The Green Hornet review thread.

[Lunar_Wolf]

I need to see Halloween III.

 

[flash13]

As a huge fan of the radio series (I download episodes on iTunes) I loved this new take on the Green Hornet.

 

[Webhead38]

I actually like Halloween III too. My God. "Blackman" will pass out from that statement.

 

[jezza]

Webhead, give us a precise and in depth description as to why you don't want to see this movie. Because, right now all I can gather from your posts is that you have a deep hatred for Rogen and that's it. If that's the reason, just leave it there. You don't need to convince people that it's the Antichrist or anything. You're entitled to your opinion but so far everything I've gained from your posts seems irrational.

 

[Da-Scribe]

What hate? I just responded to his smack. And besides you being a 12 year old cheerleader, what is your part in all this? Contribute or go watch Halloween III again. If your Avatar is any indication...

That's MF Doom. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[Webhead38]

That's MF Doom. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

It LOOKS like the witch mask from Halloween III. Time to change that avatar.

 

[terry78]

If you have MeTV on your cable schedule, they have a Green Hornet marathon all day today until midnight.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I need to see Halloween III.

It's honestly really cool in it's own ways.

Anywho I'm going to try to check out The Green Hornet tomorrow.

 

[The Batman]

Imagine a Batman movie that was a remake of the 60's series. Imagine that this remake would be a parody, using common misperceptions and jokes about the character as a guideline for the characters would act. In other words, imagine if this remake of the 60's Batman show had a batman that was as goofy and dumb as people thought adam west was. Let's even throw in the idea of a romance between Batman and Robin.

This was my main problem with Green Hornet. I did not like the fact that they made GH largely ineffective. They decided to write him as people perceived him due to the success of Bruce Lee's Kato. i didnt mind that the flick was even a comedy, as GH would be great as a superhero version of the rush hour films. The action was good, and parts of it were funny, but making GH dumb was a slap in the face. This movie just shows that Tim Burton and Co. couldve made Batman even more of a laughing stock, but chose not to.

The only way I could enjoy this film was as "Seth Rogan's idea of a superhero film", not as a new take on a classic character. Thats the only reason I can give this a B.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I just got back from seeing this...gotta say, i liked it. the action was cool, particularly the climax

Spoiler

(i liked how it wasn't just some one on one brawl between the hornet and Bloodnovski, but developed into a gradually escalating all out crime war in the course of one night). also, i loved the faked assassination at the end with the classic green hornet theme. Rogan played the character as a dick, which I'll admit was a little grating at times, i would have liked at least one more character scene at the end where it would showcase how he's evolved as a person, but i he did an alright job. the real star was jay chou, who was really funny and kicked ass as Kato. and i have to say, Cameron Diaz was actually pretty good, i liked how they went againt convention and made the love interest an after thought that never goes anywhere, i was thankful that there wasn't some contrived romantic scene between either her and or kato or her with reid. they kept rather realistic in that department, he was a dick, and Kato had basically lied about the two sleeping together, it would seem forced if any of the matches had gone anywhere. and finally, i really like Christoph Waltz as Chudnovski/ Bloodnovski. i felt he was made a believable portrayal what an aging lunatic in charge of the mob would do if he had a midlife crisis, thats how i'd picture it happening lol.

All in all, i liked it, and i'll most likely buy the dvd when it comes out.

 

[jacobed]

I loved the action in this movie. Most of it was awesome, inventive and hardly any of that shaky cam crap where you can't see whats going on. I didn't like that they played the Green Hornet as a complete idiot but if there's a sequel and I hope there is, I'm pretty sure that'll change. Waltz was awesome, plain and simple. Chou was just fantastic, and I enjoyed Rogen for the most part surprisingly. Few complaints would be that they should have decided a bit better if they wanted it to be a comedy or an action movie since I didn't think they were balanced very well also why was Cameron Diaz in this movie. She was basically pointless.

 

[Webhead38]

Webhead, give us a precise and in depth description as to why you don't want to see this movie. Because, right now all I can gather from your posts is that you have a deep hatred for Rogen and that's it. If that's the reason, just leave it there. You don't need to convince people that it's the Antichrist or anything. You're entitled to your opinion but so far everything I've gained from your posts seems irrational.

