The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 1

[Silver Surfer]

Disney has greenlit a sequel.

http://www.thefilmpilgrim.com/news/continuation-of-tron-franchise-announced/3997

Geez finally been waiting for that news for months.

 

[RoughNTumble]

if tron gets a sequel and this doesn't, I'm gonna be pissed

 

[moviedoors]

It's like including the costs of all the prior 'failed attempts' when estimating Superman Returns' budget.

Money spent is money spent and the studio needs to recoup.

 

[rogue trooper]

Oh boy (@ Peter Parker invented responsibility).

Ofcourse, ofcourse, ofcourse!!! It never occurred to me all this time!!

 

[Chewy]

if tron gets a sequel and this doesn't, I'm gonna be pissed

Brace yourself because I have a pretty strong feeling that's where this is all headed.

Although I'd be more pissed about the CLASH OF THE TITANS sequel or the GHOST RIDER sequel.

 

[FreeRadical]

if tron gets a sequel and this doesn't, I'm gonna be pissed

If Green Lantern gets close to $400 million then it's possible, but it depends on word of mouth and the public's perception of the film.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

MultiPurposePoni's review:

"Green Lantern, sadly, is doomed from the start. Not because it is an all out "bad" film (it's not) and not because, like many fans of the popular DC Comics character claim, the property does not lend itself to a live-action feature film; but because Warner Bros' entire marketing strategy was misleading. This was a simple case of the classic bait and switch technique usually found when purchasing gizmos and gadgets from a street peddler or a lemon from a used car dealer. All of the promotions leading up to Green Lantern make promises of intergalactic action, adventure and heartfelt tension that somehow didn't make it into the film's final cut.


The most ironic things that come to mind when looking back on the film are the two aspects that the majority of people were hesitant about: Blake Lively's portrayal of young pilot-turned business woman Carol Ferris and the heavy-handed effects. Those were without a doubt the two most enjoyable parts of the film. I can honestly say that this was Lively's most impressive role to date and will undoubtedly make her a household name. The computer generated landscapes, alien characters and costumes are as close to perfect as one could ask for; which now gives me faith in the recently "iffy" Sony ImageWorks CG studio and their next projects.
Ryan Reynolds' portrayal of maverick test pilot and superhero in training Hal Jordan left much to be desired; but I can't say it's his fault. When reminiscing about his character's dry and often cheesy dialogue I feel that, once he was cast for the role, script changes were made to fit the film persona so many people expect from him. You can tell he tried, very hard, to work with what he was given and -- though I did enjoy the interactions he had with his Earthly cast mates -- nothing truly stands out as either memorable or heroic.
As far as supporting characters go, Mark Strong (as Green Lantern Corps "top cop" Sinestro) and Temuera Morrison (as Hal Jordan's doomed successor Abin Sur) gave stand out performances that lacked the necessary screen time to make me care that they are in the film to begin with.
Then we come to Peter Sarsgard as the filler villain Hector Hammond, his father/Senator Hammond (Tim Robbins) and Angela Bassett as the unnecessary fanboy/girl nod Dr. Amanda Waller. For the life of me I don't know why these shadows were given so much attention convoluting a film that needed more time and emphasis on the central hero's character development. When a film is cut to only an hour and forty-five minute theatrical release, it's the filmmakers' responsibility to segregate what is important to the story and what can be left on the cutting room floor. For the life of me, I don't understand why expository scenes I felt were lacking from the film were swapped for ones that offered little to no purpose in the grand scheme of things. Parallax, the completely CG manifested "big bad", was not scary or threatening aside from the too few times Clancy Brown's voice echoed through the theater speakers. The effects used to bring this character to life were great, but it didn't amount to more than a floating head with monster-sized dreadlocks on a collision course with a continuously sidetracked vendetta.


I am disappointed. In a summer jam packed with big blockbuster entertainment, every film needed to bring it's A-game just to make a lasting impression. This was not the case for Green Lantern. As a dedicated reader of Green Lantern comics since DC Entertainment's Geoff Johns brought life back into the dwindling title, I can only ask "how did they get so off track?" Most of the changes made from the characters' source material are confusing and don't help the story progression; the opposite effect that those changes had for other origin-based comic book adaptations like Batman Begins and X-Men: First Class.
Green Lantern shows you how close it came to being good -- teases you with it like a shiny fishing lure -- but never crosses the threshold of mediocrity. Long time fans of the character's rich mythology deserve a better first outing for their hero, and so do the actors that blatantly try to make the film enjoyable (namely Reynolds, Lively, Strong and Morrison). The blame can only really rest on those behind-the-scenes individuals who couldn't transition the property's quality from page to screen. Maybe one day I can appreciate the film for what it is, but today is not that day."


http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/06/15/pietros-movie-review-green-lantern

 

[MadVillainy]

OT: SO Mr Popper's PEnguins has a 73%....no just no. Not even in relation to GL. But that had the worst f***ing trailer Ive ever seen. It just cant be accepted as good. It cant

 

[KalMart]

MultiPurposePoni's review:

"Green Lantern, sadly, is doomed from the start. Not because it is an all out "bad" film (it's not) and not because, like many fans of the popular DC Comics character claim, the property does not lend itself to a live-action feature film; but because Warner Bros' entire marketing strategy was misleading. This was a simple case of the classic bait and switch technique usually found when purchasing gizmos and gadgets from a street peddler or a lemon from a used car dealer. All of the promotions leading up to Green Lantern make promises of intergalactic action, adventure and heartfelt tension that somehow didn't make it into the film's final cut.


