The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 2

[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

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.

 

[Energist]

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.

 

[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.