The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 3

[The Morningstar]

But Hal doesn't need to prove himself. Hal's trying to understand why he was chosen, given the certain criteria that's apart of the job description to being a Green Lantern...a part that he believes he has in spades...that he's afraid.

If he has fear in his heart, why was he chosen?

He does need to prove himself. Not only to the Corps, but to himself.

He can learn to overcome fear on actual missions. By actually DOING something. Not after a ****ing pep talk from a pretty girl.

Morningstar,

But, Hal does prove why human's aren't worthless with his decision and showdown with Hector and Parallax.

Yea but it has no weight. Hal goes from a Green Lantern drop out... to awesome superhero after Carol tells him that he can overcome fear (which was a terribly delivered line BTW).

Hal doesn't learn this stuff by himself. It isn't natural character development/growth. Carol LITERALLY spells it all out for him. And then all of a sudden, he's this world saving GL who did what Abin Sur couldn't do... even though he only has about 10 minutes training under his belt.

It's forced, it's lazy. It's laughable in all honesty.

 

[Godman]

I just wrote an entire in depth review just for the thread to be closed? thats stupid how it doesn't automatically integrate to the updated thread of the same title instead of erasing all that time of me typing...SMH

 

[moviedoors]

Yeah because movies like Avatar, Star Trek (09), Aliens, etc. haven't completely shown that being on Earth isn't a necessary aspect to be both successful critically and financially.

If anything audiences have repeatedly shown to love movies that take place on other planets/space with limited time on Earth. Those movies when well done are amazing and usually resonate quite well with audience actually.

This "well it wouldn't work because the GA would reject it, space and other planets and such are far to farfetched" train of thought doesn't cut it, if anything history has proven that wrong several times.

Exactly! That's the way they've been trying to spin GL in the marketing and in the press: a big cosmic adventure, ala Star Wars. People love crazy new worlds. That was the aspect of this movie I was most excited about initially and most disappointed with after the fact. What's the culture like on Oa? The ecosystem? Is there indigenous flora and fauna?What kind of star did it orbit? Was it a red giant? A white dwarf? A binary? What do Lanterns actually do there? What were the planets that Parallax ate like? Could he have attacked a gas giant with huge blimp like entities that float around in the atmosphere? Could he have eaten a cloud of vacuum evolved life forms floating around a star? An inhabited moon? Would eating a race of sentient machines do anything for him? How about a planet full of microbes and extremophiles that don't have emotions and thus don't have fear?

If you say you're gibing me a sci-fi epic, then actually give me one.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Thor learns how to be a hero in 6 hours?!

Not saying your not correct in how Hal learns, but Thor's isn't much better.

This is my final word on the both pictures because they are in fact the same film.

Thor's character journey is handled better, yes, but everything else? Green Lantern wins, almost hands down. The action. The design. Both scores are forgettable. Both love stories work in their own ways. Green Lantern was shot better, by miles. Lantern looks more polished than Thor. Both main characters are given charismatic performances by the leads. Thor had the better villain. Lantern had the better visual effects and scope.

For me, it's a tie. I enjoyed them both equally but different.

But again, this isn't even close to the worse comic book film of all time. Thor didn't deserve the 77% and Lantern doesn't deserve the 24%. They're both at about 50% respectively.

GL had better visuals than Thor, but in terms of structure and plotting, Thor was miles better. This film had 2 terrbile villains who got no development. In Thor, Loki was a strong villain. Very strong villain. The actors in Thor were by and large better. Yes, the story takes place over 2 days, but the story progressed in a way that made that seem more natural than GL's all of the place writing. GL had the potential to be as good as Thor in story structure, but they squandered the potentially good storylines. It's frustrating. Thor I walked out happy. This movie, I walked out entertained by asking for more.

 

[The Morningstar]

Thor pisses all over Green Lantern in terms of production design and story structure. I mean, there wasn't any ****ing production design in Green Lantern, it was all CGI! At least in Thor the throne room, Heimdall's Observatory, Odin's bed chamber etc were real, constructed sets. They even built that little New Mexico town from scratch. Then all the costumes were real.

Green Lantern had CGI backgrounds not only in Oa... but on Earth too! lol

And Thor is automatically better than Green Lantern because it had Loki. Loki alone makes Thor better than Green Lantern by a country mile.

