The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 2

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not going to defend GL and it's short comings BTW.

As for Thor, yes I thought it was that bad. I figure in a few years I'll probably hate both Thor and GL. Thats how it is sometimes when I am mixed on a film.

 

[The Morningstar]

Thor had good characterisations. The three H's were all excellent and the father son dynamic was very well done. It had genuinely emotional scenes, like Loki confronting Odin, Loki visiting Thor on Earth.

From what i've heard of Green Lantern, including in your review I SEE SPIDEY, it doesn't have any of those things. So it's a bit baffling really.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I know I'm on a lonely boat when it comes to my opinion of Thor but that still doesn't change it. I don't even care that so many on here love Thor but the complete ignoring of it's flaws is strange to me when people on here nit-pick every other movie to death.

 

[moviedoors]

Can we also have a moratorium on false equivalencies too?

 

[Raiden]

Which is a good thing, they just need figure out the correct formula and components for success.

I hope they won't figure out that the only winning formula is Chris Nolan. Nolan's Batman movies are brilliant but it is because Batman fits his style alot more, and we haven't even seen the Superman reboot (where he is producing) to know if he can be successful outside of Batman.

I know I'm on a lonely boat when it comes to my opinion of Thor but that still doesn't change it. I don't even care that so many on here love Thor but the complete ignoring of it's flaws is strange to me when people on here nit-pick every other movie to death.

I'm someone who likes Thor alot, but I'm not going to pretend that it is a perfect movie and without any flaws. The script could've had a bigger, more epic storytelling; Lady Sif and Warriors Three could've used more character development; and the action scene involving Destroyer could've ended better. But Thor's strength was the performance it gotten out of their actors, specifically Chris Hemsworth, and just about everyone else turned in a great acting performance thanks to the direction of Kenneth Branagh. And for a movie about Thor, I think they staged his heroic journey very well, from an arrogant god who got humbled on Earth, and eventually earned the right to wield Mjolnir. All in all, they delivered a solid movie that introduces a lesser-known Marvel superhero while avoiding all the potential pitfalls that could've reduced it to camp and cheesiness. I think it's quite an achievement by itself.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Can we also have a moratorium on false equivalencies too?

No we can't have moratorium on different opinions.

 

[bullets]

Capone's review over at AICN is pretty good. He demolishes the weak excuses apologists are giving it, such "what were you expecting" and "it wasn't perfect." He totally eviscerates those lame platitudes.

Capone is funny. One of the few reviewers I enjoy at AICN.

 

[The Morningstar]

I know I'm on a lonely boat when it comes to my opinion of Thor but that still doesn't change it. I don't even care that so many on here love Thor but the complete ignoring of it's flaws is strange to me when people on here nit-pick every other movie to death.

Who is ignoring flaws? Thor had plenty of flaws.

But it also had a great father son dynamic. Loki was a brilliantly characterised and performed character. Hemsworth was awesome as Thor. Pretty much everyones performance was great, even if they had little to work with.

Your review of Green Lantern doesn't really praise anything and it mocks the villains, both characterisation wise and performance wise. Yet it's the same level as Thor?

I mean unless you thought Odin, Loki and Thor's relationship was crap and the acting in the movie was crap... how is Thor anywhere near GLs level going by your review?

 

[Tony Stark]

Having an opinion is one thing, but it's another to say that an inferior made film is on par with a superior made film, even one that you didn't like.

For example I can't stand No Country for Old Men. Howeve I can hate the film and acknowledge that the acting was superb, the cinemetography was superb, and I can see why it won an academy award.

There is no universe where Fantastic Four is on par with Thor, and I acutally somewhat enjoyed Fantastic Four.

 

[bullets]

Having an opinion is one thing, but it's another to say that an inferior made film is on par with a superior made film, even one that you didn't like.

That's still an opinion

 

[LadyVader]

What I think this also empty statement is that the film isn't designated High Art, so it should be given a pass for its shortcomings on elements like plot and character development. My response: ********.

