GREEN LANTERN: It’s not all bad

twitter GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad0facebook GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad0google GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad0pinterest GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad0tumblr GREEN LANTERN: Its not all badreddit GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad0stumbleupon GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad0email GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad

King Con 2010 7 GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad
So I enjoyed GREEN LANTERN! Honest!

If you had asked me if I had wanted to see a movie about Green Lantern, I would have been neutral, but if you had asked me if I wanted to see a movie about a giant space octopus made of fear and smoldering owl fewmets busting loose from green chains, I would have said hell yes! GREEN LANTERN is probably the most comic-book comic book movie since SPIDER-MAN . All the imagery and spirit come straight from the yellowing pages of some old comic by John Broome and Gil Kane — a boldly colored, nuance-challenged world of wonder and battle in the stars.

Perhaps its this one-dimensional world and some clunky filmmaking choices–which I’ll get to in a moment — combined with the overbearing WB marketing campaign which have helped fuel the revulsion among critics. While it isn’t a good movie, it isn’t as horrible as you may have heard, and if you can reduce your mental state to that of an 11-year-old boy, you should have no problem enjoying the spectacle.

But…there are problems. The material is inherently simplistic. GREEN LANTERN is a movie about big foreheads — Sinestro, Hector Hammond, Tim Robbins. It’s also a movie where the heroes are naive enough to think that a guy named Sinestro is an ally. And the dramatic problems with the hero, Hal Jordan, which I mentioned the other day, aren’t solved in the many hands screenplay. Nothing really challenges Hal. We’re told he’s a loser — but a loser who lives in a fantastic loft apartment overlooking Coast City, beds hot chicks at will, has a great job, is loved by his family and manages to defeat expensive government robot planes with his daring and skill. He is just the kind of loser we would all like to be.

King Con 2010 9 GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad

Similarly, his character arc is a wisp of plot at best — some doubts about whether joining the space cops is going to eat into his quality time chilling in that swanky apartment lead him to briefly quit the force, but as soon as the world is threatened by a space octopus he’s back on his beat.

As someone suggested in the comments thread of my last Green Lantern post, perhaps SHOWING Hal struggling with his willpower might have been a better way to tell the story, or at least struggling with fear, or maybe some balance of the two. Ryan Reynolds is a likable guy, one look at him and you know he’s the hero. He seems to lead a charmed life in the movie, succeeding at everything he sets him mind to…a pretty boring narrative for a movie, but a great Mary Sue type character for a storyteller, perhaps.

King Con 2010 8 GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad

The bigger problem, and probably what put so many people off the film, is how it simultaneously revels in its comics origins while fretting about them. It’s common knowledge that DC Entertainment’s Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns was the driving force behind this movie — both as the modern writer who made the character DC’s best seller, the champion of its potential and guardian of its integrity. For whatever reason, GREEN LANTERN is intent on selling its considerable mythology as a sacred text that must be presented in all its nerd glory. But it is also so worried that no one will get this mythology that it shoves it down your throat with the tone-deaf insistence of the guy from the Onion.

WHY did this movie have to open with that whole voice over explaining Oa, and the Guardians, and Parallax, and lost sectors and blah blah blah? Wouldn’t it have been better storytelling to learn about this and experience it as the hero does? Learning about these cosmic wonders through Hal’s eyes would automatically have humanized and dramatized the exposition. Instead the whole movie tells and tell and tells. It’s bad writing, period.

What it DOES show, though, is pretty cool. After viewing THOR, I complained about the pedestrian art direction — Marvel makes its movies efficiently and with an eye to the budget (something Warner Brothers was not familiar with in the making of GREEN LANTERN) — the result is an increasingly cookie cutter, plastic look.

The same cannot be said of GREEN LANTERN, which presents startling comic book imagery torn straight from the work of Gil Kane, Mart Nodell, Joe Staton and all the other great Green Lantern artists. Oa looks old and majestic, the Guardians on their towering pedestals are eerie and other-worldly. The gathered Green Lantern Corps is a milling crowd of creatures never before seen. Parallax looks GREAT, and the space scenes are beautifully animated. A world of imagination shines from the screen, and that’s what I enjoyed about this movie.

