100% spoiler free -- with all natural flavors
I enjoyed FF2, and thought it was better than the first. I disagree with the MSNBC film critique on enough points that it makes me feel like I'm turning into a fanboy:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19213105/
This critic does not appear to be a fan of comic books, especially the FF comics, because some of the things he dings FF and FF2 for (like the public identity of the heroes, the foursomes casual in-fighting banter, the larger-than-life egomaniacal presentation of VvD) are central features of the comics.
I didn't think I was being too easy on these movies. I liked them, even though they weren't at the same level of entertainment as, say, Spiderman I or II, or Batman Begins. I don't automatically like comic book movies, either -- though I almost always automatically watch them. Daredevil and Elektra were bad comic book movies, but I didn't mind, as I never liked their comic books.
The Hulk was not a bad comic book - on the contrary, I think Ang Lee captured the heart of the story, perhaps almost too well, since it proved that most people probably would not like the Hulk comics.
The Spiderman movies (even III) resonate better with the public than Daredevil, Hulk, and F4 -- just like the comics did.
I guess the various points I'm very poorly trying to make are
a) it is very difficult to make a superb movie from an average comic book,
b) it is much easier to make a terrible movie from an average comic book,
c) it is a true shame when somebody makes OK movies from a great comic book (Punisher, the old Superman sequels, Batman II, III, IV -- the list goes on, I'm sure)
But I'd rather watch a mediocre comic book movie than none at all.
dw [who will die ang go to a happy place the day that either Books of Magic or TCTC are set to film]
* 
