The Official Green Lantern Review Thread

[Lestat74]

I'm not saying it couldn't be a good movie, I'm just saying the same Hollywood sexism that's preventing them from giving us a big-budget female superhero is exactly what would make them extra-hesitant about giving us one who goes all green and muscle-y. I doubt they'd approve of one who can't be conventionally attractive all the time.

yeah, if the actual HULK has a hard time at the box office, then his female spin-off ain't happening. Not in this lifetime, especially with how sexist Hollywood is about female action movies.

Mind you, I would LOVE to be wrong about this.

 

[KRIM]

KRIM,

Not saying you're not correct but you got at least think that seeing this many back to back in one summer, might cause a negative effect...even if it's unwarranted.

As I said previously, it'll only be negative if they're all playing off the same tired old story. Even worse if they fail at doing that. That's when audiences will smarten up and retaliate with the biggest weapon that rules Hollywood; their pockets.

The whole "superheroes films are going to die" threat has been going on for a while now. We have Marvel's "throw constant s--t on the wall and see what sticks" approach to thank for that. However you'll notice this type of talk conveniently dies down with a box office smash. TDK effectively silenced naysayers for a little while. Since there hasn't really been another breakout hit, it rears its ugly back in again. I would not at all be surprised if 2012 is the year that defines the genre as being here to stay. 4 big-time properties are going to be unleashed to the mainstream and the names themselves could very well sustain even the worst film from outright bombing. On an ideal circumstance, they're all potentially box office juggernauts. One of them is already locked in to be a contender for top grossing of the year.

Not necessarily. Rarity is a good thing for film. Granted, I can see how a comic fan has a certain internal desire to see their beloved hobby/obsession/etc. get its 'due', but the more a genre gets saturated/crowded, the more the movies turn into vehicles...OR...the more it has to fight not to be labeled as such. Books are different because they all have different self-contained styles and such, and movies based on books aren't exactly trying to address literature or the experience of reading a book.....whereas comic movies more and more are addressing their 'comic-ness', which invariably gives them all a more apparent common denominator. Hence, the identifiable genre.

But really, it's no more or less succeptible than, say, a slew of westerns or space-movies creating a crowded pond. Yes, it can become an unfortunate circumstance for a genuinely enjoyable, comic-like movie like the original Spiderman if it comes out at a time when audiences are getting a bit punch-drunk on the genre. But any genuinely good movie, I believe, will always be genuinely good even if it needs time for that recognition after its run. If one is looking for something beyond that...like, say, six comic-based movies coming out every year for the rest of time....that's a different story. I don't think any genre can have that kind of permanent reign in film....nor should it, for that matter.

It's nice when we can cherish certain chunks of time when some gems rise to the surface. If gems were as widely distributed as sand...they'd lose their preciousness.

See I don't really see to many of these brands sharing all that similar of traits. Assessing each property individually, they're all quite unique. The superhero aspect is maintained, but the fantastical settings enable the narrative to escape conventional boundaries that other genres fall to. Detective movies can only go so far. Ditto for gangster films. Or horror films. Superheroes? Possibilities are near limitless.

Done right, a Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, X-Men, Spider-Man, Captain America film -- should never be too alike. There's more than enough material in the self-contained universes to sustain a franchise with its own identity.

That's what it sounds like GL did terribly wrong. It didn't shoot for the stars. As feared, it was a "safe" film that tried to cater to established audiences from other franchises. We should have gotten an Avatar or Star Wars type movie risking to carve out its own lane. Instead we might have an imitation on our hands. It's no surprise the most successful comic book films to date each have something incomparable to offer.

 

[kedrell]

yeah, if the actual HULK has a hard time at the box office, then his female spin-off ain't happening. Not in this lifetime, especially with how sexist Hollywood is about female action movies.

Mind you, I would LOVE to be wrong about this.

But there's a very good and obvious reason why Hulk didn't catch on so well at the box office: he wasn't actually a character in his own movie. Strip all dialogue away from Peter Parker/Clark Kent/Bruce Wayne when they suit up and see how well they do. My guess? No all that well.

