The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The funniest thing in the whole movie. Like I seriously laughed for 2 min straight like a maniac was this

Senator Hammond is addressing the crowd at a Ferris Aircraft party and he mentions Hal Jordan then some guy in the crowd exclaims "Yeah Hal!!!"

Yo that **** was too funny. I lost it since I found this hysterically random.
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see WB follow Marvel and reboot this franchise in a couple of years with an entirely different team. Look at what they did with Hulk, and to a lesser degree, Punisher.

Sucks though, because I genuinely think that Reynold's is great in the role, and Mark Strong IS Sinestro. The design team deserves props for making Oa and the rest of the corps look as amazing as they do in the movie. In a perfect world, we'd get a different director and different writers, but keep the actors that worked, but that's not likely to happen. They'll probably pull a "Man of Steel" and just start from scratch. Then again, the 2nd Hulk used the first one as a loose jumping off point so we didn't have to re-tread his original all over. They could do the same with GL.
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see WB follow Marvel and reboot this franchise in a couple of years with an entirely different team. Look at what they did with Hulk, and to a lesser degree, Punisher.

Yeah but....look how well it worked.
 
No Evil Shall Escape My Sight ...
How to do mythology

Elliot S! Maggin
June 19 2011

I love Green Lantern. Always have. He was the reason I convinced my dad to give me a dramatic boost in allowance in the early Sixties.

I was getting a quarter a week, which was actually in line with the purchasing power of most of my friends – at least the ones who didn’t live on the upward-mobile South Merrick landfill. Around 1960 Julie Schwartz, a senior editor at DC Comics whom I wouldn’t actually come to know for another ten years, started trying out new superhero characters every six months in a magazine called Showcase and then launching most of them off in their own comics. So when I was about eleven comics went from a dime to twelve cents an issue and new titles I just had to follow were coming out with predictable – but nonetheless alarming – reliability. The Green Lantern book by John Broome and Gil Kane was just so damned good I had to do something drastic, so I put together a spreadsheet to illustrate my predicament for Dad. I needed a nickel more a week just to account for the new cover price, and a regular boost every six months (retroactive to the previous half-year) to cover the new stuff from Julie. I needed a bump to forty cents right away, I showed, and my advancing years justified the inflationary spiral to ensue. Dad was not visibly impressed, but he and Mom conferred and a few days later he announced that I would now have to be responsible for several expenses for which they had heretofore paid. To accommodate for this my weekly allowance would now be three dollars. No matter that I now had to cover my own lunches; I had my Green Lantern.

There were many other reasons I loved Green Lantern, most of which are on display in the just-released Warner Bros film of that name. The critics uniformly seem to hate it. They have their heads up their asses. Especially Peter Travers in Rolling Stone who ought to know better. Here’s why:

Green Lantern the film launches a visual and figurative vocabulary – a set of assumptions about the viability of the popular consciousness – that we haven’t seen updated in this medium since Star Wars. The intelligence of the film is on display mostly in what the filmmakers choose to leave out. There have been wormholes, for example, in earlier movies, but they’ve always been accompanied by lengthy digressions where some learned Sagan clone explains in excruciating detail what they are and how they work. Sometimes there are even lame visual aids: toilet paper tubes and fiber optic reading lights and such. By contrast, somewhere toward the top of the second act, Ryan Reynolds in a holographic Green Lantern body suit launches into the maw of one somewhere off the northern edge of the solar system and pops out in the neighborhood of the ancient planet Oa at the geographic midpoint of the Universe. No problem; no further explanation necessary; visually obvious.

The film is full of such shorthanded leaps, all the better to fit a corker of a story. “Too much information,” one movie reviewer cries, drooling with the assumption that what he’s too intellectually lazy to integrate is beyond the grasp of an audience better acquainted with the shared experiences of twenty-first century collective memory than he.

There’s an astonishing absence of cultural sophistication among our supposed cultural gatekeepers these days. This lapse is so prevalent that reportedly the marketing suits at Warner Bros are already casting around for someone to take the fall for their huge but timorous investment in this superb product of American heroic fantasy. Someone somewhere in the arcane process that goes into making a big Hollywood movie understands the protocols of traditional mythology and, what’s more, whoever among the Warner geeks knows this stuff got to make some major creative decisions that kept this presentation consistent not only with its source material but with the classical coding that made it great.

