The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 356753

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 354989

[The Morningstar]

Yea, it was a crap comic though :awesome:

[Tron5000]

This review has me a bit more optimistic than the others:

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/943100/green_lantern_review.html

I'm not one to put much stock in other folks' opinions, though, so I pretty much ignore most of the reviews I read. I'm going into this film with my own expectations, which aren't incredibly high: I want to have fun, see GL create some cool stuff with his ring, and watch him kick the crap out of the bad guy and hopefully set up a sequel. I ain't going into this movie expecting Schindler's List or anything.

[chamber-music]

As someone said before Ryan Reynolds won the role, Bradley Cooper was second, Timberlake was third and Micheal Fassbender auditioned but didn't make the final cut.

[Crimson King]

I don't think the reviewers giving it poor grades were thinking they were going to get Schindler's List.

Not specifically talking about you, but fans are always clamoring to have comic movies taken seriously. If you truly want that, don't discount a negative review by saying "what did you expect?" We should all expect serious attempts to bring the comics to life. If it fails, it fails.

[The Morningstar]

A movie doesn't have to be Schindler's List to have compelling, three dimensional characters and a coherant plot though.

Why do people just accept mediocrity? "Oh well what did you expect?" I hate that excuse.

[Chewy]

Critics gave Thor good reviews. Critics gave First Class good reviews. Neither was Schindler's List. I guess we can conclude they pretty much know they aren't getting Schindler's List, then.

[Man of Tomorrow]

As someone said before Ryan Reynolds won the role, Bradley Cooper was second, Timberlake was third and Micheal Fassbender auditioned but didn't make the final cut.

Jared Leto was fourth.



Fassbender and Cavill didn't make the cut for this. Studio clearly wanted a big recognizable name to sell this, trying to play it safe... despite the success of X-Men First Class.

[J.Howlett]

Fassbender didn't make First Class successful. He was part of it. But, it's was successful because for the most part, it was told really damn well.

[Chewy]

First Class was not a success when they cast Reynolds. First Class did not exist when they cast Reynolds.

And it's still arguable whether or not First Class IS a success :csad:

[Blackman]

Jared Leto was fourth.



Fassbender and Cavill didn't make the cut for this. Studio clearly wanted a big recognizable name to sell this, trying to play it safe... despite the success of X-Men First Class.

FC wasnt out when they were casting

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Mediocrity is subjective.

[chamber-music]

Jared Leto was fourth.



Fassbender and Cavill didn't make the cut for this. Studio clearly wanted a big recognizable name to sell this, trying to play it safe... despite the success of X-Men First Class.
Ryan Reynolds isn't that big of a name just yet either though, I wouldn't say his a household name just yet although that may change if this film is successful. Alot of people still don't know who he is especially internationally.

I've seen press refer to him simply as Scarlett Johansson's ex husband :csad:

[Tony Stark]

Morningstar,

Mediocrity is subjective.

True, but take a film like Spider-man 3, it wasn't universally panned, infact it still managed to get a "certified fresh" rating out of RT. But to say the response was tepid is probably an understatement.

When you have a film where you're in the 20's as far as positive response, you're beyond being tepid. GL is in Fantastic Four territory right now, and that's a huge dissapointment.

I'm sure some people will like GL, but I'm also sure no one's going to consider this one of the best in the genre.

[S.A.A.D.]

There is a video of Ryan and Martin Campbell defending the movie because of the bad reviews but I didn't get a chance to listen to it yet.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/06/16/green-lantern-martin-campbell-on-the-struggle-to-get-the-costume-right/?dlvrit=57774

24% @ Rotten Tomatoes

Fresh: 12:

Rotten: 38

[J.Howlett]

But who's to say that the 20% at rottentomatoes.com is even accurate? At the end of the day, it's an opinion.

David Poland's review of the film points out the ridiculousness of the rating it's getting, considering he thinks it's better than Thor.

[Chewy]

David Poland's review of the film points out the ridiculousness of the rating it's getting, considering he thinks it's better than Thor.
When "professional" critics start reviewing the other reviews a film is getting in their film reviews, that's a pretty good sign that you shouldn't be taking them too seriously. That was one of the many things I was disappointed about regarding Ebert's Thor review.

[HighFivingMF]

When "professional" critics start reviewing the other reviews a film is getting in their film reviews, that's a pretty good sign that you shouldn't be taking them too seriously.

When people start critiquing critics' critiques of other critics' critiques my head starts to hurt.

[J.Howlett]

Chewy,

That doesn't mean he's wrong either. And yet, I do agree with you on Ebert's Thor review. It's was ****.

[Deaths Head II]

When "professional" critics start reviewing the other reviews a film is getting in their film reviews, that's a pretty good sign that you shouldn't be taking them too seriously.

I 100% agree. I really dislike when critics do that. Whether they argue other critics were too soft or too hard.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Batman Begins didn't use Batman's best villains.

I would dispute that. It didn't use his best villain (Joker), but Ra's Al Ghul is top two or three and easily the best villain never to make an appearance on film.

[Marvin]

There is a video of Ryan and Martin Campbell defending the movie because of the bad reviews but I didn't get a chance to listen to it yet.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/06/16/green-lantern-martin-campbell-on-the-struggle-to-get-the-costume-right/?dlvrit=57774

24% @ Rotten Tomatoes

Fresh: 12:

Rotten: 38

Campbell is always a gangster.

[Blader5489]

But who's to say that the 20% at rottentomatoes.com is even accurate? At the end of the day, it's an opinion.

It's not just one opinion, it's far and away the majority opinion.

[moviedoors]

Jared Leto was fourth.
Fassbender and Cavill didn't make the cut for this. Studio clearly wanted a big recognizable name to sell this, trying to play it safe... despite the success of X-Men First Class.

It's not like they knew First Class was going to be a hit when they cast Green Lantern.

Edit: damn, no delete option?

[KalMart]

I have a feeling that if the reviews for GL were overwhelmingly positive, some of the people who are claiming that reviews mean little would be lending a lot more credence to them.

[moviedoors]

I have a feeling that if the reviews for GL were overwhelmingly positive, some of the people who are claiming that reviews mean little would be lending a lot more credence to them.

That's more or less a certainty.

[Sam Fisher]

I don't know about that. X-men: First Class got glowing reviews and I didn't love it.

[DACrowe]

I just like how some are now digging into Thor to defend GL.

Thor worked because despite having a pretty shallow screenplay, Branagh brought a level of charm and grandiose tongue-in-cheek style to the proceedings that make it a very enjoyable viewing experience. I don't know about the CGI, but Branagh knows how to shoot a scene and he gives everything a certain dramatic heft and weight that probably isn't there in the screenplay. That is why people love the scenes where Odin and Loki confront each other or when Thor is visited by Loki on Earth. Just how Branagh imagines him walking into the throne room at the beginning or Paulson watching Thor try to move the hammer gives it more dramatic power than it honestly should have.

The other reason is the cast was excellent. Hemsworth brought to life the character without a trace of irony and was completely charming in the role as he completely filled the screen as Thor. While they were playing generic roles, Portman and Sakrsgard brought some fresh humanity and sharp humor to the Earth scenes (Dennings was really just the plucky sidekick) and when you have Anthony Hopkins not phoning it in, which Branagh somehow managed, it gives the film a regal sensibility. The villain while not great, but good. In short, despite being a by-the-numbers screenplay, everything else was excellent and was much better than necessary.

Sounds like GL has done the bare minimum. Everything is by-the-numbers. The story does not appear to have the light hand or charm of Thor or Campbell's own Mask of Zorro, but is like his Legend of Zorro, which was a formulaic and unimaginative formula movie. If GL is just punching in Spider-Man and Iron Man's formula for 2 hours, that is a pretty lame way for anyone to spend $20 at least on tickets.

And again, you look at the casting. They went for the "It guy" Ryan Renyolds (who was actually surprisingly strong in Buried) and the latest teen-TV star Blake Lively. Thor didn't need Natalie Portman and it didn't need to try to work that hard, but it did. GL just coasts by from the sounds of it.

[dark_b]

I just like how some are now digging into Thor to defend GL.

Thor worked because despite having a pretty shallow screenplay, Branagh brought a level of charm and grandiose tongue-in-cheek style to the proceedings that it was just a very enjoyable viewing experience. I don't know about the CGI, but Branagh knows how to shoot a scene and he gives everything a certain dramatic heft and weight that probably sin't there in the screenplay. That is why people love the scenes where Odin and Loki confront each other or when Thor is visited by Loki on Earth. Just how Branagh imagines him walking into the throne room at hte beginning or Paulson watching Thor try to move the hammer gives it more dramatic power than it honestly should have.

The other reason is the cast was excellent. Hemsworth brought to life the character without a trace of irony and was completely charming in the role as he completely filled the screen as Thor. While they were playing generic roles, Portman and Sakrsgard brought some fresh humanity and sharp humor to the Earth scenes (Dennings was really just the plucky sidekick) and when you have Anthony Hopkins not phoning it in, which Branagh somehow managed, it gives the film a regal sensibility. The villain while not great, was good. In short ,despite being a by-the-numbers screenplay, everything else was excellent and was much better than necessary.

Sounds like GL has done the bare minimum. Everything is by-the-numbers. The story does not appear to have the light hand or charm of Thor or Campbell's own Mask of Zorro, but is like his Legend of Zorro, which was a formulaic and unimaginative formula movie. If GL is just punching in Spider-Man and Iron Man's formula for 2 hours, that is a pretty lame way for anyone to spend $20 at least on tickets.

And again, you look at the casting. They went for the "It guy" Ryan Renyolds (who was actually surprisingly strong in Buried) and the latest teen-TV star Blake Lively. Thor didn't need Natalie Portman and it didn't need to try to work that hard, but it did. GL just coasts by from the sounds of it.
i like Hemsworth as Thor. he was fantastic. but imagine this. Hemsworth is acting for 10 years. and he acts in Thor like in 80% of hes movies. would you still have the same opinion?

GL needed an unknown to make this hes role. i like Reynolds and i think i will enjoy the humor. IM type humor.if this owould be Reynolds fist movie where he shows this type of humor i think everyone would praise him.

[J.Howlett]

And Thor didn't coast?

That's a load of bull. If any film coasted this summer, it's that one.

And I still like the damn thing but don't for a second think it didn't coast...(granted, it didn't coast like Iron Man 2).

[Godman]

Speed Racer, Equilibrium, and Sucker Punch all got HORRIBLE reviews, but I enjoyed all three movies far more than THOR, IRON MAN 2, Spider-man 3, The Incredible Hulk, etc.

Even Ang Lee's Hulk got a lower grade than Thor I believe, but got two thumbs up so we'll see when the movie actually hits, what people think.

THis one is getting it real bad though so im skeptical and when a movie initially didnt look good, u get annoyed at the reviews living up to ur expectations as u hope at least even a 60% cause watchmen wasnt up there as far as reviews, but I enjoyed it more than the first two spidermans as well as also enjoyed 300 more too.

Its mostly all subjective. I really did not like Thor or The Incredible Hulk

[Godman]

I don't know about that. X-men: First Class got glowing reviews and I didn't love it.

agreed. it was OK

[J.Howlett]

The last review I was waiting on: http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/06/review-green-lantern-3d-is-not-as-good.html#more

[DACrowe]

It's not like they knew First Class was going to be a hit when they cast Green Lantern.

Edit: damn, no delete option?

I think the point is Vaughn and Singer didn't care that Fassbender (or McAvoy and Lawrence for that matter) weren't big names to audiences. Those three were cast because they're great actors and really contributed to XFC's overall quality. Renyolds, who isn't a bad actor, but quite good, was cast over someone like Fassbender because he is more famous and has a marquee name after The Proposal. That is also why Blake Lively was miscast as a fighter pilot/savvy businesswoman.

