The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 4

[Whiskey Tango]

Really? You mind uh...you mind telling me where I said that was okay? lol, I said...alot of other movies have done it...not that it was okay that they did it.

Excuse me, you're right. You chose to complain about people complaining. That's A LOT more thoughtful.

I don't see why you need to ***** and moan and wail every single day in one of the GL threads about why it sucks, and those who liked it need to be pointed out that it sucks

 

[BrlntDsgse]

After seeing the film, I've gotta thank everyone who has grossly overstated how "terrible" it is. I lowered my expectations for this to be the "Star Wars" of superhero flicks and was able to appreciate a flawed, but still solid romp. I thought that Reynold's was great as Hal and everyone else(especially Strong who was also great) was at least decent. I honestly think that at least some of the negativity is coming from a combination of some "superhero burnout" and the fact that this one, in all honesty wasn't great, but just good. Not to mention that I can't tell you how many critic reviews I've read that just seem completely dismissive of the very CONCEPT and powers of Green Lantern. They seem to just see giant objects created by a "magic" ring and the very concept automatically lowers the material in their eyes. This movie reminded me of the first X-Men, another movie that didn't "wow" me but had a great cast, and seemed to "get" the source material. And just like that film, I hope this one is a success, so it can expand on what was set up w/ this one in a sequel.

P.S. To all the haters, I must ask: didn't you AT LEAST geek out when you got to see....on a movie screen....in live action.......Green Lantern use a giant,green fist to punch the villian into the sun?!? If not, I feel sorry for you, cause THAT was boss.t:

 

[gmanca]

I think that's a BS move from them, the more well-made Comic Book Films that are released, the better for all of the studios.

As a Marvel guy, I wanted to like Green Lantern because that's where I get my DC fix; it just wasn't a good effort from any of the filmmakers.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Excuse me, you're right. You chose to complain about people complaining. That's A LOT more thoughtful.

Yet...you seem to be complaining that I'm complaining about people complaining.

 

[Episode29]

You act like green lantern is the first comic book movie ever to fool someone into it with their marketing. X3 did it, SM3 did it, Hulk 03 did it, that POS wolverine did it, and I'm sure countless others will do it also. So....that you see the effing movie.

Your argument is unclear. All the films you listed had trailers that essentially laid out exactly what to expect storywise from the films. Sure, none of them wound up being very good, but they didn't try to sell themselves as something they weren't.

GL was marketed as space opera, and wasn't.

 

[The Morningstar]

Well i'm going to complain about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining!

 

[J.Howlett]

Saw it a second time last night and it plays much better than the first. It still has some issues in terms of character but not as horrible as has been made out. It comes down to a lack of knowledge of the relationship between Carol, Hal, and Hector. If the film would've cleared that up, then you'd see how Campbell was juxtaposing how Hal and Hector both responded to the gaining of power.

The visual effects are stunning. No two ways to even argue that point.

This is the story of Hal's origin as the one who will become the greatest if them all.

Despite it's flaws, Green Lantern works. It's not even remotely 24% bad. There's a massive group think session going on with this film towards the negative.

This is a strong intro to a very odd concept. I have it slightly ahead of Thor now.

 

[Spider-X]

After seeing the film, I've gotta thank everyone who has grossly overstated how "terrible" it is. I lowered my expectations for this to be the "Star Wars" of superhero flicks and was able to appreciate a flawed, but still solid romp. I thought that Reynold's was great as Hal and everyone else(especially Strong who was also great) was at least decent. I honestly think that at least some of the negativity is coming from a combination of some "superhero burnout" and the fact that this one, in all honesty wasn't great, but just good. Not to mention that I can't tell you how many critic reviews I've read that just seem completely dismissive of the very CONCEPT and powers of Green Lantern. They seem to just see giant objects created by a "magic" ring and the very concept automatically lowers the material in their eyes. This movie reminded me of the first X-Men, another movie that didn't "wow" me but had a great cast, and seemed to "get" the source material. And just like that film, I hope this one is a success, so it can expand on what was set up w/ this one in a sequel.

P.S. To all the haters, I must ask: didn't you AT LEAST geek out when you got to see....on a movie screen....in live action.......Green Lantern use a giant,green fist to punch the villian into the sun?!? If not, I feel sorry for you, cause THAT was boss.t:

I completely agree...with the exception of GL being as good as the first X-Men movie.

