Ugh. These official review threads are so difficult to read nowadays. Too much box office speculation, not enough examination of the creative merits of the movie.
The Wormhole wrote:
3-D sucks, and I hate that my theatre is basically insisting we see movies that way by making it impossible to see 2-D showings. 3-D is hardly utilized, so I'm basically wearing glasses that makes my eyes hurt, give the picture a darker tint and oh yeah, makes the movie cost $17.00 to see. Really, Avatar was the only movie which was properly suited to 3-D and actually justified the higher price, even if it did suck.
I pretty much agree there. Thankfully, most of the big theaters here in Tempe, AZ give the option of 3-D or 2-D. All things being equal, I pick 2-D every time (with the exceptions of Avatar
& Tron Legacy,
both of which had the otherworldly feel greatly enhanced by the 3-D). But most of the time when I see 3-D, it's only because the 3-D showing was at a more convenient time.
Noname Given wrote:
Overall, I thought the movie was decent but nothing special. This was my first real exposure to the Green Lantern (other than Justice League: The New Frontier
). I think his powers are pretty cool but the movie itself is pretty anemic. I found myself really wishing that I was watching Reynolds play the Green Lantern in a Justice League
movie. I can put up with fun-but-unremarkable Marvel movies like Iron Man 2
because I know they have a plan, building up to the massive Avengers
movie next summer. Since DC doesn't currently have such a plan, I'm much less patient.
Reynolds was his decent, motor-mouthed self but Hal Jordan can't hold a candle to Tony Stark in the lovable asshole department. Still, Reynolds has the chance to redeem himself if he still gets to make that Deadpool
movie they were talking about a couple years ago.
Blake Lively was surprisingly charismatic considering her CW pedigree. Too bad most of the other supporting characters (particularly the Earthly ones) don't make much of an impression.