What a stupid argument. Why would a superhero movie be high art when with a few exceptions superhero comic books aren't High Art. That doesn't mean they don't have a heart, or that they don't have meaning. That's what missing from GL I think. Just some stinkin' heart. Just somebody working on the movie that didn't do so for a freakin paycheck.

Even Ryan Reynolds, yes his performance was passable. But he's been involved in 3 comic book movies so far that failed and while that may be coincidence, I'm starting to think Reynolds is just the guy that does what he's told to, for a paycheck. I can't believe a smart guy like him would read the script that's been so complained about and go: "Yeah, okay, whatever you want". He MUST'VE said something, he must've reacted somehow. I can't believe nobody involved in this production realised that they were working on a faulty project.

Unless they were doing the movie just for a paycheck, or if it got really butchered in the editing room and came out a completely different movie than the actors were expecting.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I liked the villain's ark in Thor and the performances but thats about it for me. Hated the humor and the earth scenes were blah and I rolled my eyes at the goofy rainbow bridge just like how I rolled my eyes at alot of things in GL. I didn't feel alot of emotion for the characters either, despite the very likable performances and I disliked the direction and hated the action scenes. The scope of the film is also far too small.

See I wasn't uber kind to Thor either.

I'm not trying to hurt Thor fans feelings but the movie didn't do much for me. It's just a difference of opinion.

 

[Denny67]

For those who have watched it, should I go for 3D or 2D experience? 3D where i live is only $6.75 matinee

I saw it in 3D but only because my buddy took me as a late birthday gift. I normally don’t like 3D movies and this one did nothing to change my mind. I would say, experience brighter colors and save a couple bucks by seeing it in 2D.

I will say that the Transformers 3D trailer was looking pretty sweet.

 

[The Morningstar]

@LadyVader Reynolds did GL for the paycheck yea. You could tell he wasn't really passionate about it. Some of those press tour interviews he's been doing were embarrasingly obvious he was just going through the motions.

 

[The Batman]

This movie....was not as bad as people want it to be. Dont get me wrong, its 6/10 at best, but fanboys and critics alike keep portraying this as a piece of crap when its not.

ITs merely not good enough at most of things it does. Reynolds was actual pretty good, and Lively was decent. There wasnt enough Sinestro, and Hector was over the top sometimes.

 

[Marvin]

I hope they won't figure out that the only winning formula is Chris Nolan. Nolan's Batman movies are brilliant but it is because Batman fits his style alot more, and we haven't even seen the Superman reboot (where he is producing) to know if he can be successful outside of Batman.

People do know that Snyder and Goyer are making that film right.

I mean it's funny how this nolan character is admonished for the good and always absolved for the bad.

"oh some of the dialogue in bats is flat...well you know that silly goyer wrote it"
"man the plotting an concepts and overall non sillyness of bat is awesome, well you know that awesome Nolan wrote a second draft and directed it."

I swear if Superman fails that's it for Snyder and if it succeeds that's it for Snyder lol.

btw unlike campbell and this material, Snyder was born for superman.

 

[The Morningstar]

I liked the villain's ark in Thor and the performances but thats about it for me. Hated the humor and the earth scenes were blah and I rolled my eyes at the goofy rainbow bridge just like how I rolled my eyes at alot of things in GL. I didn't feel alot of emotion for the characters either, desipte the very likable performances.

I'm not trying to hurt Thor fans feelings but the movie didn't do much for me.

I don't think anyones feelings are hurt.

I was just genuinely baffled. Your review of GL was borderline trashing it. It's just one of those cases where the review itself doesn't seem to match the overall score.

But hey, it's cool.

 

[The Morningstar]

People do know that Snyder and Goyer are making that film right.

I mean it's funny how this nolan character is admonished for the good and always absolved for the bad.