The point is, WB wasn't casting for who was best for the role and movie. They were casting to have a better opening weekend. Though I don't get the hate for Renyolds, he is a very solid leading man/movie star type. I hear he is one of the few redeeming points of this movie.

[Blackman]

I enjoy Reynolds but I do wish they went with someone else

[Evil Twin]

Green Lantern is simply middle of the road, IMO. The setup is fine and the conclusion is fine, but it does nothing but tread water in Act 2. It talks about fear and the burden of responsibility, but does nothing to actually show those issues. The "did he quit or didn't he" nature of the act is basically the whole problem. "I quit" has no consequences and is undone with a simple pep talk.

It's a fundamental script issue.

It's not Wolverine or Batman and Robin bad. Not by a long shot. It's not even that much worse than Thor. But, about half the film has no bearing on the ending, and that's a problem.

[DACrowe]

i like Hemsworth as Thor. he was fantastic. but imagine this. Hemsworth is acting for 10 years. and he acts in Thor like in 80% of hes movies. would you still have the same opinion?

GL needed an unknown to make this hes role. i like Reynolds and i think i will enjoy the humor. IM type humor.if this owould be Reynolds fist movie where he shows this type of humor i think everyone would praise him.

I was well aware of Tobey Maguire's, Christian Bale's, and Robert Downey Jr.'s work before I saw them play their superheroes. That didn't effect how I viewed their excellent performances. Brandon Routh was an unknown for Superman and was marginal at best. Sometimes an unknown like Hugh Jackman, Christopher Reeve and now Hemsworth make the part better. But just because I know Johnny Depp is playing Jack Sparrow using a certain bag of tricks doesn't mean I can't appreciate how brilliant that performance was in the first movie.

BTW, a lot of one-liners does not make this Iron Man. Fantastic Four had a lot of one-liners, as well.

[DACrowe]

And Thor didn't coast?

That's a load of bull. If any film coasted this summer, it's that one.

And I still like the damn thing but don't for a second think it didn't coast...(granted, it didn't coast like Iron Man 2).

I said it had a weak screenplay. The screenplay did coast and completely played it safe. But by getting Kenneth Branagh and an A-list cast with a few Oscar winners and nominees on hand, the film was better than it had any right to be. It could have just been as safe and by-the-numbers in its style, casting and production as its average screenplay was (see IM2 which beyond some good acting was a bore). But Branagh put together a movie that didn't just coast by when it could have given the screenplay. It seems GL does just coast.

[The Morningstar]

Reynolds himself doesn't seem to be the problem. It's the writing that lets him down going by most of the reviews. None of them really criticises Reynolds.

People still going on about Thor? :funny: Get over it.

[The Morningstar]

I have a feeling that if the reviews for GL were overwhelmingly positive, some of the people who are claiming that reviews mean little would be lending a lot more credence to them.

Such is the way. If critics were praising GL no one would be complaining.

[DarthSkywalker]

I said it had a weak screenplay. The screenplay did coast and completely played it safe. But by getting Kenneth Branagh and an A-list cast with a few Oscar winners and nominees on hand, the film was better than it had any right to be. It could have just been as safe and by-the-numbers in its style, casting and production as its average screenplay was (see IM2 which beyond some good acting was a bore). But Branagh put together a movie that didn't just coast by when it could have given the screenplay. It seems GL does just coast.

While Portman kind of hurt the film, I agree. The main tale of Odin, Loki and Thor comes across so well, it makes the film. That is down to the actors and Branagh. Those scenes work far better then the script deserved.

Also while the Warrior Three were kind of terrible, Alexander, Russo, Elba, Skarsgard, and Denning all added to the tale in their limited roles.

[Godman]

I have a feeling that if the reviews for GL were overwhelmingly positive, some of the people who are claiming that reviews mean little would be lending a lot more credence to them.

agreed

[Ozymandias]

I attended the Houston preview screening last night for my college newspaper. Not the greatest superhero movie ever, but certainly not deserving of a 24% tomato meter.

Full review here: http://www.thebatt.com/lantern-shines-1.2401135

[Godman]

I enjoy Reynolds but I do wish they went with someone else

i agree as I always saw him more as The Flash

[The Morningstar]

Interesting. http://www.theonion.com/video/green-lantern-to-fulfill-americas-wish-to-see-lant,20741/

[The Morningstar]

i agree as I always saw him more as The Flash

Na, he's Deadpool.

Besides, if Flash got a movie it wouldn't be Wally West, the wise cracking, charismatic guy who Reynolds would be great for. It'd be Barry Allen, the dull as dishwater nice guy.

Geoff Johns would decree it.

[KangConquers]

I thought this was a Green Lantern thread, not a bash Marvel films thread.

[KangConquers]

Na, he's Deadpool.

Besides, if Flash got a movie it wouldn't be Wally West, the wise cracking, charismatic guy who Reynolds would be great for. It'd be Barry Allen, the dull as dishwater nice guy.

Geoff Johns would decree it.

Supposedly they're doing The Flash from a CSI angle, given Barry Allen's profession.

Granted who knows if that movie will even get made now.

[The Morningstar]

I thought this was a Green Lantern thread, not a bash Marvel films thread.

It was inevitable it would devolved into that if GL was bad.

[KangConquers]

edit: Never mind.

[Miranda Fox]

I think the point is Vaughn and Singer didn't care that Fassbender (or McAvoy and Lawrence for that matter) weren't big names to audiences. Those three were cast because they're great actors and really contributed to XFC's overall quality.

James McAvoy is recognisable to the general public, even if they might not actually know he's name.

Otherwise, spot on. :up:

It is worth noting most people seem to think Ryan Renolds did well in GL, just that the script itself wasn't up to scratch. But as always, we should always judge for ourselves. ;)

[Miranda Fox]

Seriously. It has flaws, but it was critically acclaimed and made money. No amount of bellyaching is going to change that now.

I don't understand people complaining about that - any comic book film doing well is a good thing (unless it is really awful, which certainly wasn't the case with Thor).

[KangConquers]

James McAvoy is recognisable to the general public, even if they might not actually know he's name.

Otherwise, spot on. :up:

It is worth noting most people seem to think Ryan Renolds did well in GL, just that the script itself wasn't up to scratch. But as always, we should always judge for ourselves. ;)


This brings up a good question: Why in the hell do DC and Marvel keep hiring mediocre writers? Why wouldn't you go after the best damn screenplay writers you could find?

Of all the things you can spend money on (Directors, Actors, SFX) the screenplay is perhaps the most important, and least expensive, to get right.

[DACrowe]

While Portman kind of hurt the film, I agree. The main tale of Odin, Loki and Thor comes across so well, it makes the film. That is down to the actors and Branagh. Those scenes work far better then the script deserved.

Also while the Warrior Three were kind of terrible, Alexander, Russo, Elba, Skarsgard, and Denning all added to the tale in their limited roles.

I don't think Portman hurt the film. Her part of a work-obsessed "brillaint" scientist turning into a 12-year-old school girl around big-muscled Thor was just a very cartoonish and thinly written part. She added a degree of charm, humor and fun to the role that if plain straight would have been terrible.

To put it another way, Marvel/Branagh could have cast a TV-starlet like Vanessa Hudgens or Blake Lively. They cast a very strong actress who helped elevate the material.

[dark_b]

i disagree with people saying that GL doesnt deserve this kind of reviews. it deserves this kind of reviews from critics. TF2 deserved its reviews.like Spiderman,batman,..... what is good and what is bad? my opinion or yours? i am not saying that GL is bad. i am trying to explain that critics think that its bad.

why? because when you realese the movie its out. and if someone wants to pay money its hes choice, hes taste. and that way a movie can bomb or brake records.


GL will make as much money as it can. the marketing was very big in the last 2 months. like with every blockbuster. they dont anymore promote movies full force for the whole year. general public also didnt complain about the november trailer because they dont care.

[KangConquers]

I don't think Portman hurt the film. Her part of a work-obsessed "brillaint" scientist turning into a 12-year-old school girl around big-muscled Thor was just a very cartoonish and thinly written part. She added a degree of charm, humor and fun to the role that if plain straight would have been terrible.

To put it another way, Marvel/Branagh could have cast a TV-starlet like Vanessa Hudgens or Blake Lively. They cast a very strong actress who helped elevate the material.

Really Thor would've been a masterpiece if it weren't for the script; think of it...same actors, same directors, same effects...but from the writers of Black Swan or the King's Speech instead of the writers of Agent Cody Banks.

[DACrowe]

James McAvoy is recognisable to the general public, even if they might not actually know he's name.

Otherwise, spot on. :up:

It is worth noting most people seem to think Ryan Renolds did well in GL, just that the script itself wasn't up to scratch. But as always, we should always judge for ourselves. ;)

People who like watching films such as Atonement, The Last King of Scotland and The Conspirator know him as a gifted Scottish actor. Everyone else might know him as Angelina Jolie's sidekick in that one movie Not exactly selling tickets with that.

[The Morningstar]

I just think WB/DC have looked to far ahead. They took it for granted that this movie would be a franchise starter. They marketed it to hell, which to me stank of desperation. (GL colostomy bags? REALLY?)

They took their eye off the ball.

[Miranda Fox]

This brings up a good question: Why in the hell do DC and Marvel keep hiring mediocre writers? Why wouldn't you go after the best damn screenplay writers you could find?

Of all the things you can spend money on (Directors, Actors, SFX) the screenplay is perhaps the most important, and least expensive, to get right.

Heh, one of the screenwriting books I have on my shelf tries to address that question more broadly ('why are so many badly written films made') and the simplest answer is: studios don't want to take risks. And GL seems to be a perfect example of playing it safe in terms of story - there's nothing we haven't seen before in there.

As a further example, there was a really good Wonder Woman script out there that was never made because it was considered too risky. It's approach was as a period piece (sort of like the upcoming Captain America film) and it was very different from any other superhero film.

It is worth noting that writers are often hampered by the studio as well. I don't always think they are entirely to blame on films like this.

Of course the irony here is that if WB HAD tried something riskier and less cookie-cutter, GL might have been much better received.

[KangConquers]

i disagree with people saying that GL doesnt deserve this kind of reviews. it deserves this kind of reviews from critics. TF2 deserved its reviews.like Spiderman,batman,..... what is good and what is bad? my opinion or yours? i am not saying that GL is bad. i am trying to explain that critics think that its bad.

why? because when you realese the movie its out. and if someone wants to pay money its hes choice, hes taste. and that way a movie can bomb or brake records.


GL will make as much money as it can. the marketing was very big in the last 2 months. like with every blockbuster. they dont anymore promote movies full force for the whole year. general public also didnt complain about the november trailer because they dont care.


I think this was going to make the same amount of money this weekend with great or terrible reviews. It's legs and word of mouth might change significantly though.

[Miranda Fox]

People who like watching films such as Atonement, The Last King of Scotland and The Conspirator know him as a gifted Scottish actor. Everyone else might know him as Angelina Jolie's sidekick in that one movie Not exactly selling tickets with that.

...I never said he was a ticket seller per se, I said he would be recognisable to the public.

[Bubonic]

I have a feeling that if the reviews for GL were overwhelmingly positive, some of the people who are claiming that reviews mean little would be lending a lot more credence to them.

Do you realize how absolutely useless a comment like this is given the current reality?

Hey guys you'd all like Hitler if he'd gotten into art school and hadn't ordered the murder of 6 million Jews.

[Miranda Fox]

Hey guys you'd all like Hitler if he'd gotten into art school and hadn't ordered the murder of 6 million Jews.

Wow, we have Godwin's in the Green Lantern review thread. :wow: :whatever:

[The Morningstar]

Do you realize how absolutely useless a comment like this is given the current reality?

Hey guys you'd all like Hitler if he'd gotten into art school and hadn't ordered the murder of 6 million Jews.

What he said is very true.

If the reviews had been praising Green Lantern no one would be saying the reviews are poorly written or palming them off.