 

[The Sage]

Can we curb the Marvel/She-Hulk discussion?

 

[KalMart]

I'm not saying it couldn't be a good movie, I'm just saying the same Hollywood sexism that's preventing them from giving us a big-budget female superhero is exactly what would make them extra-hesitant about giving us one who goes all green and muscle-y. I doubt they'd approve of one who can't be conventionally attractive all the time.

I think that if Angelina Jolie wanted to play Wonder Woman or She-Hulk, it would have been fastracked in the blink of an eye.

 

[J.Howlett]

KRIM,

That's what it sounds like GL did terribly wrong. It didn't shoot for the stars. As feared, it was a "safe" film that tried to cater to established audiences from other franchises. We should have gotten an Avatar or Star Wars type movie risking to carve out its own lane. Instead we might have an imitation on our hands. It's no surprise the most successful comic book films to date each have something incomparable to offer.

You could easily say that about Thor. Thor is the epitome of "safe" picture. It absolutely didn't shoot for the stars and yet, look at how much the audience responded to it.

From trailers alone, I thought Green Lantern looked more ambitious than Thor (again, I dig the film a lot...)

 

[chiefchirpa]

Oh, I agree...that is why (in my mind) DC only really has five iconic super hero properties that would work as films. There are only 5 DC characters/concepts that have remained in continuous publication since the early 40's (minus a few years off in the early 50's) Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash and GL. With only 5 to work from, how hard can it be to make sure they all get launched the right way? Marvel had double the number, and did just fine for the most part.

btw, that is not to say I don't love Aquaman, J'onn, Hawkman etc, but...they are supporting players more often than not. JLA movies maybe, on their own would be a hard sell. They have a hard enough time getting their own comics to be hits, they can never seem to catch on that way. Movies would be twice as hard.

Actually if we look DC properties beyond the big 5 there are many small player candidates that can be done for movie. They are not necessarily successful in comics but they can be done good as Blade. For instance, Mr Terrific can be made into a Mission Impossible type of movie. I'm not too keen for Aquaman and Hawkman. I believe the less outrageous the characters are (and DC have a lot of outrageous characters), the better they become for movie translation.

 

[KalMart]

See I don't really see to many of these brands sharing all that similar of traits. Assessing each property individually, they're all quite unique. The superhero aspect is maintained, but the fantastical settings enable the narrative to escape conventional boundaries that other genres fall to. Detective movies can only go so far. Ditto for gangster films. Or horror films. Superheroes? Possibilities are near limitless.

Done right, a Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, X-Men, Spider-Man, Captain America film -- should never be too alike. There's more than enough material in the self-contained universes to sustain a franchise with its own identity.

That's what it sounds like GL did terribly wrong. It didn't shoot for the stars. As feared, it was a "safe" film that tried to cater to established audiences from other franchises. We should have gotten an Avatar or Star Wars type movie risking to carve out its own lane. Instead we might have an imitation on our hands. It's no surprise the most successful comic book films to date each have something incomparable to offer.

Well...they're all comic superheroes......kinda' like all Westerns have cowboys, and all war-flicks have soldiers, y'know? They might be radically different western characters, and different wars, and different stories, etc...but after a while, a lot of people may just get a little tired of so many Westerns and war-flicks.

A part of me actually hopes that the superhero genre takes a break sometime soon, so it can come back again rejuvenated and fresh like in 2001....with a new generation of filmmakers and even a new approach to the films. They don't have to mirror the publications in terms of volume and frequency...no movies really do. I just think it's better for any genre of films to have some time off after a big wave.

 

[jmc]

You could easily say that about Thor. Thor is the epitome of ''safe'' picture. It absolutely didn't shoot for the stars and yet, look at how much the audience responded to it.

From trailers alone, I thought Green Lantern looked more ambitious than Thor (again, I dig the film a lot...)

I'll be the first in line to say that Thor was as safety conscious a film as you could get, it felt like it was walking on eggs shells the whole time, but at the very least it got the basics right.

