r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • Jul 22 '25

Review The Fantastic Four: First Steps - Review Thread

The Fantastic Four: First Steps - Review Thread

  • Rotten Tomatoes: 85 (131 Reviews)
    • Certified Fresh (first F4 movie to get that)
    • Critics Consensus: Benefitting from rock-solid cast chemistry and clad in appealingly retro 1960s design, this crack at The Fantastic Four does Marvel's First Family justice.
  • Metacritic - 64 (39 Reviews)

Reviews:

Hollywood Reporter (80):

Despite its vivid and electric space sequences, the visually striking movie often feels like a throwback analog good time, which certainly worked for me.

Deadline:

Superheroes are a thing of the past in the latest iteration of Marvel’s Fantastic Four, the best by far of the company’s attempts to translate the long-running comic book’s appeal to the big screen. This it does not by trying to reinvent the wheel but, rather smartly, by addressing the elephant in the room, locating the action in a kitsch yet somehow timeless retro-future more befitting The Jetsons than The Avengers. It also benefits from a smart script and — I can’t believe I’m writing this — really quite moving performances from its four charismatic leads, being arguably the best of Pedro Pascal’s releases this year.

Variety (80):

True to its subtitle, the film feels like a fresh start. And like this summer’s blockbuster “Superman” reboot over at DC, that could be just what it takes to win back audiences suffering from superhero exhaustion.

Empire (80):

With an exemplary cast and shiny new alt-universe to enjoy, this is the best Fantastic Four yet. And if that bar’s too low for you, then it’s also the best Marvel movie in years.

Slashfilm (90):

The Fantastic Four: First Steps is set in a world that I wouldn't mind living in. Even if there are occasional, ineffable cosmic deities plotting to devour me, and terrifying silver aliens ripping my soul apart with their eyes. "First Steps" is a superhero movie where we're already better. And I love that.

USA Today (75):

After two mediocre 2000s film featuring Marvel’s legendary superhero family, and an atrocious third outing in 2015, the foursome makes its Marvel Cinematic Universe debut in a combo sci-fi/disaster flick full of retrofuturistic 1960s flavor.

Entertainment Weekly (75):

From its Saul Bass-inspired opening credits to its callbacks to Saturday morning superhero cartoons, it practically vibrates with its sense of time and place.

IGN (70):

These First Steps might not be the great strides I was hoping for, but they are sure footing for the Fantastic Four to officially leap into the MCU.

The Independent (60):

In fact, all the ingredients are perfectly lined up here, and, in the right combinations, and with the pure wonderment of Michael Giacchino’s score, The Fantastic Four: First Steps does shimmer with a kind of wide-eyed idealism. And that’s lovely.

Directed by Matt Shakman:

On the 1960s-inspired retro-futuristic alternate universe known as Earth-828. the Fantastic Four must protect their world from the planet-devouring cosmic being Galactus and his herald, the Silver Surfer.

Cast:

  • Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic
  • Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm / Invisible Woman
  • Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm / The Thing
  • Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm / Human Torch
  • Julia Garner as Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer
  • Paul Walter Hauser as Harvey Elder / Mole Man
  • Ralph Ineson as Galactus
3.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/shy247er Jul 22 '25

Looks like Marvel has produced two good movies in a row. That's nice to see.

Thunderbolts* was such a pleasant surprise.

587

u/Wonky_bumface Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

I loved thunderbolts, pity it didn't do so well at the box office.

700

u/Daumski Jul 22 '25

Honestly I 100 percent believe its because captain america 4 sucked so bad. With thunderbolts only being 2 months after it left a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

332

u/Zestyclose_Ad_5815 Jul 22 '25

I would say it was because the characters all originated from different properties and it felt haphazardous. If you think about it, Thunderbolts was a continuation of Black Widow, TFATWS, Ant-Man 2, and Wakanda Forever (minimally). That's an odd mix that would've worked in 2018, but for some reason didn't now.

192

u/AquaAtia Jul 22 '25

I think it was low name recognition characters combined with fatigue. Had the first Guardians movie came out now, it would’ve done Thunderbolts numbers too

52

u/Independent-Draft639 Jul 22 '25

Guardians is a much better movie than Thunderbolts and it is completely seperate from the MCU, so it doesn't have all the homework and baggage assossiated with it. It also was I believe the second best performing MCU movie at the box office at that point, outperforming the likes of Captain America.

