My Top 5 Favourite Films of 2015

It's been quite a year at the cinema - Box Office records were smashed not once, but twice (by Dinosaurs, and then by an awakening of The Force); no less than 5 spy movies infiltrated the big screen; and there were the usual high-profile flops, disappointments and some surprise hits.  I've enjoyed a lot of films this year, so picking the five that make my list hasn't been easy - there are many I could have included so here are some honourable mentions of films that were still great, but didn't make my final list:

Birdman - Big Hero 6 - Avengers Age of Ultron - Jurassic World - Ant-Man - Mission Impossible Rogue Nation - Macbeth - Sicario - The Martian - Star Wars The Force Awakens

So without further ado, and in no particular order, here are my five favourite films of 2015...

Mad Max Fury Road

The blockbuster of the year without doubt, top of many 'Films of the Year' lists, this was a visceral, thrilling and quite frankly astonishing movie that was a tremendous viewing experience.  You can read my thoughts on this truly phenomenal film here.

Whiplash

Featuring one of the year's best performances (if not THE best) from JK Simmons, this superb drama was gripping and exhilarating.  You don't need to like Jazz to appreciate the performances, or the amazing drumming, that provided one of the year's most memorable set-pieces.  My full review is here.

Inside Out

Pixar returned to form with this, a film as inventive, funny, charming, heart-warming, and even occasionally heart-breaking as their best work. CGI toons continued to be big business this year, and this film cemented why no one else can come close to Pixar; their films talk to kids (but never talk down to them), but also to their parents, in often quite emotional ways.  Here's my review from this summer.

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

I didn't manage to write a review of this as I caught it just at the end of its run in cinemas, but this film manage to pull off the tricky combination of being both genuinely hilarious at times, and quite moving at others - without being a tonal mess or nauseatingly mawkish.  It also has one of the best cameos of the year (I'll say no more, as it is a genuinely incredible surprise you won't see coming).

It Follows

My personal favourite of the year, as I love an intelligent horror movie that has something to say whilst it gets under my skin (so to speak).  Genuinely creepy, with almost unbearable tension at times, the film also has a great deal to say as a coming-of-age tale in the era of economic decline.  It successfully avoids the tropes that often ruin Horrors, with a strong ensemble of young leads who prove to be smart and capable.  It also has my favourite score of the year by electronic musician Disasterpeace (aka Rich Vreeland), one that simultaneously feels cutting-edge, and yet gives the film a feel that harkens to genre classics from the '80's.  If you like a horror film that will haunt your thoughts for some time afterwards, this was great - just read my review.


Well, that's it for 2015.  The forthcoming year promises more great cinema experiences, I'll share my thoughts on this blog.  Until then, thank you for reading my posts over the past year, I wish you all the best for 2016 - Happy New Year!

What 'Star Wars The Force Awakens' Got Right (...and what it didn't)

I was born in the second half of the 1970's, so it goes without saying I grew up watching the first trilogy of Star Wars films, and that - like so many of my generation - those films hold a very special place in my life.  After the Prequels I approached the news of new Star Wars films with some trepidation - until the first Trailer landed just over a year ago, and this was replaced with a sense of cautious optimism.  Now the film is here, and it has been the subject of such intense hype and fervent anticipation.  So how is it?  Well, generally the consensus is positive, and it looks set to annihilate Box Office records.  Here's my perspective, as a fan of films, and someone who still remembers the joy of seeing those first films as a child.

Please note - this will be a really, really in depth analysis, and as such it will contain just about every SPOILER in the film.  So, seriously, if you have not seen it yet (and want to) I would advise you NOT to read this article until you have.  Really, genuinely, do not read unless you have already seen it, or want the whole film spoiled for you.

The poster is your last chance - SPOILERS follow..!

Still here?  Let's get to it then...

When that first Trailer hit, and we saw there were still Stormtroopers and Tie Fighters, my initial fear was that this film would cheapen the finale of 'Return of the Jedi', which saw the Emperor defeated, Darth Vader redeemed, and the Rebellion victorious.  Certainly, too, there was the fear that this would further tarnish the franchise after the Prequels.  I'm pleased to say that 'The Force Awakens' does neither of those things.  In fact, the first two acts of the film are Star Wars at its very best: fun and energetic, beautifully and evocatively filmed, with characters you want to root for and exhilarating set-pieces.  Gone is the clunky, exposition filled dialogue of the Prequels, replaced with the type of snappy and heart-felt repartee that led to many great moments in the original trilogy.

New leads Rey and Finn are extremely likable, and actors Daisy Ridley and John Boyega truly give their all - these are two star making turns, and their return for the next two films in the series will be most welcome.  Supporting characters, such as ace pilot Poe Dammeron (Oscar Isaac), villainous General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) provide brief, slightly underused, if memorable turns.  There's a cornucopia of marvellous looking creatures, aliens and droids - as you'd expect in Star Wars, but they're not just CGI-eye candy; most are practically realised, giving them a sense of character and realism not seen since, well, the original trilogy.  Amongst these lead droid BB-8, and eccentric yet charming Maz Kanata (mo-capped by Lupita Nyong'o) are, again, characters you'll want to see more of.

The new lead characters Rey and Finn (and BB8) are great additions to the Star Wars universe - I look forward to seeing them in the next films in the series

Much has been made of the return of original lead actors Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill, as well as Chewbacca, C-3P0 and R2 D2; of these Ford's Han Solo has the most screen time, and his turn is one of the film's highlights.  If Ford ever had any resentment towards the character, or reluctance to return to him, it does not show here.  He plays Solo very much as the roguish (almost anti-)hero he always was - but older, more grizzled.  Age has given him some wisdom, but not enough to make him stop being the 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of guy.  His interactions with Rey and Finn are some of the film's most enjoyable moments.  And as for Chewie - well, he's still the dependable side-kick he always was.  It is genuinely good to have them back, and their parts in this film do not cheapen or tarnish the original films in any way.

Fisher's Leia and Hamill's Luke Skywalker are essentially supporting roles (in Skywalker's case, it's just a brief cameo).  Fisher, who looks to have aged the most of the original cast, plays Leia with a sad dignity, befitting the place we find her at in this film.  She doesn't have too much to do, but does just about enough with it.  It seems a bit strange that she and Hamill are the big names over newcomers like Ridley, when their roles are essentially cameos - until they turn up, it still feels enough like Star Wars without them; having them is the icing on the cake, but it's arguable that they could have been used more.

