Green Lantern (Your reviews for the film) Thread

A place to put our fan reviews of the film once you do see it.

Ok just got home from checking out the film at midnight and 3d screening. Overall I thought it was an enjoyable action/ superhero film. A nice "popcorn" flix to watch. Was it the best comicbook movie ever, no. But it wasn't all that bad either. I known very little on gl myself. Besides the basics, and seeing cartoons and reading online about the character and its rich history.

But for the film it flowed nicely. Gave us a nice insight for the unknown the history about the gls, there power, and the yellow fear power. We also got some nice appearances of some of the vast alien gls. With tomar, kilowog, and sinestro being the main focus ones. Hopefully if a sequel does happen we get to see more out of all the alien lanterns.

As for the story it was your basic a to b to c origin tale. But I thought it flowed well and the pacing was pretty good throughout the film. There was some weak areas here and there in the script. But wasn't to bad for me. Acting from the main leads where decent. Though I say blake was probably the weakest one of the bunch and wished there was more from mark and anglea. But preformances were good.

Special effects I thought where good, sony imageworks isn't my fav of the big effects houses. Love pixar/weta/ilm myself. But the overall visual effects where solid. All the aliens looked great. Also the suit looked alot better in film. I did also like when they where powered up they got energy flowing throughout there bodies. That was a nice touch.

So in end a solid film. Could have been better. But for me wasn't to bad of a film. I hope the general audoence liked it, and connects with the characters. I do want it to be a success for wb/dc. So it shows them there lower tier guys can make a hit with general audiences like ironman and thor have done for marvel. Also I loved the nods to sinestro future and carol too. So I would give this film a 7 out of 10.

I just watched the 3D version as well. The 3D was totally unnecessary. While it wasn't the best comic book movie ever made, GL wasn't as bad as the critics are making it out to be. I was entertained and Ryan Reynolds wasn't the dick I thought he would be from the moment he was cast. I actually thought he did pretty good. I'm really thinking that some of the critics are just being snobs against comic book, summer blockbuster movies. I enjoyed the movie.

That is how I feel about critics too. I rather judge a film after I see it fully. There is tons of films I liked/hated that where the reverse of what critics said on film. But it was a fun film and can't wait to see how box office run goes.

BHoward wrote:I just watched the 3D version as well. The 3D was totally unnecessary. While it wasn't the best comic book movie ever made, GL wasn't as bad as the critics are making it out to be. I was entertained and Ryan Reynolds was the dick I thought he would be from the moment he was cast. I actually thought he did pretty good. I'm really thinking that some of the critics are just being snobs against comic book, summer blockbuster movies. I enjoyed the movie.

If the movie had been set in a very strict real world setting, got rid of all the sci-fi elements (hell, probably even including the ring), had poorly developed but nevertheless "adult, dark and disturbing themes" and an unnecessarily heinous and evil villain who resembles Sid Vicious in the Crow's makeup with the ultimate message of hopelessness and despair being all we can expect in life, the critics would've loved it as much as they did freakin Dark Knight. Hell with 'em.

I saw the movie at the midnight premiere. No, the main character in that movie really isn't much like Hal from the comics I've read but (A) that character has annoyed the piss out of me for DECADES now so Ryan Reynolds playing Ryan Reynolds ain't a bad thing in my book and (B) the movie was FUN and never took itself too seriously but still portrayed believable conflicts and character arcs, all wrapped up in some really great visual effects.

Best comic book movie ever? Not even close. But it's DEFINITELY worth your money.

thecolorsblend wrote:(B) the movie was FUN and never took itself too seriously but still portrayed believable conflicts and character arcs, all wrapped up in some really great visual effects.

Uh, did we see the same movie?? Fun? 'Green Lantern' was "fun"? Where exactly was the FUN?

Best comic book movie ever? Not even close. But it's DEFINITELY worth your money.

Sorry, I disagree wholeheartedly.

Just saw this film, and it committed one of the "cardinal sins" as far as movies go with me: It was BORING.

Ryan Reynolds is no Robert Downey Jr. Let's get that out there right away. The lame attempts at humor was met by three or four people laughing when expected. And hyperbole that ain't. Three or four people. Period. 'THOR' had it's share of "down time" in the middle of the film, but it at least had characters you wanted to watch, and were interested in. 'Green Lantern' had none. Not one. The villain was not just a big ol' cloud. Nope, he was a short, ugly man with daddy issues too! I guess he had a crush on Carol Ferris, but you wouldn't know that, seeing as there was NO BACK-STORY FOR HIS CHARACTER. I mean, the three of them grew-up together right? How about showing it at least once?? Asking too much? Yeah, I guess the villain with the most screen-time didn't warrant a little thing called "character development"......