King Con 2010 3 GREEN LANTERN: Its not all bad

Back on Earth, GREEN LANTERN occupies the kind of glossy, lush Technicolor world that only a movie can present. It wants badly to be the first SUPERMAN movie — the first time Green Lantern flies off, the score even quotes the Superman theme — with the same kind of brisk, efficient world. It’s the flat script and hero that just don’t live up to their predecessor.

GREEN LANTERN is a harmless, well-meaning boys own adventure. For a giant, corporate potential tentpole whose every move must have been approved by committee, it has a surprisingly good heart. It’s a movie by nerds for nerds…and this time the non-nerd corp has spoken and given a big thumbs down.

PS: did anyone but me thank that Taika Waititi as Hal’s Pal Tom was supposed to look like Moss from The IT Crowd?

PPS: We’ll talk more about what GREEN LANTERN means for WB and DC in our next exciting post.

Comments

  1. Doselle Young says:

    You’re _very_ forgiving. Let’s discuss over a whiskey sometimes. The drinks are on me.

  2. Charles Knight says:

    “It’s common knowledge that DC Entertainment’s Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns was the driving force behind this movie — both as the modern writer who made the character DC’s best seller, the champion of its potential and guardian of its integrity”

    Watch how over the coming weeks, Johns is made the goat for the soft opening of this film and the idea is floated that the comic-book guys of Warner got too much influence over the development of the film.

  3. But from the sound of it, there may be something to that – if only in the sense that they’re coming at it from the wrong perspective.

  4. I agree with a lot of the things you say here, but I think I actually enjoyed it more than you did. It actually got me thinking about Green Lantern again, which is something no rational 50-year-old man should ever admit to doing.

  5. Jon Stover says:

    It’s funny (and indicative, I guess) that the Broome/Kane comics got this right, with a gradual reveal of the Guardians and the history of the Corps over the course of years. And no one trusting the already evil Sinestro when he first appears. Just simple stories gradually causing a “mythology” to accrete over time, as opposed to dumping a distillation of 55 years of Green Lantern stories on the viewers’ heads at the beginning of a movie.

  6. Charles Knight says:

    “But from the sound of it, there may be something to that – if only in the sense that they’re coming at it from the wrong perspective.”

    Could be – just be to clear, I’m not actually saying it *is* downs to Johns just that is the sort of briefing that will start occurring as the various factions try to distance themselves from the failure to launch a franchise. Some of this actually occurred during the launch – the marketing people were starting to feed information to the press on Thursday about why it wasn’t their fault that this was not going to meet expectations.

  7. “it isn’t as horrible as you may have heard…”

    …which otherwise is known as damning it with faint praise.

  8. Sphinx Magoo says:

    …and Roger Ebert (a closet comic fan if there ever was one, who can’t reveal his fondness for comics without disturbing his professional integrity) declared he liked “Green Lantern” more than “Thor”.

    Hmm. I enjoyed “Thor” (in 2D). Guess with Heidi’s review to help clinch it, I’ll be going to see “Green Lantern” too (in 2D)!

  9. Almost nothing set up in the first act gets paid off. Characters are introduced and never paid off. All the Green Larnterns on Oa are one note characters who never do anything. It’s a movie about a fear monster that never uses fear as a weapon. It’s got a person who can read minds and find out people’s worst fears that works for the fear monster but… nothing is done with that.
    They set the love interest up as Hal’s equal. She’s a test pilot who can hold her own with him but she turns into a watered down Lois Lane by the end.
    The actors bring some real charm but it’s a terribly structured script.
    “Hi I’m a Green Lantern with a fish head who’s played by an Oscar winning actor. Good to see you, I won’t be doing anything for the movie but damn I look like I was expensive to make. I’ll look good in a trailer I’m sure.”

  10. MichaelClimek says:

    Green Lantern (Movie) was awesome. I loved it. The effects are amazing, the casting is superb, and it’s all around engaging and fun. Highly recommended.