You know it, I know it.

[dark_b]

I think this was going to make the same amount of money this weekend with great or terrible reviews. It's legs and word of mouth might change significantly though.bingo.

the only way GL will make more or less money is with WORD OF MOUTH. if the masses like GL they will make this a big movie. if they dont then it will underperform. the general public will brake or make this franchise. they pay the money .

[Marvin]

Na, he's Deadpool.

Besides, if Flash got a movie it wouldn't be Wally West, the wise cracking, charismatic guy who Reynolds would be great for. It'd be Barry Allen, the dull as dishwater nice guy.

Geoff Johns would decree it.

Johns grew up with him and thinks he's better.

I don't know, I honestly just didn't care for the books till wally and kyle. I just love how they get the wally personality and used the hal jordan name in order to get the best of all worlds.

[AMP]

Nice review, with everyone focusing on the bad, I've also loads of good ones too, personally I think it'll be more of a hit with the general public, think they'll lap it up especially kids, and for me that ain't a bad thing, I got into comics as a kid, films like this should be aimed at them.
Again just my opinion
http://digitista.blogspot.com/2011/06/green-lantern-movie-review-imagination.html

[Marvin]

Supposedly they're doing The Flash from a CSI angle, given Barry Allen's profession.

Granted who knows if that movie will even get made now.

please no berlanti
please

[KalMart]

Do you realize how absolutely useless a comment like this is given the current reality?
The reality is that reviews should either always count or always not count....be they good or bad. What's current is perception.

[TheIncredibleSk]

While i'll still be seeing this film, this is like the first film that got negative reviews that made me feel sad and down.

[Bubonic]

Yes I understand what you mean, that if the reviews were good the fanboys desperate for confirmation that the movie is good would obviously parade the reviews and say things like told you so, and see they get it, this is an amazing movie.

But the fact of the matter is that the reviews are bad and the movie most probably sucks, now people are making very shallow claims that somehow if this movie came out at such and such a time it would have 80%, that all these Marvel movies that got over 70% are just pieces of crap worse than GL and there is some active critic conspiracy trying to hold the movie down.

People are dwelling on how inacurate these review sites are but I doubt they can name me 5 movies off the top of their heads that had a rating in the mid-twenties and was actually any good.

[Bubonic]

computer problems, double post

[Doc Phosphorus]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Justice League film before Flash, WW, etc.

WB could pull a reverse-Avengers. Do a JL movie sold on the merits of Batman and Superman and then gleam reactions from it to decide which members deserve spin-offs.

[Tony Stark]

Funny that Roger Ebert's review actually sounded somewhat positive, albeit unenthusiastic, but it's counted as a splat on RT.

[Man of Tomorrow]

I think a JLA film is dead in the water if this fails.


This was supposed to be WB's approach to JLA, an action-driven mindless popcorn flick for the GA.


The formula does not work in the post-TDK era.

[KalMart]

I think a JLA film is dead in the water if this fails.


This was supposed to be WB's approach to JLA, an action-driven mindless popcorn flick for the GA.


The formula does not work in the post-TDK era.

I think it can work just fine if it's actually done well.

[hame4479]

The one thing that does have me feeling a bit optimistic is the fact that in many of the negative the reviews, the reviewer seems to think that the whole premise of a willpowered ring is silly, and that the whole premise for the universe being set up is more than a little ridiculous. That gives me a touch of hope considering I and all of you most likely think its badass and classic from the get go.

[Avengers-Report]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Justice League film before Flash, WW, etc.

WB could pull a reverse-Avengers. Do a JL movie sold on the merits of Batman and Superman and then gleam reactions from it to decide which members deserve spin-offs.

Which could work since Batman and Superman are much more known throughout the general public than Thor, Iron Man, Captain America were before they had their respective movies...

[Angelus_Darko]

I read on one of the reviews that this is a kid's film. If that's the case, I understand it, 'cause Warner right now has a huge franchise with Batman, but let's be honest, a kid can't enjoy BB or TDK, so they need something that appeals to a younger audience. With GL they have it. They have a huge merchandising opportunity with the Corps, lots of characters to sell to both kids and collectors.

I suppose that Warner will ask Snyder to get the perfect balance with Superman, with fans loving it and kids buying "The Daily Planet Battle set" or something.

[The Morningstar]

I think a JLA film is dead in the water if this fails.


This was supposed to be WB's approach to JLA, an action-driven mindless popcorn flick for the GA.


The formula does not work in the post-TDK era.

What do you mean in the post TDK era?

Movies don't have to be like TDK to be good. (especially considering TDK really isn't that good...)

The point is, this movie just fails as a movie going by what critics are saying.. Intelligent drama, mindless blockbuster... doesn't matter. When the protagonist and the antagonist of your movie are weak, that's it, game over.

[The Morningstar]

I read on one of the reviews that this is a kid's film. If that's the case, I understand it, 'cause Warner right now has a huge franchise with Batman, but let's be honest, a kid can't enjoy BB or TDK, so they need something that appeals to a younger audience. With GL they have it. They have a huge merchandising opportunity with the Corps, lots of characters to sell to both kids and collectors.

I suppose that Warner will ask Snyder to get the perfect balance with Superman, with fans loving it and kids buying "The Daily Planet Battle set" or something.

Well yea, WB were clearly more interesting in making money from gullible children than actually making a worthwhile film with artistic integrity.

Kinda like Batman and Robin, a 2 hour long toy commercial.

[Angelus_Darko]

Well yea, WB were clearly more interesting in making money from gullible children than actually making a worthwhile film with artistic integrity.

Kinda like Batman and Robin, a 2 hour long toy commercial.

Holy ****... that bad????? http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

[Hellion]

(especially considering TDK really isn't that good...)


:bow:

I thought I was the only one...I still enjoy it though,

...I'm struggling whether to see this or not...I'm shocked at the reviews, and from previews and trailers it did seem to have that, oh, feeling it may be for the younger crowd, which doesn't bother me to a degree, not everything needs to be dark, edgy, etc......

[Sam]

Roger Ebert gave it 2,5 out of 4

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110615/REVIEWS/110619994

He likes GL more than Thor, which he gave 1,5 ou of 4

[The Morningstar]

Holy ****... that bad????? http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

lol well I dunno.

I'm just going from reviews and the desperate marketing campaign.

Reviews seem to indicate it's all style and no subtance. The marketing campaign reeked of desperation. Seems to me WB were more bothered about earning enough money to kick start a franchise rather than worrying about the actual quality of the product.

Which is why i compare it to Batman and Robin.

[Bubonic]

What's the word on the quality of the 3d in this film?
I know I didn't bother seeing Thor in 3d as I heard it was overly blurry and too dark in spots along with other common criticisms of of production 3d.

Does the 3d stand apart from a lot of the other garbage 3d out there?

[The Morningstar]

Roger Ebert gave it 2,5 out of 4

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110615/REVIEWS/110619994

He likes GL more than Thor, which he gave 1,5 ou of 4

Ebert was much harsher on Thor, which he seemed almost insulted by.

But his review is basically "the visuals are cool and Hector Hammond had some potential".

[Tony Stark]

While I'm interested in seeing other DC characters on film, like WW, Flash, Green Arrow, etc. I really have no interest in seeing a JLA movie, especially one that's just a reactionary money grab based on the Avengers project.

Marvel had a plan that so-far has worked. Get you interested in the characters so you're interested in the film. I don't know that an Avengers movie right off the bat would have worked, and I don't know that a reverse phillosophy for JLA will work.

Yeah Dark Knight is a huge success, but it has little to do with WB other than knowing when to get the hell out of the way.

If you've ever listened to Kevin Smith's explanation of his involvement with the Superman Reborn project, that tells you every thing you know that's wrong with WB. As I've mentioned alot of those problems existed for Marvel's properties at Fox. But studio interference is a huge problem.

The biggest problem that I've always had with JLA is why in the hell does Superman need Aquaman's help, or Batman's help for that matter. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Justice League cartoon series, and I grew up watching Superfriends and the old Filmation JLA series. I just think Marvel has always done a better job with the story writing with Avengers than DC has done with JLA, and I don't want to start a huge Marvel vs. DC debate about that, because DC has some excellent writers, but I've always enjoyed the individual books more than the Justice League stuff. It's just like there's stuff I like better on the XBox than the PS3 and things I like better on the PS3.

[TheIncredibleSk]

A lot of people are saying that the 3D is really good and one best 3d conversions.

[Tony Stark]

Ebert was much harsher on Thor, which he seemed almost insulted by.

But his review is basically "the visuals are cool and Hector Hammond had some potential".

If he likes GL better than Thor, that's fine, but his Thor review was assinine. When a reviewer goes out of his way to comment on the high RT score, that was just bush league.

You can write a bad review of a film without having to trash your colleagues in a backhanded way.

[Angelus_Darko]

lol well I dunno.

I'm just going from reviews and the desperate marketing campaign.

Reviews seem to indicate it's all style and no subtance. The marketing campaign reeked of desperation. Seems to me WB were more bothered about earning enough money to kick start a franchise rather than worrying about the actual quality of the product.

Which is why i compare it to Batman and Robin.

Oh well, in that case it's not that bad, but still pretty ugly. Also, the whole "hey, let's give them more millions for the CG" confirms what you're saying. They focused on the style.

[Bubonic]

Just found out that the major Montreal theatre isn't even showing Green Lantern, and that is stupendously uncanny, they show ALL the major movies, they even had fracking Hobo with a Shotgun showing for 2 weeks!

So it's the ghetto theatre afterall! 5 dollars for digital 3d, no 2d option but at that price I can't complain.

[SuperDaniel]

My only question about the movie is....DO WE SEE BZZD?

[KalMart]

I read on one of the reviews that this is a kid's film. If that's the case, I understand it, 'cause Warner right now has a huge franchise with Batman, but let's be honest, a kid can't enjoy BB or TDK, so they need something that appeals to a younger audience. With GL they have it. They have a huge merchandising opportunity with the Corps, lots of characters to sell to both kids and collectors.

I suppose that Warner will ask Snyder to get the perfect balance with Superman, with fans loving it and kids buying "The Daily Planet Battle set" or something.

If it's a "kids' film", why did they apparently try to weigh it down with ponderous adult relationship issues et al? I think Iron Man was as much a kids film as an all-ages one without having to be 'child-oriented' or what have you.

But let's say that was the intent...to make a "kids' film"....is that okay? Is it okay for all the GL fans who pined for ages that GL is more than just big green cartoon shapes and kooky-looking aliens? Are they able to backpedal and say 'It's okay...it's a kids' film...what're you expecting, Passion Of The Christ?'

I feel that a lot of times, when movies are made with a specific target demographic...age, gender, etc.... they often become films with blinders on. The emphasis is so much on hitting their target buttons, that it gets in the way of actually making a good piece of film. Whereas when a subject matter knows what it is, and has enough confidence not to push it , and the concentration is on making the film as good as it can be as a film first and foremost....who it appeals to more is gravy.

[Denny67]

I think a JLA film is dead in the water if this fails.


This was supposed to be WB's approach to JLA, an action-driven mindless popcorn flick for the GA.


The formula does not work in the post-TDK era.

I disagree. I see a JLA film as one of very few opportunities to quickly establish and reestablish every DC property in one shot. That is the good part. The bad part is, if the F that up, live action DC movies are (save Batman and Superman*) ready for the fork... for a very long time. :dry:

*If done well by Snyder

[MWF]

If he likes GL better than Thor, that's fine, but his Thor review was assinine. When a reviewer goes out of his way to comment on the high RT score, that was just bush league.

You can write a bad review of a film without having to trash your colleagues in a backhanded way.

Never paid attention to Ebert anyway. It was doubly tragic when Siskel died for me, as I tended to agree with his reviews quite frequently, whereas Ebert's opinions are completely scattershot in comparison to my own. I have no idea what to think when he criticizes or praises a picture.