The most ironic things that come to mind when looking back on the film are the two aspects that the majority of people were hesitant about: Blake Lively's portrayal of young pilot-turned business woman Carol Ferris and the heavy-handed effects. Those were without a doubt the two most enjoyable parts of the film. I can honestly say that this was Lively's most impressive role to date and will undoubtedly make her a household name. The computer generated landscapes, alien characters and costumes are as close to perfect as one could ask for; which now gives me faith in the recently "iffy" Sony ImageWorks CG studio and their next projects.
Ryan Reynolds' portrayal of maverick test pilot and superhero in training Hal Jordan left much to be desired; but I can't say it's his fault. When reminiscing about his character's dry and often cheesy dialogue I feel that, once he was cast for the role, script changes were made to fit the film persona so many people expect from him. You can tell he tried, very hard, to work with what he was given and -- though I did enjoy the interactions he had with his Earthly cast mates -- nothing truly stands out as either memorable or heroic.
As far as supporting characters go, Mark Strong (as Green Lantern Corps "top cop" Sinestro) and Temuera Morrison (as Hal Jordan's doomed successor Abin Sur) gave stand out performances that lacked the necessary screen time to make me care that they are in the film to begin with.
Then we come to Peter Sarsgard as the filler villain Hector Hammond, his father/Senator Hammond (Tim Robbins) and Angela Bassett as the unnecessary fanboy/girl nod Dr. Amanda Waller. For the life of me I don't know why these shadows were given so much attention convoluting a film that needed more time and emphasis on the central hero's character development. When a film is cut to only an hour and forty-five minute theatrical release, it's the filmmakers' responsibility to segregate what is important to the story and what can be left on the cutting room floor. For the life of me, I don't understand why expository scenes I felt were lacking from the film were swapped for ones that offered little to no purpose in the grand scheme of things. Parallax, the completely CG manifested "big bad", was not scary or threatening aside from the too few times Clancy Brown's voice echoed through the theater speakers. The effects used to bring this character to life were great, but it didn't amount to more than a floating head with monster-sized dreadlocks on a collision course with a continuously sidetracked vendetta.


I am disappointed. In a summer jam packed with big blockbuster entertainment, every film needed to bring it's A-game just to make a lasting impression. This was not the case for Green Lantern. As a dedicated reader of Green Lantern comics since DC Entertainment's Geoff Johns brought life back into the dwindling title, I can only ask "how did they get so off track?" Most of the changes made from the characters' source material are confusing and don't help the story progression; the opposite effect that those changes had for other origin-based comic book adaptations like Batman Begins and X-Men: First Class.
Green Lantern shows you how close it came to being good -- teases you with it like a shiny fishing lure -- but never crosses the threshold of mediocrity. Long time fans of the character's rich mythology deserve a better first outing for their hero, and so do the actors that blatantly try to make the film enjoyable (namely Reynolds, Lively, Strong and Morrison). The blame can only really rest on those behind-the-scenes individuals who couldn't transition the property's quality from page to screen. Maybe one day I can appreciate the film for what it is, but today is not that day."


http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/06/15/pietros-movie-review-green-lantern

Sounds like it's just not a good film. Simple, but probably the hardest pill to swallow.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Hey guys, just got back from my viewing. It was supposed to be a 2D version but they sent the wrong film in and we got the 3D instead! I will say that it does feel rushed at times and would do good to add some minutes but overall I had so much fun watching this. I really don't see why there is so much negativity around this film, and what everyone saw in it that was so awful. It is fast paced and never once drags. The 3D is really bright and clear and has nice depth, probably the best 2D to 3D conversion I've seen. Not sure if I just have bad taste in movies as those critics would probably say but it's one of the most fun superhero movies I've watched. I guess I will be in the minority.

 

[RoughNTumble]

yeah, now I'm expecting just a bad movie

f***

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I hope that we can soon find out what was exactly left on the cutting room floor.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Sounds like it's just not a good film. Simple, but probably the hardest pill to swallow.

Maybe. It all depends what your set of expectations are.

I am glad that I am not always a completeist and that I don't know as much about the Green Lantern mythology as others do.

 

[WarBlade]

I hope that we can soon find out what was exactly left on the cutting room floor.

The poll! The poll is still missing.

