The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Chewy,

That doesn't mean he's wrong either. And yet, I do agree with you on Ebert's Thor review. It's was ****.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
201,164
Messages
21,908,477
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"