Green Lantern Review Thread (Spoilers)

[Jumpman]

Clark Kent,

"The "B" CinemaScore bodes well for the box office take. Despite a storm of negativity from critics and a few jealous Marvel movie fans, most moviegoers are enjoying the film."

^Money.

[benzgrl]

Originally Posted by DRS

There was just nothing good about it

The action was non existant, the pacing was horrible, the entire movie felt like it was cobbled together randomly, the score was ATROCIOUS, the CGI was often downright laughable, the Green Lantern corps was utterly wasted, none of them served any real purpose, they were all just glorified cameos, including sinestro

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

This movie was bad. Not completely terrible, but definitely bad. The villain was a rushed joke. I laughed more at him than anything else. Blake Lively did fine with the material she was given, but man do those writers need to find a new occupation. I respect differing opinions as much as anyone, but I can't see how you guys gave this 5/5. Can you guys tell me how it's that good to you without me having to go through pages and look for reviews?

Well, finally caught this Friday night. Sorry to say I agree w/ the two posts above, I gave it 2/5. I agree the score was terrible! I also felt like they weren't trying to make a serious film here (like Superman, Batman); in some parts I felt like they were making fun of the genre itself, I don't know (is that the way the comic is?). And some of the dialogue, one-liners I thought reminded me of the terrible lines from George Lucas.

The villain Paralex was kinda silly looking to me, it wasn't scary at all; it also reminded me of the "Evil" force from the 5th Element which came across as an ultimate villain force way better IMHO.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

The "B" CinemaScore bodes well for the box office take. Despite a storm of negativity from critics and a few jealous Marvel movie fans, most moviegoers are enjoying the film.

I'd love to know what you base all of your Marvel fan bashing on. It's getting old, and it's very stupid. I'm a Marvel fan, and in my sig you can clearly see what my all-time favorite film is. Not to mention I probably have more DC films than Marvel (DVD and Blu-ray), yet I like Marvel more than DC. You have absolutely no foundation for your statements, so if you think you do, show me.

I did not enjoy GL. Not because I'm a "jealous Marvel fan", but because I thought the story and the character development were absurdly rushed. No Lantern team-ups to fight the most powerful villain in the universe? Yeah right. There was a tiny part when Sinestro took some Lanterns to fight Parallax, but it was very short. Instead, let's let the noob poozer human do it alone, and in ten minutes might I add. The villain was laughable. How does a different opinion make someone jealous? Like there aren't two arguably better Marvel films in theatres right now. People with no financial investment in these films have to be jealous...

[toddly6666]

What CGI looked bad? CGI looks all the same nowadays. I saw no difference in the quality of the Thor CGI world versus the Green Lantern CGI world. When CGI is used in huge doses as in these movies, it all looks the same. CGI looks best when it's used sparingly (like in Super 8). What movie has amazing CGI?

If Hector Hammond is a bad villain, than who's a good villain? He had the same depth as Thor's Loki. Does the Heath Ledger Joker have depth? Not really. He just appears crazy from beginning to end. And we find out that he may have had an abusive parent that scarred his face. Ledger's Joker has no depth at all - just juicy dialogue and good acting, and Ledger's Joker is considered one of the best superhero movie villains?

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

What CGI looked bad? CGI looks all the same nowadays. I saw no difference in the quality of the Thor CGI world versus the Green Lantern CGI world. When CGI is used in huge doses as in these movies, it all looks the same. CGI looks best when it's used sparingly (like in Super 8). What movie has amazing CGI?

Really good observation. 100% in agreement. Even Avatar, as good as it looks, looks like all the rest.

On topic, I loved Green Lantern for what it was. An entertaining, summer, action movie and I will be welcoming it to my BD collection on release day.

[Jumpman]

Actually the CG in Lantern is miles better than Thor. Thor's is adequate. Lantern's is beyond adequate. At times, it's revelatory.

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

What CGI looked bad? CGI looks all the same nowadays. I saw no difference in the quality of the Thor CGI world versus the Green Lantern CGI world. When CGI is used in huge doses as in these movies, it all looks the same. CGI looks best when it's used sparingly (like in Super 8). What movie has amazing CGI?

