timdalton007

Today, the superhero genre has become a ubiquitous part of the cinemagoing experience. Even two decades ago, however, they were still something of a rarity with Marvel Studios still having not launched their eponymous cinematic universe. Coming a mere three years before Iron Man changed the company's cinematic fortunes, the 2005 Fantastic Four remains a fun, if cheesy, curiosity to watch.

Coming from that time before franchises and the inevitable (but often hoped for) sequel, the script from writers Mark Frost and Michael France is largely responsible for why the film is the way it is. One that spends its opening act introducing audiences to one of Marvel'smost-read but (then) rarely adapted superhero teams and their archnemesis. From there, the 2005 Fantastic Four gets marred down in the middle as if uncertain about how to proceed. From the 1978 Superman onward, this would be the portion of the film where the heroes would accomplish their first feats, and their foe would establish themselves. Frost and France, to their credit, attempted to subvert this expectation.

The execution of it, however, is lacking much. There's angst from the Thing, Johnny Storm being a cocky something-or-other, Reed and Sue potentially rekindling their relationship, and Victor becoming the villain viewers expect him to become. There's both a lot going on and not much at all. It also leaves the ending, the film's only other major action set-piece, rushed and more than a little top-heavy. In all fairness, the 2005 film isn't alone in having this problem as the later 2015 reboot with the same characters suffers from the same issues of a hollow middle and rushed ending, but it remains a flaw all the same. Though, unlike the 2015 film, this one is at least fun to watch, though it is tonally out of sync from one scene to the next.

That ever-shifting tone remains the film's biggest issue. It's something that arguably stems from the four different main characters (five including Victor von Doom) all after different things and with their own personalities. Of course, there's decades worth of stories with the characters in other media showing that demonstrate there are ways of finding a consistent tone with them. Here, however, between the jokiness that surrounds Johnny and the more serious scenes involving Ben Grimm and Victor, the film frequently seesaws between tonal extremes, especially in the middle of the film when very little plot wise is happening. It can be frustrating to watch and means that the film never comes together as a cohesive whole.

A situation that is further exacerbated by the quality of the visual effects. Seeing this in the early 2000s, the quality of them seemed variable even then. With two decades worth of hindsight, many of them are downright laughable. The CGI shots that make up the opening space station scenes and almost everything involving Reed have aged about as poorly as Johnny's jokes. Reed's stretching looks less organic and more like a rubber armed action figure being pulled on or brought back in, something all the more obvious in close-ups or brightly lit scenes. The effects for Sue and Johnny's powers have aged far better and still look good with the latter surpassing even the 2015's films attempt at portraying them. Ironically, it's the Thing with that entirely practical prosthetic suit that comes across the best, perhaps proving that the old ways still have value even in the age of CGI.

There's a decent cast, by and large, with Michael Chiklis being the best of the lot in no small part due to Ben/The Thing having the strongest material among the four. Ioan Gruffudd neatly captures the intellect and wry humor of Reed, though the visual effects that are such a part of the character's powerset hinder rather than help. Chris Evans as Johnny makes it easy to understand the animosity Ben has for him, given that his smooth-talking charm and one-liners start to wear thin after awhile though Evans does the best he can with the script. Of the titular four, it's Jessica Alba as Sue who comes off the least capably though as with Evans, that's owed more to the script (which was rewritten around the fact that one of the big it girls of the early 2000s had been cast) than her capabilities as an actress. All that being said, however, Julian McMahon about steals the film from all of them as Victor in a performance full of smugness that hides the vain but insecure man beneath that sells the film's third actor far better than the script ever does.

The result is more then the sum of its parts. Deeply flawed, groan worthy in places to be sure. Even so, and after twenty years, the 2005 Fantastic Four remains an entertaining film to watch from a time before superheroes were the long-running rulers of the multiplex. For that and the parts that do work, it remains worth a watch even if it's far from the strongest superhero ever made.

Since Doctor Who returned to our screens nearly twenty years ago now, those familiar with its 20th century incarnation have likely had a pecuilair thought from time to time: what would the old series have looked like if it been made like that? In time for Doctor Who's 60th anniversary in 2023, that is exactly what happened with The Daleks in the form of a 75 minute colorized version. Would the final result be blasphemy or a revelation?

To make the idea work, one needs a serial that actually benefits from being given something a more modern polish and pace. That first Daleks serial is such an example. Yes, it's the first Dalek story, a classic, and the thing that perhaps singlehandedly guaranteed that Doctor Who would have a future beyond 13 episodes. On the other hand, given the Peter Cushing film managed to cut Terry Nation's scripts down to about 80 minutes, it's clearly a story with more than a fair amount of padding. This new edit from Benjamin Cook proves that by offering a fast-moving version of it that, honestly, doesn't lose much in terms of actual plot. Indeed, condensing things like the cave trek to the city by Ian and Barbara alongside the Thals improves rather than detracts.