 

[The Morningstar]

KRIM,

That's what it sounds like GL did terribly wrong. It didn't shoot for the stars. As feared, it was a "safe" film that tried to cater to established audiences from other franchises. We should have gotten an Avatar or Star Wars type movie risking to carve out its own lane. Instead we might have an imitation on our hands. It's no surprise the most successful comic book films to date each have something incomparable to offer.

You could easily say that about Thor. Thor is the epitome of "safe" picture. It absolutely didn't shoot for the stars and yet, look at how much the audience responded to it.

From trailers alone, I thought Green Lantern looked more ambitious than Thor (again, I dig the film a lot...)

From what I gather it's the exectution of the film that's lacking.

A "safe" film isn't inherently bad. I mean, a lot of films are a bit cliche or stereotypical. But what elevates it is the execution. Like Thor. The actors and the characterisation/development elevated that film. I mean, the character moments were more memerable than the action scenes. Also Thor was just charming. It was a likable film, although not perfect or groundbreaking, it's easy to like.

It just seems with Green Lantern, going from what i've read so far, the characters aren't that compelling and are one dimensional. The tone is inconsistant. Lightweight and irrevent, then grimdark and gruesome. The whole thing being a bit cheesy. Oa looks like a "screensaver".

It seems, at the moment, that the film and the concepts just weren't executed that well.

 

[jmc]

Well...they're all comic superheroes......kinda' like all Westerns have cowboys, and all war-flicks have soldiers, y'know? They might be radically different western characters, and different wars, and different stories, etc...but after a while, a lot of people may just get a little tired of so many Westerns and war-flicks.

A part of me actually hopes that the superhero genre takes a break sometime soon, so it can come back again rejuvenated and fresh like in 2001....with a new generation of filmmakers and even a new approach to the films. They don't have to mirror the publications in terms of volume and frequency...no movies really do. I just think it's better for any genre of films to have some time off after a big wave.

The genre needs some time off. The only film I have genuine hope for in the next few years to deliver something truly unique is TDKR and that's more to do with the guy behind the camera, even Avengers I believe is going to be a fairly standard superhero flick.

 

[J.Howlett]

jmc,

Yeah, I think after next summer, I'm going to put the genre to bed for a while. I mean, after Nolan's finale and the event that Marvel's planning, where else is there to go for a while...besides Justice League?

 

[KalMart]

The genre needs some time off. The only film I have genuine hope for in the next few years to deliver something truly unique is TDKR and that's more to do with the guy behind the camera, even Avengers I believe is going to be a fairly standard superhero flick.

It'd be pretty interesting if the genre takes some time off...and when it starts again, you don't have the really well-known ones like Supes, Bats, X-men and Spidey. Kinda' forcing the filmmakers/studios to rely more on the quality of the films and not so much the brand familiarity or recent franchise success.

 

[jmc]

Like after next year it's like - well now what?

 

[KRIM]

Well...they're all comic superheroes......kinda' like all Westerns have cowboys, and all war-flicks have soldiers, y'know? They might be radically different western characters, and different wars, and different stories, etc...but after a while, a lot of people may just get a little tired of so many Westerns and war-flicks.

I addressed that. Superheroes are a far broader occupation than any other. Cowboys and soldiers are limited with their archetypes as well as their settings.

Compare Batman, to GL, to Spidey. One can be an urban crime thriller, the other an epic cosmic saga, the last a classic action/adventure escapism romp. The variances are undeniably more dynamic. If every other film sub-genre were primary colors, superhero films represent the entire color spectrum. It's why I tend to resent referring to these films as one singular genre in itself. The truth is they can all belong in separate categories, and it would be a far more accurate way of labeling them.

A part of me actually hopes that the superhero genre takes a break sometime soon, so it can come back again rejuvenated and fresh like in 2001....with a new generation of filmmakers and even a new approach to the films. They don't have to mirror the publications in terms of volume and frequency...no movies really do. I just think it's better for any genre of films to have some time off after a big wave.