Only one of the creatives who built and grew the Green Lantern character managed to get himself credited for anything in the film titles. Good going, pal, but here are some names that belong up there too: Mart Nodell, my buddy Gil Kane, John Broome, Julius Schwartz, Alfred Bester (who in a fit of chemical-enhanced invention wrote that oath in 1941), Dennis O’Neil, Neal Adams (happy birthday) and an Oscar-style list of people without whom we would never have had this common treasure.

To the suits at WB: As I write this the thing hasn’t even finished its opening weekend and already you’re circling the wagons like a bunch of wanna-be cowboys scared of a few coyote howls. You should know better but, really, we don’t expect you to.


http://www.caveatcorner.com/


:hal::applaud:applaud
 
WB's not going to reboot Lantern this fast. It's either nothing or moving forward with a sequel.

They're to invested in the DC properties taking the place of Potter for the duration for them to reboot Lantern.
 
The funniest thing in the whole movie. Like I seriously laughed for 2 min straight like a maniac was this

Senator Hammond is addressing the crowd at a Ferris Aircraft party and he mentions Hal Jordan then some guy in the crowd exclaims "Yeah Hal!!!"

Yo that **** was too funny. I lost it since I found this hysterically random.

Haha, yeah. I loved that part.
 
No Evil Shall Escape My Sight ...
How to do mythology

Elliot S! Maggin
June 19 2011

I love Green Lantern. Always have. He was the reason I convinced my dad to give me a dramatic boost in allowance in the early Sixties.

I was getting a quarter a week, which was actually in line with the purchasing power of most of my friends – at least the ones who didn’t live on the upward-mobile South Merrick landfill. Around 1960 Julie Schwartz, a senior editor at DC Comics whom I wouldn’t actually come to know for another ten years, started trying out new superhero characters every six months in a magazine called Showcase and then launching most of them off in their own comics. So when I was about eleven comics went from a dime to twelve cents an issue and new titles I just had to follow were coming out with predictable – but nonetheless alarming – reliability. The Green Lantern book by John Broome and Gil Kane was just so damned good I had to do something drastic, so I put together a spreadsheet to illustrate my predicament for Dad. I needed a nickel more a week just to account for the new cover price, and a regular boost every six months (retroactive to the previous half-year) to cover the new stuff from Julie. I needed a bump to forty cents right away, I showed, and my advancing years justified the inflationary spiral to ensue. Dad was not visibly impressed, but he and Mom conferred and a few days later he announced that I would now have to be responsible for several expenses for which they had heretofore paid. To accommodate for this my weekly allowance would now be three dollars. No matter that I now had to cover my own lunches; I had my Green Lantern.

There were many other reasons I loved Green Lantern, most of which are on display in the just-released Warner Bros film of that name. The critics uniformly seem to hate it. They have their heads up their asses. Especially Peter Travers in Rolling Stone who ought to know better. Here’s why:

Green Lantern the film launches a visual and figurative vocabulary – a set of assumptions about the viability of the popular consciousness – that we haven’t seen updated in this medium since Star Wars. The intelligence of the film is on display mostly in what the filmmakers choose to leave out. There have been wormholes, for example, in earlier movies, but they’ve always been accompanied by lengthy digressions where some learned Sagan clone explains in excruciating detail what they are and how they work. Sometimes there are even lame visual aids: toilet paper tubes and fiber optic reading lights and such. By contrast, somewhere toward the top of the second act, Ryan Reynolds in a holographic Green Lantern body suit launches into the maw of one somewhere off the northern edge of the solar system and pops out in the neighborhood of the ancient planet Oa at the geographic midpoint of the Universe. No problem; no further explanation necessary; visually obvious.

The film is full of such shorthanded leaps, all the better to fit a corker of a story. “Too much information,” one movie reviewer cries, drooling with the assumption that what he’s too intellectually lazy to integrate is beyond the grasp of an audience better acquainted with the shared experiences of twenty-first century collective memory than he.

