The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 4

[Episode29]

But most comic book movies are phenomenal, they're more often than not fun, unique, and enjoyable...

Wait, what?! If you think most are phenomenal you really need to start watching more movies.

 

[Spider-X]

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

tell that to Ghost Rider...

 

[A Necessary Evil]

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

Are you serious? not marketed as a dark movie LOL. It was marketed as a dark movie. That was one of the things I saw everyone ***** about that film.

"Its a dark movie and peter's...dancing down the streets?"


Ask pretty much anyone, even fans of the film, and most will admit it had more cheese in it than SM1/SM2.

Sure it had dark themes....but it had tons of cheese. Hopefully (doubtful) 3.1 hits the streets and we do get a darker cut.

 

[Spider-X]

Wait, what?! If you think most are phenomenal you really need to start watching more movies.

editting mistake (i've fixed it on my original post)...it was supposed to say "are not"

 

[Episode29]

tell that to Ghost Rider...

...which got its budget slashed in half and will cut almost all ties from the original.

 

[Episode29]

editting mistake (i've fixed it on my original post)...it was supposed to say "are not"

Oh, okay. Cool. You had me scared there for a moment.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

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."

It had alot of darkness, but alot of it was cut out. I'd like to see that re-instated. Don't get me wrong, it's an underrated freaking movie, but its got its fair amount of goofiness.

A Super-serious movie...with something stupid in it.

From the comics.

 

[Spider-X]

I can dig what people are saying about the marketing. It reminds me of the marketing for The Breakup...It was marketed as a comedy and that movie was in no way a comedy...had a few funny lines, but it wasn't a funny movie. So I can understand the frustration.

But here's the difference to me: GL is still entertaining, even though it's not a epic space romp. It has some redeeming qualities. The Break-up doesn't...it has no likeable characters, no one to root for...it's just annoying.

In other words: take the movie for what it is...not how it's marketed. It's not fair to judge a movie based purely on commercials and merchandising.

 

[Spider-X]

Oh, okay. Cool. You had me scared there for a moment.

thanks t: good catch...I wouldn't have noticed if you didn't bring it up and it would have damaged my point.

 

[The Morningstar]

But commercials and marketing put the viewer in a state of mind going into the theater. It raises expectations.

The marketing said to me "This movie is going to be an epic cosmic adventure". It wasn't. So that is going to piss me off to no end. And it should piss everyone else off too.

 

[gmanca]

Eh, even at face value, you're really left wanting.

All one can hope for is that whatever caused GL to fail is remedied and that Warner takes the results of this one as a learning experience.

 

[Spider-X]

But commercials and marketing put the viewer in a state of mind going into the theater. It raises expectations.

The marketing said to me "This movie is going to be an epic cosmic adventure". It wasn't. So that is going to piss me off to no end. And it should piss everyone else off too.

true...so it's poor marketing. But it's ultimately not a reflection of the quality of the movie. If you'd watched the movie first before reading any reviews and seeing no commercials, than it would be fair to judge the movie based on just that: the movie. It's not the movie's fault that the folks in marketing are liars and suck at their jobs.

catch my drift?

 

[BrlntDsgse]

But commercials and marketing put the viewer in a state of mind going into the theater. It raises expectations.

The marketing said to me "This movie is going to be an epic cosmic adventure". It wasn't. So that is going to piss me off to no end. And it should piss everyone else off too.

And it's fine that it pisses you off , but it doesn't have any bearing on the actual quality of the film. Now, if you honestly also feel that the movie was crap, that's fine too, but don't go thinking it's crap BECAUSE it wasn't the same movie you had in your head from the previews/marketing.

 

[gmanca]

true...so it's poor marketing. But it's ultimately not a reflection of the quality of the movie. If you'd watched the movie first before reading any reviews and seeing no commercials, than it would be fair to judge the movie based on just that: the movie. It's not the movie's fault that the folks in marketing are liars and suck at their jobs.

catch my drift?

I get what you're saying, and I agree, you judge it on the quality of the film. The problem is that in the general instance, some people just do not like certain genres and if you're film is advertised as one that it's not, you are having people judge a film that they wouldn't ordinarily see. When you do that, you're bound to get bad word of mouth.

