Month: March 2023

“All that you know is at an end.” —Silver Surfer

Today’s quick review: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. When the planet-devouring being known as Galactus sets its sights on Earth, it sends the Silver Surfer (Laurence Fishburne) to prepare the planet for its arrival. The Fantastic Four (Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Michael Chiklis, and Chris Evans) must join forces with a revitalized Doctor Doom (Julian McMahon) to defeat the Surfer and save the Earth from Galactus.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is a superhero action comedy based on the Marvel Comics characters. Rise of the Silver Surfer picks up with the wedding of Reed Richards and Sue Storm, a media circus that is interrupted by a global crisis. The sequel has the same ligh tone and likable cast as the original, but its script is not as cohesive. Misbalanced humor and a gimmick-laden plot undermine the makings of a fun sci-fi adventure.

Rise of the Silver Surfer has two major points in its favor: its character dynamics and the Silver Surfer himself. Like the first movie, the sequel is at its best when the Four are get the chance to play off one another, for both drama and comedy. Meanwhile, the Silver Surfer is a nigh-perfect adaptation of the character, with sleek CGI, iconic action, and the excellent combination of Laurence Fishburne’s voice and Doug Jones’ motion capture.

Where the movie runs into issues is with its script. The movie touches on some interesting challenges for the Four, including the decision of whether to remain celebrities or to give up the superhero life, but the drama ends up feeling forced. The story relies too much on the Silver Surfer’s power as a plot device, using it to restore Doctor Doom to normal, saddle Johnny with a power-swapping gimmick, and anything else the movie needs done.

The result is a sequel that will hold some appeal for fans of the original, but which does not have the same polish or sense of proportion. Rise of the Silver Surfer gets a few things right, including its cast and its titular antagonist, but the surrounding writing is weak. Give it a shot if you’re in the mood for a light popcorn watch in the same vein as the original. Skip it if you’re looking for something more overtly impressive.

For a large-scale superhero movie about an alien invasion, try The Avengers. For another showcase of Doug Jones’ talents, try Hellboy or The Shape of Water.

[5.6 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486576/). I give it a 6.5 for a fun but somewhat inconsistent adventure.

“You missed me.” —Johnny Storm

Today’s quick review: Fantastic Four. During a research mission in space, Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis), and Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) are bombarded with cosmic rays, altering their genetic structure and giving them fantastic powers. As the four adjust to life in the public eye, Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon), the sponsor of the experiment, undergoes a darker transformation of his own.

Fantastic Four is a superhero action comedy based on the Marvel Comics characters. The story follows four heroes as they grow accustomed to their new powers and use them to help the public. Fantastic Four is a light movie that preserves the spirit of its source material while adjusting the details to better fit the needs of the movie. Its playful sense of humor and a few well-placed action sequences make it a fun pick for the right viewer.

Much of Fantastic Four’s charm comes from its characters. The cast play off each other well, capturing the familial dynamic between Reed, Sue, Ben, and Johnny. Their banter, coupled with the joy of exploring their powers, gives the movie a ready source of humor. At the same time, the Four’s loyalty to each other gives the movie an optimistic tone. The result is a simple but earnest take on the superhero genre with a few nice touches.

Still, Fantastic Four has a few drawbacks compared to other superhero movies. Its action is not as lavish or as awe-inspiring as other films’, although it does suffice for the story at hand. The tone may be a little too light for some viewers, with no deeper themes and only a smattering of drama. The movie also relies heavily on its cast, so anyone who dislikes the dynamic between the Four will not get much out of it.

Fantastic Four is a modest entry into the superhero genre that gets by on character and humor rather than a grandiose plot. Superhero fans who are willing to take the movie on its own terms will find it to be a hidden gem, one with likable characters, a pure spirit, and a serviceable plot. Fans who are looking for exceptional quality should be wary, as it’s missing the clever script, pathos, and large-scale action other movies bring to the table.

For a darker take on the characters, try the remake directed by Josh Trank. For a superhero adventure with an even more playful spirit, try Shazam!. For a more iconic superhero movie from the same era, try Spider-Man.

[5.7 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120667/). I give it a 7.0 for fun characters and light adventure.