And now we have a couple of reviews from the SHH crowd; one positive, one negative. The review thread is moving too fast to follow... It's like IRC.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Hey guys, just got back from my viewing. It was supposed to be a 2D version but they sent the wrong film in and we got the 3D instead! I will say that it does feel rushed at times and would do good to add some minutes but overall I had so much fun watching this. I really don't see why there is so much negativity around this film, and what everyone saw in it that was so awful. It is fast paced and never once drags. The 3D is really bright and clear and has nice depth, probably the best 2D to 3D conversion I've seen. Not sure if I just have bad taste in movies as those critics would probably say but it's one of the most fun superhero movies I've watched. I guess I will be in the minority.

Questions.

1. Is it too light on action?

2. Is there any good lines?

3. Is any of the humor bad?

 

[conaniscool]

Maybe. It all depends what your set of expectations are.

I am glad that I am not always a completeist and that I don't know as much about the Green Lantern mythology as others do.

Um... a somewhat decent, entertaining movie? From the reviews it's not even that...

 

[S.A.A.D.]

The poll! The poll is still missing.

And now we have a couple of reviews from the SHH crowd; one positive, one negative. The review thread is moving too fast to follow... It's like IRC.

I don't think that it's missing, me thinks that TheSage decided to put the poll in a different thread instead of this one.

 

[KalMart]

Money spent is money spent and the studio needs to recoup.

The problem is that the people who cite those costs don't include 'all costs' in every movie they estimate. If you're going to do it for one, it's only fair that you do it for every film that has had any prior development even remotely related to it...i.e., did the same peolpe include any of the time/money spent on Wolfgang Peterson's "Superman vs. Batman' for both SR and BB? Do it for all of them, or don't do it for any of them.

SR was not solely responsible for recouping the costs of money not spent on its specific production. Those end up as internal costs to the studio that they seek to recoup as a whole, since none of that money helped SR in any way. That was strictly used with SR to sensationalize the way it underperformed, but it's not an actual factor in the costs and profitability of that movie.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Um... a somewhat decent, entertaining movie? From the reviews it's not even that...

Say's the guy who gave the movie a 1 and didn't even bother to at least include a review. I don't trust you, how do I know that you weren't trolling?

 

[The Sage]

I don't think that it's missing, me thinks that TheSage decided to put the poll in a different thread instead of this one.

The poll thread is stickied at the top. I wasn't able to edit this one unfortunately.

 

[SuperBatman]

Ugh the bad reviews do not bother me I am going to see this film reguardless. I like to judge a movie for myself than have somebody judge it for me.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Questions.

1. Is it too light on action?

2. Is there any good lines?

3. Is any of the humor bad?

I thought the action was quite fine and had a nice dose of it. There are some good lines funny and serious. Mark Strong is spot on for Sinestro. Ryan made me enjoy Hal more than I do in the comics. There are bits where Reynolds has wit and he pulls out serious tones when the moment calls for it. I had no problem with any of the humor. Hector Hammond does come off a bit comical at times which is one of the only other things that didn't play quite as well for me but it wasn't so bad to make me hate it. Sarsgaard was really off an on creepy and comical. The movie really could have used about 20 more minutes to help flesh things out. I just didn't feel like it was an awful movie when I walked out.

 

[moviedoors]

The problem is that the people who cite those costs don't include 'all costs' in every movie they estimate. If you're going to do it for one, it's only fair that you do it for every film that has had any prior development even remotely related to it...i.e., did the same peolpe include any of the time/money spent on Wolfgang Peterson's "Superman vs. Batman' for both SR and BB? Do it for all of them, or don't do it for any of them.

SR was not solely responsible for recouping the costs of money not spent on its specific production. Those end up as internal costs to the studio that they seek to recoup as a whole, since none of that money helped SR in any way. That was strictly used with SR to sensationalize the way it underperformed, but it's not an actual factor in the costs and profitability of that movie.

If additional money spent puts the studio in the red, I don't see how anyone can rationally say it didn't underperform. Sorry, but what a studio spends on marketing is money they have to recoup and that's just a cold hard fact. There's a reason we didn't get a Superman Returns sequel. It wasn't a flop by any means, but it certainly fell below expectations and obviously the studio wasn't happy with its performance. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

The poll thread is stickied at the top. I wasn't able to edit this one unfortunately.

Ah, okay.

 

[DACrowe]

For the last time. The movie is basically critic proof, this isn't rocket science.

Not necessarily. While there are films with such built in fanbase's or such a knock-out unique trailer that no matter what critics say, they clean up at the box office. This would qualify completely for The Transformers films or the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and in part for most of Ronald Emmerich's movies--Independence Day, 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, etc.).

However, there are plenty of high-concept studio fare that are done in by awful reviews. WB saw that in part with Sucker Punch earlier this year. GL does have a fanbase, but it is not nearly as big as say Transformers or Batman or Spider-Man, etc. On top of that the superhero genre is not new. The origin movie in fact is kind of tired at this point. And we've had three other origin films this year that differentiated themselves. We have one more in the pipe line. GL being the first out of the five to be panned may make audiences trying to save money to just write one off.

In any case, it may reflect WOM. So, if it doesn't open in the triple digits, it will likely get slammed with big drops. So, it does matter for this movie, in my opinion.