I think even taking into account that it wasn't enough of a space opera, it was the usual superhero arc, the film doesn't have that great of an arc. When you couple that with the lack of space opera, it doesn't help the film.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Re: The marketing deception
I think this reminds me mostly about "Bridge to Terabithia", except that was more of a pleasant surprise.

 

[Visceral]

saw the flick and liked more than Thor but less than first class.

I agree that the villian sucked and there was some cheesy dialogue but the rest was fine, standard superhero origin. I dont understand what the big deal is.

 

[Herolee10]

saw the flick and liked more than Thor but less than first class.

I agree that the villian sucked and there was some cheesy dialogue but the rest was fine, standard superhero origin. I dont understand what the big deal is.

Probably because a good amount of fans and critics alike thought that:

1. The villains were weak in terms of characterization

2. The film introduced so many different aspects and corners but never really concluded on most of them

3. The romance felt forced

4. Hal's emotional problem wasn't really explained well, and the fact that he suddenly had this major change in character from one talk with his gf seems kind of hard to believe

5. It felt like the film ran out of money for its budget before they could give us a major payoff in the end.

 

[J.Howlett]

The film ran out of money?! What film did you watch?!

That's a statement you apply to Thor, not Lantern in the slightest.

 

[Visceral]

Probably because a good amount of fans and critics alike thought that:

1. The villains were weak in terms of characterization

2. The film introduced so many different aspects and corners but never really concluded on most of them

3. The romance felt forced

4. Hal's emotional problem wasn't really explained well, and the fact that he suddenly had this major change in character from one talk with his gf seems kind of hard to believe

5. It felt like the film ran out of money for its budget before they could give us a major payoff in the end.

i agree with one only and even then you had a subplot characterizing his daddy issues that in turn mirrored hal's issues so the characterization wasn't so weak.

there are plenty of worse superhero films out there, i enjoyed this one

 

[Keyser Soze]

I'm reposting my review from the last thread, since I just posted it shortly before that one got closed:

Well, I saw Green Lantern today. After the barrage of negative reviews, my anticipation for the film had turned to dread, and I went in fearing that I'd be in for a bad, disappointing movie. I watched the movie, and... it was actually pretty good.

I think Green Lantern is a victim of a zeitgeist. A bad zeitgeist. Bad reviews can become like a runaway train, where the more a film gets the stigma of being "bad", the more other critics review it from the perspective of being a bad film, so bad reviews beget more bad reviews, and the criticisms get more extreme as people take more relish in tearing the film apart, until it's like sharks at a feeding frenzy. I've defended the critics and their validity on this thread, and I still respect their opinions, but I think they're wrong on this one.

The first thing that needs to be said that, seeing this film in 3D at the cinema, Green Lantern looks GORGEOUS. As a jaded filmgoer, it's rare for me to just stare open-mouthed and be amazed at the visuals on-screen, but that happened here. I don't get where the whole "shoddy special effects" angle is coming from, as visually this has splendour to rival Avatar, and I think Green Lantern was far more enjoyable. But that got the 5 star reviews and the Oscar nominations, and this is getting crapped on. See what I mean about zeitgeists?

All the characters are a bit underwritten. But the eminently likeable Ryan Reynolds manages to make Hal watchable and compelling even when his arc is a bit muddied and clumsily handled. His star presence really helps to prevent Hal from being totally cardboard. Blake Lively struggles more with the thin material, often becoming a blank-faced exposition delivery device. Peter Saarsgard makes for an engaging villain, but his arc is muddied and feels out of order. He almost immediately begins his path to big-headed psychodom, and then his shared history with Hal is retroactively worked in later, and never really paid more than the faintest of lip service.

Sinestro is simultaneously the strongest performance, and the one most underserved by the script. Mark Strong is all subtle menace and lip-curling smarm, but balanced with a sense of inherent decency and moral fortitude. The film begins to soar when Hal is on Oa, and has his first confrontation with Sinestro. If the film's second act had been dominated by Sinestro training Hal, and Hal gradually winning his grudging respect, then his friendship, the film would have been elevated to a whole other level, and made for much better viewing than the meandering second act we get instead. But there's still good stuff in that second act, and I don't know how much I'd have taken out to accomodate altered material.