“We’re going to have to watch that temper of yours.” —David Banner

Today’s quick review: Hulk. Bruce Banner (Eric Bana), a scientist on the verge of a medical breakthrough, has his life turn into a nightmare when he is exposed to his own treatment, turning him into a green-skinned monster known as the Hulk. Hunted by General Ross (Sam Elliott), Bruce seeks help from Betty (Jennifer Connelly), his friend and Ross’ daughter. Meanwhile, Bruce’s abusive father David (Nick Nolte) hatches his own plan for his son.

Hulk is a superhero action movie directed by Ang Lee. Eric Bana stars as Bruce Banner, a troubled scientist who becomes an indestructible monster when angered. The movie offers an extensive look at Bruce’s origins, tracing his transformation into the Hulk back to his father’s questionable experiments on him as a child. Hulk is a heavily stylized movie with effective drama, but it may be too slow and story-focused for some viewers’ tastes.

Hulk’s strengths lie with its story and, subjectively, with its stylization. The movie does a good job of fleshing out Bruce’s background, making his transformation into something more meaningful than a random accident. The personal angle works well, putting an emphasis on Bruce’s character and his repressed trauma. The movie also juggles its plot threads well, tying together Bruce’s childhood, his present-day research, and his transformation.

The movie’s stylization is a mixed bag. Hulk uses a wide range of visual effects to tell its story, including split screen, comic book panels, and a very active camera. On the one hand, these effects give the movie a distinct style and are the result of a clear vision. On the other hand, they can be distracting. Watching Hulk is not as simple as letting the action unfold; the audience has to adjust to the movie’s particular rhythm.

Hulk also lacks the simple, popcorn appeal that other superhero movies have. The movie takes a long time to get its pieces in place, and the story is darker and more intricate than the standard for the genre. The action is large-scale and destructive when it finally kicks off, but the first half of the movie is a slow boil. Hulk gambles that the audience will be engrossed by its story, a gamble that does not necessarily pay off.

Hulk is a movie with a clear artistic vision, but one that will not appeal to everyone. Fans who are interested in a stylized, story-driven take on the character will find Hulk to be an interesting experiment, albeit one whose particular style may not fit their tastes. Fans who are looking for fun, uncomplicated action will find that the movie misses the mark.

For a less stylized, more action-oriented adaptation of the same source material, try The Incredible Hulk. For a similarly stylized sci-fi action movie with more of a cartoonish bent, try Speed Racer. For an unconventional take on the superhero genre that touches on similar conflicts, try Push. For a more comedic superhero movie about a science experiment gone wrong, try Fantastic Four.

[5.6 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a decent story with overly stylized presentation.

“I’m not too crazy about the outfit either.” —Father Everett

Today’s quick review: Daredevil. Blinded by a childhood accident, Matt Murdock (Ben Affleck) now leads a double life: a lawyer by day and a costumed vigilante by night. Matt finds a kindred spirit when he meets Elektra (Jennifer Garner), a wealthy heiress with a talent for martial arts. But his prowess is put to the test when crime kingpin Wilson Fisk (Michael Clarke Duncan) sends the assassin Bullseye (Colin Farrell) to kill Elektra’s father.

Daredevil is a superhero action movie based on the Marvel Comics character. Ben Affleck stars as Matt Murdock, a blind man whose superhuman senses and martial arts training give him the tools he needs to fight crime. Daredevil offers a modern take on the character’s origin, emphasizing his powers, his burden, and the sadistic nature of his enemies. The result is an action movie with a modest scope and a style that won’t appeal to everyone.

Daredevil is a movie with attitude. Everything from its costume design to its camerawork to its soundtrack is designed to paint a very specific picture of its world. At its best, this makes for a movie that is honest about its intentions and stylish in its presentation. The action scenes are fun in an over-the-top way. There are a handful of clever Easter eggs for comic book fans. And while the story is simple, it covers the ground it needs to.

However, most of Daredevil’s choices are double-edged. Its style dates it to the 2000s and may seem tacky to modern superhero fans. Its darker take on Matt Murdock is missing the optimism typically seen in superhero movies, although Matt’s harsher tactics are dealt with in-story. The story also seems like it is missing a few steps. The Kingpin largely has a background role, while Matt’s job as an attorney has no real plot significance.

How much you get out of Daredevil will depend heavily on how much you like its particular style. Comic book fans looking for a faithful adaptation may find its departures to be too much, while general audiences may not like the heavy-handed way it sets its tone. But for viewers who enjoy the quirks of 2000s-style action movies, Daredevil makes for a fun watch, albeit a flawed one. Give it a watch if you’re willing to not take it too seriously.

