I think the difference between DC and Marvel is very much "action" against "character".
That's not to dismiss the depth of character in Marvel comics, but they're very much action, gadgets and big baddies - they're popcorn comics.
DC (Detective Comics
) are more about background, depth of story and complex character portrayals. It comes across in the films too as very different. DC films are very similar to any kind of normal film - only they have super heroes. I find they're like films like The Usual Suspects, or Ronin or whatever.
The Marvel stuff is all about huge action sequences and the hero having to somehow overcome the massive obstacle and challenge presented by some kind of super power - evil - greater than theirs. It's quite childlike, but lovely.
I've just watched the final Agents of Shield and the tie in with Captain America 2 is sublime. The way Disney have approached the whole thing is actually quite impressive. Actually, I'll say very impressive. It's still quite simple and obvious to me that's the way it should all be, but the fact there's an arc between everything, yet each film/series is independent is actually brilliant. Paint me finally impressed - even if individually it often doesn't hang together well.
I liked CA2 for the same reason I thought the Batman films were good. They weren't just action sequences randomly stuck together but there was a degree of intrigue too. It ended on the huge popcorn thing, but it got there quite cleverly. It misses the darkness of Batman, but it's still a solid film, mixing an attempt at intrigue and action.
Anyway, to kind of continue,
Spiderman...
I enjoyed it. I like the reboot, and it works really well as a Spiderman universe for me. I like the fact Disney have forced Sony to up their game and look at the bigger picture.
I thought that the Green Goblin storyline was good, but too rapid, and it conflicted too much with the Electro story. It seemed forced and rushed at times. However, I think it worked well all together. It was similar (in story and mix of enemies) to the Batman films. I think it's good they leaned from Nolan there.
I didn't find it confused with too many baddies, but laying down a great future plot for the series. I love Spiderman and love the arc they are laying down for him. I found it worked really well - but... It's still just another super hero movie, and they're all very similar. It's frustrating really trying to fit such similar plots into a movie template, but they're getting there. It was money and time well spent in my opinion.
tomahawKSU said:
Saving Mr. Banks
Wanted to see it for a while, and I was surprised at what it was. It's about a miserable bitch who doesn't want to give away her life's work. Tom Hanks was very good, and it was a solid movie.
furie said:
I thought it was a brilliant tale of a strong, determined woman who was slowly battered, beaten and tricked into accepting the fate of something she loved in a tragic end to mirror the death of her ideals. This mirrored the tragedy of the death of her father - a tale told mixed in with the film.
The film carries you on a journey of hope for this woman, only to have it all dashed at the end as she is destroyed by the cajoling of the Americans who simply don't understand... Anything!
It's a sad tale - poignant - and a stark reminder never to trust film makers (or others) with your prized ideas.
Worth 9/10 simply for Emma Thompson. It lost a mark for the schmaltzy house building with the driver bit which marked the end of the character as a true grit hero.
I suspect the way you view the film is definitely dependant on which side of the Atlantic you live on