    Follow up, I saw Green Lantern in a theater filled with kids. The kids loved it. There was even clapping when the credits started. Do you have kids? Your kids might love it too. If an old, fat, single, kid-less guy says he “didn’t like the movie” don’t let this deter you, instead you should be happy your tastes don’t match his.

    Have people who see movies forgotten how to enjoy themselves?

  11. “Instead the whole movie tells and tell and tells. It’s bad writing, period.”

    I found it a bit ironic that the basis of much of the plot is fear, and trying to overcome it. Yet, it seems to me, that the powers-that-be were probably so afraid that the casual guy off the street would be lost with all of the Green Lantern mythos that they decided to hammer-it through the audience’s skull!
    Methinks the producers needed more will in their belief of their property.

    That all being said I felt the movie was what it was supposed to be. I enjoyed it. Didn’t love it but, my god I’ve seen SO much worse on the big screen over the years…. (Transformers comes to mind.)

  12. X-fan says:

    Personally I would have preferred if the story was solely about Hal getting the powers, learning to use them and his acceptance into the GLC, pissing off Sinestro. Otherwise I pretty much agree with Heidi.

  13. I thought it was pretty much on par with Transformers 2. It and GL are the only two films in memory that I saw and left with serious regret about paying for a ticket. Wish I’d waited to see it at the $2 theater in town.

  14. Steey Dan says:

    The two scenes in the film that one me over:

    — After Green Lantern makes his first public appearance (I’m trying to be vague for those who haven’t seen it) and he floats quietly in the air as the crowd looks at him in stunned silence, not sure whether to be happy, afraid, or confused by what they just saw. Very quiet and elegiac. It reminded me of the best parts of “Superman Returns” (a film which I unapologetically love).

    — When the masked GL meets Carol Ferris on the balcony of her office and Hal Jordan is clearly unsure of how to act around her so he plays it like a ’40s movie hero until she figures out right away that GL is Hal Jordan and the scene immediately becomes relaxed and comfortable as two old friends and former lovers giddily and awkwardly try to make sense of this new awesome power.

    I think this is what the current crop of DC movies (Green Lantern, Superman Returns, Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight) do better than Marvel: they capture the quieter, darker, and more emotional moments of the story. As entertaining as the Marvel films have been,even though they excel at capturing the wisecracking humor well, outside of “X2,” I never become emotionally invested in any of the characters. With the DC films I have. Maybe I’m in the minority here.

    And as Heidi said, visually I find the Marvel films to be rather generic, while the DC films mentioned above have a rich, textured visual depth that the Marvel films don’t (maybe I’m misremembering, but I seem to recall lots of “magic hour” and dusk shots in the DC films which were absolutely gorgeous, and very few if any in the Marvel films).

    As far as the much derided opening narration is concerned, I agree that it would have been nice if that element could have been incorporated into the story proper, but in the end it was no more intrusive than the opening crawl narration of “Star Wars” or “Blade Runner.”

  15. With the exception of the Batman movies, WB hasn’t done any superhero movies that were anything but horrible (remember CATWOMAN), so it’s progress.

    Wasn’t great. Wasn’t horrible.

    Totally agree on all these points and I caught the Superman quote, too.

    I would also add that the fact that his costume is CGI’ed on is creepy. Ick. but… whatever, it was sorta fun.

    Oh, I didn’t like the space octopus, much, tho.

    One thing I DID like, tho, was the fact that they spent the whole movie building up Sinestro, which is good. Sinestro is good. It’s good to build him up.

  16. Synsidar says:

    I don’t know how many jokes have been made at GREEN LANTERN’s expense, but the ones which have been made about golden showers and, say, “Green Lantern — defeated by a banana cannon!” should remind the filmmakers that things which make sense to comic book readers, used to genre conventions, make no sense to other viewers. If there were a movie based on BLACKEST NIGHT and people saw that all the colors of the rainbow were featured, some of them would laugh themselves sick.

    SRS

  17. Steven Taylor says:

    The film was as good a representation of a comic book related property as I’ve seen lately.