There’s an astonishing absence of cultural sophistication among our supposed cultural gatekeepers these days. This lapse is so prevalent that reportedly the marketing suits at Warner Bros are already casting around for someone to take the fall for their huge but timorous investment in this superb product of American heroic fantasy. Someone somewhere in the arcane process that goes into making a big Hollywood movie understands the protocols of traditional mythology and, what’s more, whoever among the Warner geeks knows this stuff got to make some major creative decisions that kept this presentation consistent not only with its source material but with the classical coding that made it great.

Only one of the creatives who built and grew the Green Lantern character managed to get himself credited for anything in the film titles. Good going, pal, but here are some names that belong up there too: Mart Nodell, my buddy Gil Kane, John Broome, Julius Schwartz, Alfred Bester (who in a fit of chemical-enhanced invention wrote that oath in 1941), Dennis O’Neil, Neal Adams (happy birthday) and an Oscar-style list of people without whom we would never have had this common treasure.

To the suits at WB: As I write this the thing hasn’t even finished its opening weekend and already you’re circling the wagons like a bunch of wanna-be cowboys scared of a few coyote howls. You should know better but, really, we don’t expect you to.

http://www.caveatcorner.com/
:hal::applaud:applaud

Honestly...if you have to try that hard to justify liking a movie......there's got to be something really wrong with it.
 
Last edited:
Critically acclaimed doesn't = a good product. To say that the original Hulk was superior in ANY way to the follow up is ridiculous. While the 2nd Hulk wasn't raved about by the critics, it was the most faithful adaption of the Hulk we've seen on the big screen, to date. The 1st Punisher couldn't get the location, characters, story, or even the violence right. While the 2nd one was overly cheesy and almost a parody of itself, it got the violence, tone, and attitude of the main character pretty good.

Look at what they're doing with Spider-Man and somewhat doing with X-Men. I honestly think "XMFC" is their attempt to test the waters for rebooting the franchise after the disaster of a 3rd movie.
 
This whole “Doing this in Green Lantern is weak writing” thing doesn’t work unless you apply that criticism to other superhero films. In which case those films are chock full of weak writing. Superhero films have certain conventions. Hell, hero stories have certain conventions. One of those conventions is that someone often HELPS the hero figure some things out that are creating their conflict, and that they don’t learn everything there is to learn on their own. This is a literary convention. Some of you are complaining about writing here, and you don’t seem to even understand it that well.

Hal's change? It doesn't come anywhere near that level of weight or emotion.

Nor, frankly, does his change in the comics. Try comparing Green Lantern to Green Lantern.

I don’t think it can be argued that Green Lantern has no emotion in it. If anything, the emotions in this film are more restrained (Other than Hammond’s head growth moments) and realistic than in most comic book films. I was kind of glad to see that for once.

Critics may not hate all superhero films, but I’ve noticed that if they aren’t the films that rank among the best of the best (TDK, X-Men, etc) they’re quick to jump all over them. That’s a silly attitude to take toward filmmaking, to dismiss a film’s strengths just because it isn’t one of the best ever made.

Yes. But that whole scene is so laughable. It's like a comedy. Yes. But that whole scene is so laughable. It's like a comedy.

What on Earth is funny about the kid running to make sure his dad is okay after he was involved in a plane crash, and then his Dad realizing he’s about to die, and dying in a fiery explosion?

Just the way it was tacked on. Think about it. Hal's this awesome pilot, has been doing it for years. It's safe to say the picture of his dad has been in his cockpit all this time. But only NOW he freaks out about it? It's just contrived writing.

It’s not any more tacked on than any flashback sequence has been in any other film. It was put there for an obvious reason. I would imagine he’s freaking out about it at that point in time, because this is the point where he himself has failed in flight and is about to crash. Hal Jordan probably hasn’t always been crashing planes. It probably reminds him about what happened to his father, and that's why this time (and who's to say it hasn't happened before, not that this is relevant during this film) he is flashing back.

And there was just zero emotion in the scene. It was funny because it seemed like a spoof or something. Like a parody of Maverick from Top Gun.

What about that sequence is spooflike?

Also, people, are we all now really all pretending the marketing for this film was bad? This film was EVERYWHERE, and obviously looked good, because quite a few of you claim it fooled you.

Also, why in heavens name are people just dismissing the second act of the film? It has the same basic structural, character and dialogue quality that the first act does. And that’s where Green Lantern shows up and does all the, you know, “Green Lantern stuff”.