The return of franchise icons Chewbacca and Han Solo complements the new characters perfectly; it wouldn't be Star Wars without them.

The story, which springs from the search for the missing Skywalker, is a bit like the original films - more of a platform from which the action and adventures take place.  But unlike the prequels, which had so much scope and overwhelming background detail, the progression is mostly driven by the characters and how they interact - each rash, frantic or heroic decision.  This truly makes the first two acts of the film work, and enables the franchise to recapture some of what made those first films so special.  However, although the character focus is a benefit to the story, the film manages to fudge the wider setting, in a way that not even Lucas' films did.  Say what you liked about the Prequels, but across all six other films the backdrop was clearly laid out: be it the Empire, the Rebellion, the Republic, the Trade Federation, Separatists, Sith, Jedi - you knew who each faction was, what their motives were, where the battle-lines were clearly designated.

Whilst thankfully the concept of the remnants of the Empire becoming The First Order doesn't cheapen the end of 'Jedi', at the same time so much could have been explained: why does the Republic allow the First Order to exist?  How come it has the resources for a flipping great planet-sized weapon?  Why doesn't the Republic simply go to war against The First Order, why is it necessary for The Resistance to exist?  Why isn't The Resistance officially endorsed by The Republic?  A lot of this, I guess, can be inferred: I think it's likely that, after Jedi, the conflict continued and what was left of the Empire agreed to some kind of ceasefire, but not all former Imperials agreed to or wanted to lay down arms.  Hence the establishment of the First Order, whose presence is 'tolerated' by The Republic; under the terms of the ceasefire, the Republic can't be seen to be taking arms to keep The First Order in line - hence there is implicit backing for The Resistance.  I imagine part of the reason this isn't spelled out is so that people will want to go and buy the various tie-in novels and comics that have been published and are planned, that are set between 'Jedi' and the new film.  Which is a pretty cynical move, but hey, Disney have got to get a return on their pricey investment, so it makes sense in that respect, right?  It's unfortunate though that because of this a moment like when the First Order destroys a bunch of seemingly random planets, it's not immediately clear why - and, more significantly, it's hard to feel something for their loss.

New character Captain Phasma (Gwendolene Christie) is an imposing character who sadly is given far too little to do.

It's at this point in the movie that 'The Force Awakens' problems start.  Some of my concerns about how this film would turn out were down in part to the presence of  JJ Abrams himself.  Whilst he is a director with a great sense for character, action, and bringing memorable and visually striking action sequences to life on film, he has a tendency to wear his influences too visibly on his sleeve (so to speak).  As well as this, with the exception of 'Super 8' perhaps, his films are notable for having really strong acts one and two, then kind of failing to deliver in the final act.  'The Force Awakens'continues this to a degfree - one the one hand, Abrams has kept his fan-boy tendencies in check, and though there are many nods to moments in the original these do not detract from it, and do not derail the film at all.  Until the final act, that is - and to be honest, I can't tell how much of the responsibility lies with Abrams, or with the other members of the writing team, which includes Michael 'Toy Story 3' Arndt - because, quite frankly, the plot seems to run out of steam and focus, and they resort to merely replaying the 'greatest hits' from the other films.  Only, not as effectively.  The final act boils down to 'oh they've got another, bigger Death Star - let's find the weak spot and blow it up.'  In fact, the scene where The Resistance plans this almost parodies itself, as the characters talking through it are so nonchalant about the whole thing.  So whilst we get another epic dog-fight between X-Wings and Tie Fighters, a dramatic skin-of-their-teeth victory, it's like watching a covers band play your favourite songs by your favourite band: it's good, but you know the original is much better.

This isn't the worst thing about the final act, but before I come to that I just want to discuss the most spoiler-y parts of the story.  We don't see a lot of Luke or Leia, because the story has them in a very downbeat situation.  Luke's attempts to re-found the Jedi order have failed, after his students were massacred by a group of his pupils, corrupted to the Dark Side by Supreme Leader Snopes of the First Order.  Han and Leia separated, because chief among those responsible for this massacre was their own Son, who has now been dubbed Kylo Ren (played by Adam Driver).  If I'm very honest, I wasn't at all surprised that Ren turned out to be Han & Leia's son.  It was a logical story choice, and keeps the whole sagas focus retained upon the Skywalker dynasty.  I also think that having the original characters in this situation, 30 years after 'Jedi', was a bold story telling choice that I truly applaud.  For those of us who have grown up since watching these characters and looking up to them as children, seeing how things have not worked out as they (or we) had hoped will resonate with just about every 30-40 something viewer.  And how this has played out for each character makes total sense - they have each tried to run away from their pain and disappointment; Han and Leia, back to what they used to do and where they felt most at home - smuggling and military leadership respectively.  Luke has simply run away, and though it is never fully explained why, it is likely the sense of failure would be almost crushing.

Kylo Ren is menacing, but he's not as the unstoppable embodiment of evil that Darth Vader was in the original Star Wars film...

Given this set up, which works perfectly and makes sense entirely, it highlights why the most significant character death is pretty much a failure, from a story-telling point of view.  You see, when Han Solo is killed at the hands of Ren, what should be an iconic and (for my generation) heart-breaking moment merely makes you think 'what the fuck?!?!!'.  Part of the problem with this is Ren himself.  Sure, he is an imposing villain, and the fact he is struggling with not only living up to what he believes is the legacy of his grandfather Darth Vader and the 'temptation' of the Light Side of the Force, initially makes him a nuanced one, too.  But then he is portrayed as having tantrums, destroying things with slashes of his Lightsaber, and it brings to mind the characterisation nadirs of the Prequels; how Hayden Christiansen said he played one take of one scene as quietly anguished and tormented, then again like a spoilt teenager - which was the take that Lucas put in 'Attack of the Clones'.

What could have made the character more interesting arguably doesn't happen on screen - his fall to the Dark Side, leading the massacre of the Jedi trainees, and rejecting his own mother and father - plus the collapse this brings to their lives.  It's the fact this is all unseen (apart from a flashback vision that fills in a mere handful details) which robs Solo's death of the power it should have.  When he goes to appeal to his son to return to him and his mother, without having seen their previous relationship, or the extent of Ren's betrayal, it is very difficult to feel the emotion that the writers were clearly wanting the audience to feel.  Then Solo is murdered by Ren, stabbed though the heart with his Saber.  They were clearly going for a moment akin to Kenobi's death in the very first film (it plays out like it, with the younger protagonist shouting 'No!' then a flurry of blaster bolts as they make their escape).