  18. Stephen says:

    The character and concepts deserved better treatment than they got at the hands of the writers, producers, and studio. While parts of pure superhero joy peek through in parts, the storytelling in this film suffered by too many hands in the mix.
    Here’s my personal review written after seeing the film over the weekend:

    Like an overstuffed glow-in-the-dark pinata, “Green Lantern” is full of sweet promising concepts and sourballs of poor execution. With four credited writers and the fingerprints of Warner Bros. executives all over it, the film is simultaneously overwritten and underwritten, wildly uneven in tone, and erratically edited.

    Ryan Reynolds comports himself admirably as Hal Jordan, reining in his characteristic smirkiness except where the dialogue unfortunately calls for it. In an attempt to “Marvel-ize” and humanize Hal Jordan, we are shown how Hal witnessed his own father’s demise in a test pilot accident, a bit of recent backstory invented by Geoff Johns. The flashback sequence with Hal’s father, however, is intercut with present-day scenes of Hal’s own reckless test pilot behavior, which undercuts the intended emotional impact of Hal’s backstory. We’re also led to believe that Hal harbors self-doubt about his worthiness of being a Green Lantern, who are supposed to be fearless. I think this is supposed to be connected somehow to the death of Hal’s father but the connection is so vague and tenuous that it left me feeling that the writers just threw it in there to give Hal some internal obstacle to overcome.

    As for Carol Ferris, there really is not that much to say. Blake Lively’s wooden acting skills serve her well as the requisite romantic love interest for Jordan, and Reynolds has about as much chemistry with Lively as he would with a life-size cardboard cut-out of her. She gets to tell Hal to chin up about his self-doubts and tell that he was chosen to be a Green Lantern, not because he is fearless, but because he has the ability to “overcome fear.”

    Peter Sarsgaard has fun with his role as under-appreciated neurobiologist (I think?) Hector Hammond – more sad pathetic victim of his own poor self-esteem and weaknesses, Sarsgaard knows what’s required of him and he amps up the pure juicy villainy with each disgusting contortion of his oversized cranium. Hammond’s fight scene with Green Lantern is one of the best scenes in the entire movie, and demonstrates what a poweful threat Hammond’s pure mental abilities can be, especially to an untested, green (sorry!) Green Lantern. I just wish there had more of a developed relationship between Hammond and Jordan so that the battle between them felt like more than just a well-choreographed actiond sequence. There are hints in the dialogue that Hammond, Ferris, and Jordan all know each other pretty well enough to be on a first-name basis but this is not fully fleshed-out.

    Unfortunately, the main “big bad” of the film, Parallax, is too abstract a concept to care much about and the climax of the film devolves into an overly CGI’ed sequence of loud action sequences. Never has so much computerized razzle-dazzle felt more tedious.

    The standout parts? They get Hal Jordan’s cockiness right. They get the strangeness of being handed a ring by a dying alien right and the pure terrifying incomprehensibility of what it must feel like to suddenly have that ring take over your body and lift you up and hurtle you off the planet and fling you into outer space to a far off galaxy.

    They barely scratch the surface with the Green Lantern Corps. I really feel like this film wasted a lot of potential of the Corps here. I’ve always felt Hal Jordan works best when he’s bouncing off the personalities of the different Corps members and that’s definitely the case here. Tomar-Re and Kilowog are very well-realized. I wish we could have been indulged with more wild characters from the comic books. As it is, the Corps is introduced, they share a battle-cry, there is a short training sequence, and the Corps kind of vanishes until a token scene at the very end where they are a bit too late to do anything effective.

    Sinestro comes off about as well as can be expected here. He is a proud, combat-ready warrior with a contempt for Jordan as both a member of the human species in general and as the replacement for his friend and ally Abin Sur in particular. Unfortunately, Sinestro is kept on a tight leash by the writers/studio heads, who obviously have plans for him in the inevitable sequel. As with the other supporting characters, it’s a matter of not enough background on Sinestro being given in this film, that we’re not made to particularly care about the fate of his character or his choices.