An in depth explanation for why I don't want to see the Green Hornet? Okay. I'll start first with some analogies. How about that? I don't want to see Seth Rogen play the Green Hornet anymore than I want to see Bill Murray play Superman. Does that mean I hate Bill Murray? Of course not. Does that mean I'm a die-hard Superman fan? Of course not. Does it mean I have to go spend money on a ticket to know Bill Murray is not right for the part? Of course not. Do I have a problem with comedy in the hero genre? Nope. I encourage it. It helps take the weight off any camp elements in most superhero stories. But the purpose of that comic relief is to remove camp, not create it. The Green Hornet IS camp - all out. I don't like that. As a matter of fact, it's a cancer to all of these other films being made. Other films meaning Captain America, Ironman, Batman, etc.

As you already know, we're in the midst of a very creative period for hero films. This genre is considered potential "blockbuster" material if handled properly. Since I don't know your age Jezza, I'll assume you were not around in the 60's,70's and probably not grown up enough in the 80's to have an opinion of those decades. When Batman came out in '66, the show was HUGE. Nobody had seen anything like it. It was also CAMP. The idea of treating Batman like an idiot, hit the sensibilities of grownups, while going right over the heads of the youngsters. The kids took it seriously because they didn't understand their hero was THE "joke". Well, this formula wore off quickly. Batman was out for three "seasons", but in truth that only lasted a little over two years (The first was a mid-season replacement so it was very short).

The fallout after that show lasted literally for DECADES. The public not only rejected the show, it began to apply that treatment of camp to the entire genre. If you mentioned comics, you were immediately thought of as someone who lacked intelligence since the medium was considered ignorant and CAMP. Heroes had no medium except television. And those treatments were low budgeted and subsequent poor productions...for the most part. When there was a good one, like the Hulk, it was popular, but the stigma from the industry was still very much in play. It was canceled, not for low ratings, but because the studio simply didn't want to pay the high costs for the series because it was a comic book. During the 70's and most of the 80's there was only ONE hero who got recognition in Hollywood - Superman. We wouldn't see another big budget film until 1989 and Batman. The industry ran from Adam West. They distanced themselves from any association with him because they feared the public would view their product as CAMP. As you know, that Batman, and every incarnation since, has NEVER wore anything that resembles tights. It's because they STILL want no association with CAMP.

Batman's success was HUGE. It told Hollywood you could invest big money and big actors in the comic book genre and find success. What killed off that franchise? Batman and Robin. Why? Because the director tried to install CAMP as a treatment. It was rejected and the series closed down for years to let the public forget. Then came a string of huge films that went on to be big franchises - X-Men, Spider-man, and then a new Batman franchise. The last film grossed over a BILLION dollars worldwide. Amazing. Now you have Iron Man as a franchise, and so many more coming together. It's just a huge property now. But it's because the public and industry have accepted that CAMP is no longer a main ingredient in this genre.

So, what I have tried to do is illustrate a historical perspective of what CAMP does to this genre. It's a cancer Jezza. And you don't want anything to do with it. The Green Hornet is a HUGE cancer. It will fail because it's camp. And you know what? The industry will count that as a strike against this genre for 2011. That will be the talk within the industry leading right up to Thor, Captain America, and Green Lantern. God help us if any of those under perform. Because when it comes to genre's and money, it doesn't take too many miscues to send studios packing back to the old attitudes. If you like this genre, you don't want films like Green Hornet which laugh at the concept. This was not a $30 million dollar production that can be swept under the rug. With production AND marketing costs, this film is close to $200 million in the red. It's a huge mistake and Seth Rogen was simply trying to take advantage of a big property to try and make a quick buck for himself. It backfired. And it not only hurts him, it hurts this genre. History says so.

 

[Karelia]

Most comments I read from people who have seen it say it's been better than they expecting and that it's a great film. Gonna try and go see it tonight.

 

[jezza]

I'm fully aware of the campy past that has plagued Batman, both in the 60's and the late 90's, I'm also aware that some of the biggest blockbusters are campy in their own right (Spiderman, Iron Man etc) but I think there is enough superhero saturation in modern cinema for people to skip over some of the more campy efforts.