Having Green Lantern be a cocky smartass who uses these two traits to cover up the fact that he is swamped with fear was a cliche route to take, and was the safest too. Why not have him be the fearless test pilot he was supposed to be, who once thrust in the middle of alien guardians with green rings & fantastic powers along with unspeakable evil on a scale that no comic book or movie prepared him for, faces fear for the first time in his life and show how he overcomes it? Jesus, if it wasn't for Nolan and his "realistic" Batman flicks, the Bros. Warner would have been 0 for the last 20 years as far as comic book films go.

Oh, and that post-credit scene? Absolutely out of left field, and should be considered a slap in the face to anyone who actually cares about these characters.

Luckily I don't count myself in that group.

I plan on seeing the film but like with THOR, still down to 1 car & have to 'convince' the wife to let me go, even if I have to drag her along. Oh well, may be next weekend..........

Just came back from the theater and now I'm going to give my two cents on it...

After reading the negative reviews that were posted by the mainstream critics (If I should dare call them critics) I actually had my worries but I decided to stick to my guns and go forward with what my opionions were going to be and to my surprise everything turn out exactly as I predicted... And that was the critics were wrong!!! Possibly exaggerated!

The film was as good as it's worth and actually lived up to the trailers and hype that eventually lead the film up to. Of course it did had it's flaws aleast just a few but could easily be over looked and one of the flaws was that it was abit grounded in which I don't find that a bad thing since I for one was expecting it to be since this meant to be the first among many films to come. It's understandable that viewers and fans were expecting a more space opera like theme but I believe we might get more of that in sequels since thats what there for!

I for one started enjoying it as the film goes on till I finally come the conclusion that after the end of the movie that I had three words lurking in my head and those words were... I, LIKE, IT!!!

This is one film that even hardcore fans would & should enjoy and appreciate for what it's worth and the execs of the WB should be patting themselves in the back for actually taking the time from keeping their heads inside their asses to actually taking them out and do what they should have done in the first place and that is giving other DC heroes (Aside from Superman & Batman) their chance to shine on the silver screen and hope the same can be done for other DC heroes to come!

Well, I guess the bad reviews keep coming:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/blogs/the-travers-take/green-lantern-is-comic-book-movie-hell-20110616

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/blogs/the-travers-take/green-lantern-is-comic-book-movie-hell-20110616#ooid=RtajRqMjqN56WynXlKw5QCQQDXxS9rGf,s1ajRqMjo-6avT6vTyBCj4Ny0ZnZKmU9

NOTE: Since this isn't a Youtube video, I can't seem to embed it properly but the video itself is where the most bashing is.

Peter Travers is urging everyone to skip Green Lantern, the movie based on DC Comics' sci-fi super hero starring Ryan Reynolds. "It is awful, it is bad, it is comic book movie hell," says Travers. "Michael Bay in a couple weeks is going to have to strain himself hard to make Transformers 3 bad enough that it can beat the Green Lantern." Though most everything about the movie is a mess, Travers does approve of Peter Sarsgaard, who turns in the picture's only good performance as the mutated villain Hector Hammond.

Not that I regard Rolling Stone magazine though. I think anyone who's a real music fan knows they're full of crap! ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME anyone?! Gimme a break! and I'm sure their film reviews are equally as tainted.

I'll decide for myself Mr. Travers!

EDIT TO ADD: If you check out some of his other reviews, he did approve of THOR, X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, & SUPER 8, especially the X-Men film.

Ya I still say like I did when I made my review. It wasn't the wrost film ever. But ya wasn't the best either. It was fair to good. Like others and I said had flaws with script and some acting. But I still thought it was an enjoyable film to watch. Way more then 2003 hulk or superman returns.

I saw the 2D version today. I thought it was entertaining. I have a few quips about:

1.I have to disagree with Webhead. The movie did not flow well. It kind of jump around. The movie did not have a good pace.XMen 1st Class paced very well. the movie had me exciting edge of your seat feel that I didn't feel for Green Lantern. Its funny how these two movies were directed by directors who directed a couple James Bond movies.

2. Miscast of Carol Ferris. Blake Lively was anything but lively. Her performance was very wooden (Routh school of acting). I admit she was nice to look at but she lacked substance.

3. The story was mediocre at best. The writer should have taken more from the source material maybe use the Black Hand instead of Hector Hammand as the villain save Parallax for a more comic faithful sequel (3rd movie).

I did like the action sequences and liked the performance of Mark Strong as Sinestro and Michael Clarke Duncan as the voice of Kilowog (both in a limited screen time)

I think if the green light (excuse the pun), WB should get another writer and director and concentrate on the source material. Also they should replace Lively or not have the Ferris character in the film. and give the film a faster pace.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Oh, and that post-credit scene? Absolutely out of left field, and should be considered a slap in the face to anyone who actually cares about these characters.