[The Morningstar]

If Green Lantern flops, there won't be a JLA film. There won't be a Flash film. There won't be any DC films other than Batman and Superman.

[The Morningstar]

If he likes GL better than Thor, that's fine, but his Thor review was assinine. When a reviewer goes out of his way to comment on the high RT score, that was just bush league.

You can write a bad review of a film without having to trash your colleagues in a backhanded way.

The thing is, Ebert's review of Green Lantern kinda just says "well it's a superhero film, what do you expect". His Thor review was basically just a rant where he didn't actually go into detail about the things he didn't like.

[Marvin]

If Green Lantern flops, there won't be a JLA film. There won't be a Flash film. There won't be any DC films other than Batman and Superman.

so you honestly think WB is going sit on the hand while marvel devours the superhero market share for the next 12 years, knowing full well that they own every single DC property?

sorry but you're wrong.
moreover once they have another hit on their hands(next years films) the cycle will start over again but this time they will emphasize a darker tone.

[Angelus_Darko]

If it's a "kids' film", why did they apparently try to weigh it down with ponderous adult relationship issues et al? I think Iron Man was as much a kids film as an all-ages one without having to be 'child-oriented' or what have you.

But let's say that was the intent...to make a "kids' film"....is that okay? Is it okay for all the GL fans who pined for ages that GL is more than just big green cartoon shapes and kooky-looking aliens? Are they able to backpedal and say 'It's okay...it's a kids' film...what're you expecting, Passion Of The Christ?'

I feel that a lot of times, when movies are made with a specific target demographic...age, gender, etc.... they often become films with blinders on. The emphasis is so much on hitting their target buttons, that it gets in the way of actually making a good piece of film. Whereas when a subject matter knows what it is, and has enough confidence not to push it , and the concentration is on making the film as good as it can be as a film first and foremost....who it appeals to more is gravy.

Dude, you're totally right. That's exactly what I hope that Snyder does with Superman.

[MWF]

moreover once they have another hit on their hands(next years films) the cycle will start over again but this time they will emphasize a darker tone.

Ugh. That might actually be worse than no films at all, though. And when they emphasize a darker tone for characters that don't mesh well with that concept, and those films bomb because of, what then?

I absolutely can see Warner Brothers taking a long deep breath after Green Lantern if it tanks. The suits in Hollywood are big on generalizations, and the one they may come to if Green Lantern fails could very well be, "Well, I guess general audiences just don't like the DC characters as much as the Marvel ones. What's J.K. Rowling up to these days?"

[The Morningstar]

And they'd be idiots for thinking movies are succesful because they are "dark". It's nothing to do with "darkness". Dark doesn't = good. For Batman it does. For the likes of Superman? No.

Batman and Superman beings hits won't make a difference. Those movies, well Batman at least, is always going to be a hit.

But GL was the second tier character who isn't a pop culture icon. If GL fails, then WB ain't gonna take risks with big budget Flash or Wonder Woman movies.

[0neDisturbedSOB]

Movie has been getting some really bad reviews from just about all over. Most people are calling it "boring" and "lifeless," but are praising Reynold's for his genuine attempt to bring Hal Jordan to life. I've got my tickets for the midnight showing, tonight. I really am hoping this is one of those movies that critics hate, but I love (Speed Racer). Still, can't help but take note of what they are saying.

[craigdbfan]

@TheMorningStar Well WW the show already got the boot, I think this GL fiasco is just the cheery on top to seal the deal.

Welcome to 20 more years of Batman and Superman folks.

[dark_b]

20 years is to much. maybe 5 years ?

we are talking of course if GL underperforms. we dont know this yet.

maybe it will be a big hit.

[TheIncredibleSk]

If Superman fails(Russel Crowe will get that movie to be a sucess. Im calling it) were ****ed.

[craigdbfan]

Maybe it won't.

[craigdbfan]

If Superman fails(Russel Crowe will get that movie to be a sucess. Im calling it) were ****ed.

That'll mean that poor Batman will be sucked dry come 2015 (innuendo/pun not intended).

[Crockett]

My only question about the movie is....DO WE SEE BZZD?

The camera focused on him for a few seconds and you get to hear him, well say bzzd.

[EliteF50]

Batman and Superman? More like Batman and more Batman. Supes hasn't been too good for DC lately. All they've got now is Nolan's movies which will be coming to an end.

Things aren't looking too good for DC, imo. Although I know Zack is gonna deliver an amazing Superman movie.

[Chewy]

When was the last time a superhero movie became a big hit despite terrible reviews?

And I don't mean a sequel

[Man of Tomorrow]

Review from a general audience viewer who isn't familiar with GL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti_F21nYv9Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=500s

[flickchick85]

The thing is, Ebert's review of Green Lantern kinda just says "well it's a superhero film, what do you expect". His Thor review was basically just a rant where he didn't actually go into detail about the things he didn't like.
Ebert does have the unfortunate sporadic tendency to forget that he's writing a review and just go on a rant over some aspect of a film. His Kick-Ass review still cracks me up.

[MWF]

Review from a general audience viewer who isn't familiar with GL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti_F21nYv9Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=500s

I can't watch it at work; is it positive or negative?

[Man of Tomorrow]

Take 2 Reviews Green Lantern:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aux_-BHsIrM

"This movie really does not need to exist"



I can't watch it at work; is it positive or negative?

Negative.

[Crimson King]

I can't watch it at work; is it positive or negative?

He says he doesn't want to tell you not to go, and then he lists off a series of faults. Good action in parts, but it's jumbled together and they hit you over the head with the movie's theme again and again. He says some of the actors are wasted. I believe he also said something about thinking the comic fans may not like it.

[TheIncredibleSk]

Fantastic Four is the only one that comes to mind.

[MWF]

He says he doesn't want to tell you not to go, and then he lists off a series of faults. Good action in parts, but it's jumbled together and they hit you over the head with the movie's theme again and again.

Thanks a lot for that summary. Appreciate it.

So I guess general audiences might not hate it, at least...

[The Morningstar]

Spoon feeding themes. The plague of any movie. ANY movie. *cough*TDK*cough* ;)

[Chewy]

Fantastic Four is the only one that comes to mind.That was the only that came to my mind as well. And F4 wasn't really that big of a hit, if its budget had been larger (like Green Lantern's is) it wouldn't have gotten a sequel.

[The Morningstar]

Ebert does have the unfortunate sporadic tendency to forget that he's writing a review and just go on a rant over some aspect of a film. His Kick-Ass review still cracks me up.

haha yea i remember that one. It was basically a whole page ranting about Hit Girl wasn't it?

[flickchick85]

haha yea i remember that one. It was basically a whole page ranting about Hit Girl wasn't it?
Yep, pretty much.

[dark_b]

true true. the budget for FF was not so big

[hame4479]

If Superman fails(Russel Crowe will get that movie to be a sucess. Im calling it) were ****ed.


With that cast and such an accomplished action director at the helm it had better be ****ing amazing! Come on Snyder blow my ****ing mind!

[hame4479]

What I dont understand is that these reviews pretty much say that the film doesnt spend very much time on oa which if true, is total bs I was hoping for at least fifty percent and they make it sound like its borderline twenty percent.

[J.Howlett]

For a first movie...? They were never going to spend 50% on Oa.

[Crimson King]

Has this been posted yet? I've tried to keep up, but this thread is moving too quickly.

Nordling (AICN) reviews Green Lantern (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50046)
First, what works: Ryan Reynolds really does give GREEN LANTERN his all. He's the best thing about the film. It's an earnest performance and you can see Reynolds kicking, punching, and dragging the movie with him. It's unfortunate that the movie is dead weight on his back - the script is a mess, the direction is uninspired, and the pace is flat-out boring.

[MWF]

Considering how much the film cost to make, perhaps they just couldn't spend any more time on Oa than they did for budget reasons. They blew their wad for some quick, big money shots (that doesn't sound right) on Oa, and that was about it, maybe.

[dnno1]

Roger Ebert hated all the CBM's that came out this year. At least he Liked GL better than Thor.

[J.Howlett]

MWF,

It's the same situation that happened to Bay on the first Transformers film. I like that film a lot but you do notice how Bay basically shoots around the robots the whole film until the climax...and even then he shoots around them.

In Revenge of the Fallen, he loosens up a bit but still, because of how much it cost to do the CG, he still shot around them.

It only makes sense that Green Lantern does almost the exact same thing with certain sections of the film.

[DACrowe]

The thing is, Ebert's review of Green Lantern kinda just says "well it's a superhero film, what do you expect". His Thor review was basically just a rant where he didn't actually go into detail about the things he didn't like.

It does seem odd that with Thor and even XFC his review is "It was terrible" or in XFC's "It was okay, but pretty mediocre." Why? "It wasn't as good as The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2."

I agree with him that those are the best of the genre, but Thor is a solid, if not spectacular, film. XFC was very good. That would be like dismissing all westerns that are not of the quality of The Searchers, Stagecoach or The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.

Strangely, he seems resigned after those two because GL read as, "It's a bunch of bright lights, CGI and pretty colors for children and those who don't like adult films. If that's what you want, help yourself." A backhanded "compliment," I suppose. Maybe he's given up on non-Nolan and Raimi efforts at this point.

[dark_b]

MWF,

It's the same situation that happened to Bay on the first Transformers film. I like that film a lot but you do notice how Bay basically shoots around the robots the whole film until the climax...and even then he shoots around them.

In Revenge of the Fallen, he loosens up a bit but still, because of how much it cost to do the CG, he still shot around them.

It only makes sense that Green Lantern does almost the exact same thing with certain sections of the film.are you saying that they didnt show robots in all their gllory in the first movie?

i remember a lot of robots in the second half. i remember a lot of close ups. and i rememeber a final battle during daytime. for a 150 (lets say 170) million budet they showed everything they could.

[Crimson King]

Roger Ebert hated all the CBM's that came out this year. At least he Liked GL better than Thor.

Can you explain the "At least he liked GL better than Thor" comment?

[craigdbfan]

I wish the comparisons with TF and GL would just stop.

They shouldn't be compared at all. At this point it's clear that GL will most likely not resonate with audiences nearly as much as the Bay TF series has. Not even close.

[Chewy]

Can you explain the "At least he liked GL better than Thor" comment?The explanation is that it's dnno1.

[J.Howlett]

All I'm saying is that Bay saved the budget on his Transformers film until the climax. A real Transformers film wouldn't have any humans in it...but that would cost way too much.

It's the same with Oa and the entire Corps in this first film. It would cost entirely too much, considering how much this film cost already.

That's the point I was making.

[The Morningstar]

He didn't even seem to like GL. He basically called it a kids movie with nice visuals.

[Chewy]

All I'm saying is that Bay saved the budget on his Transformers film until the climax. A real Transformers film wouldn't have any humans in it...but that would cost way too much.

It's the same with Oa and the entire Corps in this first film. It would cost entirely too much, considering how much this film cost already.

That's the point I was making.Has there ever been an incarnation of Transformers without humans?

Beast Wars was one of my childhood favorites... even that had the monkeys.

[Doctor Who]

So... I heard from a few birds that this isn't such a good film? I was planning on seeing this soon, but wondering if XM:FC or Super 8 might be worth seeing first.

[craigdbfan]

I guess Beast Machines.

[dark_b]

All I'm saying is that Bay saved the budget on his Transformers film until the climax. A real Transformers film wouldn't have any humans in it...but that would cost way too much.

It's the same with Oa and the entire Corps in this first film. It would cost entirely too much, considering how much this film cost already.

That's the point I was making.it would cost more money and would make less money. the human parts with SHia are part of the reason why the movie made so much money. IMO. not the only reason. but part.

[craigdbfan]

So... I heard from a few birds that this isn't such a good film? I was planning on seeing this soon, but wondering if XM:FC or Super 8 might be worth seeing first.