    Ultimately, the strength of Green Lantern and the Green Lantern Corps mythology in the comic books is its weakness as a film. In the serialized comic books, you had time to gradually introduce the vastness of the Corps and the Guardians (who weren’t really fully introduced or explained until several issues into GL’s solo title), of exploring the concepts that undergird them, of understanding the background of a character like Sinestro and why he became the “renegade” Green Lantern. This film barely scratches the surface of all of that – and could hardly be expected to do so within the confines of an approximately 2 hour movie. People who are familiar with the Green Lantern comic books can readily fill in the blanks with their background knowledge, which is why I think you are seeing generally more kind reviews of this film among comic book fans than mainstream reviewers, who are clueless about this stuff. However, whether non-comic book fans can find enough here that is intriguing that would make them interested in more is up for question. If I were Warners, I would be very concerned that non-comic book fans are not going to care enough to come back for a second helping, unless they are shown they are going to be given something more substantial and consistent that what’s given to us here.

  19. Completelly disagree with the review, Green Lantern was by far the best of the 3 comic book movies so far.

    It was the truest representation of a comic that i’ve ever seen on the big screen and I honestly have no clue what the critics are talking about and where the over the top negativity for the film comes from.

    There was nothing simplistic about the material, in fact if you didn’t pay attention you could get lost pretty easily like some reviewers clearly did. There was nothing naive about Hal trusting Sinestro considering how The Guardians Of The Universe had no problem with him why would Hal?.

    Saying that nothing challenged Hal in the movie is flatout wrong, Hal was challenged by his fear and that was well played out throught the film. Also Hal had alot more than just some doubts he quits the GLC because he doesn’t believe he has what it takes. He did struggle with his willpower and he had to overcome fear, looks like whoever posted that he wasn’t is simply wrong and was probably too busy stuffing his face with popcorn to actually watch the movie.

    But that is only topped off by the sheer ignorance and old standby of the typical Hal hater by callin his story boring, really is this 2004 all over again?.

    Aside from that another thing you’re wrong about is the idea that the mythology is shoved down people’s throats. There is a good bit of knowledge that’s dropped on viewers but there is nothing too much that anyone aside from a small child should have a problem with. As far as the voice over by Tomar-Re, I thought it was a great touch that made the movie feel like a Tales Of The Green Lantern Corps story which Tomar is the keeper of. Could they have showed all of that sure but then the movie would have been 3 hours instead of 2. That’s not bad writting it’s actually the opposite and streamlined the story which is actually good.

    The one bit I do agree with is the similarity to Superman, imo Green Lantern will be that type of movie for this era. It has the same heart and feel of wonder with much better effect and grander scope. Green Lantern is a very good movie and one that I believe will be looked back at in a very positive way. The critics were dead wrong about it and basically proved once again that their opinions and taste flatout suck.

  20. MichaelClimek says:

    Here here EJ! All those things, yes.

  21. We still have Blockbusters around here. And I still own a TV. So: Rental or ‘free’.

  22. Eric H. says:

    I haven’t seen GL yet and what I’ve heard has been pretty all over the map – actually well represented by the comments here. I do want to see it, but it is a firm “no” for the wife (who does want to see First Class, I must point out) and I haven’t had time to go by myself.

    However, the one thing that struck me funny about reading this is that one of the leading criticisms of Watchmen was that they left OUT the space octopus (well, squid). What is it with DC and Space Octopi? I really, really hope Flash gets off the ground so we can have some trademark DC purple gorillas. You KNOW that will increase ticket sales.

  23. RockPaperNukes says:

    My problem was with the terrible script. And the fact that nothing interesting happens for the first 90 minutes.

    The ring constructs were boring and unimaginative. And why have the Guardians at all if they’re not going to have them do or say anything or have any sort of interesting exchanges of dialogue?

    I’m predisposed to like just about any comic book movie going in. But they blew it on this one. I liked Superman Returns more than this.

  24. Caged Wisdom says:

    MichaelClimek: “Have people who see movies forgotten how to enjoy themselves?”

    This tired argument gets trotted out every time a genre flick fails to deliver. Like somehow the displeased are at fault for noticing the obvious problems a film has.

    Audience members shouldn’t have to turn off their brains and ignore poor writing and directing choices just to enjoy a movie. Look at Super 8. Look at virtually every single movie Pixar has made. Films can be fun and accessible to a wide age range without insulting the intelligence of the moviegoer.