Luckily I don't count myself in that group.

I'll give you that one. That's a subplot for a sequel. You don't put that shit in there as a throwaway scene that most people will never see. There's enough juice in that basic subplot to build a sequel around it. I thought it was completely retarded to waste that moment in that way.

Plus, if you build on that in a movie with a Yellow Lantern Sinestro... the 90% of people who never saw that will have no idea where that plot development came from.

But if you ignore it and actually make a sequel story point out of Sinestro becoming a Yellow Lantern, you're acknowledging what a terrible fucking idea the original scene always was.

Either way, you lose.

thecolorsblend wrote:I'll give you that one. That's a subplot for a sequel. You don't put that shit in there as a throwaway scene that most people will never see. There's enough juice in that basic subplot to build a sequel around it. I thought it was completely retarded to waste that moment in that way.

Plus, if you build on that in a movie with a Yellow Lantern Sinestro... the 90% of people who never saw that will have no idea where that plot development came from.

But if you ignore it and actually make a sequel story point out of Sinestro becoming a Yellow Lantern, you're acknowledging what a terrible fucking idea the original scene always was.

Either way, you lose.

The DUMBEST part was the fact that Hal Jordan had JUST demonstrated that the Green Lantern rings was more powerful than Parallax's fear-based powers. Did Sinestro just say "Hey, I'll take this inferior ring and replace my more powerful one with it. I'm awesome!!!"? Plus, they did NOT foreshadow his choice in the slightest. Not even a LITTLE, and that was shoddy film-making at it's finest.

If I never see 'Green Lantern' again, I won't mind.

As I said I haven't yet seen the film but who is right exactly? I'll give this comparison of 3 others who post on here besides me to get a perspective:

1) thecolorsblend- not the best superhero film but definitely worth your money

2) Apologist Puncher- film sucks & not worth your money

3) Webhead2006- caught somewhere in the middle

That's a pretty diverse viewpoint. One for, one against, & one undecided. What am I supposed to derive from this? Just saying.....

Split the difference. Pirate it online and if you dig it, see it in theaters.

Even though I haven't watched it yet, just reading the various criticisms makes me wonder a few things:

1) CASTING- It seems that people are divided somewhat on Ryan Reynolds, like maybe this just wasn't the film he needed to do or something, like stick with his comedies & romantic comedies, whatever. Blake Liveley of Gossip Girl fame has been described as anything but lively, at least for her acting in this film. Gee, does this sound familiar, as in Singerman? Now, Reynolds is light years ahead of BJ Wood in acting ability, but he may have still been miscast here? And Liveley could be like duh Forehead, Kate Bosworth, who was totally miscast as Lois Lane! And I don't know about their 'chemistry' together. Was there any or not?

2) FX- Seems that it may be a little too much CGI? Might have been better to have been more 'Earth-based'? Now, I know we knock Nolan for 'ultra-realism' but could it be that GL went too far in the other direction? Isn't that one of the bashing points about SUCKER PUNCH? Could it be that the film would've been better to have found some 'middle ground' here?

3) DUH SUIT- At least Marvel attempts to have a real suit, even if it sometimes falls below expectations. An all-CGI suit?! See #2.

4) STORY-Sounds like it doesn't 'flow well'. Maybe a better script/plot idea would've been in order?

There may be other points I could think of given time but this seems to be the 'vibe' I'm getting. I still intend to see it for myself though. But back to the Singerman comparison, apparently WB realized their mistake with SUPERMAN & this time seem willing to put out a top-notch film. Correct the mistakes, so to speak. However, it looks like they may have made similar mistakes with GL?

Maybe they should've given the part to Brian Austin Green. I'm not saying he's the best actor in the world. My wife liked him on the original 90210 but he looked like a Homopage member then! However, I feel like he did an adequate job on the Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles TV series. He had changed so much I didn't even know who he was but my wife recognized him immediately! He also did OK on Smallville. He also expressed an interest in playing the character. Who knows?! Maybe if they'd let him have a crack at it, he could've pulled it off. Although he's not a complete unknown, he's obviously not the same 'star power' as Ryan Reynolds &, like Henry Cavill, could probably have done the character justice, but I guess now we'll never know.

Had they gone with someone like Green, replaced Liveley with an actress, maybe rewrote the script, etc., maybe the film would've been better? Also maybe to have had more practical effects? And a real suit?! It sounds like to me that maybe they had a good idea to make a GL film but in the end came out with the equivalent of a TRANSFORMERS sequel?!

Just thinking out loud here but like with Singerman, I originally thought they had a good plot idea to some degree but..........the final product just didn't bear that out. Someone 'dropped the ball' on that one & that was Singer, but Singer likes 'balls' anyway, right? And ironically fans thought the new X-Men film would suck because of Singer but instead it's doing pretty well. But Singer didn't direct either. Or write! But if he had, it would've sucked!