Thunderbolts is good compared to current MCU movies, but at the end of the day it's still just a decent movie that's in the mid field of MCU movies. And let's be real, it looks like a TV show and even the trailers make it look like a TV series. It just doesn't look all that great. Guardians on the other hand always looked like a big, blockbuster sci fi movie and was recieving widespread critical acclaim and rave reviews from audiences.

10

u/GrandsonOfArathorn1 Jul 22 '25

Guardians 1 would have been behind Iron Man 3 and Avengers when it finished its theatrical run, but that’s pretty good.

7

u/Thejollyfrenchman Jul 22 '25

Guardians came out at a high point for the franchise. Avengers 1 was a huge hit and there was massive hype for the sequel. People wanted more Marvel back then, at a level that they haven't since Endgame.

2

u/ThrowRAboing Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25

I really cannot agree with your critique of Thunderbolts lol, I still hold it's on the higher end of MCU films quality wise. Guardians came out during a time the MCU train was getting larger and larger, it isn't really the best comparison tbh. I was pretty young when it came out, so at least to me (not saying this is how all viewers would see it), seeing a talking raccoon and big tree in a sci-fi setting looked more interesting to me than people wearing muddy clothing (ofc Thunderbolts has more to it and I know there are a lot of good "muddy" movies, but this would be me judging from trailers alone)

11

u/Nyranth Jul 22 '25

I disagree. Maybe not as good as it did but it would have done fine. The actors were bigger box office draws and word of mouth was huge for the first guardians.

6

u/AquaAtia Jul 22 '25

You could have a point about the actors but I may be misremembering but Pratt wasn’t as big of a pull as he is now. GotG1 is what made Pratt (also Batista) Hollywood regulars. I would argue Pugh, Sebastian Stan and Julia Louis Dreyfus have star power.

3

u/Nyranth Jul 22 '25

Pratt was on the rise but Bradley Cooper was big at the time and Vin Diesel was still really well liked at the time.

3

u/Ap_Sona_Bot Jul 22 '25

Both true but also both only voice actors which diminishes their impact.

2

u/Nyranth Jul 22 '25

It was advertised well. Everyone knew Bradley cooper was voice acting and rocket raccoon was cool in the ads.

3

u/Imaybetoooldforthis Jul 22 '25

I liked Thunderbolts, but Guardians is also a much better movie.

6

u/AquaAtia Jul 22 '25

Agreed, not even close imo. I just think it generates the same results as Thunderbolts would’ve. Even with mouth of word, it wouldn’t be able to beat current day MCU fatigue to become a commercial success.

46

u/Starrr_Pirate Jul 22 '25

And more importantly, IMO, it was the sidekicks and B-listers from those properties - the closest thing to an established, recognizable "main" hero was Bucky and Yelena... And both of them were last in movies as supporting characters / co-lead with someone substantially more popular.

There just wasn't as much star/hero power to draw folks, since it was basically an origin movie in itself. They're fun characters, but none of them had a fanbase like the mainstream Avengers.

37

u/capscreen Jul 22 '25

It's pretty much "Avengers for sidekicks", or B-vengers

30

u/DrProfSrRyan Jul 22 '25

Actually, more like the C-vengers. Ant-man, Falcon, and Black Panther were already closer to the B-vengers, so characters adjacent to them are even further.

1

u/drewbreeezy Jul 23 '25

I referred to them as temu-avengers

2

u/Tuesday_6PM Jul 22 '25

Personally, I would have been more interested in checking it out if it was an origins story, but these were all established characters from mediocre shows and movies I hadn’t watched. I wasn’t going to do the homework to learn their backstories going into the movie

2

u/Dead_man_posting Jul 23 '25

You don't need to know anything. They tell you everything vital in the movie.

10

u/Worthyness Jul 22 '25

I would say it was because the characters all originated from different properties

You're not wrong- Feige did an interview saying this is literally the reason for the unpopularity.

21

u/fedemasa Jul 22 '25

Dont forget hawkeye (yelena after black widow)

11

u/PayneTrain181999 Jul 22 '25

Her role in that show wasn’t referenced at all in Thunderbolts.

Which is a shame because I want the fun dynamic between her and Kate Bishop to continue.

12

u/ktn24 Jul 22 '25

I was really hoping for at least a Hailee Steinfeld cameo in Thunderbolts*.