It'll die down on its own. Every decade or so, a batch of similar films starts a boon in the industry which lasts a few good years. Rinse and repeat. Superheroes are here to stay, though. I'm sure there will be a point where we won't get 3 of 4 in the same season. But it won't die.

 

[The Morningstar]

jmc,

Yeah, I think after next summer, I'm going to put the genre to bed for a while. I mean, after Nolan's finale and the event that Marvel's planning, where else is there to go for a while...besides Justice League?

There is plenty of places to go. There is still some great characters with great mythos' out there. Iron Fist for example, if done right could be very unique and compelling. Like a Wuxia superhero film. Or that Deadpool movie they're trying to do. Those kinda movies, unique ones that can be made with smaller budgets and that don't have to be cliche or appeal to broader demographics.

I think after next year the studios do need to scale back. They should try making superhero movies that don't have to appeal to massive demographics, that don't have to be cliched summer tent poles. More intimate, lower budget movies, kinda like the first couple of Blade flicks.

 

[J.Howlett]

jmc,

Like after next year it's like - well now what?

Yeah, you're not that far off. Being selfish for a second, I honestly would love to see what a Thor trilogy would be like, not shackled to the Avengers situation.

And, if I do end up enjoying or even loving Green Lantern, I would want more of that. I only got into the mythology of Green Lantern because of the two DC animated films. I would love to see if they could produce those kinds of results on film.

But, yeah, after next what else is there to really do?

 

[KRIM]

You could easily say that about Thor. Thor is the epitome of "safe" picture. It absolutely didn't shoot for the stars and yet, look at how much the audience responded to it.

From trailers alone, I thought Green Lantern looked more ambitious than Thor (again, I dig the film a lot...)

I haven't excused Thor. Calling it a safe picture in comparison to what it could have been, is completely correct. Regardless of whether the final product was good or not.

I personally enjoyed Thor. Thought it would be a crapfest but came out pleasantly surprised. Still, from the little I do know of the comics and the vast knowledge I do have from the Norse tales it is based off of, the film did come up short in scale. Considerably so, actually.

Yeah it did well, but at the end of the say it was a solid summer flick. Every successful movie delivers on entertainment. That's what Thor did. I never said lack of ambition would lead to failure.

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Unfortunately, I don't know if WB/DC can scale back. They're banking on the DC properties taking the place of the Potter franchise for the next ten years.

These tentpoles for the studios off set the other films that don't work for a given studio in the year. In a way, they kind of need them to work when the other films don't work.

WB is banking HARD on Lantern to be big....

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

I'll be the first in line to say that Thor was as safety conscious a film as you could get, it felt like it was walking on eggs shells the whole time, but at the very least it got the basics right.

The basics of comic-books or the ones of film-making? Because all those Dutch angles were not that justified, even as an homage to the Adam West Batman series.
Anyway, X-M:Fc took some minor risks in mixing real life history, spy story and superhero lore and all things considered it worked quite well.
I am expecting Green Lantern to mix space opera, fun and superhero stuff and I hope it delivers. I don't want political subtexts but to see cool aliens.

 

[graveyardtramp]

Rex Reed's pretty damning review in the New York Observer:

The Green Lantern Is A Blockbuster Bust

As summer garbage goes, The Green Lantern can’t go fast enough. Even in the brainless world of cinematic comic books gone bad, it’s as bad as it gets—a dumb, pointless, ugly, moronic and incomprehensible jumble of botched effects, technical blunders, and cluttered chaos. Oh yes. It is also—did I forget to mention?—boring.