Honestly, I don't have an issue with killing off Solo; I felt it was inevitable that at least one of the original cast would be killed off in this film, and even moreso given that Ford allegedly asked Lucas to kill the character off during the making of  'Jedi'.  But the manner in which they chose to dispatch him has left me with a very sour taste that has overshadowed my enjoyment of the rest of the film.  I truly think that it was borderline insulting to a character who is iconic in cinema, and a hero to so many children since 1977.  Solo's death is a moment that should have had every single grown man, in every single cinema, silently weeping.  This was the character every boy wanted to be in games of Star Wars in the school playground.  Solo made Ford a star, and in the original film and 'Empire Strikes Back', Solo has at possibly two of the most defining moments in cinema.

Basically, if such an iconic character was to be killed off, he should have had a truly epic send off.  He should have been mortally injured saving his friends, and the galaxy.  He should have died with Chewie, Leia and Luke at his side, with that trademark smirk on lips, having delivered one last charming, scoundrel-ish one-liner.  A death that should have been as defining as his greatest moments.  Instead, he dies without a word at the hands of a petulant brat, who would have been crushed without flinching by the grandfather he so idolizes.  It is a cheap death, one that does little for the story but give us a reason to hate Kylo Ren (because, y'know, we're all rooting for him after seeing him preside over the massacre of innocent villagers and cutting down an old man, of course...)

I'm still aghast that, whilst Abrams and the writers have treated everything about Star Wars with so much respect, they disrespected Solo enough to see him off in such an insulting manner - insulting to the character, and to everyone who ever aspired to be like him, or simply admired the portrayal of an iconic character.  This moment, coupled with the apparent lack of ideas that made the writers retread through familiar franchise story beats, unfortunately casts a shadow over what was so great about the rest of the film.

Finally, despite Abram's promises that the film would - like every other movie in the franchise that preceded it - have an ending tying up the main story, we get a frustratingly open one, that doesn't really answer any questions about what Skywalker was hoping to achieve by hiding, or that doesn't really answer why his presence was so vital to The Resistance.  Hamill doesn't get to utter a single line, and the closing shot - Rey holding out his father's Saber to him - is the most sequel-bait ending of any Star Wars film.  There are so many questions left, in fact, that Abrams has proven to be quite disingenuous with those claims.  We know that there will be two more films, so obviously there are story threads to carry on and complete - but whereas each other Star Wars film feels complete in and of itself, this one does not at all.  This is just another thing to overshadow what it does so well earlier on.  We don't even find out what significance the whole 'Force Awakening' has on the events of the film, as so much of what takes place seems to owe so little to the mystical power..!  I think, funnily enough, this film is comparable to Abram's 'Star Trek' reboot from 2009; the first two acts of that film are full of energy, fun and great turns from the new cast of actors, but that ultimately ran out of steam and ideas in the final act - going for a finale that made you wonder whether Abrams really understood Trek in the first place...

From the point of view of a film critic, 'The Force Awakens' is mostly successful, and is let down slightly by its lack of original story ideas in its final act.  From the point of view of someone who grew up with Star Wars, has been a massive fan throughout the years, the film is frustrating; when it gets to a point where it feels comfortable and safe to enjoy the film, there is a story-telling decision that is handled so poorly, the more I think about it, I increasingly feel it is more disrespectful to the franchise and to the fans than almost anything that was in the Prequels.

So it is a film that is only two-thirds great - and when it is great, it almost reaches the highs of the original trilogy, which is high praise indeed.  I can see how the next film can be even better - my hope is that story-writers will not look so much to the narrative beats of the original films, but forge new and original plots for it to follow.  The potential is there.  And they have a great set of leads, playing interesting new characters, to centre their story around.  Just please - if they decide to kill off Luke or Leia, or Chewie even, for the sake of the Force, please give them a respectful and fitting send off...

Presenting: this blog's first video..!

Hello, it's been a while since I last posted, because I've been so busy with work and doing an IT course.  But piece by piece I'm trying to improve how this blog works, and expand the content with some videos.

Here's my first - a sad tale about a family estrangement, centred on a very famous film series...

Enjoy!  Please leave a comment below.  More articles/content/video soon...

Review Round-up: Hotel Transylvania 2, Macbeth, The Martian, Sicario & Crimson Peak

I've been very busy of late due to starting a new job (yay!), so I've not had a lot of time to write any reviews or article for this blog.  To remedy this I've decided to put my reviews in to a shorter format, once or twice monthly.  So welcome to the first of my Movie Roundups!  Here are summaries on my thoughts regarding the films I've seen in the last few weeks...

Hotel Transylvania 2

The worst kind of sequel is one that is made purely because its predecessor made money, and this is the prime motivator to make another - even if there aren't the story ideas to justify, or sustain it.  Animated films are now the worst example of this, and 'Hotel Transylvania 2' is a case in hand.  The first has a couple of amusing riffs on the popularity of 'Twilight', through the prism of the classic portrayals of the Universal Monsters.  This one has one idea, and doesn't have enough jokes or visual inventiveness to sustain itself.  Kids will be diverted enough by it if you have to go see it over the imminent half-term, but expect to be bored and very rarely amused.

Verdict: Avoid (unless you have kids, then my condolences - you probably won't be able to...)

Macbeth

I'll admit it, I was one of the weirdos who actually enjoyed doing Shakespeare at school.  It's a shame that having his works thrust upon you during your GCSE's puts so many people off, because his stories are pretty much the archetype of every great yarn today - full of lust, love, revenge, heroism, villainy, sex, murder and violence.  This new take on the Bard's 'Scottish Play' tries very hard to be accessible to a mainstream audience, with its superb, A-List cast (Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine), and really bringing forward elements of the story that feel timely (Fassbender plays the title role as a PTSD-stricken soldier), as well as emphasizing the more shocking plot points.  With its mix of violence, sex, murder and infanticide, this really feels like Shakespeare reinterpreted for the 'Game of Thrones' generation.  But this has been done without diluting or dumbing-down the Bard's prose or turn of English, and as such this film may be impenetrable to a lot of people.  I must admit, following the dialogue takes a great deal of concentration (unless you're a scholar of the Bard), and at times it did feel like trying to watch a foreign language movie without subtitles.  However the cinematography is stunningly beautiful, with atmospheric and often haunting imagery, and coupled with the performances means that the viewer is never entirely lost to the plot.  This version of the famous play will be the one that will define it for at least this generation, and possibly many years to come.