For a more flawed superhero movie in a similar vein, try Elektra or Catwoman. For a more successful take on a dark superhero story, try Batman Begins. For a horror-tinged superhero movie with a similarly conflicted main character, try Ghost Rider. For another Marvel adaptation about a troubled vigilante, try The Punisher.

[5.3 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287978/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a fun but basic take on the character.

Today’s quick review: Bananas. After a breakup with his politically active girlfriend Nancy (Louise Lasser), Fielding Mellish (Woody Allen) travels to the island of San Marcos to see what life is like under the dictator Emilio Vargas (Carlos Montalban). When Vargas tries to have Mellish killed as part of a plot to frame his enemies, Mellish becomes the reluctant leader of a band of rebels seeking to overthrow Vargas and establish democracy.

Bananas is a political comedy written and directed by Woody Allen. Allen stars as an American college dropout who ends up at the center of a revolution in a small Latin American country. Bananas puts a wry spin on modern culture and politics. Mellish, an ordinary man, is swept up in the current of events, becoming first a victim, then a leader, and finally a scapegoat. Bananas has sharp writing and an interesting premise, but it lacks flow.

Bananas’ strength lies in its individual jokes. The movie has plenty to say about topics ranging from love and romance to the cyclical nature of political revolutions. Mellish’s insecurities are a reliable source of humor, and his attempts to navigate the world around him serve to highlight its absurdity. Bananas also has its fair share of jokes that are simply absurd for their own sake, without any deeper cultural commentary.

The main drawback of Bananas is that it does not flow well. The jokes work well on their own, but many of them are shoehorned in somewhere vaguely appropriate, rather than arising naturally from the story. This leads to a movie that’s full of brief tangents, stopping the plot temporarily for the sake of a joke that may or may not hit the mark. The story itself is also thin, more a vehicle for humor than something that stands on its own.

Bananas is a solid pick for fans of Woody Allen’s comedy, but how much you get out of it will depend on your specific tastes. Those who enjoy dry humor, awkward situations, cultural commentary, and a dash of absurdity will get the most out of the movie. Those who prefer comedies that are more character-driven and cohesive should approach with caution.

For subtler and more artistically ambitious cultural commentary from Woody Allen, try Zelig. For another absurd comedy from Woody Allen about a man far away from his home, try Sleeper.

[7.0 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066808/). I give it a 6.5 for fine jokes but poor cohesion.

“Don’t you dare call me that again until I have looked it up!” —Dr. Fritz Fassbender

Today’s quick review: What’s New Pussycat. Michael James (Peter O’Toole), a ladies’ man with a roving eye, has a problem. No matter how hard he tries, he can’t bring himself to settle down with his girlfriend Carole (Romy Schneider). Michael seeks help from Dr. Fritz Fassbender (Peter Sellers), a sex-crazed psychiatrist with problems of his own. But as more beautiful women enter his life, Michael finds himself sorely tempted.

What’s New Pussycat is a romantic comedy written by Woody Allen. The movie follows the misadventures of a womanizer as he walks down the winding path towards fidelity. What’s New Pussycat is a playful look at love, relationships, and the baser instincts that tempt people to stray. Its madcap comedy reflects the styles of Peter Sellers and Woody Allen, while Michael’s struggles give it just enough of a story to be satisfying.

What’s New Pussycat draws most of its strength from its cast. Peter O’Toole makes for a suave lead as Michael, whose good intentions take the sting off his philandering. Peter Sellers and Woody Allen frequently steal the scene with their outrageous supporting roles, while Paula Prentiss, Capucine, and Ursula Andress add to the chaos. This varied cast lets the movie pivot between overt jokes, subtler humor, and touches of romance at will.

There are a few catches, however, ranging from matters of taste to rough patches in the script. The movie’s raunchy humor and exaggerated characters will not be everyone’s cup of tea, nor will its frequent tangents. The jokes are fired off haphazardly, and some are bound to miss their mark. What’s New Pussycat also has a habit of resorting to chaos whenever it gets stuck, culminating in a fun but messy finale as all its characters collide.

What’s New Pussycat is an entertaining comedy with a talented cast, but it will not appeal to everyone. Fans of Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, and madcap comedy will feel the most at home, as will viewers who enjoy the culture and sense of humor of the 60s. Viewers who prefer tightly plotted comedies with more subdued humor may find that the movie misses as often as it hits.