While many of us loathe Joel Schumacher for his efforts with Batman, we also have to consider that if the legacy hadn't been killed off in such a nasty fashion, would we have ever seen Christopher Nolan try and revive it in such an inspiring way, in order to prove something? Probably not.

Whilst I respect that you're concerned by what studios do with various superheroes, you have to live with what the studios consider right at the time. The Green Hornet (like I mentioned earlier in the topic) did worry me a little, as I wanted something a little more serious. But, when you look at how things like Kick Ass have been doing at the box office, making something of a mild parody in the superhero genre can be a safer bet than trying to make something serious that comes off as campy. Heck, there are even jokes about tights and the camp behaviour between a hero and his sidekick in The Green Hornet.

Unfortunately, The Green Hornet hasn't been shown in a visual representation since the 60's, so the studios had to raise brand awareness for those who know nothing about it. If they were to try and sell it with a serious plot with some A list actors, the chances are only the fans of the original series would fully appreciate it or it would come across as unintentionally campy even to them.

I believe that the perspective of campiness you're anticipating from this film is in the Starsky and Hutch or Charlie's Angels areas of bastardization? And you would be forgiven for thinking that from the previews/trailer, but that's not the case. Whilst it does have some rather lame jokes and isn't as serious as you want, I think Gondry has done well to make the film seem very respectable despite the studio probably having requests to just make it an all out campy comedy. I went in with low expectations due to the rubbish this film went through to get onto screen and never thought it would deliver, but if you were to compare it to Spiderman 3, this might as well be Batman Begins, I know which I enjoyed more.

All I'm saying is, watch it and then criticize it if you still feel the same. I would probably be thinking something similar to you if I didn't.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I'm fully aware of the campy past that has plagued Batman, both in the 60's and the late 90's, I'm also aware that some of the biggest blockbusters are campy in their own right (Spiderman, Iron Man etc) but I think there is enough superhero saturation in modern cinema for people to skip over some of the more campy efforts.

While many of us loathe Joel Schumacher for his efforts with Batman, we also have to consider that if the legacy hadn't been killed off in such a nasty fashion, would we have ever seen Christopher Nolan try and revive it in such an inspiring way, in order to prove something? Probably not.

Whilst I respect that you're concerned by what studios do with various superheroes, you have to live with what the studios consider right at the time. The Green Hornet (like I mentioned earlier in the topic) did worry me a little, as I wanted something a little more serious. But, when you look at how things like Kick Ass have been doing at the box office, making something of a mild parody in the superhero genre can be a safer bet than trying to make something serious that comes off as campy. Heck, there are even jokes about tights and the camp behaviour between a hero and his sidekick in The Green Hornet.

Unfortunately, The Green Hornet hasn't been shown in a visual representation since the 60's, so the studios had to raise brand awareness for those who know nothing about it. If they were to try and sell it with a serious plot with some A list actors, the chances are only the fans of the original series would fully appreciate it or it would come across as unintentionally campy even to them.

I believe that the perspective of campiness you're anticipating from this film is in the Starsky and Hutch or Charlie's Angels areas of bastardization? And you would be forgiven for thinking that from the previews/trailer, but that's not the case. Whilst it does have some rather lame jokes and isn't as serious as you want, I think Gondry has done well to make the film seem very respectable despite the studio probably having requests to just make it an all out campy comedy. I went in with low expectations due to the rubbish this film went through to get onto screen and never thought it would deliver, but if you were to compare it to Spiderman 3, this might as well be Batman Begins, I know which I enjoyed more.