I retain a certain fondness for Superman, Batman, Spider Man, and my favorite DC Comics superhero, Captain Marvel, who has mysteriously never been transposed to the screen. But of them all, the never-fail cure for insomnia, even for 10-year-olds who still buy Cracker Jack boxes searching for secret decoder rings, is the Green Lantern, deadlier and dopier than even the Green Hornet. Even to a hyperthyroidal, prepubescent geek, any attempt to relate something as simple as the premise for a plot must be downright defeating. Billions of years ago, a power race divided the universe into 3,000 sectors ruled by intergalactic peace keepers known as the Green Lantern Corps, who live on the planet Oa. The worst threat to the world was imprisoned on the Planet Ryut. This fiend is the Parallax, sort of an intergalactic Osama bin Laden who looks like a praying mantis with rabies. Parallax is now loose and declaring war on the planets, one sector at a time. Wouldn’t you know, this unspeakable enemy of mankind is headed for Earth, where the only person he can’t beat is supersonic F-35 Sabre jet pilot and gym-pumped Esquire cover boy Ryan Reynolds. It gets worse.

The dying Green Lantern warrior who comes to warn us hands over his green Buck Rogers ring to a goof-off with Coke bottle abs named Hal who points the ring at a target and—shazam!—there goes Afghanistan. Hal has competition (Peter Sarsgaard, trashing his career as a creepy wacko scientist, and Angela Bassett, whose specialty is examining purple aliens). He also has a sexy girlfriend (Blake Lively), the daughter of the demented aviation corporation owner (Tim Robbins) Hal works for. The Lanterns seek peace, order and justice. To join them is a big responsibility. Mr. Reynolds, as Hal, scarcely has the time to pull himself away from his bench presses long enough to bother. The dialogue consists mostly of lectures about brain-eating bacteria, and the locations are identified as stuff like “The Edge of the Milky Way Galaxy.” It took four writers who shall remain nameless to think up lines like “We must harness the power of our enemies and fight fear with fear!” Or this favorite exchange: “Why are you glowing?” “Why is your skin green?” “What in the hell is with that mask?” At the screening I attended, the critics were laughing so loud I missed a few bon mots, but you get the picture. The director is Martin Campbell, who doesn’t.

Humans aren’t the strongest species, or the smartest, but we’re worth saving. As a Lantern, Hal is a hit when he rubs the ring and turns the film’s primary color of lime Jell-O, but he’s also a flop because he has the one thing no Lantern is allowed to have: human terror! If you care, this seemingly interminable rubble of bad technology and computerized escapades is devoted to Hal’s dilemma. Can he overcome fear and save the film industry from bloated budgets and fiscal apocalypse? Surely it is time to save Ryan Reynolds from himself. Money says it all, but after he went to so much trouble a year ago to prove his acting prowess in Buried, the loafing and posing he does in The Green Lantern just seems like a lot of talent gone to seed. Even as a prime example of rotten summer silliness, this is a paralyzing experience.

http://www.observer.com/2011/06/the-green-lantern-is-a-blockbuster-bust/

 

[The Morningstar]

Morningstar,

Unfortunately, I don't know if WB/DC can scale back. They're banking on the DC properties taking the place of the Potter franchise for the next ten years.

These tentpoles for the studios off set the other films that don't work for a given studio in the year. In a way, they kind of need them to work when the other films don't work.

WB is banking HARD on Lantern to be big....

Well that's what I mean. Maybe they have tried too hard to make GL a big franchise, you know what I mean? They've tried so hard to make it appeal to a massive demographic, it's come off unfocused and muddled, the film has suffered for that. Plus the marketing campaign has probably been putting people off. Exposure is good... OVER exposure is not. I don't think i've seen a marketing campaign as big as this one.

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Oh yeah, I know what you mean. Problem was that they also were generating a lot of negative buzz because they weren't keeping up with Marvel.

So, you have the Potter ending situation and the fact that the perception was that they can't keep up with Marvel.

What are they suppose to do?

I say all of this without having seen Green Lantern. Personally, I think the film is going to work on me.

 

[The Morningstar]

Wow... that was a nasty review.

 

[The Morningstar]

Morningstar,

Oh yeah, I know what you mean. Problem was that they also were generating a lot of negative buzz because they weren't keeping up with Marvel.

So, you have the Potter ending situation and the fact that the perception was that they can't keep up with Marvel.

What are they suppose to do?

I say all of this without having seen Green Lantern. Personally, I think the film is going to work on me.

Well yea i'll still check it out at the cinema... if I can find someone to go with me