And what of the colorization? On the whole, it looks remarkably good. The color choices are vivid, evoking the Technicolor spectacle of the Cushing film while also making some decisions of its own such as giving Barbara a bright pink blouse. It's something that is immensely effective except in a handful of shots where the original film quality isn't great to begin with. On the audio front, the new sound mix from Mark Ayers adds so much depth, especially considering the "as live" nature of the original recording limited the soundscape beyond what could be played into the studio. Perhaps the prime example of Ayers new work comes in the scene where Ian and the Doctor pull the creature out of the Dalek shell. An already memorable moment, it has never been more chilling than it is with the added creature sound effects. Tip of the hat, too, on the score from Ayers that wonderfully compliments the original Tristram Cary score by and large.

Is it perfect? No, of course it isn't. It does get flashback heavy in places, yes, a necessity to cover some of the editing choices made by Cook. The escape sequence where Ian is in the Dalek plays out as a nice heist like scene but the cutting back and forth is rapid to the point of approaching confusion. It perhaps wouldn't have been a bad thing to take a further cue from the Cushing film and it let run to 80 minutes to give it a bit more chance to breathe. And, like with much of Modern Who, there are times when the sound mix and music does threaten to intrude on dialogue.

Is it a worthwhile venture? For this reviewer, undoubtedly. Can I see why some Classic Who fans feel it to be at best unnecessary or, at worst, an attempt to invalidate a classic? To an extent, yes. It's something that, along with criticism of The Daleks in Color pre-broadcast comes from those who have the view of Classic Who and archive TV in general as something sacred and untouchable. Things which, as Russell T Davies says in the making of included on the Blu-Ray release, it isn't meant to be viewed solely as museum pieces. Or, indeed, lest we forget that museum's renovate to find new ways of presenting things to visitors.

That is ultimately what The Daleks in Color accomplishes. It's an engaging vision of a classic story, one that ultimately preserves the best of what could have been a moribund museum piece and shows it in a whole new light (or, rather, color). Does it replace the original? Nope, it's even included as an extra on the Blu-ray release. The result is a revelation for fans of Classic and Modern Who alike and one that they can relish partaking in for years to come.

With a lifetime spanning across three-quarters of the twentieth century and into the early decades of the twenty-first, Gore Vidal had a ringside seat for much of what came to be termed "the American century." It's perhaps no wonder then that he became an active chronicler of its history and politics in novels, essays, lectures, commentary, and more besides. Nor was he limited to merely that topic, something that this 2013 documentary revels in across its ninety minute running time.

Scaffolded by a series of interviews conducted with Vidal over the final years of his life, Nicholas D. Wrathall explores the life of a uniquely American figure. One that was a vocal critic of the American establishment yet was born into a family that, one of the featured clips notes, made him essentially one of its charter members. Cynical about the nature of politics, yet compelled to twice run for public office unsuccessfully. Armed with a passion for American history and its politics, yet lived for a great deal of time away from the country that he loved as an ideal but frustrated him with its reality. Wrathall uses the interviews of an elderly but still sharp Vidal to look back on the life and the contradictions built around them.

All the while not losing sight of the things that made Vidal the public figure he was: his wit and cynicism. The wit is on display throughout and, via archive interviews, was evident clearly from a young age. Something aided by a gift for mimicry that ranged from the comedic to the dramatic, depending on the anecdote being told. Whether in interviews or in the famed television clashes with William F. Buckley (themselves the topic of the later documentary Best of Enemies), it's something that's aged well. Not to mention something that feels authentic rather than as part of a persona, something that is also evident from interviews with numerous figures in his circle from Burr Steers and Christopher Hitchens.

And the cynicism? In some ways Vidal was on point and, as the documentary argues, more than a little prophetic. It's certainly difficult to argue with his points on America's swing to the political right starting in the late 1960s that led to Nixon, Reagan, and eventually George W. Bush. The latter being the topic of more than a few of the late-in-life interviews presented here (and led to his falling out with Hitchens who spent of his own final decade supporting and defending the Bush administration's War on Terror).. Nor can it be said that Vidal limited his criticisms given the assessments of JFK, Carter, and the newly elected Obama. The documentary, after all, drawing its title from the author's assertion that "We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing."

Yet, watching the documentary in 2024, it's hard not to wonder how much of Vidal's cynicism might have been misplaced. Or might, in fact, having unknowingly contributed to the current moment in which this review is being written in. What Vidal would have made of things is anyone's guess but, clearly, he'd have had something interesting to say about it all.

And, if nothing else, the documentary offers plenty of interesting things for those both new and familiar with Vidal to discover. One which draws neatly on the life of a man who raged against the dying of a particular light with wit and cynicism. Offering us all a chance to learn something and, hopefully, remember something as well.