Verdict: Recommended

The Martian

Following on from the last couple of years' space-based sci-fi movies ('Gravity' and 'Interstellar'), this film drops the philosophical and sentimental elements that some people had a problem with in those films, and instead focuses on the hard science, in its portrayal of a single astronaut (played by Matt Damon), and his struggle to survive after being left alone, for dead, on Mars.  Don't let this approach fool you - this film is a ton of fun, it is more flat out entertaining than the aforementioned sci-fi dramas, without ever compromising on it's portrayal of hard science.  A very witty script, with a very geeky sense of humour and references, means that this film is never dour or downbeat - despite Damon's Mark Watney frequently being confronted by almost certain death, and being realistic about that fact.  Occasionally the plot falls in to some predictable tropes - a scene where NASA director Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) says that Watney will survive until a planned supply drop so long as nothing goes wrong is followed by a scene where - hey! - something goes very badly wrong.  But it's easy to overlook these wobbles when the whole thing is skilfully pulled together by Director Ridley Scott (this is certainly his most enjoyable film for several years), a strong cast, and some incredible production and set design (with impeccable attention to detail).  It is fun, entertaining and gripping right up until the very end - a sci-fi film that doesn't dumb itself down in order to be a genuine crowd pleaser.

Verdict: Recommended

Sicario

There's a shot during the first act of this film that is a prime example of how this film uses numerous visual metaphors to depict its story of an idealistic law-enforcer being thrust in to a world where laws, and morals, are not as clear or strictly drawn as the one she comes from.  At this point Emily Blunt's FBI agent Kate Macer is on a Military base, a stop before heading to Mexico to arrest the leader of a drug cartel, as part of a team with genial but shifty Agent Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) and mysterious figure Alejandro (Bernicio Del Toro)  They drive past rows and rows of parked Armoured transports, and grounded Apache gunships, an image that suggests a war is being fought where the normal shows of military force are of no use.  This is one of several ways that the film examines the theme of law and order - specifically, how Americans would perceive it - in other parts of the world, other conflicts, where these do not apply.  This is a slow building, tense thriller - which sadly has been somewhat mis-sold by the trailers as being a more action-packed film.  Instead, the few scenes of gunplay are masterfully crafted moments of stomach-clenching tension that conclude in shockingly brief - and realistically portrayed - bursts of deadly violence.  Director Denis Villeneuve's previous film 'Prisoners' was underpinned by an examination of how post War on Terror politics and paranoia have impacted on the collective American Psyche, and this film seems a companion piece: asking to what extent American concepts of justice and order apply in conflicts that - through one way or another - are being perpetuated or exacerbated by US influences.  If none of that interested you, then the film is anchored by excellent performances from its cast - especially Blunt, who (following from 'Edge of Tomorrow') is cementing herself as an excellent leading actress.

Verdict: Recommended

Crimson Peak

With this film director Guillermo Del Toro proves that he is both a versatile director, and one possessed of a very distinct artistic vision.  Whilst many of the hallmarks of his previous work are present (insect forms, clockwork and machinery, ghostly forms, and quite a lot of blood), this film is much more of a Gothic-tinged period romance than any of his previous films have gone to.It evokes 'Jane Eyre' or Hitchcock's 'Rebecca' or 'Notorious'.  Funnily enough, whilst there are ghostly elements to the story, a couple of genuinely horrific touches, and a sweeping romance, this film never quite does enough with each of these elements to mark it as belonging to any one particular genre - and as such it does feel quite a mixed bag.  The first act of the film is possibly the weakest, set in 1900's New York state where young woman Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) meets charming English Baronette Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddlestone), who is trying to raise money from her wealthy father to invest in a machine that will revive the Sharpe's ailing fortune.  When Edith's father uncovers a secret regarding Sir Thomas and his sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain), he warns them away from Edith - before a tragedy throws Edith in to Sir Thomas's arms, and marriage.  The film then moves to Allerdale Hall, a fictional mansion somewhere on the same bleak, windswept moors where a Bronte novel might be set.  Here the film hits its stride, in the amazing, beautiful and creepy setting of the Hall - a decaying, gothic mansion that is incredibly realised with impeccable design and attention to detail.  From the imagination of Del Toro, we would expect no less.  The story is a tad predictable, probably because Del Toro's inspirations are so clear, and once the film moves to its Gothic home the highly earnest dialogue feels more comfortable.  The cast are effective in roles that are suited to them, even if they are a little archetypal of the kind of story being told; but the role of a charming nobleman, betraying just enough of his desperation, and the darkness behind him, is a perfect fit for Hiddlestone - as is that of Chastain for his possessive and jealous sister.  This might not be the best or most effective of Del Toro's films, but it is a visual feast with its incredible design and striking imagery, such as blood-red clay seeping through white snow nuder foot.

Verdict: Worth A Look


That's it for now - I'll be back with more film reviews soon.

Monthly Marvel Musings: Creating a rivalry between Marvel and DC movies is pointless and counter-productive

I'm about to start a new job, which I'm super excited about, but a minor down-side is that it'll involve a bit more commuting than my current one - as a result I'm anticipating I'll have a lot less time for this blog.  Especially over the next 6 months as I'll be intensively involved in finishing a course I'm doing.  So after this post things might go more quiet than they have been recently, but rest assured - I'm not giving up on it entirely.  Here's a post I've been planning on writing for almost two months - thanks for reading!

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Why a rivalry between Marvel and DC movies is pointless

If you enjoy comic book adaptations and the Superhero genre, this really is a golden era.  We've had a take on Batman that has embraced the fact comic book characters can have real world relevance, and make commentary on real world political situations.  We've had a take on X-Men that, over several films, have fully grasped the social commentary that underpins these characters, as well as the cinematic potential of portraying their mutant powers on screen.  And Marvel Studios are demonstrating that it is possible to turn cult, or less well-known characters, in to box office gold by focusing on what has made them so enduring in print - interesting characters and memorable stories.  Sure, there are still stumbles along the way - some adaptations don't work as well as others - but on the whole if you enjoy films, and you enjoy superhero stories, you've got to be pretty happy at the moment.

"Marvel's better than DC because-" "No, DC are better than Marvel!"  Err, hey, it IS possible to like both, okay?