"oh some of the dialogue in bats is flat...well you know that silly goyer wrote it"
"man the plotting an concepts and overall non sillyness of bat is awesome, well you know that awesome Nolan wrote a second draft and directed it."

I swear if Superman fails that's it for Snyder and if it succeeds that's it for Snyder lol.

btw unlike campbell and this material, Snyder was born for superman.

haha very true.

Whenever someone trashes the dialogue in Nolans Bat movies it's all Goyers fault, for example.

If Superman is brilliant... Nolan will get the praise.

If Superman is terrible... Snyder will get the blame.

 

[Marvin]

What a stupid argument. Why would a superhero movie be high art when with a few exceptions superhero comic books aren't High Art. That doesn't mean they don't have a heart, or that they don't have meaning. That's what missing from GL I think. Just some stinkin' heart. Just somebody working on the movie that didn't do so for a freakin paycheck.

Even Ryan Reynolds, yes his performance was passable. But he's been involved in 3 comic book movies so far that failed and while that may be coincidence, I'm starting to think Reynolds is just the guy that does what he's told to, for a paycheck. I can't believe a smart guy like him would read the script that's been so complained about and go: "Yeah, okay, whatever you want". He MUST'VE said something, he must've reacted somehow. I can't believe nobody involved in this production realised that they were working on a faulty project.

Unless they were doing the movie just for a paycheck, or if it got really butchered in the editing room and came out a completely different movie than the actors were expecting.

The thing is when people read scripts for these kinds of films, they give alot of passes on things cause they think it's what the genre's all about.

People probably read the batman scripts grim faced and it has good result but colourful films like this and FF a lot of people just think they are being faith to the material when they see wonkyness ensue on the page.

 

[Doc Phosphorus]

GL doesn't have a single character or performance as compelling as Tom Hiddleston as Loki. That, at the very least, made it a better film.

It could've been Sinestro, but alas, the movie just didn't seem to care. Mark Strong deserved better.

 

[LadyVader]

WOW! I can't believe this. They pushed up the Green Lantern Romanian release date to July 29th from September 2nd. I wonder why.

And a week after that Captain America is released on August 5th. It should be interesting to see which one makes more money over here.

 

[Raiden]

People do know that Snyder and Goyer are making that film right.

I mean it's funny how this nolan character is admonished for the good and always absolved for the bad.

"oh some of the dialogue in bats is flat...well you know that silly goyer wrote it"
"man the plotting an concepts and overall non sillyness of bat is awesome, well you know that awesome Nolan wrote a second draft and directed it."

I swear if Superman fails that's it for Snyder and if it succeeds that's it for Snyder lol.

btw unlike campbell and this material, Snyder was born for superman.

Yes, of course I know that Snyder is the director and Goyer is the writer. But Nolan (being the producer) will undoubtedly get alot of attention because of his success with the Batman movies, and he was appointed as the overseer of this project during the start. I do agree that Snyder is made for a movie like Superman, but his specialty is the kinetic action scenes (with plenty of slow mo added), and if he doesn't pay attention to the heart & emotional part of the movie this Superman reboot might turn out to be as hollow as his movie Sucker Punch. This is where Nolan and Goyer must try to keep an eye out for.

 

[The Morningstar]

Because by September no one will even remember it let alone care for it

 

[kedrell]

Mark Strong deserved better.

I agree. He was made for this role and they squandered him. He's the only one in the film that I would say really embodies the character.

 

[LadyVader]

Because by September no one will even remember it let alone care for it

The way I understood the issue of distribution, film prints of movies circulate United States and then get shipped to Europe (it's cheaper that way for the studio). Now if our release date has been pushed up, it might (might being the operative word) indicate that WB is planning on keeping the movie in US theaters for less time than originally planned (or at least it won't roll in as many theaters for as long a period of time). Which is why we get the prints earlier.

In short. The more Green Lantern sucks, the earlier I get to see it. HAHA!