For a similar style of comedy about a man trying to cheat on his wife, try A Guide for the Married Man. For another story about cheating with much less glamor, try Last of the Red Hot Lovers. For a chaotic take on the 60s starring Peter Sellers, try The Party. For another tongue-in-cheek comedy about the perils and joys of marriage, try How to Murder Your Wife. For a crime comedy with an even more convoluted plot, try The Pink Panther.

[6.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059903/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for a talented cast, outrageous humor, and a few rough edges.

Today’s quick review: Zelig. In the 1920s, the world is astounded by the discovery of Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen), a social chameleon who takes on the traits of anyone he comes in contact with. Dr. Eudora Fletcher (Mia Farrow), a psychiatrist looking to make her reputation, takes on Zelig’s case and tries to teach him to have a personality of his own. But as the real Zelig starts to emerge, a relationship sparks between them.

Zelig is a historical comedy written and directed by Woody Allen. The movie is framed as a documentary about Leonard Zelig, an emotionally stunted man whose personality and physical appearance change to fit his surroundings. Zelig goes to great lengths to bring this premise to life, editing its actors into historical footage and producing fake evidence of Leonard’s extraordinary life. The result is an odd comedy that carves out a niche of its own.

Zelig holds a very specific sort of appeal. First of all, the care it puts into its premise is remarkable. The movie does a capable job of replicating the documentary format, down to the footage, songs, and merchandise “preserved” from Leonard’s time in the spotlight. Zelig’s story parodies the rise and fall of other public figures, with an emphasis on the fast pace of American life in the 20s and 30s.

One side effect of this format is that Zelig has a lower density of jokes than other comedies. A significant portion of the movie is spent on the nuts and bolts of the documentary, with the humor slipped in around the edges. The jokes are sharp and creative, earning the movie its share of laughs, but their spacing makes it something of a dry watch. Zelig is as much a thought experiment as an outright comedy.

The last pillar of the movie is Leonard himself. The movie approaches its subject in a sidelong fashion, showing his public impact before delving into who he is as a person. This leads to reduced screen time for Woody Allen and a relatively short period to develop Leonard. But Zelig makes the most of that time, quickly establishing Leonard as a sympathetic figure. This, in turn, gives the movie the emotional core it needs to hang together.

Zelig is a fascinating movie on several levels. Its dedication to its premise, clever humor, and short but effective emotional arc give it a unique payoff for those willing to give it a try. Still, its detached presentation style and understated humor may get in the way of some viewers’ enjoyment. Zelig is well worth a shot for those interested in the premise, but fans of more overt humor may want to approach with caution.

For another fake documentary with a comedic bent, try This is Spinal Tap. For a more emotional story about a fictional character inserted into important historical events, try Forrest Gump. For a true story about an impostor, try Catch Me If You Can. For a similar comedy about an unusual man’s relationship with society, try Being There.

[7.7 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086637/). I give it a 7.0 for an inventive premise with mixed impact.

“Great Scott!” —Marty McFly

Today’s quick review: Back to the Future Part III. When the DeLorean malfunctions and traps Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) in 1885, Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) makes one last trip into the past to rescue him. There he finds Doc embroiled in a feud with Buford “Mad Dog” Tannen (Thomas F. Wilson), one that the history books say will be fatal. Things are further complicated when Doc falls in love with Clara (Mary Steenburgen), the new schoolteacher.

Back to the Future Part III is a sci-fi comedy adventure set in the Old West. Doc and Marty must use their limited resources to repair the DeLorean and get back home, all while trying to avoid outlaws and romantic entanglements. The Western setting breathes new life into the series, giving Part III a whole new set of tools to work with. Meanwhile, the characters and humor are as strong as ever, making Part III a worthy finale to the trilogy.

The Old West setting works surprisingly well. On paper, the time period seems like an arbitrary pick. But in practice, the setting puts an interesting spin on the series formula. The limited technology of the era makes Doc’s inventions stand out. The Western genre opens up a new flavor of action for the movie. And Buford Tannen is the glue that holds it all together, a dangerous incarnation of Biff who helps recalibrate the story for the Old West.

The other major strength of Part III is its character development. After two movies, Michael J. Fox and Christohper Lloyd have settled into an easy rhythm together, and their banter is nearly flawless. Seeing them reunited, even after a brief separation, gives the movie an endearing quality. Meanwhile, Doc’s love story with Clara adds just the right amount of depth to the character, hinting at a life beyond the latest adventure.