Sadly this isn't enough, and with Warner Bros finally getting their act together and developing a shared big-screen universe for their DC properties, the rivalry between Marvel and DC is being reignited by many fans - regardless which company's work they prefer.  On one side, DC fans point out how most Marvel characters are 'imitations' of DC Characters established well before them - which is a good point: before Quicksilver there was The Flash; before Mr Fantastic there was the stretching Plastic Man; Green Arrow wielded a bow over 20 years before Hawkeye did; and many more besides.  On the other side of the argument, Marvel fans point out the popularity and success of the Marvel brand, with many characters becoming as iconic - more so, in a lot of cases - than DC.  On top of that the success of Marvel Studios, is being used by Marvel fans to sneer at DC.  But since the trailers for 'Batman vs Superman' and 'Suicide Squad' dropped some DC fans have gone on the attack, using the darker and more serious tone of these films to justify a point of view that they are making better Superhero movies than the Marvel ones.

To me, these attitudes - all of them - are pretty idiotic, and in fact completely counter-productive.  To my mind, whilst there is a difference in aesthetic and tone that will set the two franchises apart, key to them are two things: respect for the source material, and drawing upon why these characters have been, and still are, so beloved by fans after decades.  I would argue that these are the foundations that have given us films like Donner's 'Superman', Singer's 'X-Men', Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  All of these films are very different in their ways, and at the same time have been influenced by its predecessor.  For example, Singer made no secret of his love for Donner's first 'Superman' movie, and it influenced him making X-Men.  You can see how the success of the X-Men film - taking a fantastic concept (people with mutant powers), but honing in on the part that makes it relevant and grounded in the 'real world' - arguably spurred on Warners' decision to make their Nolan directed Batman reboot very realistic, grounded, and believable.  Kevin Feige, head of Marvel Studios, has spoken about how the success of Warners' Batman and other DC films enables Marvel Studios to keep making their films - and inspiring them to make them better.  And you can argue that without the success of 'Avengers Assemble', Warners/DC would not have got their act together and started the process of bringing the Justice League to the big screen.

'Batman Vs Superman' is looking to be a very exciting prospect - despite the initial scepticism of many (myself included)

So when you start banging a drum about which companies' characters are getting the better films, or the better on-screen shared universe, I do believe that you cheapen BOTH sets of films.  For example, 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman vs Superman' director Zack Snyder has spoken about his enjoyment of some of Marvel Studios' movies, and emphasising the difference in approach and tone the Warners' DC films are taking.  I can appreciate that - to me, it's not that the DC films have more 'real world' relevance/relatability (Marvel films have been doing this, only without banging on about it as vehemently - take 'Captain America The Winter Soldier's references to the ethics of drone warfare, or 'Iron Man 3's satirical swipes on the War on Terror, with a 'manufactured' threat to justify continual militarisation for arms companies to profit from).  I'd say the big difference is that Snyder is focusing upon the iconography of the comic portrayals of Batman and Superman, and also the 'mythic' qualities of the two, as representations of two sides of America's psyche (and how it is perceived by other countries).  Marvel, on the other hand, are very much about the characters, and bringing their iconic moments and stories to the screen, in a way that respects the source material and also works cinematically.

Sure Zack... DC Characters are always more serious than Marvel, and are making a big, sweeping, mythology.  Bet your faithfulness to the source material won't extend to putting a moment like this one in your DC films... (source: Cheezburger)

Unfortunately, Snyder recently made disparaging comments that suggest he looks down at certain comic/Superhero characters as somehow being lesser or inferior, when he described Ant-Man as a "flavor of the week" superhero.  After spending so much time emphasising his respect for the source material, looking to much admired and respected stories, authors and artists to inform his soon-to-be-released film, Snyder has arguably undone much of that with this comment, as it betrays a lack of respect for the history and significance of these other characters.  For example, although Ant-Man has never been as popular as many other superheroes (either Marvel or DC), it is a character with over 50 years of history, and in terms of story has been an integral part of many memorable and influential events: Ant-Man was in the original Avengers comic line-up, and was the creator of Ultron; not only that, the original Ant-Man Hank Pym was portrayed with significant psychological issues (including spousal abuse) long before the likes of Frank Miller began delving in to those that motivate a character like Batman.

So whilst some of his comments have been by and large neutral, Snyder's recent comments do seem to betray an opinion that Warner's DC movie universe will be 'better' than Marvel's.  This is highlighted by comments, not just from him, but other execs from Warners, that their films are 'serious' and relate to the 'real world'.  I've touched upon the 'real world' issues Marvel films have at least made reference to, but this is more about Marvel Studios including more moments of levity in their films - something that DC will avoid.  Putting in a witty one-liner, or a moment of humour, does not detract from making a comic book/Superhero movie a serious adaptation - it's a matter of putting these moments in the right place, at the right time, so that when there is a dramatic, shocking or emotional moment, these aren't undermined.  Making out that the DC movies will be 'better' because they're side-stepping this is disingenuous - although a serious tone suits Batman, DC fans would have to admit that in the comics there have been no end of goofy, silly, and pointlessly-funny moments (some better than others) - and that goes for Marvel comics too.  Look at DC characters on TV - the 'tone' is probably closer to what Marvel is doing, and it works - 'Arrow' and 'Flash' have been entertaining, fun when it's right, serious when it's right, emotional when it's right, witty when it's right to do so.  As great as it is when a writer really takes the psychology or social commentary inherent in a particular character seriously, people read comics first and foremost because they're fun (and because Superheroes are, most of all, awesome!).  So the people steering the DC films need to acknowledge this, and stop suggesting a 'serious tone' is better than including moments of levity.

Snyder is clearly aiming to take his visual cues from the depiction of the characters from the comic artwork, which a welcome approach and has got comic fans excited.