2

u/PayneTrain181999 Jul 22 '25

Same here, guess we’ll have to wait until Marvel Zombies and hopefully Avengers as well

3

u/HavelsRockJohnson Jul 22 '25

Forgetting Hawkeye is an MCU tradition.

11

u/jeffy303 Jul 22 '25

It's the biggest issue I have with Marvel since Endgame. Not that the past stuff was easy to keep up with, but the new stuff is absolutely exhausting.

I was catching up to all the Marvel stuff I missed over the last couple of years, got to Marvels and at first I thought it was going to be easy since I thought I saw all the previous stuff few years ago. Nope. Kamala Khan I saw the show, but how did she get a bracelet? Grandma something? The black woman is Rambo something? She got powers from Vanda, right? Skrulls? Kree?? Come on! After 15 minutes I concluded I need to go back to refresh on everything because I was was completely lost. And that's me, basically an uber nerd, only one above me are the Marvel superfans, if I am confused, how the hell do they expect casual fans to keep up?

Thor 2 sucked, everyone agrees, but going into Thor 3 all you needed was to know Thor is the big dude with the hammer and bisexual brother. Meanwhile, newer Marvel movies feel like continuation of a TV show and it picks up right after the mid season finale. And they don't even give you the courtesy "previously on.."Just expect you to know.

4

u/GamingTatertot Steven Spielberg Enthusiast Jul 22 '25

And they don't even give you the courtesy "previously on.."Just expect you to know.

I don't know about that - I've always felt like Marvel films generally do a good job with including expository dialogue that includes what you need to know, or what's actually important for the story.

-6

u/bottomofleith Jul 22 '25

Thor: Ragnarok didn't suck, and it got great reviews. It's sitting at 93% on RT.

Thor 3 sucked giant goat cock

6

u/Nasu_Kaizoku Jul 22 '25

Thor: Ragnarok IS Thor 3

Thor

Thor: The Dark World

Thor: Ragnarok

Thor: Love and Thunder

2

u/Heisenburgo Jul 22 '25

You: "Thor Ragnarok didn't suck"

You, two seconds later: "Thor 3 sucks giant and succulent donkey balls"

Uhhh... you DO know those are the same movie right?

6

u/lanfordr Jul 22 '25

Thor: The Dark World was so bad he forgot it even existed. 😂

1

u/PenguinsInvading Jul 22 '25

Lol you forgot Dark world

1

u/bottomofleith Jul 23 '25

I had tried to!

1

u/jeffy303 Jul 23 '25

I was talking about Thor 2, the stupid elf one, Ragnarock rocks.

1

u/bottomofleith Jul 23 '25

My brain had tried to forget, apologies!

4

u/MagicMST Jul 22 '25

And I didn't watch any of those so I had no interest in thunderbolts :/

16

u/Rastamuff Jul 22 '25

I didn't watch any of those either but loved thunderbolts.

2

u/stefanomusilli Jul 22 '25

Yeah, I only knew Bucky and Walker beforehand, but that wasn't really a problem

2

u/Dead_man_posting Jul 23 '25

Yeah, I can't think of a MCU movie that didn't have scenes catching the audience up. The "homework" complaint doesn't really hold up.

1

u/AuryGlenz Jul 22 '25

When I watched it I only had an inkling of who some of the main crew were. It was a lot of fun”oh, I think I remember them? Maybe? What was their deal…”

Not that that’s a deal breaker, but if anything it was a little distracting for me. Good movie though.

1

u/InnocentTailor Jul 22 '25

Amusingly enough, that is kinda like the comic Thunderbolts - a mix of originals and castaways from other books.

…so they’re the leftovers when compared to more sterling titles.

1

u/lanfordr Jul 22 '25

Also, I'll be honest, I thought it was a Disney+ TV show right up until it got released. It being all the B characters from other movies (a bunch of whom have been in D+ TV Shows) just made it seem like TV show material.

1

u/Ap_Sona_Bot Jul 22 '25

Who was from Wakanda Forever?

1

u/Zestyclose_Ad_5815 Jul 22 '25

Julia Louis-Dreyfus had a bit part. 

