As it was the movie suffered from bad villain syndrome. Fighting a giant evil cloud is a tough sell. Now had the cloud fully taken over Hammond and given us a giant one on one battle that might have improved things as well.
It wasn't the nature of the villains I found disappointing, but the nature of the heroism. They'd have the villain, whether Hammond or Parallax, spend over a minute endangering or killing large numbers of people, and then Hal would belatedly fly in and protect just one or two people. The scale of the heroism was too small. The fun part of superhero stories is watching the heroes save people and make a difference. That's the whole wish-fulfillment quality that makes heroes appealing in the first place, the idea that they can protect us and keep us safe. That's one thing The Avengers
got right -- even in the midst of a huge battle against alien monsters, Whedon never lost sight of the heroes' priority to protect civilians and get them out of harm's way.
Guy Gardener wrote:
The ring is supposed to find someone without fear.
That's an outdated interpretation, and frankly a rather silly one, since no rational being would be devoid of the capacity for fear. The modern take, ever since the Emerald Dawn
miniseries from 1989, is that the rings choose people who have the capacity to overcome fear. Here's an article about the evolution of the concept.
Paralax is supposed to be Hal Jordan gone insane killing all his friends
Sure, and Ra's al Ghul isn't "supposed to be" Batman's mentor, and the Joker isn't "supposed to be" an anarchist wearing clown makeup, and Tony Stark wasn't "supposed to" reveal his identity to the world right at the start of his career, and Heimdall isn't "supposed to" look like Idris Elba. There is no "supposed to." It's not wrong for an adaptation to do things differently than the source material. In fact, it's the whole point
of an adaptation. If you want something exactly like the original, just read the original. Doing an exact copy would be redundant and pointless. The thing that makes adaptations worth doing is that they add something new, find a fresh angle on old ideas. Sometimes it doesn't work, but sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes it even works better than the original version.
Hell, the whole problem with the Green Lantern
movie was that it was too
faithful to the source, threw in too many threads of comics continuity that had accumulated over the decades and thus made the movie unnecessarily cluttered.