And it's not just approaches to the tone or the source material where Warners' have been making digs at Marvel; an executive suggested that Warners' DC movies would be better than Marvel Studios, as they would allow Directors to bring more of their creative voice and ideas to the DC property(ies) they direct.  Firstly, this is nonsense, because when you watch nearly all of the Marvel Studios films it is possible to see the influence of the Director - in fact, Marvel Studios choose their Directors because their previous work reflects the tone they want for the film.  Take Joe Johnston's 'Captain America The First Avenger' - with its pulpy tone, period setting, and retro sci-fi, it harkens back to Johnston's earlier film 'The Rocketeer', which has a massive cult following.  When you watch Jon Favreau's Iron Man movies, part of the reason they work (admittedly better on the first than the second) is the improvisational space he gives the actors, allowing them to bounce off each other and bring real charisma to the film.  And look at 'Guardians of the Galaxy' - it has just as much heart, sarcasm, wit and inappropriate humour as James Gunn's previous films as a director (like 'Slither' and 'Super') and writer (like the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake which - hey! - Snyder directed).  Having said that, there is a process these films go through - the producers know what they want to do, how they want to steer the franchise, and which parts of the comic they want to follow or take more from.  This means that compromises have to be made when Directors want to add something that they want in the film.  Gunn has acknowledged this, and Joss Whedon made no secret of the battles he had over parts of 'Avengers Age of Ultron' he wanted, and that the Studio wanted.  Warners are no less immune to this - further highlighting that the comments are nonsense, despite stating this, they fired planned director Michelle MacLaren from Wonder Woman, as her vision did not match what the studio wanted.

Who is right in these situations?  Is it the Director, who is struggling to bring artistic integrity to a film that is, at the end of the day, part of a corporate brand?  Or is it the studio, who wants to stay close enough to the source material so as to please fans and audiences with a satisfying (and financially successful) adaptation?  I'd say both, and to get there does require compromise, that is clear.  So for Warners to make out that their DC films will be more director led, and therefore have more 'creative' or artistic worth' but then lose a director because they didn't want her artistic and creative interpretation, again shows that this is at the very least and unhelpful (and arguably false) view.

For comic book and Superhero fans, the prospect of seeing the Trinity of Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman together on the big screen is a fairly momentous and exciting one...

Ultimately, trying to argue that one company's creative output in the same genre is better than another, at this point in time, is fairly pointless.  I grew up with the Donner Superman film, watching Batman on TV, reading Spiderman in comics, and thanks to Tim Burton's Batman and Singer's X-Men, I have never lost that fascination in these characters and stories in to my adulthood.  I will watch films based on Marvel or DC characters, and my expectation will be the same for all of them: that they will entertain me, that they will reinforce what it is about these characters that make them so enduring and flat-out cool; and I will be told one of the many stories that have enthralled readers for decades - in a way that is cinematic: visually thrilling and absorbing.

For the record, I am absolutely thrilled about seeing Batman Vs Superman, and Suicide Squad next year, and I am looking forward immensely to seeing the Justice League on the big screen, including all the characters that have made up that team in their own adventures.  Just because I am an avowed fan of the MCU does not mean I cannot be excited about the upcoming DC slate.  Sure, it may be that some of these movies don't live up to our hopes and expectations - that is always the way with this genre.  Marvel Studios has got its weaker films, and there are weaker entries in every other Superhero franchise (Marvel and DC based).  Ultimately, if you're someone who has ever enjoyed Superhero stories - regardless of whether they're in comics, as a cartoon, a tv drama, or a movie - you should be grateful and excited that we're in an era when Studios, Writers, Directors and Actors not only take the genre seriously, but want to make each film the best and most faithful adaptation they possibly can.  Arguing over which company does it better just mars this enjoyment, creates opinions that don't really stand up to much scrutiny - and is arguably counter-productive.

Instead, we should be very grateful that we are hopefully going to see great adaptations of characters and super-teams who've yet to have their shot at big screen success (The Flash, The Inhumans, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Justice League).  Whether they're Marvel creations or DC characters, I am excited to see their movies, and hope they get the treatment they deserve.  You might prefer the DC characters over Marvel, or vice-versa, but when either does well it is to the benefit of the other - whether it's the inspiration to do better, or showing that the risk of investing a budget to get the adaptation right is worth it for the Studio.  That is more productive than a silly argument whether Justice League are better than The Avengers...

Why 'Mad Max: Fury Road' was the best Blockbuster this Summer

To Hollywood this past weekend (the Labor Day holiday in the US) officially marks the end of the Summer, and with it the annual 'blockbuster' season.  This summer has been quite a good one at the Box Office, with notable record-breaking successes, some surprising hits, and the usual handful of (mostly unsurprising) misfires.  Whilst most of the blockbusters to hit at the Box Office have been solid, if unspectacular (Age of Ultron, Jurassic World, MI: Rogue Nation), there is one film this summer that has stood out as truly special.  It is a film that, given its journey to the screen, is remarkable it exists at all - the fact it turned out as good as it is, is almost miraculous.  I mean, who would have believed that a new entry to a franchise, coming almost 30 years after the last, with a completely different actor in the lead role, would turn out to be so great?  But 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is a phenomenal achievement, and this year's best blockbuster - here's why.

It is a thrilling, gripping and exhilarating action movie

While a lot of action blockbusters get criticised for weak or underdeveloped plot, there's also been a recent trend of some being criticised for having too much plot - being convoluted, confusing, or being full of holes.  'Fury Road' eschews both issues by being stripped down to almost a primal level - it is a relentless and intense chase movie.  The visuals inform the story without requiring reams of tedious expositional dialogue: the savage, yet strangely beautiful, sun-blasted desert wasteland, and the filthy, sore covered remnants of humanity, both tell the devastation of the post-apocalyptic world in a powerful and haunting way.  The fanaticism of the War Boys, throwing themselves from speeding vehicles with glee to certain death, and the wild and terrifying modifications to the vehicles, all speak of the madness that has consumed the human race after the fall of civilisation.  Using these effective sweeping strokes enables the film to concentrate on fulfilling its chief aim - of being a thrilling, almost continuous chase.  Part of the film's success at this is also down to some 'old school' film making approaches...

Actual people actually leapt from actual moving vehicles that were actually driving at high speeds... how was no one killed making this film??!?!?!

It defies the CGI trend with practical effects and stunts

Let's just stop and think about this for a moment: director George Miller had all these crazy and dangerous looking vehicles built for actual real, took them and the actors to the Namib Desert, then preceded to crash them and fling people from them.  At high speed.  At lethal speeds..!  And Warner Bros happily gave Miller the money and permission to do all this!  And we get to reap the benefits of this approach and the decisions behind it, because - for all the digital wonderment in films like 'Age of Ultron' and 'Jurassic World', seeing real vehicles and real people performing insane, lethal looking stunts added an incalculable amount to the tension and thrill of the continual chase that makes up most of the movie.  I don't think any other film this year had stunts as jaw-dropping as this film - mainly because, as you watch, you can't help but think that someone must have died, or at the very least been seriously injured, making this film?  Surely?!!?  The fact the stunts look so incredibly dangerous adds to the effectiveness of the film's action scenes; you feel there is a real risk of harm to the characters, making the stakes even greater than in many other films today.

