlines we did get.

The relationship with Josephine was certainly dramatized, but the key events of their life together, the circumstances in which she was living, his position at the time, their wedding and the reasons for the end of that union were all presented in a matter of fact manner. Where I can certainly see the divergence for dramatic purpose is in the sexual encounters between them and the status and power games they played with one another. Whether she was his one true love is a issue of drama rather tahn history, so I was willing to enjoy the story as it was set out.

The order of the battle sequences and the politics involved seem to be accurate, although the battles themselves have almost certainly been enhanced for cinematic purposes. The clever strategy used in taking the fort at Toulon is depicted as a well shot cinematic battle, not necessarily the way things really took place. The Battle at Austerlitz is similarly enhanced I'm sure to make it a visual spectacle for the big screen. The tumultuous retreat and the artillery use to break the ice under the feet of the withdrawing forces, is beautifully and horrifyingly rendered for the film.

Napoleon was certainly a lot more complex than the military leader presented in this film. Joaquin Phoenix seems physically right for the role, but his understated voice and occasional mumbling do not seem to engender those qualities that made Napoleon a favorite of the French citizenry.  Vanessa Kirby is an alluring Josephine, and a good match for Phoenix, although the portrayal of her as a wanton woman, unsatisfied with her physical relationship with the Emperor seems a little overdone. I have heard criticism of the film from some sources but I found it a reasonable presentation of an important historical figure. It may not have the fidelity to the truth that some other biopics have, but I found it very watchable. Some people might be bored, but I thought the film brought the characters to life enough for me to relate to them a bit.