Also, there seems to be a lot of assumption about what Sinestro putting on the Yellow Ring meant, and an inability to think critically when it comes to that. That’s just silly.
 
WB's not going to reboot Lantern this fast. It's either nothing or moving forward with a sequel.

They're to invested in the DC properties taking the place of Potter for the duration for them to reboot Lantern.

Not reboot it right away, but also not invest $300 million to develop/market a sequel to a movie that has been poorly received by just about everyone. I think they'll sort of take this back to the drawing board, figure out what went wrong, and hand it off to someone who's vision matches the source material. If we don't see a sequel, then we'll get a reboot in a few years.
 
Just saw Green Lantern a couple of hours ago.

Was it the absolutely amazing, and the best superhero film I've ever seen? No.

But was it that bad, like some of the reviews are making out? Absolutely not. The film had some great moments, and some great performances. Brilliant effects. The team behind the film were fairly faithful to the Green Lantern history too.

The film did make a number of mis-steps along the way; I thought Hector was handled badly (he should either have had a bigger role, or none at all) and personally I felt Tim Robbins was woefully miscast as his dad. Some of the writing was way off and the pacing wasn't quite perfect. But on the whole? It was an entertaining flick with a strong leading man and definitely watchable. I'd definitely give it a 6.5/7 out of 10, and whilst doing so I'd question how some reviewers can stoop to give it a 1/10 or 2/10. Seriously, I've seen a lot worse than GL.
 
Honestly...if you have to try that hard to justify liking a movie......there's got to be something really wrong with it.

don't forget to tell them there's no santa claus Kalmart
 
Fully agree, man people are trying to use Star Wars now lol to defend this. Just take it guys and hope for a better sequel. It sucked, plain and simple.

I wasn't calling Marvin out, but he attempted to refute my claim by pointing out that Luke took down the Death Star. I don't mind him trying to make the point, but it was a really bad comparison, not just for the reasons I gave, but mostly for those reasons.

I am not trying to spread hate for this film. I don't think it deserves the low scores it has been getting, but it certainly wasn't the film that we have been hoping for. What is perhaps the most disappointing point of this entire situation, is that many comic fans were counting on this film to revitalize the strength of the DC film brand.

Marvel has done so well with taking control of their brand, bringing non-mainstream characters to light and creating a shared universe. Warner Bros., which has always had control over DC content, and studio power to promote film projects, has never attempted what Marve has in just a few short years. Many had hoped that this would be the turning point, but it does not seem to be the case. There are solid DC movies, but it seems that the hopes of a shared universe and a Justice League movie have been crippled. Unless of course Green Lantern musters a surprising come back. There is still hope for the Henry Cavil Superman project...
 
Honestly...if you have to try that hard to justify liking a movie......there's got to be something really wrong with it.

I don't have to justify ****, and neither did Maggin. He's saying critics, and frankly many fans, have their heads up their asses.

The movie was a really good summer film. It wasn't great, but it was really good. There are flaws, and there are conventions galore... but I think there are issues with superhero movies I would call great. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have a few issues, not the least of which is the very presence of Rachel Dawes.

I think part of it is that critics are getting kind of worn out by all the superhero flicks. And then there are many many fans that are far more sheepish than they want to portray themselves.

The haters will say those that like the movie are out of their minds, and trying to justify liking the movie and blah blah blah. Meanwhile, these very same guys most likely read as many reviews as possible, saw negativity there and went into the film with a negative opinion and critical eye looking for problems. They've been brainwashed going into the theater. "oh, so and so says this movie is ****" and for whatever reason that person's opinion matters to them.

I'm more punk rock than that.

I have problems with the Star Wars prequels, but I still like them and enjoy watching them(if less than the OT). There are some issues with GL, but overall I think it was a really fun movie and a very faithful portrayal of the character. The story is good and it suffered from some stuff getting cut for sure, some of which probably hurt it because I suspect it was on Oa and developed Hal with other Corpsmen more. But ultimately I think it was a good film and there are a lot of fans that are talking more **** because they've already been told to think this way and thus they go in looking for things to pick on. And thus you get guys like The Morningstar who have literally nothing good to say.

That's weak sauce.
 
I don't have to justify ****, and neither did Maggin. He's saying critics, and frankly many fans, have their heads up their asses.