Every character is given a sense of humanity

In the midst of all the action and insanity, Miller still manages to give each character a depth that few other blockbusters can manage, even when they have more dialogue or 'plot twists'.  It comes down to simple touches, but even the villains - easy to make stock characters with the depth of cardboard - are depicted with an eye that is at times neutral, even compassionate.  For example, take the first scene we meet central villain Immortan Joe - worshipped as a god by the War Boys, we see a frail old man, covered in weeping sores, reliant on oxygen canisters, before he dons the war plate and body armour.  Other villains are presented similarly, depicting their grotesque deformities alongside clothing  accoutrements that suggest they have some concept of the civilization that has gone, but has been distorted by madness.  Then there's Nux (Nicholas Hoult), who has one of the most convincing character arcs of recent films.  He goes on a genuine journey, so to speak, from a fanatic willing to die for Immortan Joe, having a crisis over what he believes in, before making a decision of whom he should rightly fight for.  The film also subverts a typical romantic sub-plot, when we see one of Immortan Joe's fleeing wives, Capable (Riley Keogh), develop a bond with Nux through a sort of fascination with him.  Instead of having them 'couple up', this platonic relationship is part of what enables Nux to move through his development as a character.

The typical 'romantic' sub-plot was neatly subverted by Nux and Capable's relationship - another thing that sets this head and shoulders above most other blockbusters

This is a film that empowers women

Look, I've previously discussed where I fit in with feminism, let's say I am sympathetic to any point of view that says that ANYBODY who is victimised or oppressed for any reason should not be treated in that way, or should accept that as their 'place' in life.  After growing up watching 'Aliens' I have no problem accepting strong, tough, female characters who are central at driving a plot or a movie - and this film delivers a superb example in Charlize Theron's Furiosa.  She is driven, resourceful, tough, yet compassionate.  She gets some excellent moments, including some the demonstrate ways that she is more capable than Tom Hardy's Max (like when she uses him as the stand for her rifle!), or in different ways to him.  There have been criticisms that she is more prominent than Max, but her centrality does not steal the film from Max - after all, it is  through Max that we get our way in to this world gone mad, and it is Max who leads their return to safety, finally confronting Immortan Joe and the War Boys.  There are some imbeciles who claim the film has an anti-male message, or belittles men.  No, the film treats men and women equally, and if you think that a film filled with cars, action and violence is pandering to feminism, then you're a complete ass-hat.

Furiosa was a revelation in this film.  But does her being a strong female character diminish Max's role at all?  No, he's still an absolute bad-ass, and - as the title suggests - has a couple of screws loose...

'Mad Max: Fury Road' delivered intense thrills, astonishing visuals, and a surprising level of depth, setting it head and shoulders above the rest of the Blockbuster batch this year.  That Warner Bros allowed George Miller to have $130 million +++, to go drive crazy cars around a desert in Africa, 30 years after the last film in the series, is remarkable.  That the resultant film is as outstanding as it is feels almost miraculous, and makes me feel we have been fortunate to witness it..!

Monthly Marvel Musings: How to (finally) get Fantastic Four right

This month I had intended to write a piece about the pointless ‘rivalry’ between Marvel and DC movies, but given the failure of ‘Fantastic Four’, and the fallout around it, I wanted to reflect on whether there is a future for these characters on screen.  In a nutshell, I am pleased to say that – despite everything – there is.

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Although many people have gleefully laid in to the new ‘Fantastic Four’ movie with a glee bordering on the macabre, I’ve got to admit the film’s failure has made me sad.  I saw the film a second time last week (I had promised to take my son), and as I began to enjoy parts of the first half of the film (especially the traumatic depiction of the accident that gives the team their powers), I actually found it saddening at the same time.  There was clearly an attempt to do something interesting and different with this superhero comic adaptation – but for various reasons it failed.  There’s mud-slinging going on from both sides, but ultimately it comes down to two things: Fox didn’t really want to make the film Josh Trank wanted to make – and the film was clearly rushed in to production to beat the deadline for the rights expiring, but before the script and plot had been properly settled upon.  This will be a film that people will take great pleasure in analysing the troubled production and fall out for many years to come – even though Fox claim they want to move forward with a sequel, it is likely they will consider the negative publicity, and box office failure of this film, to have tarnished the franchise too much.

Seems like everyone's got it in for the Fantastic Four lately...

It may be that, in months to come, Fox will sit down with Marvel Studios to discuss the rights to Fantastic Four.  If this happens it will be a good thing for comic book fans – despite the previous failed attempts to portray these characters correctly on the big screen, there is arguably still a way to get them right.  And that especially goes for Doctor Doom, the greatest Marvel villain, who Marvel Studios could incorporate in to some epic story lines and future movies.  If Marvel and Fox do start these discussions, how can a future movie based on Fantastic Four succeed where the previous ones failed?  Here are some of my ideas…

(Partly) set it in the era they were created – the 1960’s

It’s a well-known fact that over 10 years ago ‘Ant-Man’ director Peyton Reed was developing a '60's set Fantastic Four movie, which Fox abandoned.  It’s one of those great cinematic ‘What-Ifs?’, but it’s easy to imagine that that version would have been better than the films which were eventually made.  But I think this is a good starting point for any future FF movie – ‘Captain America The First Avenger’ and ‘X-Men First Class’ demonstrated that comic adaptations, set in the era they were first created, can work very well.  In the dream scenario that Marvel Studios get to work FF back in to the MCU, you could depict the forming of the team and them gaining their powers during that era – matching the same pulpy, retro Sci-Fi tone that was an element of the first Captain America film.  However, I say ‘partly’ because, well we’ve seen two origin stories for the team on film so far – the next version would be better to have the team already with their powers established, but show flash-backs to when they gained their powers (we've already had two version of their origin story on film).  This might make you question why, if they’ve been around since the '60's, have they not been mentioned or seen in the MCU before?  There’d be a very good reason for that…

Make this Marvel’s version of ‘Star Trek’

…this film would be an outer-space adventure, along the lines of Star Trek or the ‘Lost in Space’ series.  Although in the comics the FF are mainly earth-bound, many of their most famous and memorable stories have them encountering (and occasionally battling) various alien races and beings.  In fact several comic stories have them traversing across galaxies and dimensions, so why not their films?  This could tie back to their origin, and the ‘60’s setting: why not combine the classic origin story with the Ultimate version (which the current film takes its cues from), and have the team and Doctor Doom (more of which later) developing a new form of rocket that includes a very experimental form of drive which (unbeknownst to them) uses technology capable of crossing dimensions?  When the rocket is first tested there is an accident of some sort, which sends the team across space to an unknown galaxy – and giving them their powers as they cross alternative dimensions to get there.  