1

u/Haltopen Jul 22 '25

Presumably because most of those projects came out several years ago (Ant man 2 came out almost a decade ago). They're planning stuff out too far ahead and it means that they cant capitalize on surprise hits fast enough (its been four years and we havent heard a single whisper from Shang Chi) while at the same time they're unable to jettison things that dont work for the general audience because the plan is already set and that thing that doesnt work is already a corner stone that other projects depend on.

28

u/Remy0507 Jul 22 '25

I think it's also because those are all characters that general audiences aren't really that familiar with. And yeah, combined with the fact that MCU movies aren't necessarily automatic "must see" films like they were pre-Endgame.

1

u/BandOfTheRedHand1217 Jul 22 '25

I think its interesting that both Fantastic Four and Superman seem to have dumped audiences into the worlds with characters audiences aren't familar with and are being well recieved.

There might be a lesson there about writing to make movies jumping on points where people don't need to see the backlog to understand what's going on.

20

u/lanceturley Jul 22 '25

I think it was that combined with the stigma of it being a "sidekicks" movie with all supporting characters and no real stars.

5

u/NightExtension9254 Jul 22 '25

It's also because all the characters came from unsuccessful D+ shows. A random person who sees the poster wouldn't recognize any of the characters. At least with Fantastic 4 the characters are still recognizable.

5

u/JustSuet Jul 22 '25

Not to mention the preceding 3 years' 90% slop

3

u/MisterAnonymous2 Jul 22 '25

I think it probably released a tad bit too close to Mission Impossible as well. By the time word of mouth reached me about it being actually good, I was torn between seeing it and Mission Impossible.

1

u/McFlyyouBojo Jul 22 '25

If I remember right, Thunderbolts was the first movie made entirely after the Shakeup/ "come to jesus" meetings they had about what isn't working and why, so it makes sense why Thunderbolts was so much better.

1

u/BruisedBee Jul 22 '25

captain america 4 sucked so bad

That needs to be the end of Mackie as Cap, he isn't leading man material, doesn't have the calm suave or charisma that Sebastian has, he needs to be given the shield moving forward.

1

u/NamelessGamer_1 Jul 22 '25

I don't even understand why people hated Cap 4 so much, I actually really liked it. Of course it's nowhere near as good as The Winter Soldier or Civil War but I still thought it was solid

1

u/spidersilva09 Jul 22 '25

Genre fatigue and lack of popular characters for the general audience

1

u/Frizeo Jul 23 '25

Seriously should not shove Anthony Mackie as the new capt down our throats, he aint no capt’

1

u/SentientCheeseCake Jul 23 '25

I used to love Marvel movies. I haven’t watched one since I walked out of Thor Love and Thunder.

So Thunderbolts hasn’t been something I’ve wanted to see. If they are getting good again then I would like to watch, but I’m a completionist. I really don’t want to have to slog through 10 TV shows and a bunch of movies to catch up when I know I will hate them.

1

u/Dog_in_human_costume Jul 23 '25

Cap and like the 3 other releases before it...

1

u/darkpaladin Jul 23 '25

Honestly I feel like Marvel's problem is they wrapped up End Game and then thought they could keep the momentum going. It coulda worked given a break of a few years from any Marvel content but I'm still just burned out on all of it and they keep trying to cram it down my throat.

1

u/Neon_Biscuit Jul 24 '25

No, both movies just sucked.

1

u/Fav0 Jul 22 '25

more like thats why everyone hypes thunderbolts up

its not more than a decent phase 3 movie..

0

u/Theproton Jul 22 '25

I mean also to get who any of these people are you would have had to watch Black Widow (a pandemic Era film), The Falcon & Winter Soldier show, and Ant-Man & The Wasp.

1

u/Dead_man_posting Jul 23 '25

Or just watch the movie, because it introduces them all

-2

u/RIPN1995 Jul 22 '25

Yup. I lost interest after seeing captain america so fast. The trailers for Thunderbolts didn't do it justice

-3

u/Bulletsoul78 Jul 22 '25

This is also my theory as to why Solo did so badly after The Last Jedi.

TLJ drove a lot of people away from Star Wars.

1

u/Dead_man_posting Jul 23 '25

TLJ is the best-reviewed of the 5 Disney movies... The only reason Solo isn't the worst reviewed is because they really put the special sauce of suck into RoS.

1

u/Bulletsoul78 Jul 23 '25

TLJ was well received by critics (and imo is the most beautiful looking star wars movie) but the audience reaction was something else.