Film review

Fantastic Four

2015 · Directed by Josh Trank · 1h 40m · MPA PG-13

In a sentenceA promising cast explains the science until we no longer want to know

ActionAdventureScience Fiction

Reed Richards (Miles Teller), Sue Storm (Kate Mara), Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan) and Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) have yet to become a superhero team. Scientific work and their early relationships occupy the opening stretch, with Victor von Doom (Toby Kebbell) also part of the story. The younger generation’s ambitions run up against questions of who gets to make decisions and who has to obey them. Before the action begins, Reed and the others have to establish how they relate to one another, with personal ambitions complicating the task of working together.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four gives its cast a serious origin story, then leaves them with explanations instead of relationships. There is promise in the quieter scenes, but the film is tedious and the action poorly assembled.

Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four wants to spend time with its young people before asking them to carry a superhero film. The more appealing early scenes concern ambition, awkward relationships and the older generation’s determination to remain in charge. Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara and Jamie Bell are good reasons to give that approach a chance. But the film keeps explaining its science while neglecting its people, and the result is poor.

Miles Teller’s Reed Richards has to give the scientific talk a human purpose, and he cannot do that on his own. Michael B. Jordan brings welcome energy to Johnny Storm, though the surrounding film does little with it. Kate Mara’s Sue Storm and Jamie Bell’s Ben Grimm need more room to establish what they mean to the others. Toby Kebbell gives Victor von Doom an edge that briefly cuts through the general solemnity. These are useful individual contributions, but the group seldom convinces as people who would choose to spend time together.

The screenplay, credited to Josh Trank, Jeremy Slater and Simon Kinberg, spends too much time explaining how things work. Technical dialogue can be pleasurable if someone speaking it wants something we understand, or if the exchange changes a relationship. Here it too often stops the scene while information is delivered. We were bored by the scientific explanations, then irritated by how little the quartet had been allowed to say to one another beyond them. The occasional small character detail makes that neglect harder to excuse.

Matthew Jensen’s cinematography suits the early, low-key approach, giving the quieter performances a chance to hold our attention. Chris Seagers’s production design likewise helps make the scientific work credible, even when the explanations have become wearying. The effects are less convincing, and their obvious artificiality makes the growing emphasis on action a poor bargain. Philip Glass and Marco Beltrami’s music takes the material seriously, but it cannot supply the feeling missing from the dialogue.

Stephen E. Rivkin and Elliot Greenberg’s editing leaves a persistent sense of scenes being shortened before anything between the characters has been settled. For a film running 100 minutes, it finds a remarkable amount of time for exposition and surprisingly little for its cast to respond. When the action takes over, the cutting becomes choppy without making the film exciting. The shift is so abrupt that the earlier care with tone begins to look wasted. Even the action offers little relief from the sluggish pace.

A superhero origin story does not have to be cheerful, and taking young characters seriously is no offence against the genre. Nor does a film owe us a joke whenever someone looks unhappy. It does need curiosity about what makes its central group stay together, especially when it spends so long establishing them. Josh Trank occasionally finds that curiosity in a small emotional exchange, then returns to explanation. Most critics have found the film tedious and muddled; we agree, though its early restraint and committed cast make the disappointment sharper.

If this particular cast is enough to make the evening, there are scattered moments worth staying for. We would not sit through the rest merely to collect them. This is one to leave to the completists.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

35
Positive
1
Mixed
2
Negative
13

Most critics find Fantastic Four a tedious, muddled reboot that wastes a promising cast. Praise, where it appears, centres on the actors and the early attempt to build a quieter, character-led origin story. Several reviews see potential in its darker treatment of the characters’ transformation, but find those ideas poorly developed. The recurring complaints are heavy exposition, weak effects and action that arrives without enough dramatic groundwork. Even the more receptive notices acknowledge a gap between the early promise and the later superhero business.

The sharpest divide concerns that restrained opening: some critics find it intimate and likeable, while others see only slow pacing and thin relationships. Scores range widely, though thirteen of the sixteen reviews are negative. Little White Lies stands apart, embracing the film as a spirited B-film with meaningful character details and something to say about generational power. Elsewhere, reservations repeatedly cluster around the rushed climax and squandered cast.

Little White Lies
6 August 2015 · 1/4/3 · David Jenkins
80

The critic finds it a really good film, a feisty B-movie with something to say. Small, meaningful character touches and subtle emotional spectrum stand out amid themes of generational power struggles.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
7 August 2015 · Richard Godwin
50*

The reboot feels intimate and indie-like despite its budget, with strong casting and groundwork for future films in its grounded, character-driven origins story recast as psychodrama and entrepreneurship. However, the shift to action comes too late, subtleties are squandered, VFX are patchy, and the final battle feels tacked-on and low-stakes.

Read the full review →
Time Out
5 August 2015 · Tom Huddleston
50*

A film of two halves: the first likeable and fun in a Joe Dante vein, the second tiresome and loud with naff catchphrases and lifeless punch-ups. Early promise to transcend the source material is undermined by duff CG and superhero clichés.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · Alan Jones
40

The first family of Marvel comics gets royally shafted again in a banal and tedious reboot. Trank fails to bring the shrewd naturalism of Chronicle, resulting in perfunctory CG, trite exposition and cardboard cut-out stuff.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
4 August 2015
40*

Fantastic Four emerges as a wounded animal of a superhero movie, only rarely showing flashes of the darker, more emotional breed it aims for. A good cast is swallowed up in a narrative that grows progressively more muddled and tedious, with choppy action scenes.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
13 August 2015 · Richard Brody
30*

The critic argues the film should have been great but was ruined by studio interference that diluted Trank's vision, resulting in a critical and commercial disappointment.

Read the full review →

Cast

Stills

Awards

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture, 2015

Won
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture

If you liked this, try…

Chronicle poster

Chronicle

2012 · Young people acquire powers, and the damage to their friendship actually matters

The Fly poster88

The Fly

1986 · Scientific ambition brings physical consequences that the film has the nerve to examine

The Host poster

The Host

2006 · A fractious family gives the creature attacks people worth worrying about

Akira poster83

Akira

1988 · Adolescent resentment and dangerous powers are given time to become frightening

The Invisible Man poster

The Invisible Man

1933 · An experiment goes wrong, with wit and menace sharing the same small spaces