If Hector Hammond is a bad villain, than who's a good villain? He had the same depth as Thor's Loki. Does the Heath Ledger Joker have depth? Not really. He just appears crazy from beginning to end. And we find out that he may have had an abusive parent that scarred his face. Ledger's Joker has no depth at all - just juicy dialogue and good acting, and Ledger's Joker is considered one of the best superhero movie villains?

The Joker is a fascinating villain because he is a force of anarchy. He wants to tear down society on a philosophical and moral level. He exposes the inherent hypocrisy in authority figures within our system of law and order. He is also wonderfully menacing and badass. The only villain that approaches his level of greatness in cinema is Darth Vader. Hector is like some garbage from Men in Black.

[Ford]

One thing that I really have to give them high marks for, is for keeping Hal's essence from the comics. Meaning that he's courageous, yet he sabotages his life. They didn't make him unrecognizable to fans of the comics. Too many comic book movies change the key characteristics of the heroes. Take Batman for instance. I love the Nolan films, but we never really get to see the detective side of Batman. We saw him train physically, but not mentally. And in the comics, it's Batman's brains that set him apart from everyone else. Wolverine in the movies just comes off as a mindless brute with claws that gets his ass handed to him in every single fight scene over 4 movies. Iron Man was dumbed down for comic relief in a lot of scenes. I really can't remember Iron Man ever doing anything remotely funny at all in the comics. Then the one superhero that's supposed to be funny, Spider-Man, was just depressing.

[toddly6666]

In Oa, I loved the quick cameo shots of Black Hand and Anti-Monitor on that "most wanted criminals" hologram computer screen.

[Jumpman]

Ford,

We got a little detective Batman in Dark Knight. But, I get your point.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Holmes

Deeply mediocre. **



http://www.worldofkj.com/article.php?i=296

Look at your signature. There was no way you were going to like this movie or most movies that come out between May and August.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Look at your signature. There was no way you were going to like this movie or most movies that come out between May and August.

Agreed. Why did he even bother watching it?

[Mandalorian]

Because people can't enjoy artistic films and popcorn flicks?

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

Because people can't enjoy artistic films and popcorn flicks?

Most people tend to favor one over the other but will like the occasional one from the other group. Those people that make sure it is known in their sigs how artsy they are by showing everyone how much they enjoy those films that many people have never even heard of, let alone seen, probably won't enjoy most popcorn flicks. Especially ones like Green Lantern where there are extreme mixed reviews.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

Most people tend to favor one over the other but will like the occasional one from the other group. Those people that make sure it is known in their sigs how artsy they are by showing everyone how much they enjoy those films that many people have never even heard of, let alone seen, probably won't enjoy most popcorn flicks. Especially ones like Green Lantern where there are extreme mixed reviews.

What about the movies in my sig? Nice mix, or just popcorn?

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Actually the CG in Lantern is miles better than Thor. Thor's is adequate. Lantern's is beyond adequate. At times, it's revelatory.

I liked Thor more, but GL's CG is better...only weakness was the part where he is first engulfed by the green energy...right befor he takes off into outer space...that was not very well rendered. The Guardians looked amazing.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

Because people can't enjoy artistic films and popcorn flicks?

Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at his top 5 movie list and the majority of his collection (I'm not knocking his collection) to wonder why he would bother going to see it.

Especially in light of low critical acclaim GL received and the campy nature of the movie as revealed in the GL trailers.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

What about the movies in my sig? Nice mix, or just popcorn?

You tend to like more popular movies. I think your tastes are pretty good and is pretty common. Most of your list are huge hits. Even the best picture types on your list like the Departed and Shawshank are so universally liked that they were able to make money at the box office and win awards. And of course Pulp Fiction has a huge following. It is the white people's version of Scarface. Everyone knows your top 10 and most people, especially on this site, have seen most or all of them.

Edit: and I agree with Col. Zombie, it is not a knock so much as it is smart deductive reasoning.

[Blu Myers]

3/5. Mediocre is the perfect word to describe this movie. There were things that I loved about it, the Oa and most of the action scenes...and then there were things that I hated, like the poorly written script and the very uneffective villain.

Also, Ryan Reynolds just didn't look like he was having fun with this part.

Oh, and the scene in the middle of the credits was my favorite scene out of the whole movie.

[grooveska]

Took my Dad to see it again today and enjoyed it once again. The theater had a decent sized crowd and seemed into it.

According to a wall street journal article it sounds like a sequel depends on it's performance over the week. I'd really like to see GL get one more shot.