Definitely go watch XM:FC and then Super 8. As for GL well even I'm reconsidering spending money on something that might not be worth it.

As for XM:FC go watch that friend. It's a great movie. :up:

[J.Howlett]

Super 8's not good, if you can look past the nostalgia. First Class is the better choice.

[Marvin]

So... I heard from a few birds that this isn't such a good film? I was planning on seeing this soon, but wondering if XM:FC or Super 8 might be worth seeing first.

it's actually funny, the critics that decided that XFC failed, need to see some other comic book films and re-evaluate.

[Raiden]

So... I heard from a few birds that this isn't such a good film? I was planning on seeing this soon, but wondering if XM:FC or Super 8 might be worth seeing first.

Regardless whether you decided to go see GL or not, definitely make an effort to check out First Class in the theatre; it's worth your money.

[JP]

First Class is definitely deserving of your monies.

[J.Howlett]

I just wish First Class had nailed the last 12 minutes. The more and more I get away from that film, the more I hate those last 12 minutes.

Everything else, pretty much aces (except for hedging on whether it was a straight prequel or reboot with certain details).

[Crimson King]

The explanation is that it's dnno1.

Don't know dnno1. Should the DC avatar be a clue?

[flickchick85]

So... I heard from a few birds that this isn't such a good film? I was planning on seeing this soon, but wondering if XM:FC or Super 8 might be worth seeing first.
I haven't seen GL, but just based on the reviews it got and having seen the other two, I'd say both are worth seeing first. XM:FC should be priority #1, imo.

[flickchick85]

I just wish First Class had nailed the last 12 minutes. The more and more I get away from that film, the more I hate those last 12 minutes.
Are you talking about the beach? Because that was my favorite part of the whole film!

[Marvin]

This really should have been the DC independence day, minus all that president stuff and the jews lol.

I'm talking fighter pilot in space with trumpets blasting and ryan reynolds taking will smiths crown.

eh maybe not.

[Chewy]

Don't know dnno1. Should the DC avatar be a clue?Basically just realize that dnno1 is probably the most frustrating poster on the Hype. Even though I'm pretty sure it's a joke account.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

These bad reviews are making me sad. I'm still seeing the movie on saturday morning though. The tickets will only be 5.00 and I have a 3.00 off coupon so I'll only be spending 2.00. If I dislike I won't be pissed off about the money thing.

And see First Class. It's a great movie and I agree with you FlickChick, I loved the beach scene but thats just me. Super 8 has tons of flaws but I think that the direction and the kids performances make it worth a look if you have the cash.

[Crimson King]

Are you talking about the beach? Because that was my favorite part of the whole film!

I had big problems with that beach scene, namely the paralyzing of Charles. Why...WHY...is Magneto suddenly deflecting bullets instead of stopping them? It just seemed so horribly forced.

[CaptainCraig]

I attended an advance screener last night. Results are.....

This will contain spoilers, like all our review threads, If you don't want to be spoiled skip this post but do know this: THERE IS NO POST CREDIT SCENE IF YOUR CURIOUS---HOWEVER, THERE IS A SCENE ABOUT 45 SECONDS INTO THE CREDITS.


Grade: C

The movie opens with a narration about what the GLC is, what it's comprised of, how many sectors it covers and just what it is they fear: Parallax. How a noble Lantern managed to trap and entomb this entity in a far off sector of space :cut to our first scene:

At this point we open on a small moon where a crash landed alien ship is and 3 survivors are walking the surface. Their weight causes a hole to open in the surface and they fall through, down into the moon itself. As they stumble up they realize they are in a cavern and come face to face with the just described Paralax. Parallax is able to abosorb their fear and break free of his prison :Six Months Later:

We jump to OA, meet Sinestro, see a brief shot of the planet. He contacts Abin Sur whose on a rescue mission to help vicitims of Parallax whose been roaming the galaxy amassing power and destroying civilizations. Parallax finds Sur, attacks, mortally wounding him and he takes off for "the nearest inhabited world" :cut to Hal Jordan waking up next to a babe:

We meet Hal, he goes to Ferris, we meet Carol and are shown a scene of why Hal is fearless, brave, couragous, stupid or all of the above.

I really don't intend to do a full play-by-play, my feelings are that the movie is choppy, uneven and at times unsure of what it's trying to be. Is it taking the material serious and giving us a movie that is intense and serious OR is it going to be a rom/com/action campy flick? There are times when I felt it was working then abruptly shifted gears in tone.

I know on this site and a few others the Thor comparisons were made early based just on the plot synopsis and having seen the movie I think they are there in a few other areas. Sadly, they didn't put it together as well as Thor(and Thor wasn't perfect per se) but Thor did do it better.

Hector's Father, a senator=Odin
Hector=Loki
Hal and Thor are opposites: Earthman to Alien world, Godly alien to Earth

The movie needed more character development, badly imo. I don't buy Hal's friend in the movie as someone that would be close pals with Hal. No chemistry.

The one area of the film I was surprised about was Blake Lively as Carol honestly. She didn't look like Carol but I bought her hard nosed, steel reserve attitude that Blake brought to her. I did feel like Carol and Hal had a past.

Hammond has one really big action sequence near the end but I never fully bought into him as "evil" per se. Again, were they going for the sympathetic tragedy angle with him?

The movie kept telling me Hal was irresponsible, reckless and a possible aloof player but I never SAW those things. One chick in bed doesn't make you a player. Being late to work the one time we saw isn't irresponsible. He wasn't reckless in the faux dog fight, it's his job, like he said to "push the limits and test the prototype".

The screener was in 3-D and it was fairly effective for at least half the movie.

How was the CGI? He worked in more places than it didn't, I'll say that. They did manage to clean up a lot of it as most of us suspected but sadly with that much really alien landscaping and creatures when it's all there in a clump it shows in this case.

My girl-friend that I saw it with made the comment about Parallax at the end that she's seen that affect before, in FFour2. Which didn't cross my mind but really she's right. A giant malevolent force destroying civilizations as it absorbs them in it's mass to gain power & strength. It's seen doing this in the trailer so it's not a spoiler imo.

Summary: Forced, Uneven, Lacks Good Flow, Disjointed but good action scenes, some good 3-D for a change(cough Pirates,Priest).

[MOVIELORD101]

A message to WB in response to these negative reviews:

http://blogs.965thebuzz.com/files/2011/05/Shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I honestly don't expect to feel much different about this film than I did Thor. Expect maybe this film will have some decent action scenes.

[J.Howlett]

I didn't like the fact that they broke the relationship apart at the end of First Class. Because of the chemistry of the group, especially Fassbender and McAvoy, we could've easily had another film before they eventually became enemies.

Plus, none of the action sequences, save one, were on par with X2.

[RoughNTumble]

I honestly don't expect to feel much different about this film than I did Thor. Expect maybe this film will have some decent action scenes.


I feel the same way. thor just didn't do anything for me. I wasn't interested in any of the characters.

[Hulk1968]

Screw the negative reviews, I'm seeing it tomorrow at noon.
Won't even bother going to the midnight (12:01) screening,
as most of them in my area are either too far, or will be sold out.

I saw Thor in 3D and it was entertaining, not perfect, a little predictable, but it was entertaining...same goes for Super 8...minus the 3D

[Marvin]

I didn't like the fact that they broke the relationship apart at the end of First Class. Because of the chemistry of the group, especially Fassbender and McAvoy, we could've easily had another film before they eventually became enemies.

Plus, none of the action sequences, save one, were on par with X2.

yea, it would have been a super solid film if they ended it on the same side. the trailer for the sequel could have been dark knight caliber. Instead they are doing the singer films all over again.

[flickchick85]

I had big problems with that beach scene, namely the paralyzing of Charles. Why...WHY...is Magneto suddenly deflecting bullets instead of stopping them? It just seemed so horribly forced.
Simple:
He didn't stop the bullets because he wasn't planning to do anything with them. He only stopped the missiles because he wanted to hurl them back at the humans. He never had any ill-will toward Moira (he even used her as his example of "goodness" in the "you think they're all like Moira" conversation) even as she was understandably shooting at him...until Charles was hit, of course.
That was honestly my favorite moment of the movie, as it somehow managed to surprise me, even though I'd been waiting to see how it would happen the whole film. I actually said "Wow" aloud when it happened.

As for them being enemies: They didn't part as enemies at all, imo. They just parted as two separate teams with different ideals, but still on friendly terms. If there is a sequel, I fully expect them to have scenes together where they aren't in combat. And maybe even still work together in different situations.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It would have been better to keep Prof X and Mags as friends for longer in the X-Universe but I disagree whole heartedly about X2 having better action scenes. This is the first X-film that has had interesting action scenes IMHO. Then again I'm firmly on the side of thinking that Singer can't direct action to save his life.

[KalMart]

It would have been better to keep Prof X and Mags as friends for longer in the X-Universe but I disagree whole heartedly about X2 having better action scenes. This is the first X-film that has had interesting action scenes IMHO. Then again I'm firmly on the side of thinking that Singer can't direct action to save his life.

Yeah, Vaughn has shown considerably more flair for action than Singer from day one in his other movies, so I would think that he'd be able to get more from the Xmen in that category at least.

[flickchick85]

The Nightcrawler White House attack is still one of my favorite action sequences in any superhero movie, but other than that, I agree about Singer's action scenes.

[jmc]

Go to sleep for a few hours and wake up to see things haven't improved.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You have to see it when it comes out in your neck of the woods JMC, I like reading your reviews and seeing if I agree or disagree.

[jmc]

I'll see it this weekend, don't you worry about it.

[Boom]

As someone who was casually looking forward to this, I am genuinely shocked that the critical reception has been this bad. I figured it would've gotten a 60% at least. But damn. Twenty one percent? It's almost funny to me (Sorry GL fans :csad:).

[DACrowe]

I haven't seen GL, but just based on the reviews it got and having seen the other two, I'd say both are worth seeing first. XM:FC should be priority #1, imo.

Indeed. XFC was more breezy fun, but I think Super 8 may be the better movie. It's hard to gauge. But they're both two truly good movies released as summer blockbusters. So refreshing.

[dnno1]

Did anybody put up Poni's review (http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/06/15/pietros-movie-review-green-lantern?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)? He sums it up by saying that the acting was great, but it didn't deliver all that he expected. I am not sure if he is just following the crowd whit his negative review (he seems disappointed with the bad reviews on his twitter page) or if he actually didn't like the film.

[jmc]

As someone who was casually looking forward to this, I am genuinely shocked that the critical reception has been this bad. I figured it wouldn't gotten a 60% at least. But damn. Twenty one percent? It's almost funny to me (Sorry GL fans :csad:).

I'm genuinely shocked that they apparently made a character what should have had the most cinematic potential of the superhero films this year a dud. You are correct, it is borderline comical.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'll see it this weekend, don't you worry about it.Cool.

I'm genuinely shocked that they apparently made a character what should have had the most cinematic potential of the superhero films this year a dud. You are correct, it is borderline comical.Without judging the film I'm surprised that it doesn't sound like LOTR (in scope) mixed with Iron Man in space because thats honestly what I figured we'd get. Instead even the positive reviews are saying that it's a little too close to other superhero flicks and is more Fantastic Four-ish than anything else.

My sister doesn't want to see it so I'm going alone unless my mother decides to tag along.

[J.Howlett]

jmc,

Judge for yourself.

[jmc]

Jett over BOF just gave it the kiss of death. jmc,

Judge for yourself.

Let me put it this way, I generally run with the critical masses when it comes to films so I'm not expecting to like this. I don't like half arse movies.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Devin's review hurts me more.

[jmc]

Drew from Hitflix's review was painful, you could tell he really wanted to love the movie, like really love it. A SHH members review in the previous Review thread was almost heartbreaking, forget their username but it was tough to read.