  25. Stephen says:

    >MichaelClimek: “Have people who see movies >forgotten how to enjoy themselves?”

    Have the people who make movies forgotten how to make them enjoyable?

  26. Caged Wisdom says:
  27. MichaelClimek says:

    Caged- you can’t be that naive can you?

    Geeky people are predisposed to dislike things rather than like them. I’m honestly not sure why this is, (needs more research.)

    There is just no pleasing some people. But especially geeky people.

    I actually feel really bad for you. I spent my $18 for NYC prices, and had a great time. You spent more your money and walked away grumpy and angry.

    Who is winning here champ?

  28. Caged Wisdom says:

    Michael – You’re absolutely right that geeks (myself included) take umbrage sometimes at very minor things that they need to get over.

    But we’re not talking about quibbling over minor geeky details of a film though. This isn’t a wheezing slapfight over organic web shooters. This is basic storytelling and film making ability. The film is clunky, exposition-y and asks the viewer to ignore way too much.

    Just because you can convince yourself you weren’t disappointed doesn’t make you the winner.

  29. MichaelClimek says:

    Actually it does champ. I literally do not see the problems you claim are there. Exposition is necessary. And I didn’t think it was clunky, I thought if flowed pretty well.

    I don’t always like movies, Superman Returns didn’t sit right with me for example.

    I honestly think you might be looking for problems where none exist. And seriously, I feel sort of bad for you. Just relax man. Enjoy life, it’s short.

    It was fun. The whole theater I saw it with thought it was fun too.

  30. Roy G. Biv says:

    “I honestly think you might be looking for problems where none exist. And seriously, I feel sort of bad for you. Just relax man. Enjoy life, it’s short. ”

    Also, rainbows are AMAZING.

  31. Dave Miller-lad says:

    Thanks for the review, Heidi. But when will we see your X-men First Class movie review?

  32. The Beat says:

    I saw that Thursday…maybe this week?

  33. Dave Miller-lad says:

    Mah-velous!

  34. Caged Wisdom says:

    Roy – “Unicorns and GLITTER!”

  35. @Sphinx Magoo; Ebert also seemed to confuse Green Lantern with Green Hornet (in his reference to an earthbound tv show), so I don’t know how deep his comic fandom truly is.

  36. GREEN LANTERN: It’s not all bad?

    SOLD! I guess I will rent it out when it comes to NETFLIX or REDBOX 3 mos. from now, after deciding not to watch it in the theaters thanks to the poor-to-middling reviews.

    [NETFLIX and REDBOX being the discounted dvd/Blu-ray “longboxes” for supermegaseriousHollywoodBlockbustercgifestthat’sthebestthingseenonmoviescreensever[thisweek]!
    “floppies” I’ve passed up full price on, just to see what I’ve missed: SUPERMAN RETURNS, the TRANSFORMii, CRYSTAL SKULL, PRIEST…]

  37. When WB ordered Tim Robbins for this, he must have answered, “With extra cheese?”
    GREEN LANTERN suffers from introducing an exciting, escapist world but never exploring it and returning the viewer to scene after plodding scene on earth that were more boring than the promising test pilot sequences at the opening.
    I saw thousands of Lanterns, and thought they were going to go space patrolling to kick some fear butt, flying in formations, etc. Incredible space dog fights to come. Instead we got to visit the HQ but never saw them in full force.
    Like Luke leaving Tatooine, trains with Obi-Wan, back to Tatooine, then hangs out with Yoda, then back to Tatooine, arrives at the Rebel Alliance then for the big conclusion – back to Tatooine to finish his chores.
    Once GL left earth, he doesn’t return unless the threat is cooler than what outer space with thousands of Lanterns in battle can offer.
    Lastly, if you conjure up a sword with your ring, don’t conjure up a sword that looks like a cocktail stirrer.

  38. Final note: Kids clap at explosions and sparkly stuff. But kids dream and become fans forever when thrilled by intergalactic space adventures that awe even the adults who paid for their tickets.