All I'm saying is, watch it and then criticize it if you still feel the same. I would probably be thinking something similar to you if I didn't.

terrific post right there... now get outta here with that rational mindset, dontcha know this is the internet? t:

 

[Hulk1968]

You`re all going to love me after this review (not really)- but as someone who is familiar with the comics and the 60s tv show I *drum roll* thought it was a masterpiece. NOW first things first, Seth Rogen- Yes obviously you can identify the familiarity of his comedic elements with a typical Seth Rogen movie however you are fooling yourself if you dont think this film stands out from his others and gives his acting ability a lot of credit for the parts that are serious and they are most defiantly serious parts. As a matter of fact I found the movie to be more serious than a comedy but that is of course opinion. As for Kato- OK, lets get this straight, of course no one is ever going to live up to Bruce Lee and this film doesn't try to do that...why not? Because its supposed to live up to Kato and NOT Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee brought the character to life in the 60s show as we all are aware. All of you hardcore Bruce Lee fans need to realize that Kato is his own character and we were lucky to have the great Bruce Lee give life to him and leave his mark in the history. What are we supposed to do? Never make a Green Hornet movie just because there will never be another person as good as Bruce Lee (Never mind that you don't like that this movie was done by Seth Rogen)? Please!

FACT: From the particular comics that the 60s tv show was based on the source material was more than present! Even the little characters such as Mike Axford, the editor who doesnt know Britts secret identity and isnt too fond of the GH but a good guy none the less.

MY OPINION: Like I said before I thought this movie had more of a serious tone overall with some funny parts. Even people who did like the movie might even disagree with me here but I thought the few parts that were funny simply got big laughs when they occured and thats why it may seems like more comedy than it is.

In conclusion, the comedic aspects of the movie did not happen during any inappropriate times. Things were serious when they needed to be and funny when they were free to be. Of course Seth Rogen will add his comedic touch but really its just an add on with everything else there that makes the GH character who he is. I always say its better to add as opposed to take away or not stay faithful to the source material (Yes I realize the GH isnt laughs in the comics really so dont even try to call me out saying how stupid I am for what I just said.) This movie could have been done so so much worse and you all know this. I guarentee if this movie played out the same way with its comedic elements however a different actor aside from Seth Rogen you all wouldnt have as much of a problem. I approached this movie with an open mind the way ALL movies comic book or not should be approached no matter what you see or dont see in the trailers or clips. I absolutley loved this movie and I can only hope those who not only enjoyed it just as much but the comic fans who liked it as well would speak up! And of course theres some out there who thought this movie would flop from the begining are either hiding now or wont admit they were proven wrong. If you hate it so much then simply dont go see it, the GH and every other super hero belongs to everyone and not just you and you are just as free to make your own movie with changes that people will probably hate too . Now quote this and leave your predictable comment on how I`m stupid for simply thinking a movie was cool. EPIC WIN SETH ROGEN AND MICHEL GONDRY!!!

I agree. However, I was not a fan of Seth Rogen ( but I knew who he was prior to this film ) and I also know he has done some cartoon voice over work ( Monsters VS Aliens, The Simpson's )

I am however familiar w/ the Green Hornet from the 60's TV show ( re-runs in the late 70's ) Yeah, I'm old....what about it? t:

Anyway, I saw the film...in 3-D. And all in all, it does remind me a little bit of Iron Man 1 ( an origin story, the hero finding himself, the Police / Military thinking he's a criminal / villain....etc....) Serious when it needs to be, and funny to lighten the mood, when needed. And no fart jokes, LOL

Al in all 4 out of 5 stars

 

[Webhead38]

I'm fully aware of the campy past that has plagued Batman, both in the 60's and the late 90's, I'm also aware that some of the biggest blockbusters are campy in their own right (Spiderman, Iron Man etc) but I think there is enough superhero saturation in modern cinema for people to skip over some of the more campy efforts.

While many of us loathe Joel Schumacher for his efforts with Batman, we also have to consider that if the legacy hadn't been killed off in such a nasty fashion, would we have ever seen Christopher Nolan try and revive it in such an inspiring way, in order to prove something? Probably not.

Whilst I respect that you're concerned by what studios do with various superheroes, you have to live with what the studios consider right at the time. The Green Hornet (like I mentioned earlier in the topic) did worry me a little, as I wanted something a little more serious. But, when you look at how things like Kick Ass have been doing at the box office, making something of a mild parody in the superhero genre can be a safer bet than trying to make something serious that comes off as campy. Heck, there are even jokes about tights and the camp behaviour between a hero and his sidekick in The Green Hornet.

Unfortunately, The Green Hornet hasn't been shown in a visual representation since the 60's, so the studios had to raise brand awareness for those who know nothing about it. If they were to try and sell it with a serious plot with some A list actors, the chances are only the fans of the original series would fully appreciate it or it would come across as unintentionally campy even to them.