[The Riddler]

the script sounds really, really bad.

i didn't think this movie would be reviewed well, but it is really getting torched.

it's sad, really.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Drew from Hitflix's review was painful, you could tell he really wanted to love the movie, like really love it. A SHH members review in the previous Review thread was almost heartbreaking, forget their username but it was tough to read.I really wanted WB to hit this one out of the park but judging by the plot points and other things I've read it just seems like it's going to go into the "okay" zone at best and thats never been good enough for me.

Not every movie has to be amazing but I do expect a solid effort. This movie sounds like a lazy effort from Warner. And no I'm not judging it before I see it, I'm just saying that it sounds lazy from what I read so far.

Forget the Tomato meter for a second and just read some of their reviews and pay attention to the details in them, nothing sounds really good in the film.

[jmc]

What gets me is just how wildly varying the reasons for it's awfulness are.

[Karelia]

Well, I'm pretty bummed out now. I was super-hyped for this film since the beginning, now I'm going in with pretty low expectations. Probably better that way... But still. :(

[DarthSkywalker]

I didn't like the fact that they broke the relationship apart at the end of First Class. Because of the chemistry of the group, especially Fassbender and McAvoy, we could've easily had another film before they eventually became enemies.

Plus, none of the action sequences, save one, were on par with X2.

I am hoping they aren't "enemies" quite yet. Just not on the same team.

[hame4479]

It would have been better to keep Prof X and Mags as friends for longer in the X-Universe but I disagree whole heartedly about X2 having better action scenes. This is the first X-film that has had interesting action scenes IMHO. Then again I'm firmly on the side of thinking that Singer can't direct action to save his life.


I concur first class had the best and most sensical action of all the x films. it all made sense and had real context. And aside from the nightcrawler scene that opened x2 i didnt think any of the action on display was particularly mindblowing.

[Man of Tomorrow]

Richard Crouse says this movie hopefully marks the END of CGI overuse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz-CnQV3tWI&feature=player_detailpage#t=21s

[I SEE SPIDEY]

What gets me is just how wildly varying the reasons for it's awfulness are.It is strange.

I am hoping they aren't "enemies" quite yet. Just not on the same team.Thats going to be some hard core back breaking storytelling to make those characters friends again. I can't imagine how thats not going to be lazy as f**k if they do it if they make a sequel.

[Tony Stark]

I concur first class had the best and most sensical action of all the x films. it all made sense and had real context. And aside from the nightcrawler scene that opened x2 i didnt think any of the action on display was particularly mindblowing.

I gotta disagree on this one. While 90% of it was fine, the ending battle was beyond rediculous. Again goes with the bad judgement to put the film in the 60's and make it a prequel.

the best action sequences were early on in the film.

[Marvin]

The Nightcrawler White House attack is still one of my favorite action sequences in any superhero movie, but other than that, I agree about Singer's action scenes.

Azazel did more as a whole to impress, even after the gimmick lost it's initial flare in X2

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Richard Crouse says this movie hopefully marks the END of CGI overuse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz-CnQV3tWI&feature=player_detailpage#t=21sAlthough I use to have high hopes for this film I always hated that the costume was CGI. And I'm not a fan of overused CGI. That was always a complaint of mine regarding my beloved Spider-Man movies.

Azazel did more as a whole to impress, even after the gimmick lost it's initial flare in X2I give Singer and his FX team credit for bringing the effect to life first but I think that Vaughn used it way better in a way better action scene.

[J.Howlett]

jmc,

If you run with the critical masses, then you're not judging for yourself.

[KalMart]

The Nightcrawler White House attack is still one of my favorite action sequences in any superhero movie, but other than that, I agree about Singer's action scenes.

I'll agree, that ('Crawler in White House) was done every well in X2. There are some good moments of action...like when Nightcrawler rescues the falling Rogue. But the big 'fights' in both movies left a lot to be desired. Contrast that to Usual Suspects...in which the violence/action was cemented in a darker, noir-ish feel more befitting of a story of that nature.

[jmc]

jmc,

If you run with the critical masses, then you're not judging for yourself.

I do judge for myself, it just so happens my views reflect the critical masses 9 times out of 10.

[J.Howlett]

I'm more 6.5 out of 10.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I would have more faith if the reviews were almost or totally split. Like 50% of the critics liking it and 50% disliking it. Green Hornet had 44% of the critics liking it and I disagreed with the majority and liked it too.

Then again I still don't hate the first Fantastic Four and the vast majority hated it.

[J.Howlett]

Green Lantern
2011
105 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

I kept waiting... I had read the earlier reviews, which seemed to confirm all of the worst fears stretching back to last November. But the hate never came. Martin Campbell's Green Lantern is a deeply problematic comic book adventure, with structural and character development issues that should damn-well have felled the film. But like its title character, it overcomes its own weaknesses and embraces its inherent flaws. The picture has signs of tinkering and studio interference. But it also has several fine action scenes, a strong visual style that feels like a living comic book, and arguably the best 3D conversion yet achieved in live-action. Oh, and it also has Peter Skarsgaard, but more on that later. I have no idea how Green Lantern purists will react, but the film as it is remains a weird combination of ghee-whiz kid-friendly superhero antics and truly disturbing horror elements. That the film is not quite the triumph we wanted may be tragic. That the film as it stands works at all may qualify as a miracle.

A token amount of plot: Test pilot Hal Jordan is out of a job, having crashed a new plane during a risky maneuver. But little does he know that he is about to be chosen as serve as one of the Green Lantern Corps. What's a Green Lantern? If you don't know, Geoffrey Rush explains it pretty well in the prologue. Anyway, As Hal Jordan wrestles with finally stepping up to responsibility, childhood friend Dr. Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) finds himself infected with an alien life form that is in turn connected to the horrifying force of living death known as Parallax. Point being, if Jordan can't step up to the plate and become a Green Lantern worthy of the title, all of Earth may be doomed...

In a offhanded way, Martin Campbell's Green Lantern feels like a hybrid of the 1990s super hero films and the more modern variation. With its broadly drawn character types and occasionally ham-fisted dialogue, it brings to mind the ghee-wiz adventure pictures like The Phantom and The Shadow. But in its depiction of its villains, it resembles a full-blown horror film. While the film's overtly terrifying antagonists make the film less-than-appropriate for the youngest of audiences, it will also make the film feel like some kind of forbidden treasure for those a little older. Point being, if I had seen this when I was 8 or 9, I would have enjoyed the superhero adventure elements and felt like I was getting away with something watching the evil Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown... awesome!) rip peoples' skeletons out of their body in somewhat graphic detail. Helping matters in this arena is Peter Skarsgaard, who gives a wonderfully trippy performance as Dr. Hector Hammond. Even before he gets infected, Skarsgaard plays him like a creepy would-be pedophile with no social skills and barely a hint of self-esteem. But Skarsgaard throws himself into it with such gusto that he is easily the most entertaining thing in the picture. So it is to the film's benefit that the movie focuses almost as much on his transformation as it does with Reynold's arc. It's a notable contrast: two people being gifted with super powers with differing results.

As for the heroic side of the team, Reynolds suits himself well here. Despite a presumption from film punditry at large that Reynolds is only capable of playing variations on Van Wilder, he remains a solid dramatic and low-key comic actor when the need arises (The Amityville Horror, The Nine, Adventureland, Buried, etc). Reynolds thankfully keeps the whole 'cocky, arrogant jerk in need of a life lesson' thing in check, as his Hal Jordan is presented as a generally decent man who overcompensates for his own fear, a trait pretty much every major character calls him on throughout. Yes, the film overplays the whole 'Hal Jordan is afraid to admit his own fear' card, but 'fear' as a theme is no more overtly presented here than Chris Nolan's Batman pictures (next time you watch Batman Begins, drink anytime someone says 'fear' or 'afraid'). Granted, it's a bit silly to hear Hal Jordan complain about being afraid when the whole Earth is in peril (IE - what are you gonna do, let the Earth just die anyway?). Despite that, Reynolds makes a surprisingly sympathetic and relatively relatable Hal Jordan, and he wins points for not gratuitously being a jerk for the sake of quips.

Blake Lively, as Carol Ferris, doesn't quite excel, but she keeps her head above water. Her dramatic scenes with Reynolds and others are fine, but the film feels the need to shoe-horn 'romantic moments' that waste valuable screen time as we get a solid feel on Hal and Carol's relationship during the course of the narrative anyway. On the plus side, one such scene gets the film's biggest laugh (no spoilers, but it's a great play on the whole 'secret identity' shtick). On the plus side, Ferris spends a bare minimum of time in peril, and at least one of those few moments is basically a side-effect of her own bravery (IE - she pushes a bystander out of harm's way and takes the hit). When the film lets her be a supporting character rather than 'the love interest', Lively does just fine. Taika Waititi is surprisingly winning as Reynold's friend, taking a role that could have easily been played for broad camp and keeping it low-key. The rest of the cast basically shows up for paychecks (or in the case of Angela Bassett as Dr. Amanda Walker, to establish her for whatever other plans Warner has with DC Comics movies). Jay O. Sanders is always welcome, although Tim Robbins looks a little lost in this comic book world.

Despite marketing that heavily emphasizes the world of Oa, we only visit that realm for MAYBE a third of the picture. Of the various Green Lantern corps members, only Mark Strong's Sinestro makes a solid impression. He is mainly around this time to pontificate and call out the Guardians on their inaction (frankly, the Guardians are about as proactive as the Jedi Council), but he still represents an idealized Green Lantern with a strong sense of morality and justice. The other notable Corp members get barely a few lines. Michael Clarke Duncan's Kilowog basically shows up to beat down Jordan and call him a 'poozer' a few times. Geoffrey Rush's Tomer-Re exists mainly to provide exposition and a touch of moral support. It's obvious that the character work amongst the other Green Lanterns is being saved for a sequel, but it's still unfortunate that some extra running time (the film runs just 100 minutes before credits) could not have been allotted to highlight the other intergalactic warriors. There is a pretty obvious hint during the end credits about where the sequel will go, but I won't spoil it for the three of you reading this who can't guess.

Okay, enough about things like character and plot, how does the film play as an FX-filled action spectacle? To my shock and pleasant surprise, the 3D conversion is pretty darn terrific. The 3D work feels completely natural and immersive in a completely non-distracting sense. The CGI material looks terrific in 3D, but there is even a depth to the Earthbound sets and scenarios. Considering Warner Bros. set the bar for lousy 3D conversions with Clash of the Titans last year, it is heartening to see that they seem serious about undoing that damage. If this is how 3D is going to look for the near future, I can certainly see how 3D can become a regular part of mainstream moviegoing (again, providing moviegoers have the option of cheaper 2D viewings). Pricing issues aside, I'd pretty much recommend seeing Green Lantern in 3D just to see what a good live-action conversion should look like. The special effects are a mixed bag, as the early moments of Reynolds flying through Oa are pretty terrible. But most of the effects work (the prologue, the earthbound action scenes, etc) vary between rock-solid and charmingly mediocre (unlike some, I don't let less-than-perfect special effects distract me from an otherwise enjoyable movie).

The action sequences are generally strong. The first act has two terrific set pieces, as the interstellar prologue is followed by a terrific fighter jet dogfight. As is the case with director Martin Campbell, the action is always easy to follow, usually presented in wide and long takes, with a clear sense of time and place. A second-act helicopter rescue is pretty mediocre and awfully silly, but the film redeems itself by basically having characters state exactly that in a following scene (it's a brave movie that makes fun of its own action scenes). The confrontations between Jordan and Hector Hammond are a nice mix of spectacle and character drama, and most of the violence does have a bit of sting and acknowledgment. The whole 'Green Lanterns use the ring to make contraptions' angle worked better than I expected it to. I'm used to the DCAU Justice League cartoon, where John Stewart basically just used the ring to make green blasts of energy, so I was surprised how not goofy it looked when Jordan uses his ring to make slingshots, machine guns, and flamethrowers. It's a matter of simplicity, as Jordan and the corp always go for the simplest solution, rather than being flashy for the sake of special effects.