Really, the problem with Green Lantern isn't that it does anything significantly wrong. All the major touchstones of Hal's origin are present and correct, the thematic broad strokes, the characters, the mythos. There's impressive effects, good action. The problem isn't the film doing anything bad. Just that the stuff that it does good doesn't get enough breathing space to become great.

There's a shadow of a great film here, a sense that a tidy-up here, or expanding on a scene there, would have really tightened this up and pushed it nearer the top tier of the genre. Some flaws prevent it from reaching that upper echelon of superhero movies, but it is hardly the franchise-sinking embarrassment that the critics' narrative is inevitably shaping it to be. It is a perfectly enjoyable mid-level superhero movie, at least as good as Thor and X-Men: First Class, probably a little better. And the sad thing is, you get a sense that the film could act as the building blocks for a much better sequel. But if the reviews lead to box office failure, that won't happen.

 

[mace1]

Blatant Insubordination: Leave Green Lantern Alone!!!!!

• June 19th, 2011

***“Blatant Insubordination” is a regular column published at Primary Ignition by Rob Siebert, editor and Fanboy Wonder. The views expressed here are his, and do not reflect those of the staff of Primary Ignition.***

*sniff*…and how dare ANYONE out there make fun of Green Lantern, after all the cast has been through!!! Ryan Reynolds went through a divorce!!! Blake Lively had nude pics leaked!!! Peter Sarsgaard got dentures after chewing all that scenery!! All you people care about is Ryan Reynolds and the CGI costume!!! HE’S A HUMAN!!! *huff huff* These people are just trying to make you fans happy, and you know, make a bunch of money…and all you do is write a bunch of crap about them!!! Green Lantern has NEVER had a movie before! EVER!!! LEAVE GREEN LANTERN ALONE!!! LEAVE IT ALONE!!! I’M SERIOUS!!!

*ehem* So anyway…



In all seriousness, I’ve been encouraged to talk about Green Lantern this week. As many of you know, the film opened to a lot of abysmal reviews. On Wednesday night I was horrified to see the film had garnered a average of 22 percent on RottenTomatoes.com. One reviewer said the film was worse than X-Men Origins: Wolverine, another said it was a classic example of what happens when you value CGI over substance, another said it completely killed any chances of us ever seeing a Flash or Justice League movie. So when Eric Stuckart, Seth Miller and myself saw the midnight showing this past Friday, we were prepared for the worst.


We were shocked at what we saw: The movie really wasn’t that bad. Certainly not the diced dog **** that many critics had made it out to be. Granted, it wasn’t fantastic, but it wasn’t horrible by any means. In his review, Seth Miller gave it a 7/10. I’d have gone with a 6 or a 6.5. Eric said he’d have given it about a 5. But I think we all went in expecting a 1 or a 2.


I suspect some (SOME, not all) of the reviewers, namely those reporting from a fanboy perspective, had a skewed perspective because the film either didn’t look like the Green Lantern movie they’d been picturing in their heads for years, or they were biased against Ryan Reynolds. When you put a character like Green Lantern on the big screen, or on ANY screen for the first time, you’re going to get a lot of heated opinions, because the fan base is very passionate. This is a character that’s underrated in the eyes of many, and fans DESPERATELY wanted him to get the awe-inspiring big-screen debut he deserved. The standards for this film were set ridiculously high.


So did GL get his grandoise debut? Kind of…


The movie had its share of shaky moments. A lot of folks are complaining about Peter Sarsgaard’s performance as Hector Hammond, a mad scientist who undergoes a horrific physical transformation as he becomes a telepath. In particular, there’s a scene where his head forcibly grows larger, and he violently screams out in pain. He might have gone a bit over the top and traveled into laughter territory. The entire Hector Hammond story arc is a bit awkward at first, because by the time we get into it, we’ve met all the other main characters, and Hal Jordan’s journey as a Green Lantern is well underway. It’s almost as if the film was saying “Oh, I forgot to tell you! There’s this other guy named Hector who knew Hal growing up, and they’ve kind of got a parallel path/yin yang thing going.” I suspect there was an earlier scene with Hector that was left on the cutting room floor.