Give Back to the Future Part III a shot if you enjoyed either of the first two movies. How it compares to Part II will come down to personal taste, with Part II getting the nod for creativity and humor, while Part III has a greater emphasis on story and character. Either way, Part III is well worth a watch when you’re in the mood for a light and inventive comedy adventure.

For a more fully developed Western that balances drama and levity, try Tombstone. For a comedic Western with an ensemble cast, try Silverado.

[7.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099088/). I give it a 7.5 for an enjoyable take on the series formula.

“Talk about deja vu!” —Marty McFly

Today’s quick review: Back to the Future Part II. Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) takes Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) to the future to save his family from a bad fate. But in doing so, Marty accidentally gives his nemesis Biff (Thomas F. Wilson) the chance to change the timeline, using his knowledge of the future to take over Hill Valley. Marty and Doc must travel back to 1955 to undo the damage, all without causing further paradoxes.

Back to the Future Part II is a sci-fi comedy adventure that picks up immediately after the events of the original movie. After a brief jaunt to 2015, Marty and Doc are left with another temporal crisis on their hands. Back to the Future Part II features the same flavor of light humor and adventure as the first one. However, a looser script and a goofier world make it a step down from the focus and precision of its predecessor.

Back to the Future Part II suffers from two key problems: an outlandish setting and a self-indulgent story. The movie opts for a comical vision of the future rather than a grounded one, focusing on cheap jokes and callbacks rather than the insightful contrasts seen in the first film. Meanwhile, the story relies too heavily on nostalgia for the first film. There are some new ideas mixed in, but parts of the story feel like a rehash.

Even with these faults, Back to the Future Part II is still a memorable and entertaining watch. Seeing Marty and Doc in action is always a joy, and their chemistry is as strong as ever. The future of 2015 is not nearly as grounded as it could have been, but it opens up some fun opportunities for action and humor. In general, Part II has the same charm as the original, just applied to wilder subject matter with less sense of proportion.

Back to the Future Part II is a solid pick if you enjoyed the first movie. Although it makes a few missteps along the way, its great cast, imaginative premise, and iconic moments make it well worth a watch. Approach with caution if you are hoping for more realistic speculation about the future. For a time travel romp in a similar vein, try Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure. For an even sillier vision of the future, try Sleeper.

[7.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096874/). I give it a 7.5 for great characters and fun humor.

“Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads!” —Doc Brown

Today’s quick review: Back to the Future. Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) ends up stranded in the past when Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd), an eccentric inventor, turns a DeLorean into a time machine. Trapped in 1955 with no way back, Marty accidentally prevents his mother (Lea Thompson) from meeting his father (Crispin Glover) for the first time. To fix the timeline and get back home, Marty asks a younger Doc Brown for help.

Back to the Future is a sci-fi comedy adventure about a teenager who goes back in time from 1985 to 1955. Back to the Future takes a relatively simple premise and spins it into a rich and colorful story. Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd are perfect fits for the roles of Marty and Doc, giving the film a solid foundation to build on. Back to the Future then layers on a fun sense of humor and a unique story, securing its place as a modern classic.

Back to the Future is greater than the sum of its parts. Every piece of the film works well on its own and contributes to the whole. The 1950s setting is both a fascinating glimpse of the past and the setup for countless jokes about the present. Marty McFly is both a likable protagonist in his own right and a confident foil for his unassertive father. These synergies and others like them make Back to the Future a robust movie with surprising depth.

Back to the Future also has a keen eye for detail. It never misses a chance to slip in a joke, say something about a character, or set up a plot point for later. The payoff is that Back to the Future is almost effortless to watch. Even though it is packed with complicated details to keep track of, the film uses a subtle touch to guide the audience safely through the maze. As a result, nothing gets in the way of the story, characters, and humor.

Back to the Future is an entertaining movie with an original premise and excellent craftsmanship. Its strong fundamentals and high degree of polish let it punch well above its weight, turning a sci-fi romp into something truly memorable. Back to the Future is an excellent pick when you’re in the mood for something light, smart, and unabashedly fun. Give it a shot if you haven’t seen it, and give it another one if you have.

For a 1980s teen comedy with a similar tone, try Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. For an emotionally laden comedy about a man trapped in a time loop, try Groundhog Day. For a light time travel comedy with a goofier tone, try Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

[8.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/). I give it an 8.0 for excellent execution of an iconic premise.