I believe that the perspective of campiness you're anticipating from this film is in the Starsky and Hutch or Charlie's Angels areas of bastardization? And you would be forgiven for thinking that from the previews/trailer, but that's not the case. Whilst it does have some rather lame jokes and isn't as serious as you want, I think Gondry has done well to make the film seem very respectable despite the studio probably having requests to just make it an all out campy comedy. I went in with low expectations due to the rubbish this film went through to get onto screen and never thought it would deliver, but if you were to compare it to Spiderman 3, this might as well be Batman Begins, I know which I enjoyed more.

All I'm saying is, watch it and then criticize it if you still feel the same. I would probably be thinking something similar to you if I didn't.

Thanks for your input Jezza. I think we established a healthy dialogue and understand each other very well. I will certainly consider your recommendation.

 

[Punk&ComicBooks]

An in depth explanation for why I don't want to see the Green Hornet? Okay. I'll start first with some analogies. How about that? I don't want to see Seth Rogen play the Green Hornet anymore than I want to see Bill Murray play Superman. Does that mean I hate Bill Murray? Of course not. Does that mean I'm a die-hard Superman fan? Of course not. Does it mean I have to go spend money on a ticket to know Bill Murray is not right for the part? Of course not. Do I have a problem with comedy in the hero genre? Nope. I encourage it. It helps take the weight off any camp elements in most superhero stories. But the purpose of that comic relief is to remove camp, not create it. The Green Hornet IS camp - all out. I don't like that. As a matter of fact, it's a cancer to all of these other films being made. Other films meaning Captain America, Ironman, Batman, etc.

As you already know, we're in the midst of a very creative period for hero films. This genre is considered potential "blockbuster" material if handled properly. Since I don't know your age Jezza, I'll assume you were not around in the 60's,70's and probably not grown up enough in the 80's to have an opinion of those decades. When Batman came out in '66, the show was HUGE. Nobody had seen anything like it. It was also CAMP. The idea of treating Batman like an idiot, hit the sensibilities of grownups, while going right over the heads of the youngsters. The kids took it seriously because they didn't understand their hero was THE "joke". Well, this formula wore off quickly. Batman was out for three "seasons", but in truth that only lasted a little over two years (The first was a mid-season replacement so it was very short).

The fallout after that show lasted literally for DECADES. The public not only rejected the show, it began to apply that treatment of camp to the entire genre. If you mentioned comics, you were immediately thought of as someone who lacked intelligence since the medium was considered ignorant and CAMP. Heroes had no medium except television. And those treatments were low budgeted and subsequent poor productions...for the most part. When there was a good one, like the Hulk, it was popular, but the stigma from the industry was still very much in play. It was canceled, not for low ratings, but because the studio simply didn't want to pay the high costs for the series because it was a comic book. During the 70's and most of the 80's there was only ONE hero who got recognition in Hollywood - Superman. We wouldn't see another big budget film until 1989 and Batman. The industry ran from Adam West. They distanced themselves from any association with him because they feared the public would view their product as CAMP. As you know, that Batman, and every incarnation since, has NEVER wore anything that resembles tights. It's because they STILL want no association with CAMP.

Batman's success was HUGE. It told Hollywood you could invest big money and big actors in the comic book genre and find success. What killed off that franchise? Batman and Robin. Why? Because the director tried to install CAMP as a treatment. It was rejected and the series closed down for years to let the public forget. Then came a string of huge films that went on to be big franchises - X-Men, Spider-man, and then a new Batman franchise. The last film grossed over a BILLION dollars worldwide. Amazing. Now you have Iron Man as a franchise, and so many more coming together. It's just a huge property now. But it's because the public and industry have accepted that CAMP is no longer a main ingredient in this genre.