Martin Campbell's Green Lantern is a cheerfully entertaining comic book adventure. It does not transcend the genre (aside from perhaps Skarsgaard's disturbing character work), nor does it stand outside of it as the better superhero films tend to do (IE - X-Men: First Class as a 60s spy thriller, The Dark Knight as a hard boiled crime drama, etc). It remains structurally flawed and arguably too short, but the film successfully balances a rather complicated mythology and a character arc without dropping the balls. Its relatively well-acted and filled with engaging action sequences, decent special effects, and surprisingly solid 3D work. Martin Campbell once again shows that he has a firm grasp on what should be the basics in genre filmmaking (adults who act like adults, character who react plausibly to the chaos around them, action scenes that make sense, violence that has consequence, etc), which helps overcome some of the script weaknesses. Green Lantern just barely works, but considering my pessimism going into the screening last night, 'barely works' almost counts as a triumph.

grade: B-

[JP]

"A mind-numbing, misguided pandemonium that ranks as the biggest comic book misfire since "Batman & Robin" battled Poison Ivy."

Ouch.

[EliteF50]

I hate when people say this movie has too much CGI... it doesn't. How else can you make ring constructs, a huge yellow smoke cloud, Oa, etc.

The only problem is the quality of the CGI. It looks great, but not amazing.

[EliteF50]

"A mind-numbing, misguided pandemonium that ranks as the biggest comic book misfire since "Batman & Robin" battled Poison Ivy."

Ouch.

I highly doubt that.

[SuperDaniel]

the camera focused on him for a few seconds and you get to hear him, well say bzzd.
sweeeeeeeeet!

[flickchick85]

Thats going to be some hard core back breaking storytelling to make those characters friends again. I can't imagine how thats not going to be lazy as f**k if they do it if they make a sequel.
I completely disagree there. They had absolutely zero hostility toward each other when they parted ways on the beach. They got into a fight, like brothers, but then they apologized almost immediately, and realized that they had different views/missions, so they had a parting of the ways with their respective followers. One of Erik's followers even kissed Charles on the head before she left with him. I got no sense of "enemies now" at all from that scene. Charles disagrees with Erik's path but understands, and Erik still respects Charles' principles and holds no ill-will toward him or any of his mutants. I fully expect them to interact on friendly terms in the future. There will of course be an underlying tension there, but the only time I'd expect them to clash is whenever Erik initiates an attack against the humans.

[Metropolis_Man]

"A mind-numbing, misguided pandemonium that ranks as the biggest comic book misfire since "Batman & Robin" battled Poison Ivy."

Ouch.

Wow this is a complete moronic comment. This movie in no way can be categorized on the same level as Jonah Hex and Ghost Rider, let alone the atrocity that was Batman & Robin. I would put it at the same level as Thor and the first Iron Man movie but just slightly higher than both of those.

[Rock Sexton]

Roger Ebert hated all the CBM's that came out this year. At least he Liked GL better than Thor.

At least Thor wasn't completely trashed by 80% of film critic community. Just sayin' ..... at this stage GL will be lucky to eclipse $300 million WW. Thor is at almost $450 million.

[terry78]

2 and a half from Ebert, so he basically stamped it with a C+ or B-, whatever you want to curve it on. He gave Thor worse.

[SolidRoar]

All right, guys.. I actually went in for a second viewing. My cousin - who is also a GL fan - forced me to watch it with him and his wife again. I got encouraged because my sister told me earlier that she loved the movie a lot. She said she didn't know what I was talking about when I said it was bad. It made me scratch my head, but she explain to me that maybe because I read much more storylines in the comics, I was expecting something else. So that opened my eyes a bit. This time, I went in knowing what to expect and with a more open mind.

To my surprise, it really wasn't bad. The first hour + the final battle were quite enjoyable. The problem is within the stuff in the middle - it needs better pacing. Other than that, the movie does a nice job introducing new comers to the Green Lantern lore. Think of this as an introduction course to the world of Green Lantern. Don't go in expecting what we read later in the comics. After all, this is just an origin story. The movie didn't fly with the critics because it suffered from "Origin Story Syndrome".

Guys, I realize now that the general public - including kids - could very well like this movie, but many will be put off by the insane amount of negative reviews. It is being unfairly judged IMHO. If it was released just 2 years ago, it would have been a different story. I honestly believe that if they make a sequel, it will all pay off.

I actually blame the marketing. Not because the lack of it, but because it is misleading. We got fooled. There was a strong emphasis on the different Corps aliens. Even the movie's standee features many of the aliens we don't really see in the movie. It suggests that they have major roles, but they're only in the background for few seconds! Also they revealed almost all the scenes with all the trailers and TV spots.

Here's hoping they have the balls to greenlight (heh!) a sequel.

[conaniscool]

All right, guys.. I actually went in for a second viewing. My cousin - who is also a GL fan - forced me to watch it with him and his wife again. I got encouraged because my sister told me earlier that she loved the movie a lot. She said she didn't know what I was talking about when I said it was bad. It made me scratch my head, but she explain to me that maybe because I read much more storylines in the comics, I was expecting something else. So that opened my eyes a bit. This time, I went in knowing what to expect and with a more open mind.

To my surprise, it really wasn't bad. The first hour + the final battle were quite enjoyable. The problem is within the stuff in the middle - it needs better pacing. Other than that, the movie does a nice job introducing new comers to the Green Lantern lore. Think of this as an introduction course to the world of Green Lantern. Don't go in expecting what we read later in the comics. After all, this is just an origin story. The movie didn't fly with the critics because it suffered from "Origin Story Syndrome".

Guys, I realize now that the general public - including kids - could very well like this movie, but many will be put off by the insane amount of negative reviews. It is being unfairly judged IMHO. If it was released just 2 years ago, it would have been a different story. I honestly believe that if they make a sequel, it will all pay off.

I actually blame the marketing. Not because the lack of it, but because it is misleading. We got fooled. There was a strong emphasis on the different Corps aliens. Even the movie's standee features many of the aliens we don't really see in the movie. It suggests that they have major roles, but they're only in the background for few seconds! Also they revealed almost all the scenes with all the trailers and TV spots.

Here's hoping they have the balls to greenlight (heh!) a sequel.

Stockholm syndrome.

[Metropolis_Man]

All right, guys.. I actually went in for a second viewing. My cousin - who is also a GL fan - forced me to watch it with him and his wife again. I got encouraged because my sister told me earlier that she loved the movie a lot. She said she didn't know what I was talking about when I said it was bad. It made me scratch my head, but she explain to me that maybe because I read much more storylines in the comics, I was expecting something else. So that opened my eyes a bit. This time, I went in knowing what to expect and with a more open mind.

To my surprise, it really wasn't bad. The first hour + the final battle were quite enjoyable. The problem is within the stuff in the middle - it needs better pacing. Other than that, the movie does a nice job introducing new comers to the Green Lantern lore. Think of this as an introduction course to the world of Green Lantern. Don't fo in expecting what we read later in the comics. After all, this is just an origin story. The movie didn't fly with the critics because it suffered from "Origin Story Syndrome".

Guys, I realize noe that the general public - including kids - could very well like this movie, but many will be put off by the insane amount of bad negative reviews. It is being unfairly judges IMHO. If it was released just 2 years ago, it would have been a different story. I honestly believe that if they make a sequel, it will all pay off.

I actually blame the marketing. Not because the lack of it, but because it is misleading. We got fooled. There was a strong emphasis on the different Corps aliens. Even the movie's standee features many of the aliens we don't really see in the movie. It suggests that they have major roles, but they're only in the background for few seconds! Also they revealed almost all the scenes with all the trailers and TV spots.

Here's hoping they have the balls to greenlight (heh!) a sequel.

This is a pretty fair assessment I'd say. I generally felt the same way when I came out of it. Sure there are things that could be fixed but every movie has things here and there that could've used a touch up. Marketing was a bit misleading with all the emphasis on the entire Corps when we really didn't get much time with them. I'm glad you saw it a second time and realized it isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. If there is a sequel the groundwork has been put down which will give potential to something really special.

[Bubonic]

It's laughable how some of you guys pour over the trailers and spots, spend weeks dissecting them and then are surprised when the movie holds no magic for you once you go see the actual movie.

Delay gratification, stop being such crackheads about these movies.

[KalMart]

Well, maybe this will find its success as a "kids' movie"....with all the bright colors and constructs, etc. But then, if it gets a sequel...the sequel will have to be a kids' movie too, if it's going to capitalize on what got it any success before.

Honestly though, if this movie really isn't good, it doesn't deserve a sequel. Sequels shouldn't be for movies to get a second chance to get things right after not doing it the first time. They should be a reward for a good/successful first showing. If GL is bad and di$appointing, they should try to do it better with another franchise, instead of setting up an already disappointing series for even more scrutiny going into the next one.

[Man of Tomorrow]

New York Post Reviews Green Lantern

"No-Go On Green"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3yyI4K1D70

[Rock Sexton]

2 and a half from Ebert, so he basically stamped it with a C+ or B-, whatever you want to curve it on. He gave Thor worse.

Once again .... SCOREBOARD!

http://picju.com/images/jiuurk.png

[solidsnake86]

I think what is disheartening about the reviews like some have said is that they're all over the place and there isn't one collective thing that you can point to and say "the pacing was off" or "the cgi takes you out of the film". If there was then its a good point to move forward and say, we need to fix this, but there really isnt that common thread in the reviews. Now is this film getting the hate it deserves, I don't really know yet, it could be an average film but when others are elevating their game you have to bring something to the table.

What is tricky when you have a film on this scale and I'm sure they realized it (remember that leak from blake livelys camp saying it was awful, who knows if it was true) is that these arent things that you can just do quick reshoots on. These films more or less have to be locked in from the beginning because there is so much post production that has to be completed. I noticed some reviews said they wanted the training to be longer and what not, but that probably would have cost a fortune. I'm just curious to see if they cut out a lot of stuff, I remember in the first draft his family had some importance.

[Frodo]

Well, the negative reviews may lower the bar so much that when people see it they might have lower expectations. In the end ,all that matters is whether you like the film or not.

However, I do think its ironic though to see so many fanboys who have been ripping XFC despite it's mainly positive reviews now trying to talk up GL with its overwhelmingly negative reviews.

[KalMart]

All right, guys.. I actually went in for a second viewing. My cousin - who is also a GL fan - forced me to watch it with him and his wife again. I got encouraged because my sister told me earlier that she loved the movie a lot. She said she didn't know what I was talking about when I said it was bad. It made me scratch my head, but she explain to me that maybe because I read much more storylines in the comics, I was expecting something else. So that opened my eyes a bit. This time, I went in knowing what to expect and with a more open mind.

To my surprise, it really wasn't bad. The first hour + the final battle were quite enjoyable. The problem is within the stuff in the middle - it needs better pacing. Other than that, the movie does a nice job introducing new comers to the Green Lantern lore. Think of this as an introduction course to the world of Green Lantern. Don't go in expecting what we read later in the comics. After all, this is just an origin story. The movie didn't fly with the critics because it suffered from "Origin Story Syndrome".

Guys, I realize now that the general public - including kids - could very well like this movie, but many will be put off by the insane amount of negative reviews. It is being unfairly judged IMHO. If it was released just 2 years ago, it would have been a different story. I honestly believe that if they make a sequel, it will all pay off.

I actually blame the marketing. Not because the lack of it, but because it is misleading. We got fooled. There was a strong emphasis on the different Corps aliens. Even the movie's standee features many of the aliens we don't really see in the movie. It suggests that they have major roles, but they're only in the background for few seconds! Also they revealed almost all the scenes with all the trailers and TV spots.

Here's hoping they have the balls to greenlight (heh!) a sequel.

