The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025)

Director: Matt Shakman

Cast: Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Joseph Quinn

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. I remain sort of ambivalent about the Tim Story-directed films of the mid-aughts, so any degree of comparison to this and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) is largely going to miss me.

Did I Like It: With Lora not going with me, I made the somewhat unusual decision to take in the film in 3D. But not only that, I opted for MX4D, one of these immersive experiences meant to up-charge/save theatrical exhibition and would have absolutely delighted William Castle, were he still with us. I’m not sure how I feel about the experience, getting shot with streaks of air having my chair occasionally punch me in the posterior certainly would keep me awake through most films. Scorsese once complained that the glut of superhero movies are less cinema than theme park rides. It’s entirely possible that this might be the way to take in the film.

As far as the film is concerned, I was bracing myself for an Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) or Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantummania (2023) situation, where I would have to sit patiently through a glut of exposition ahead of next year’s Avengers: Doomsday, but the film does a valiant effort of making the film focus on its own story. I would say there are only two shots specifically looking ahead, and one of them appears in one of the post-credit tags.

The retro-futuristic world on display is a delight. Everyone’s a sexy as the cast of Mad Men and nobody’s racist, and we can travel faster than light? Sign me up. I might want more of this feeling, but there are stray moments where the film delightfully feels like it was made in the 60s.

The cast is good, especially Moss-Bachrach, who never lets the illusion of Ben Grimm stand in the way of a charming performance, and Kirby, who is the beating heart of the film and never once content to “just be the girl on the team.”

The one thing I’m left feeling as the film ended, though, is that the whole affair felt slight, almost to the point of being withholding. Maybe word that the film was re-cut recently (and, indeed, lost an entire performance by John Malkovich in the process) sticks in my mind, but I could have used more time in this world and with these characters. We might complain about these cinematic confections being overloaded with plot and bombast, but it may take me a while to grow re-accustomed with a big-budget entertainment that is content to focus on its own story and telling it to us as fast as we’re able to comprehend.

Napoleon (2023)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim, Rupert Everett

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. It took a devil of an effort to sneak away for a few hours to see it.

Did I Like It: I really wish I did. There’s plenty to like. Phoenix once again fully commits to the role at hand, so much so that if we got anything less from him, we would be gravely disappointed. The scope and scale of the movie is pristine, but then again anything less and we would be gravely disappointed in Ridley Scott. Although, to be fair, I don’t think we’re likely to see another film with special effects so pointedly wielded toward the end of showing the most vivid horse murders that American Humane is likely to allow.

One flaw persisted throughout the film, although it might be a little unfair to judge the film by a flaw to which so many films of the genre also fall. All of the characters speak English, even though they clearly spoke French in reality*. That’s a phenomenon I can usually get used to. I had no problem with it in movies like The Mask of Zorro (1998). But here I’m taken out of the proceedings every moment we linger on a document like an annulment or abdication and even it is written in English. It’s bad when Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989) offers a more accurate depiction of the little frenchman, right?

This all, too, could be forgiven if there was a narrative on display here. It doesn’t have the depth off a real biography. Nor should it. That’s not the job of a movie. But it also shouldn’t be a rough outline of what a biography might be. It hits all the moments one might expect from a depiction of his life, but at no point do I get the sense that Napoleon is the protagonist of any kind of story. When he (spoiler) dies at Saint Helena, it doesn’t even qualify as an anti-climax because there was no series of events that begs for a climax of any kind.

*That alone will pretty much account for the nearly unanimous loathing from French critics.