 

[J.Howlett]

He doesn't go to awesome hero after Carol gives him his pep talk. He still has doubts when he talks to the Guardians and even after he takes care of Hector.

On the rooftop scene when he says goodbye to Carol, he knows he might be going to his death but he goes anyway.

 

[combocaz]

Saw the movie with the kids and i thought it was great and the kids loved it.

 

[Godman]

He does need to prove himself. Not only to the Corps, but to himself.

He can learn to overcome fear on actual missions. By actually DOING something. Not after a ****ing pep talk from a pretty girl.



Yea but it has no weight. Hal goes from a Green Lantern drop out... to awesome superhero after Carol tells him that he can overcome fear (which was a terribly delivered line BTW).

Hal doesn't learn this stuff by himself. It isn't natural character development/growth. Carol LITERALLY spells it all out for him. And then all of a sudden, he's this world saving GL who did what Abin Sur couldn't do... even though he only has about 10 minutes training under his belt.

It's forced, it's lazy. It's laughable in all honesty.

Yea that was HORRIBLE story telling and any disagreement to that is someone who doesnt understand how to craft a plot and probably cant even write out their day story without plot holes.

Abin Sur was the greatest warrior of them all and Hal Jordan defeated paralax in less than 10 mins? Abin Sur had mastered how not to fear as he was a master lantern. so how Hal Jordan, who is a **** up in his life in general, can conquer fear, which i thought all lanterns were supposed to have done anyway to even be consider elite lanterns (stupid plot hole and incoherent story telling), and suddenly be the mightiest and most cunning of them all to defeat a threat that killed several lanterns is STUPID STORY TELLING!!!!!

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

CG or real, it still had to be design, so that argument has no merit to me. Design wise, it's not even close. Thor looks cheap. Green Lantern looks polished as hell.

And the argument that the CG didn't work is full on bs. The CG, all of it, works really, really well. There are only a handful of moments that don't work but on the whole, Green Lantern's visual effects own Thor's by miles.

 

[moviedoors]

I really honestly had no problems with the effects in Thor. The Rainbow Bridge alone was a more dazzling sight than anything we saw on Oa.

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Agree to disagree. Listen, I liked Green Lantern and Thor equally but for different reasons so I really don't have anything else to discuss on this issue.

Both films are solid, at best with each having it's own set of problems.

But, I'm sorry, Green Lantern is not even in the same league as terrible as has been suggested. It's right in the middle with Singer's first X-Men film.

 

[Godman]

Thor pisses all over Green Lantern in terms of production design and story structure. I mean, there wasn't any ****ing production design in Green Lantern, it was all CGI! At least in Thor the throne room, Heimdall's Observatory, Odin's bed chamber etc were real, constructed sets. They even built that little New Mexico town from scratch. Then all the costumes were real.

Green Lantern had CGI backgrounds not only in Oa... but on Earth too! lol

And Thor is automatically better than Green Lantern because it had Loki. Loki alone makes Thor better than Green Lantern by a country mile.

CGI is still a respective form of PRODUCTION design. U cant take that away from the artistry in crafting such. The CGI did its job when needed. The costume in lantern worked well for what was intended. it looked like it was made of energy and it was meant to be. That was fine and no reason to be hated on as it made sense to the universe of Lanterns etc being energy based.

Thor was no better as they were both mundane movies. Thor had better story telling but suffered the same pacing issues. Green Lantern had far better fights. even The training from kilo to sinestro scenes were better than any moment in Thor. Thor had too much cheesy comedy which reynolds actually did far better on as he is actually funny. I didnt like lantern much as i see it a 6/10 and thor the same. both have good and bad about them equally

 

[The Sage]

I just wrote an entire in depth review just for the thread to be closed? thats stupid how it doesn't automatically integrate to the updated thread of the same title instead of erasing all that time of me typing...SMH

Yeah, Thread Manager can be annoying...

Your entire review is gone, or is it in the previous version of the thread?

 

[Godman]

Morningstar,

Agree to disagree. Listen, I liked Green Lantern and Thor equally but for different reasons so I really don't have anything else to discuss on this issue.

Both films are solid, at best with each having it's own set of problems.

But, I'm sorry, Green Lantern is not even in the same league as terrible as has been suggested. It's right in the middle with Singer's first X-Men film.