 

[Spider-X]

Or they just realized that, following X-Men: First Class and Thor, it wasn't up to snuff.

look...on the scale of 1-10:

X-Men is a 8-9
Thor is a 7-8.5
Green Lantern is no way in hell a 2-3. A 5-6.5 is fair enough...but not a 2-3.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Your argument is unclear. All the films you listed had trailers that essentially laid out exactly what to expect storywise from the films. Sure, none of them wound up being very good, but they didn't try to sell themselves as something they weren't.

GL was marketed as space opera, and wasn't.

Spider-Man 3 was marketed out to be the darkest of the series.

SM1/SM2 were darker.

Hulk looked like TIH with a bit more serious scenes.

Turns out Hulk was a super serious CBM.

I'm still waiting on that 2.5 hour cut of X3 from rothman lol

So, I disagree.

This coming from a SM3/Hulk 03 fan. They were marketed differently than the final product.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Well i'm going to complain about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining!

maybe if we do that we won't come across as *****ey fanboys defending a subpar product!

 

[The Morningstar]

I thought Ang's Hulk delivered on the action scenes. That 20 minute romp through the desert was better than anything in the new Hulk movie.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

That's something I actually agree with you on for once, morningstar.

 

[The Morningstar]

maybe if we do that we won't come across as *****ey fanboys defending a subpar product!

I KNOW RIGHT!!?!?!

I mean, shouldn't we all accept this mediocrity and support is so they get to make mediocre sequels and other DC films?

 

[Episode29]

look...on the scale of 1-10:

X-Men is a 8-9
Thor is a 7-8.5
Green Lantern is no way in hell a 2-3. A 5-6.5 is fair enough...but not a 2-3.

Again, you're looking at the overall consensus percentage. Look at the average scores. They're not as insanely far apart as many of you seem to think.

 

[K'Prime]

Just brainstorming here. I've seen most of the superhero films that have come out in the last 11 years or so, and I really felt GL ranks among some of the better ones. Since X-Men really started off the second round of superhero flicks, I think it's fair to weigh GL against the films that have been released since that one.

These are just my honest opinions. I would say GL is on par with:

Thor(debatable)
Spider-Man(disagree)
X-Men(i'd say gl is better then x-1)
Hellboy(agreed)
The Incredible Hulk(never really liked the hulk so cant judge)
Iron Man 2 (yes, I liked this movie, even though so many of you apparently hated it) (I didn't really like iron man 2 but i think it had a bit more structured)

I would say it is better than:

Superman Returns(disagree.think sr is more polished)
X-Men 3 (agree by a landslide)
The Punisher & Punisher: War Zone(agree)
Daredevil(agree)
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen(agree)
Fantastic Four 1 & 2(agree)
G.I. Joe(agree)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine(agree.not even debatable)
The Blade sequels(agree)
Hellboy 2(disagree.I actually really enjoyed hb2 more)
Jonah Hex(agree)
Transformers 1 & 2(agree..**** micheal bay)
Green Hornet(didnt see it)
Spider-Man 3(mixed feelings)
Hulk(same as tih)
Ghost Rider(agree)

I never bothered to see Elektra and Catwoman, but I'm guessing GL is better than those as well.(i think catwomen.elektra and the spirit should be in its own sub category of complete utter crap.which gl is no where near

And the films I would rank higher than GL:

Batman Begins (Agree with all of em)
TDK
X2
X-Men: First Class
Spider-Man 2
Iron Man
Watchmen
Kick-Ass

just my thoughts on em

 

[The Morningstar]

That's something I actually agree with you on for once, morningstar.

Hey it's cool man. I know i've been a *****e in this Green Lantern threads since I saw it, I apologise. But that *****e-ness is born from pain and utter disappointment.

And i don't think any less of people who enjoy this movie. It's just that I honestly can't understand why people are accepting this mediocrity. Because mediocrity only breeds more mediocrity.

If this movie is financially succesful, it won't give WB any reason to improve for the sequels.