If they released it two years ago, wouldn't the same story/pacing issues still exist? I don't see how audiences were somehow more forgiving of that two years ago....they weren't with X-Men origins two years ago, or with Superman Returns five years ago. Not trying to pour salt on any wounds, but sometimes you have to look right at the source and decide whether the movie...in and of itself, and AS a movie...just isn't cutting it.

[Episode29]

All right, guys.. I actually went in for a second viewing. My cousin - who is also a GL fan - forced me to watch it with him and his wife again. I got encouraged because my sister told me earlier that she loved the movie a lot. She said she didn't know what I was talking about when I said it was bad. It made me scratch my head, but she explain to me that maybe because I read much more storylines in the comics, I was expecting something else. So that opened my eyes a bit. This time, I went in knowing what to expect and with a more open mind.

To my surprise, it really wasn't bad. The first hour + the final battle were quite enjoyable. The problem is within the stuff in the middle - it needs better pacing. Other than that, the movie does a nice job introducing new comers to the Green Lantern lore. Think of this as an introduction course to the world of Green Lantern. Don't go in expecting what we read later in the comics. After all, this is just an origin story. The movie didn't fly with the critics because it suffered from "Origin Story Syndrome".

Guys, I realize now that the general public - including kids - could very well like this movie, but many will be put off by the insane amount of negative reviews. It is being unfairly judged IMHO. If it was released just 2 years ago, it would have been a different story. I honestly believe that if they make a sequel, it will all pay off.

I actually blame the marketing. Not because the lack of it, but because it is misleading. We got fooled. There was a strong emphasis on the different Corps aliens. Even the movie's standee features many of the aliens we don't really see in the movie. It suggests that they have major roles, but they're only in the background for few seconds! Also they revealed almost all the scenes with all the trailers and TV spots.

Here's hoping they have the balls to greenlight (heh!) a sequel.

Oh geez. The "Apologizing for Mediocre Filmmaking" phase has begun.

You know what other movies were "just" origin stories? Batman Begins, Spider-Man, X-Men First Class, Iron Man and Superman. They were also intelligent, well-paced, fun films with memorable characters and dramatically satisfying action sequences. They made the audience feel something. Green Lantern accomplishes precious few of those feats.

The problem here, is that people are desperate to label it either a trainwreck or a classic, when in fact it's neither. It's a mediocre, lazily written product that will evaporate from most minds an hour after its over.

[JP]

Mmm, First Class.

[Rock Sexton]

I think what is disheartening about the reviews like some have said is that they're all over the place and there isn't one collective thing that you can point to and say "the pacing was off" or "the cgi takes you out of the film". If there was then its a good point to move forward and say, we need to fix this, but there really isnt that common thread in the reviews. Now is this film getting the hate it deserves, I don't really know yet, it could be an average film but when others are elevating their game you have to bring something to the table.


You need to re-read ALL of the reviews. Not just the ones that support your claim. There is most definitely a common theme.

[J.Howlett]

The first Spider-Man's not good so...what are you saying?

[solidsnake86]

You need to re-read ALL of the reviews. Not just the ones that support your claim. There is most definitely a common theme.

I've only read a few but enlighten me because I''m not going to read through 30 when a lot of them don't know how to write.

[Milkman95]

Once again .... SCOREBOARD!

http://picju.com/images/jiuurk.png

Hilarious, should we compare Marvel against DC as a whole on Rotten?

Wouldn't be pretty.........

[The Sage]

Once again .... SCOREBOARD!

http://picju.com/images/jiuurk.png

Hilarious, should we compare Marvel against DC as a whole on Rotten?

Wouldn't be pretty.........

Gentlemen, don't turn this into a Marvel/DC flame war.

[Chewy]

Hilarious, should we compare Marvel against DC as a whole on Rotten?

Wouldn't be pretty.........Sure, go for it. More meaningless comparisons are always welcome here. Even though Rock was referring to a very specific point made in regards to two very specific films.

[The Sage]

Sure, go for it. More meaningless comparisons are always welcome here. Even though Rock was referring to a very specific point made in regards to two very specific films.

Read the post above you...

[Chewy]

Yeah, I was typing that up while you posted. Apologies.

[Marvin]

Oh geez. The "Apologizing for Mediocre Filmmaking" phase has begun.

You know what other movies were "just" origin stories? Batman Begins, Spider-Man, X-Men First Class, Iron Man and Superman. They were also intelligent, well-paced, fun films with memorable characters and dramatically satisfying action sequences. They made the audience feel something. Green Lantern accomplishes precious few of those feats.

The problem here, is that people are desperate to label it either a trainwreck or a classic, when in fact it's neither. It's a mediocre, lazily written product that will evaporate from most minds an hour after its over.

Ah that's a negative on the Batman and Superman films having satisfying action. DC seems to have issues there.

Then again, that's not accounting for Zack Snyder tenure.

[Captainhulk]

Spill.com review

http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/green-lantern-audio-review

[danoyse]

It's laughable how some of you guys pour over the trailers and spots, spend weeks dissecting them and then are surprised when the movie holds no magic for you once you go see the actual movie.

Delay gratification, stop being such crackheads about these movies.

And please don't call people here "crackheads".

[MWF]

Just out of morbid curiosity, can anyone who's seen the film confirm or deny that Hector Hammond gets the full-blown comic book giant head--as in, literally a walking head--treatment before the film is over? I've read a couple of reviews that have left me with that impression, and if that's the case, I can't imagine it translates well at all.

[Episode29]

Just out of morbid curiosity, can anyone who's seen the film confirm or deny that Hector Hammond gets the full-blown comic book giant head--as in, literally a walking head--treatment before the film is over? I've read a couple of reviews that have left me with that impression, and if that's the case, I can't imagine it translates well at all.

If you've watched the trailers you've seen him at his worst.

[MWF]

Thanks. That's what I figured. So it's not as bad as it could have been, at least.

[Episode29]

Ah that's a negative on the Batman and Superman films having satisfying action. DC seems to have issues there.

Then again, that's not accounting for Zack Snyder tenure.

By dramatically satisfying, I mean the action meant something beyond the superficial noise and CG. I'd argue both Batman Begins and Superman have such scenes. They aren't necessarily the most dynamic, but, because we're invested in them, they draw an emotional response.

[Excelsior.]

It's laughable how some of you guys pour over the trailers and spots, spend weeks dissecting them and then are surprised when the movie holds no magic for you once you go see the actual movie.

Delay gratification, stop being such crackheads about these movies.
Too true. Unlike music, images lose their impact upon repeat watches, which is why I watch my favorite movies sparingly.

[theShape]

Even if by some sort of miracle a sequel is greenlit, I don't think Ryan Reynolds will be on board after all this negative press. He took a big gamble by becoming the face of this new "franchise" and sadly, it obviously didn't turn out the way he'd hoped. I don't remember any other superhero origin story (first film in a franchise) getting reviewed this poorly out of the gate.

[Episode29]

Even if by some sort of miracle a sequel is greenlit, I don't think Ryan Reynolds will be on board after all this negative press. He took a big gamble by becoming the face of this new "franchise" and sadly, it obviously didn't turn out the way he'd hoped. I don't remember any other superhero origin story (first film in a franchise) getting reviewed this poorly out of the gate.

I'm sure he's signed for three films. And those contracts are very expensive to get out of. If they need him, he'll be there.

[MWF]

Even if by some sort of miracle a sequel is greenlit, I don't think Ryan Reynolds will be on board after all this negative press. He took a big gamble by becoming the face of this new "franchise" and sadly, it obviously didn't turn out the way he'd hoped. I don't remember any other superhero origin story (first film in a franchise) getting reviewed this poorly out of the gate.

Did he sign any contracts for sequels? He might not have a choice in the matter. And to his credit--despite my personal dissatisfaction with his acting abilities--he has been pointed to as one of the few bright spots in an otherwise generally dull film by a fair amount of the reviews.

[Episode29]

Plus, if he's willing to play Deadpool again after X-Men Origins, I don't see any reason why he'd turn up his nose at Green Lantern.

[Excelsior.]

Plus, if he's willing to play Deadpool again after X-Men Origins, I don't see any reason why he'd turn up his nose at Green Lantern.
I dunno. Deadpool is more inclined to his talents?

[theShape]

Plus, if he's willing to play Deadpool again after X-Men Origins, I don't see any reason why he'd turn up his nose at Green Lantern.

Because he wants to play the REAL Deadpool in a new, edgy film version of the character. We'll obviously have to see how things go, but it must be disheartening for Reynolds to have put his time and reputation on the line for a superhero franchise and not have it turn out as a success.

I'm just baffled at how the filmmakers could have screwed this one up so badly to make the critics bash it like this. For God sakes, Thor got a pretty well-executed film and the X-Men even bounced back from two lousy movies. I just don't get how this could be possible when GL is so awesome as a character.

[Episode29]

Because he wants to play the REAL Deadpool in a new, edgy film version of the character. We'll obviously have to see how things go, but it must be disheartening for Reynolds to have put his time and reputation on the line for a superhero franchise and not have it turn out as a success.

I'm just baffled at how the filmmakers could have screwed this one up so badly to make the critics bash it like this. For God sakes, Thor got a pretty well-executed film and the X-Men even bounced back from two lousy movies. I just don't get how this could be possible when GL is so awesome as a character.

Do you really believe 20th Century Fox will pay for an edgy Deadpool movie? They've hired a special effects guy with no directing experience to helm it, for God's sake.

I'm not sure the GL's multiple writers quite understand the bolded part of your post.

[strikezone89]

So.. I'm going to see it at midnight tonight. Question: Should I see it in 3D or 2D?

[KalMart]

And please don't call people here "crackheads".

I think he meant 'cracker-heads'.

[Bubonic]

And please don't call people here "crackheads".

Highly addictive unreasonable illogical behaviour that in that case.
It's just lame that people keep doing this to themselves, the less I know the fresher the film comes out, it's one of the reasons Super 8 was so effective.

[Episode29]

So.. I'm going to see it at midnight tonight. Question: Should I see it in 3D or 2D?

The stuff in space looks great in 3D (25% of the film). The earthbound stuff doesn't (75%).

[The Sage]

I think he meant 'cracker-heads'.

And somehow that makes it less offensive?

[Avengers-Report]

If WB knew these reviews were coming, they should have been marketing to 14yr and under the past week

[KalMart]

And somehow that makes it less offensive?

Depends on if you go by the urban definitions.

[antonydelfini]

I just watched it

Positives:
The costume actually looks great which surprised me.
Some of the effects are awesome.
The ring constructs were fun and creative.
The Jordan family scene was great.
When all the lanterns meet in OA.
Mark Strong!!!

Negatives:
Lots of cheesy and cringeworthy moments.
Bad effects in some scenes.
Not epic enough.
Bad bad music (surprising)
Ryan aint no Hal Jordan. Would have prefered Chris Pine or Nathan Fillon.
Sinestro acted well but underused.
The corps wasn't shown alot.
Lots of Hal scenes are boring.
Hector and Parallax are boring.
Love interest= bad
Should have focused more on the corps than Hal's love interest.

Most disappointed I have been since Spider-Man 3. I thought this could be the Star Wars of our generation, because GL's mythology is as strong and as rich. But the film is nothing but a standard superhero affair, with very few good action scenes, not the epic space saga I was hoping for. REBOOT THIS NOW.

6/10 (the action scenes and the ring constructs gave it a plus one).

My 2011 Superhero Movie Rankings
1. Thor 7.5/10, X-Men: First Class 7.5/10
2. Green Lantern 6/10

[Bubonic]

It only hurts because it rings true.

[Man of Tomorrow]

REBOOT THIS NOW

Co-Signed.

[Bubonic]

Hahaha oh wow, people are calling for a reboot of this the first night out?
This thing is dead to rights unless some miracle happens.

[EliteF50]

Co-Signed.

Hell no.

Keep the cast. All they need is a new director (Campbell said he was done anyway) and a better writer.