NO NO NO...Green Lantern is nowhere as tightly written as Xmen. Xmen was actually taken serious to an extent where as Green Lantern looks like it knows its not to be taken seriously which is why Nolan succeeded above all with Batman and why Snyder succeeded with Watchmen as far as taking the medium as serious as the illustrators of the art form so.

Green lantern looks as if they didnt give half a **** about making it the next bet thing but just getting by and making their money back with a "cool" factor

 

[Godman]

yeah, thread manager can be annoying...

Your entire review is gone, or is it in the previous version of the thread?

gone!!!!!

 

[Godman]

Morningstar,

CG or real, it still had to be design, so that argument has no merit to me. Design wise, it's not even close. Thor looks cheap. Green Lantern looks polished as hell.

And the argument that the CG didn't work is full on bs. The CG, all of it, works really, really well. There are only a handful of moments that don't work but on the whole, Green Lantern's visual effects own Thor's by miles.

agreed on that note. thats the only thing in the movie along with Jordan's witt that kept me engaged. its everything else that was bad lol

 

[dark_b]

Saw the movie with the kids and i thought it was great and the kids loved it.

will you and your kids watch the movie again?

 

[Godman]

Exactly! That's the way they've been trying to spin GL in the marketing and in the press: a big cosmic adventure, ala Star Wars. People love crazy new worlds. That was the aspect of this movie I was most excited about initially and most disappointed with after the fact. What's the culture like on Oa? The ecosystem? Is there indigenous flora and fauna?What kind of star did it orbit? Was it a red giant? A white dwarf? A binary? What do Lanterns actually do there? What were the planets that Parallax ate like? Could he have attacked a gas giant with huge blimp like entities that float around in the atmosphere? Could he have eaten a cloud of vacuum evolved life forms floating around a star? An inhabited moon? Would eating a race of sentient machines do anything for him? How about a planet full of microbes and extremophiles that don't have emotions and thus don't have fear?

If you say you're gibing me a sci-fi epic, then actually give me one.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!! u nailed all my problems with the movie. they didnt take this movie or universe and mythos to heart. it was an excuse to do a 3d DC hero and who other than Batman and Superman? smh...pathetic

 

[J.Howlett]

When I say it's like X-Men is that it feels like a prelude to something bigger. They both feel that way.

 

[The Sage]

gone!!!!!

Sorry about that. I believe the general rule is when the thread gets up to 1002 posts, the Thread Manager does its thing.

 

[The Morningstar]

No way in hell Green Lantern is as tightly written as the first X-Men. No way in hell.

And i wasn't impressed with the CGI or the action scenes. Well ok, Oa looked awesome. But that's because the whole thing was CGI, so there is no point of reference to telling what is real and what isn't, because it's all fake.

But whenever there was CGI on Earth, Hal's suits, the constructs, it looked like crap. And Hammond's use of telekinesis was laughable. You could just tell the objects he was throwing around with his mind were not real and had no weight or tangibility.

And i've said a million times before... action scenes, no matter how well shot and choreographed, don't mean **** if you don't care about the characters or the story. That's exactly what happened here. The characters were so flat, the story was so utterly terrible... why should i be impressed by the action scenes?

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Okay, you win. We're just going to be on opposite sides on this film, clearly.

You hated it. I thought it was solid with structural script issues in the second act. But, I'm not going to crap on this film whatsoever.

It's not Elektra (kind of like that film, despite how bad it is), Blade Trinity, both Fantastic Fours, Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, Incredible Hulk, Batman & Robin, Batman Forever, Howard the Duck (love it...nostalgia and Lea Thompson only), Daredevil, X-Men the Last Stand, Superman III, Superman IV, or Origins Wolverine.

Those films are ****.

This is just okay. What else do you want me to say?

 

[The Sage]

Ya then she asks "How did I raise someone so selfish" and Hal says "You didn't I became this way all by myself" that was a pretty good scene

Dang, that would've been good to see. Why would they remove stuff like that? It wouldn't have hurt the time. That's some Incredible Hulk type editing.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Despite X1 being 95 minutes without credits, the pacing is great. It's about the only comic book film with that running time that's of high quality. Everybody who needed to be develoepd felt developed, and the plotting was fine. I remember everything about the movie. Same with Thor.

 

[J.Howlett]

Green Lantern needed about another 5 to 10 minutes...