 

[Arach Knight]

This film is serviceable, but on the scale of great DC movies, this trips long before it reaches the finish line. It is a great popcorn flick, but it goes in so many directions that it is hard to enjoy it on the basic level of just being a movie. That is the greater strength of a film like V for Vendetta or Constantine, which despite discrepancies with the source material, come away as solid if not memorable presentations. Green Lantern mostly comes off as muddled. The action (when it happens) is enjoyable. I think Ryan Reynold's did a fantastic job, but the material just wasn't there. This is leagues above Jonah Hex, but that isn't saying much. While this does give us aliens, violence and a large scale battle, the overall coheshion is so poor that I'd dare say this is a far worse film than Superman Returns, which despite not having enough action, understood its goals as a piece of cinema. The heart and thought were present in that film, just not the action. The action is kind of here in Green Lantern, but everything else just seems to be loosely tied together.

 

[gmanca]

Well, I think it's fair to say that it's not good to market a film differently than what's in the film. Hulk was definitely marketed as a high octane movie, your TIH with more serious scenes description is apt.

But just as that film was hurt by people wondering where the action was, GL definitely has people wondering where all of the Oa scenes went.

The thing that pisses me off about GL is that they have this great sequence with Oa, and if you compare it to how they zoomed around Asgard in it's first appearance, it was weak, like the film makers didn't realize that this might be a good spot to spend some cash and make it a grand shot.

Like when the graveyard shot lingers at the same angle as the released concept art, with only Hal being the moving object, that's just really weak.

 

[Episode29]

Spider-Man 3 was marketed out to be the darkest of the series.

SM1/SM2 were darker.

Hulk looked like TIH with a bit more serious scenes.

Turns out Hulk was a super serious CBM.

I'm still waiting on that 2.5 hour cut of X3 from rothman lol

So, I disagree.

This coming from a SM3/Hulk 03 fan. They were marketed differently than the final product.

Whether it's the darkest or not is largely subjective. I'd say it was the darkest of the three but maybe that's just me.

As for Hulk, they advertised the big comic bookey moments over the dramatic elements. They all do that, but Hulk made no bones about being a slightly more cerebral product than Spidey and X-Men. Also, no movie featuring a killer giant poodle can really be considered "super-serious."

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Spider-Man 3 was marketed out to be the darkest of the series.

SM1/SM2 were darker.

Hulk looked like TIH with a bit more serious scenes.

Turns out Hulk was a super serious CBM.

I'm still waiting on that 2.5 hour cut of X3 from rothman lol

So, I disagree.

This coming from a SM3/Hulk 03 fan. They were marketed differently than the final product.

This is all ******** and you know it. "Spider-Man 3 was marketed as "darker" my ass. Not even anywhere close to the same thing.

Adventureland being sold as "a raunchy comedy from the director of Superbad" is the kind of flat-out lies we're talking about here.

A hack job like WB has just pulled would have taken the shots of Venom and the Space Shuttle and packaged Spider-Man 3 as a Secret Wars movie.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Hey it's cool man. I know i've been a *****e in this Green Lantern threads since I saw it, I apologise. But that *****e-ness is born from pain and utter disappointment.

I understand, but I still disagree about it being mediocre. But hey, I like movies critics hate, and hate movies critics like at times.


If this movie is financially succesful, it won't give WB any reason to improve for the sequels.

I want a better script for GL2. It was a mess, no doubt, but so was thor's, and I enjoyed both flicks.

 

[Spider-X]

Some of these excuses are pathetic. "Critics are snobs and don't like superhero movies"

Yea... that's why Thor was in the 90s on RT when it first came out, and settled in the high 70s. And First Class is comfortably in the 80s.

The film was terrible, that's all there is to it.

If you're coming after me on this, The operative word on my "and perhaps some of them are getting tired of the superhero movie genre which *snobbish voice* "is just beneath" some of them" statement was SOME. It's no secret (as many of us who take the time to do our homework with these critics) that several critics have that attitude. Sure they'll often admit when a superhero movie is phenomenal, as it becomes hard to ignore when you have movies like SM2, IM, and TDK coming out. But most comic book movies are not phenomenal, they're more often than not fun, unique, and enjoyable...but that doesn't mean the genre is just garbage...though SOME (again, read) have gone on the records saying the genre is basically just that.

One thing people around here are passionate about is the quality of their favorite character's movies. So I can understand people being upset about this movie not being top tier stuff. But GL is not a horrible movie either. It's middle ground...I'd say above average...for your average movie goer.

 

[TheVileOne]

Middle ground isn't going to get it a franchise.

 

[The Morningstar]

Spider-X. Fair enough.

But still, even as a popcorn movie, I thought it failed. It wasn't this epic space opera we were all promised. Frankly, it was just boring. That is just unnacceptable for a film about Green Lantern.