  39. @Rafael ha ha — cocktail sword, indeed.

    and kids freeze in their seats because the AT-ATs looked REAL. They had actual weight to them as opposed to looking like fuzzy Domos. Again, I’m glad GL fans liked it and I loved Sinestro, I just think at this point, the superhero movie must bring its A-game if it wants to compete. A license alone isn’t enough anymore. But it’s a good place to be, when you think of it. GL’s low box office doesn’t necessarily mean that people are sick of super-heroes, just that the bar might be higher than it used to be.

  40. Adam Tupper says:

    “What it DOES show, though, is pretty cool. After viewing THOR, I complained about the pedestrian art direction — Marvel makes its movies efficiently and with an eye to the budget (something Warner Brothers was not familiar with in the making of GREEN LANTERN) — the result is an increasingly cookie cutter, plastic look.
    The same cannot be said of GREEN LANTERN, which presents startling comic book imagery torn straight from the work of Gil Kane, Mart Nodell, Joe Staton and all the other great Green Lantern artists. Oa looks old and majestic, the Guardians on their towering pedestals are eerie and other-worldly. The gathered Green Lantern Corps is a milling crowd of creatures never before seen. Parallax looks GREAT, and the space scenes are beautifully animated. A world of imagination shines from the screen, and that’s what I enjoyed about this movie.”

    Are you kidding me?

    Thor gave us a sweeping, arching view of a land we’d never seen before, and revelled in this. The art direction and design in Thor was not only carefully constructed but fully appreciated by the filmmakers. In Green Lantern, we hardly get to enjoy Oa and all its splendor before being bum-rushed back to the brick and mortar stylings of FerrisAir. Everything beautiful and brilliant about Oa, the Guardians and the other GLs are strewn quickly aside as the unbelievably poor story forces away from what we all paid to see.
    This film had built up so much good will from the fans of the book and the early images and completely throws it away by telling us we need to care about Carol and Hector and the humans when in fact, all we want to see is SPACE COPS IN ACTION. If you liked it and enjoyed it, that’s fine. But your arguments fall flat.
    Green Lantern will go down in history as DC’s more expensive version of Ghost Rider. It is a failure on all levels due to the filmmakers inability to actually give one damn about the characters and story they were telling. If I half-assed my job like they all did this film, I’d be fired. Hold people accountable for a lacklustre product that could have been better, don’t make apologies for minor successes.

  41. Vay Jonynas says:

    “It’s a movie by nerds for nerds…and this time the non-nerd corp has spoken and given a big thumbs down.”

    Nerds? Non-nerds? Huh? And you were the one criticizing the movie for its bad writing! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    ” If you liked it and enjoyed it, that’s fine. But your arguments fall flat.”

    Excuse me? It’s a movie. That’s the only argument needed.

    My only reservations with respect to the movie and Hal Jordan’s portrayal is that he was not originally the devil-may-care irresponsible type portrayed in the movie. None of that was part of his character when he was introduced in 1959. Those additions to his character are all a result of retconning. In other words, they’re add-ons that can be dismissed.

    Secondly, the movie should have been a bit longer. Hal should have spent more time on earth learning to focus his will and thus master the power ring. He should have rescued a couple of kittens, stopped a tidal wave, foiled a few bank robbers, that kind of thing. Only then should he have gone on to face more cosmic menaces.

    And Blake Lively doesn’t have the body to be a credible Star Sapphire.

  42. Vay Jonynas says:

    Hal’s training session with Kilowog should also have shown to extend for days until a badly beaten down Hal is further humiliated by the bossman Sinestro.

  43. Hoopermazing says:

    This movie was horrid. Even as someone who used to read Green Lantern comics, it was silly and, most unforgivably, boring. Add to that the fact that Ryan Reynolds has the personality of a tree stump and you have a recipe for a complete dud. And that is precisely what this turd of a movie was.

  44. K1ngGUS says:

    By the way, hell to the yes on your PS:

    PS: did anyone but me thank that Taika Waititi as Hal’s Pal Tom was supposed to look like Moss from The IT Crowd?

    By the way I see influences of the IT crowd on TV quite a bit.

Speak Your Mind

*