The movie was a really good summer film. It wasn't great, but it was really good. There are flaws, and there are conventions galore... but I think there are issues with superhero movies I would call great. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have a few issues, not the least of which is the very presence of Rachel Dawes.

I think part of it is that critics are getting kind of worn out by all the superhero flicks. And then there are many many fans that are far more sheepish than they want to portray themselves.

The haters will say those that like the movie are out of their minds, and trying to justify liking the movie and blah blah blah. Meanwhile, these very same guys most likely read as many reviews as possible, saw negativity there and went into the film with a negative opinion and critical eye looking for problems. They've been brainwashed going into the theater. "oh, so and so says this movie is ****" and for whatever reason that person's opinion matters to them.

I'm more punk rock than that.

I have problems with the Star Wars prequels, but I still like them and enjoy watching them(if less than the OT). There are some issues with GL, but overall I think it was a really fun movie and a very faithful portrayal of the character. The story is good and it suffered from some stuff getting cut for sure, some of which probably hurt it because I suspect it was on Oa and developed Hal with other Corpsmen more. But ultimately I think it was a good film and there are a lot of fans that are talking more **** because they've already been told to think this way and thus they go in looking for things to pick on. And thus you get guys like The Morningstar who have literally nothing good to say.

That's weak sauce.

I was talking about the reviewer. Obviously, it didn't take much effort to quote and clap. ;)

Or...maybe it did...who knows?
 
Last edited:
The brainwashed argument I personally have never liked, mostly cause most movie viewers who come first are independent and rarely pay attention to Critics.

Now I know a lot of ppl didnt like the Star Wars prequels, but still this is an entirely different comparison.

I do have to say though, that I have thought of it more since, I still think Gl was bad, but not as bad as my first thoughts when leaving the theatre.

I guess thats PPR on my part.
 
The reviewer is Elliot S! Maggin man. He knows his stuff.

So much so that liking it because it's fun isn't enough?

And just out of curiosity...does that mean that all other critics who didnt' like it...don't know their stuff?
 
Last edited:
The thing is , if you like a film , you don't need to question the motives of others who don't. Films are a matter of taste and trying to divine someone's internal motivations for not liking GL or any of these films doesn't provide a reason for why someone should see the film. All it does is express disatifaction that someone else didn't like it. Critics will say yay or nay and fans will scorn or praise, but ultimately its a matter of whether you liked or enjoyed the film or not .
 
Eliot S. Magin seems to basically be saying: That's whats in the comics, and thats how its presented in the comics, deal with it if you want to watch an adaption of it. I rather like that.
 
Eliot S. Magin seems to basically be saying: That's whats in the comics, and thats how its presented in the comics, deal with it if you want to watch an adaption of it. I rather like that.
I like it too...if you can just say it in a few sentences like you did. ;)

The thing is , if you like a film , you don't need to question the motives of others who don't. Films are a matter of taste and trying to divine someone's internal motivations for not liking GL or any of these films doesn't provide a reason for why someone should see the film. All it does is express disatifaction that someone else didn't like it. Critics will say yay or nay and fans will scorn or praise, but ultimately its a matter of whether you liked or enjoyed the film or not .

And expressing how much of a GL fan you are from childhood doesn't exactly help in the objective department. :O
 
Eliot S. Magin seems to basically be saying: That's whats in the comics, and thats how its presented in the comics, deal with it if you want to watch an adaption of it. I rather like that.

But it's not what's in the comics, especially not what is in Secret Origins; the comic arc that everyone in the production swore up and down the film used as a blueprint.
 
Talk about a movie they didn't use their full potential, it felt very dry and uninspired. Where it should be more about Green Lantern and the Corps, it was more about Hal Jordon. The scenes in Oa had some great scenes but was cut short with the scenes in Earth. The scene that pissed me off is where they were training Hal they cut that short with the dumbest route possible. The actors were good not great, dialogue had some major issues and I wish it was longer with Oa. This felt very FOX-ish with this cut of the film, I hope they do a directors cut explaining more of Oa. This was meant to be a space opera but this was nothing but a tease. Oh and the after credit scene....:dry: wasn't necessary at all.
5.5/10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,272
Messages
22,078,002
Members
45,878
Latest member
Remembrance1988
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"