Posted on: Friday, July 8, 2005
Posted on: Friday, July 8, 2005
Posted on: Friday, July 8, 2005
'Fantastic Four' only ho-hum heroes
Advertiser News Services
The reviews are in, and they're harsh to lukewarm. Now it's up to comic-book fans to decide at the box office. Here's what the movie critics say:
David Germain, Associated Press: " 'Fantastic Four' got there first, developing the concept of superheroes as a dysfunctional family four decades ago. But 'The Incredibles' did it far, far better on the big screen."
Chris Hewitt, Knight Ridder News Service: "Instead of the serious approach of 'Batman Begins' or the pulpy one of 'Spider-Man 2,' 'Fantastic Four' wants to be a silly, jokey superhero movie. Except that it's not very funny."
Tom Long, Detroit News: "If any comic book series ever deserved better, it's 'Fantastic Four,' the original Marvel sensation. There is one glaring exception — the actors cast in the starring roles shine (you could even say one's on fire). Please, Hollywood, please: Don't abandon this franchise. Just find the right people to run it."
Roger Moore, Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel: "Fantastic? Naaah. But cute, occasionally funny. And never ever for one brief instant is 'Fantastic Four' serious. In this, the summer of our discontent, it'll do. Here's a comic-book movie that knows its origins, that understands its place. No big message. No brooding Bruce Wayne. No weight of the world, shadowy forces of evil. ... 'Four' is just a popcorn popper, a cinematic sugar buzz. And blessedly so."
Chris Vognar, Dallas Morning News: "Rarely terrible, let alone memorable, it's a brutally average piece of disposable summer entertainment that fades from the mind like some hazy, half-sleeping dream. The heroes are bland. The action is minimal. The story is thinner than fantastic in mid-stretch."