Several Fantastic Four stories take place in outer space, on alien worlds, or other dimensions - if you can't make them work 'on earth', why not set their stories in space then?

The film could then set up how the team are trying to make their way back to our galaxy, and earth, and encountering the aliens they’ve famously battled in the comics as they do so.  This approach would give Marvel Studios an opportunity to make a film in a genre they’ve not yet used (Kevin Feige is keen that each film is at least inspired by, or done in the style of, a different genre pic e.g. ‘The Winter Soldier’ = conspiracy thriller, ‘Ant-Man’ = heist movie) – the sort of Space-faring adventure that made ‘Star Trek’ and ‘Lost in Space’ so popular in their time.  This would give the comics fun tone, with its famous ‘family’ dynamic, a setting where it would feel more appropriate, and so (hopefully) work better.  Having them trekking (!) through space would reflect their classic team /family dynamic: Johnny Storm would be the pilot, Ben 'The Thing' Grimm the ship's engineer, Reed Richards the Chief science officer, and Sue Storm the vessel's chief medical officer.  You could feed them in to the MCU through a future Guardians of the Galaxy film (they could be introduced in a cameo or post-credits sting) before depicting their own adventure, which in turn could set up the coming of Galactus and Annihilus – surely worthy of being the antagonists of a future Avengers movie?  But that’s not the only villain you would be getting in to the MCU…

Doctor Doom could finally be portrayed right

Even if the current Fantastic Four reboot had been better, it still would have arguably failed in one important area: faithfully and effectively portraying Doctor Doom on screen.  As I mentioned in my review, the film portrayals need to stop trying to play down all the elements that make up the character, and fully embrace the near-operatic scope.  I would argue Doom could be introduced before the FF themselves, as a back-ground villain/threat, in the same way that Thanos has been used in the MCU so far.  Certainly, in the comics, he is the most powerful Marvel villain (he recently stood against inter-dimensional beings capable of destroying entire universes!) – but he has surprising nuances.  Whilst he is a totalitarian leader of his native Latveria (making a nice counter to Captain America and his espousing of democracy and freedom), under his rule the country and its people have prospered.  As well as being a scientific genius and strategic master, his background is marred by tragedy; in the comics there are a number of stories where he is trying to rescue his mother’s soul from hell and the devil himself.

A successful translation of Doctor Doom on screen should completely embrace the part where he is the ruler of Latveria

I think this can be reworked slightly to make Doom an amazing villain in the MCU.  Over the course of several films, the heroes could discover (or inadvertently discover) links between their films’ villains and Latveria.  Over time it becomes clear that Doom is behind these – but no one can act because he is hidden behind a diplomatic wall as ruler of Latveria, where he rarely leaves.  Eventually, someone discovers what Doom is trying to do – create a transport to cross dimensions.  He has been doing this because his father, almost 70 years ago, had been experimenting on the very same thing – and during one of the experiments Doom’s mother was sucked through to another dimension (a change to the comics that would feel plausible, but allowing potential crossover with Doctor Strange, as in the source material).  Ever since, Doom has made it his life’s work to perfect the technology and rescue his lost mother.

This is how he became involved with the Fantastic Four – he helped them to develop and build their rocket as a way of furthering his own experiments on the dimensional crossing technology.  Of course, he still hadn’t perfected this, resulting in the accident which banishes the Fantastic Four, and leaves him with the disfigurement requiring him to live his life in a suit of powered armour.  As his experiments continue, the Fantastic Four (who have been tracking Galactus as a way of finding their way back to Earth) and other MCU characters (e.g. Doctor Strange) realise he is drawing dangerous beings towards Earth – beings such as Galactus, the devourer of worlds.  Desperate to intervene, but unable to due to international political will, SHIELD sends a covert team to Latveria (Secret Avengers) to try and stop him – they fail and Doom retaliates by attacking New York and the UN.  Eventually Galactus reaches earth – and it takes the combined might of the Avengers and the newly returned Fantastic Four to defeat the cosmic being.  Another team of heroes eventually defeat Doom, but not before he has activated his technology – and brought the attention of other extra-dimensional beings (e.g. Annihilus), setting things up for the next phase of MCU movies.

Doom hasn't only taken on the Fantastic Four - he's possibly the most central of Marvel's villains.

Taking this approach would arguably give enough space to develop a portrayal of Doom that is respectful and faithful enough to the comics to work on screen.  Here you would have a Doom that is as powerful – intellectually, politically, and of course in terms of abilities – as he should be; but also nuanced and interesting enough to make him a great movie villain, worthy enough to sustain several films.  Because as great as the Fantastic Four could potentially be, Doom has possibly the greatest value in terms of potential stories to adapt.  In the comics he has crossed over with pretty much all of the Marvel characters at some time – The Avengers, Iron Man, Spiderman, X-Men – so there is enormous potential.  Not to mention the fact he is not just a one-dimensional villain, but a comparatively nuanced character with at times morally ambiguous motives, and a surprisingly sympathetic element to his backstory.  But, he is a proper villain, who would think nothing of sacrificing any who stands in the way of fulfilling his plans – and most importantly he has the power to achieve these (not to mention overcome the heroes).

This franchise needs to go home

There’s little doubt, almost everything about Fantastic Four – including the villains – would be much more at home in the MCU; so hopefully in the coming months there will be financial pressure on Fox, following the financial failure of the latest ‘Fantastic Four’, to negotiate the return of the rights to Marvel Studios.  Because even though the fans are saying that this is what they want – there’s even a petition calling for this – any discussions between Fox and Marvel Studios will only happen because the accountants at Fox decide the only way for the franchise to make money is either selling it back, or sharing (ala Spidey/Sony).  And this is the strange thing in all of this – whilst it is sad to see a talented director and cast potentially have their careers tarnished as a result of this film, on the other hand it is potentially exciting that Fantastic Four might finally have their chance to join the MCU.  Time will tell!

Please Fox - sell the rights back to Marvel Studios! They'll be happy.  We'll be happy.  The Fantastic Four will be happy.  You'll be happy !  Well, happier than you were when the box office for the current film's opening weekend came in, I should imagine...