So, what I have tried to do is illustrate a historical perspective of what CAMP does to this genre. It's a cancer Jezza. And you don't want anything to do with it. The Green Hornet is a HUGE cancer. It will fail because it's camp. And you know what? The industry will count that as a strike against this genre for 2011. That will be the talk within the industry leading right up to Thor, Captain America, and Green Lantern. God help us if any of those under perform. Because when it comes to genre's and money, it doesn't take too many miscues to send studios packing back to the old attitudes. If you like this genre, you don't want films like Green Hornet which laugh at the concept. This was not a $30 million dollar production that can be swept under the rug. With production AND marketing costs, this film is close to $200 million in the red. It's a huge mistake and Seth Rogen was simply trying to take advantage of a big property to try and make a quick buck for himself. It backfired. And it not only hurts him, it hurts this genre. History says so.

...Cool story bro!

 

[Karelia]

Saw it tonight and thought it was great. Kato-Vision was awesome. I thought it had some great action scenes. I was really surprised that the 3D was actually decent as well.

My friend went with me expecting it to suck and figured Rogen was going to do terrible, but he said he was actually surpised and liked it quite a bit.

 

[Frodo]

I may be running against the wind here but I really liked it. It has it's faults no doubt , which includes Waltz whom I consider the weak link. For me the film picks up once Kato arrives and the guy who played him was excellent. I was really suprised that he and Seth Rogan had good chemistry and the action scenes were very good. I'd have to say my favorite fights were ***spoiler alert***

Spoiler

The Brit v Kato fight , and the final battle at The Printing Press

I actually didn't mind that they poked fun at Britt , because to be honest , it was pretty much poking fun at Seth Rogan's persona, which it seems all his films do anyway, so I didn't have a problem with it. It reminded me a bit of Mask Of Zorro and Star Trek in which the lead was the butt of jokes in that film as well but he eventually grew into a hero. Anyway , I enjoyed it though I can see why people would have a problem with it. I'd give it a B myself .

 

[Karelia]

I'll agree on both of those. The fight scenes towards the end of the movie were really awesome. I liked it when

Spoiler

Green Hornet uses his "Hornet vision", it was pretty awesome and hilarious.

I thought Waltz was just kinda... 'Meh", honestly. I wish they could have come up with a better villain. I was hoping James Franco was going to play a bigger part, but ah well. I think he would've made a more interesting villain.

 

[Frodo]

I'll agree on both of those. The fight scenes towards the end of the movie were really awesome. I liked it when

Spoiler

Green Hornet uses his "Hornet vision", it was pretty awesome and hilarious.

I thought Waltz was just kinda... 'Meh", honestly. I wish they could have come up with a better villain. I was hoping James Franco was going to play a bigger part, but ah well. I think he would've made a more interesting villain.

I was think the same thing. His character seemed liked he would have been a better contrast to Reed and Kato .

 

[El Payaso]

Imagine a Batman movie that was a remake of the 60's series. Imagine that this remake would be a parody, using common misperceptions and jokes about the character as a guideline for the characters would act. In other words, imagine if this remake of the 60's Batman show had a batman that was as goofy and dumb as people thought adam west was. Let's even throw in the idea of a romance between Batman and Robin.

That sounds like Batman & Robin going worse than it did.

 

[Red Cherry Lips]

Is paying the IMAX Experience in 3D worth it for this film? *wishes there was a poll*

 

[Blade X]

I believe that the perspective of campiness you're anticipating from this film is in the Starsky and Hutch or Charlie's Angels areas of bastardization? And you would be forgiven for thinking that from the previews/trailer, but that's not the case. Whilst it does have some rather lame jokes and isn't as serious as you want, I think Gondry has done well to make the film seem very respectable despite the studio probably having requests to just make it an all out campy comedy. I went in with low expectations due to the rubbish this film went through to get onto screen and never thought it would deliver, but if you were to compare it to Spiderman 3, this might as well be Batman Begins, I know which I enjoyed more.

I have a question about the comedy/campiness in this movie. Which of the following films would you say that the level and/or degree of comedy and camp the GH movie is more like/in line with?

IRON MAN 1 and 2
SPIDER-MAN 3
FANTASTIC FOUR 1 and 2
MEN IN BLACK 1 and 2
THE INCREDIBLES
MEGAMIND
BATMAN
BATMAN RETURNS
BATMAN FOREVER
BATMAN AND ROBIN

Also, is the GH movie more serious than any of those movies I just listed?