So maybe the GL film had some good ideas but maybe the wrong creative people were involved in its' production? So if WB learned from the debacle known as Singerman, then why did they go into this blindly?!

non_amos wrote:1) CASTING- It seems that people are divided somewhat on Ryan Reynolds, like maybe this just wasn't the film he needed to do or something, like stick with his comedies & romantic comedies, whatever.

The intent of the movie doesn't seem to have been adapting Hal Jordan as he's been portrayed in the comics quite so much. I see shades of Kyle and Guy in the movie version of Hal (which is probably why I enjoyed the movie as much as I did). I've seen fans complain that Hal wouldn't say something like "I know, right?". And as far as comics fidelity goes, I have to concede the point on that one.

Ultimately, Ryan Reynolds was hired to play Ryan Reynolds. In relation to that casting choice, he did a great job.

Blake Liveley

I know nothing about Blake Lively and almost nothing about Carol Ferris so I'll skip this one. My only real gripe is that she didn't truly come off as being a peer (in terms of age) for Hal but otherwise I'm letting this one go.

2) FX- Seems that it may be a little too much CGI? Might have been better to have been more 'Earth-based'? Now, I know we knock Nolan for 'ultra-realism' but could it be that GL went too far in the other direction? Isn't that one of the bashing points about SUCKER PUNCH? Could it be that the film would've been better to have found some 'middle ground' here?

I think stuff like this comes down to talking points. Very few people, esp those on the Internet, have anything really worth listening to. Since about the time of The Phantom Menace and definitely since BB, fandom has been a decidedly anti-CG kick. Prior to those things, CG was generally regarded as cool and one of the selling points for seeing any movie.

There's a strange perception out there that somehow, say, a puppet with no mobility or articulation is somehow more credible than a CG character with questionable body movement, I guess, simply because the puppet exists in the physical world whereas the CG character doesn't.

Or hand-built models vs. CG models or whatever else (it's always made me laugh though when people criticize certain parts of the Mustafar sequence in Revenge of the Sith as there were tons of model shots in there; same thing for several Coruscant sequences in Attack of the Clones, really. Both were bashed to hell for their "bad CGI" when the principle/total elements thereof were models).

I've always said that all effects look equally fake to me so splitting hairs over which looks faker is picking gnat shit out of pepper.

But beyond even that, there seems to be little or no discernment among fandom or even pro film critics about stylistic intent. Some effects simply aren't meant to look "realistic". GL is a good example. Those effects are pure eye-candy. They're not supposed to necessarily adhere 100% to real world physics or whatnot. It's more about composing a cool action scene than necessarily sticking to the letter of science. But somehow those shots get labeled as "bad effects/bad CGI" simply because of said stylization.

4) STORY-Sounds like it doesn't 'flow well'. Maybe a better script/plot idea would've been in order?

Eh, I'm bordering on being a GL apologist here. To concede (or maybe somewhat mitigate) your point, I've always felt like Hal had a movie unfriendly origin. Superman, Batman and others have pretty cinematic origins but Hal's is a bit trickier given that you have to set up Abin Sur and Hal's GL training and the Guardians and the reality and mission of the GL Corps and the GL Corps members in general and Sinestro in particular, etc. That's a lot of shit to have to muscle through.

There may be other points I could think of given time but this seems to be the 'vibe' I'm getting. I still intend to see it for myself though. But back to the Singerman comparison, apparently WB realized their mistake with SUPERMAN & this time seem willing to put out a top-notch film. Correct the mistakes, so to speak. However, it looks like they may have made similar mistakes with GL?

I disagree. I mean, yeah, I guess you could've made a sequel to Singerman but it would've had even less to do with Superman than ever. "Correcting" all of Singerman's mistakes would've resulted in a practical reboot anyway so why not just reboot the thing in name as well as fact and get it over with?

GL? Different story. I wouldn't argue the first film is perfect but you can develop the story and take it into action-packed directions. You've got a base to work from with GL that you just didn't and wouldn't ever have with Singerman.

As far as sequel prospects are concerned, I view GL and Singerman as two VERY different animals.

Haven't seen it yet, but to state the obvious, it looks as if Marvel's "Captain America" is the one to wait for as opposed to this latest offering from the DC camp. Again.

I just watched the mini doco on "Cap" which can be found online. Why am I not surprised that the "stars and stripes" aspect of Cap is highlighted and portrayed as such a fine quality when Superman seems to want to renounce his?

I just hope Snyder delivers a Superman the public will recognize. It's never been more important. DC seem intent in muddying the waters and making the task of selling Superman all the more tricky.