Surprisingly, some of the reviewers were pretty easy on Ryan Reynolds. One even said his charm was the best part of the film. Personally, I think Reynolds did a fine job as Hal Jordan. He may not fit the image that some fans have of Hal in their minds, or what has sometimes been portrayed in the comics. But at the end of the day, Reynolds gave us a daredevil who was afraid to admit to anyone that he could be afraid. He shows us that if we’re brave enough to step up and face our fears, we can overcome them. That’s what Green Lantern is all about, isn’t it? Overcoming fear.


I think fans hate on Reynolds simply because he’s a talented, good looking, muscular movie star, who until recently was married to Scarlet Johannson. He’s got the life a lot of us wish we had. He doesn’t always have the most enduring screen presence. I certainly couldn’t watch Ryan Reynolds movies all day, but that doesn’t mean he’s not talented. He’s got good comedic timing, too. While he’s not my favorite by any means, I think a lot of the fans who are hating on Reynolds in the Hal Jordan role need to lighten up, and be a little more secure about their own looks and identities, if you catch my drift.


Having Parallax as the primary antagonist in the film made me nervous, because I was afraid Green Lantern was going to fall into the same trap Superman Returns did, and not give Hal anyone to actually fight. To an extent, that did happen. But the training scenes with Sinestro and Kilowog, as well as the emotional intensity of the battle with Parallax made up for it. That moment where Parallax is taunting Hal, telling him he’ll be responsible for the extermination of the human race, and that everyone he loves will die was really well done. You can’t put a heavier load than that on someone’s shoulders, can you? The way Hal got rid of Parallax was acceptable, though something of a bore. In the early part of the film, Parallax’s head also made be a bit leery. For some reason it reminded me of the aliens from Mars Attacks.


Blake Lively’s performance was a pleasant surprise, in that she wasn’t as wooden and bland as I was worried she would be (mind you, I’ve never seen her in anything else). She was no Margot Kidder, but she was fine. The only thing I can say against her is that she’s 23, and Ryan Reynolds is 34, so they don’t always look like a realistic couple. But I can look past that.


I still maintain the costume is fine. Is it different? Yes. But that’s the whole point. The costume is derived from the energy in the power ring, thus it makes sense for the costume to look like flowing energy. Heck, even the mask turned out better than it originally looked in the trailers.


All in all, Green Lantern was decent. But someone asked me today: Is decent good enough? In this case, I think so. I enjoyed Green Lantern. I enjoyed it as much as I did Thor, though not quite as much as X-Men: First Class (for my money, that film has the year’s top superhero film honor thus far). As of Sunday at 1:05 a.m. CST, the film has an average of 24 percent from critics on RottenTomatoes.com. But from viewers it has 65 percent. Still not great, but much better than you might read about it.


I truly hope DC and Warner Bros. don’t go the reboot route with the Green Lantern franchise. While it might not have been as successful as they were hoping, there’s so much more interesting territory they can explore in a sequel (did everybody stay for that post-credits scene?). We don’t need to tear the house down and start from scratch. This is only the first act. The story gets better from here, and if you show people that in a sequel, they’ll come back for more.


Front page image from nerdreactor.com. Chris Crocker image from focus.com. Green Lantern image 1 from buzzsugar.com. Hal Jordan and Kilowog image from cinemablend.com. Hal Jordan and Tomar Re image from The Christian Science Monitor.


http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/06/19/blatant-insubordination-leave-green-lantern-alone/

 

[mace1]

deleted.

 

[BrlntDsgse]

Really, the problem with Green Lantern isn't that it does anything significantly wrong. All the major touchstones of Hal's origin are present and correct, the thematic broad strokes, the characters, the mythos. There's impressive effects, good action. The problem isn't the film doing anything bad. Just that the stuff that it does good doesn't get enough breathing space to become great.

There's a shadow of a great film here, a sense that a tidy-up here, or expanding on a scene there, would have really tightened this up and pushed it nearer the top tier of the genre. .

Well put, sir, well put. My thoughts exactly, it's not that what was there was bad, there just wasn't ENOUGH of it.

 

[J.Howlett]

Soze,

Excellent write up...

 

[Herolee10]

The film ran out of money?! What film did you watch?!

That's a statement you apply to Thor, not Lantern in the slightest.

The impression that I got was that they were going to utilize the amount of GL that we saw present at that conference on Oa for something big, and yet when all was said and done, they were all nothing more than cameos and the only lanterns that showed up at the end of the big fight was Sinestro and the two others.