The Official Green Lantern Review Thread

[moviedoors]

I am not saying that TDK wasn't commercial, but that the reviews did help its publicity because it is the kind of movie critics would love.

I don't think GL will be a critics' favourite i.e. WB aren't relying on reviews getting people to see it.

But say it was getting a great response. What's the reasoning in not letting that out? It may not help, but it certainly can't hurt a bit.

 

[The Morningstar]

You overreacting.

How is it over reacting? She's just stating facts.

If WB/DC weren't disappointed with the reviews... there would be no embargo. It's very simple.

There is nothing to gain by blocking the reviews, if they are good.

 

[Micromind]

Some people are unnecessarily spreading a bad word about the movie, even before seeing it in theaters, this blog site for example, here He thinks that GL is a contender for one of the worst movies of this summer, and in the poll on his site GL is voted as likely to be the worst movie.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompson...vies_look_bad_three_musketeers_green_lantern/

 

[moviedoors]

I think the big problem is that the movie is not going to have a global release because of the lack of 3D theaters, so for example, a big entertainment site called Omelete in Brazil always publishes some quick thoughts on a movie that is coming out and they wont this time, i believe, because of the August release.

There's plenty of 3-D capable theaters now. Avatar blew that gate wide open.

 

[redfirebird2008]

To me it is hyper realism applied to the unrealistic and a dark brooding atmosphere, nothing lighthearted about it, it takes itself very seriously and painstakingly makes everything as real as it can.

Omnipotent Joker is realistic?

 

[Willi Berg]

Not exactly ... the reviewers had to swear to secrecy before they have written and before they have seen the movie, that´s what I heard .

But say it was getting a great response. What's the reasoning in not letting that out? It may not help, but it certainly can't hurt a bit.

But does WB even know what the reviews will contain and will be like? They could've planned all along to not let this movie be dictated by critics until the last minute, when people had already been bombarded by the advertising and/or made plans to see it this weekend.

 

[BestGirl]

Not exactly ... the reviewers had to swear to secrecy before they have written and before they have seen the movie, that´s what I heard .

Fox ended the embargo early for some of the reviewers who had seen XFC. Plus, I remember critics at least being allowed to tweet that they'd liked XFC even if they couldn't write a full review. It's curious that we've heard nothing about GL.

 

[moviedoors]

But does WB even know what the reviews will contain and will be like? They could've planned all along to not let this movie be dictated by critics until the last minute, when people had already been bombarded by the advertising and/or made plans to see it this weekend.

That's a possibility. This is a risky property and WB has a lot to lose. There's plenty of reasons to play it close to the chest, but one of those reasons could be, it's just not getting the response they wanted.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

How is it over reacting? She's just stating facts.

If WB/DC weren't disappointed with the reviews... there would be no embargo. It's very simple.

There is nothing to gain by blocking the reviews, if they are good.

It's only overreacting if you are intent on loving this movie and not looking into anything surrounding it.

And I'm not intent on hating it but even movies that got so-so reviews allowed more early reviews to get out than this film is. It's understandable when a studio holds reviews back for something like Underworld or Resident Evil but not a 200mil would be blockbuster.

Are there going to be reviews tomorrow or are they going to wait till friday?

 

[Motown Marvel]

How is it over reacting? She's just stating facts.

If WB/DC weren't disappointed with the reviews... there would be no embargo. It's very simple.

There is nothing to gain by blocking the reviews, if they are good.

its not that simple. people need to stop getting all worked up just because the studio isnt pandering to your expectations.

 

[The Sage]

El Mayimbe from Latino Review just saw it today:

@BXRUBE watching GREEN LANTERN tomorrow at 10am, will let you know how it is.
15 hours ago via web

http://***********/#!/elmayimbe

 

[Willi Berg]

I saw this on Facebook:

Photo from the Green Lantern Premier last night, BEST MOVIE!!

Naji: was it really that good?

Massad: SO GOOD! I loved it

http://www.facebook.com/massadfans

Phew. What a relief.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

its not that simple. people need to stop getting all worked up just because the studio isnt pandering to your expectations.

Allowing us to see what critics thought of the movie before it opens is pandering?

The Studio sure pandered to expectations when they released Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, ditto for Superman Returns.

I wonder why they aren't pandering now when all three of those films got positive reviews?

 

[Bubonic]

Omnipotent Joker is realistic?

I don't remember the Joker being omnipotent in the least. Having unlimited or universal power?

 

[kedrell]

What is that?

Wallowing in bulls***?

 

[kedrell]

I don't remember the Joker being omnipotent in the least. Having unlimited or universal power?

OK instead of omnipotent, just insert 'walking plot convenience'.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's okay some Nolan fans just take some people saying that the movies are realistic too litterally. As if we are saying that they were showing Batman take bathroom breaks and that the characters engage in the same rambling dialogue that real life people do.

It's a cute thing that sensitive Nolan fans say to shut down any real discussion about the film. I've learned to ignore it.

 

[moviedoors]

"Realism" is the wrong word to apply to what Nolan did with Batman. "Verisimilitude" is the correct one. Making a documentary isn't what he's going for, but a visceral sense of something that feels real is. It's a slight, but important distinction.

 

[J.Howlett]

^Thank.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It's okay some Nolan fans just take some people saying that the movies are realistic too litterally. As if we are saying that they were showing Batman take bathroom breaks and that the characters engage in the same rambling dialogue that real life people do.

It's a cute thing that sensitive Nolan fans say to shut down any real discussion about the film. I've learned to ignore it.

What are you talking about? If you've actually bothered reading my posts, I've been pretty critical of many elements in Nolan's Batman flicks.

 

[kedrell]

Hyper-realism is the term he himself uses. You take stuff that can't/wouldn't happen(like a guy in a batsuit fighting crime) and nail it down as much as possible in every aspect that potentially could(but not necesarily would) happen. In other words, you ground it.

 

[The Sage]

I saw this on Facebook:



Phew. What a relief.

Who is he?

 

[Bubonic]

I did say it was making the unreal feel real, I've actually only seen TDK once and that was in the theatre, I remember being disappointed that I paid for the Imax experience which this did not exploit but was overall pleased.

Can't remember whether or not everything worked out for him too easily, he did that guy in with the pencil real nice.

 

[J.Howlett]

The Dark Knight backlash continues.

Back to Green Lantern...

 

[redfirebird2008]

Hyper-realism is the term he himself uses. You take stuff that can't/wouldn't happen(like a guy in a batsuit fighting crime) and nail it down as much as possible in every aspect that potentially could(but not necesarily would) happen. In other words, you ground it.

You ground it with Batsonar, Batmobiles flying from rooftops, and microwave emitters.