Green Lantern: Grading, Review, Discuss, Tracking, Sequel?

[Kegg]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

His only dud was "Legend of Zorro"

Eskimo Nell fan, eh?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The scripts for the Iron Man films are slapdash messes, and depend largely on Downey's remarkable talent and charisma for any shred of humanity - subtract him and there's not much to draw people in. There's a lot more going on in terms of recognizable human relationships and interaction in Green Lantern than in most superhero films. Thor is completely vapid in that regard, though Captain America looks promising.

Though I suppose a large percentage of the audience for these things is more interested in debating how far someone can throw a magic hammer than in why anyone would care.

[davejames]

KB24 wrote:

---

Too much effing CGI. After the trailer, I get this Ang Lee Hulk vibe most definitely. Yes, you are going to need graphics to adapt this material, but did everything remotely possible have to be cg? I learned my lesson with the whole gungan versus droids battle in The Phantom Menace.

That was definitely my concern going into the movie, because the trailers do push the CGI awfully hard (and I already found those long Asgard scenes in Thor to be pretty tedious).

But thankfully the actual movie is much more grounded and balanced than that. Most of the story takes place on Earth, and when we do travel to Oa, it's actually pretty cool and exciting.

[davejames]

Wow, the voting is all over the place for this movie. lol

[RAMA]

davejames wrote:

---

That was definitely my concern going into the movie, because the trailers do push the CGI awfully hard (and I already found those long Asgard scenes in Thor to be pretty tedious).

But thankfully the actual movie is much more grounded and balanced than that. Most of the story takes place on Earth, and when we do travel to Oa, it's actually pretty cool and exciting.

Seeing the CGI on the big screen and in 3D really makes it obvious just HOW GOOD they really are. There's a real sense of tangibility and detail that doesn't come off as well in stills.

RAMA

[Captain Craig]

Dennis wrote:

---

The scripts for the Iron Man films are slapdash messes, and depend largely on Downey's remarkable talent and charisma for any shred of humanity - subtract him and there's not much to draw people in. There's a lot more going on in terms of recognizable human relationships and interaction in Green Lantern than in most superhero films. Thor is completely vapid in that regard, though Captain America looks promising.

Though I suppose a large percentage of the audience for these things is more interested in debating how far someone can throw a magic hammer than in why anyone would care.

There is more character interaction and growth between Thor and Loki than any two characters in Green Lantern.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

RAMA wrote:

---

Seeing the CGI on the big screen and in 3D really makes it obvious just HOW GOOD they really are. There's a real sense of tangibility and detail that doesn't come off as well in stills.

I was really impressed with the 3D in this, considering that the live action stuff is - as far as I know - converted. Not much "pop-up book" effect for the most part. But the 3D of the CG, especially space stuff - the dimensionality of the nebulae as the camera passes through and various energy effects - is stunning.

[Trekker4747]

RAMA wrote:

---

Nope, its simply a color for various emotional states or thought processes, yellow is fear, green is will, etc. The relative strength of each is defined by the mastery and strength of the user, though generally it appears will and fear are the strongest. Its no longer an impurity in the battery.

RAMA

It was a joke based on old(er) interpretations of the character and his powers.

[Cakemixo]

I thought this movie was ok. The crash course on the background left me lost but I have no Green Lantern background so I let that part slide.

OdoWanKenobi wrote:

---

As for the special effects, well, sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I had reservations about the suit. On Earth it looks just fine. On Oa, it sometimes looks like Ryan Reynolds's disembodied head is floating on a CGI background.

Agreed. And that was distracting.

Warped9 wrote:

---

I winder how many folks might be like me. I'm not interested in paying extra to see this in 3D. I'd rather see it in 2D. And since there is no 2d showing in my area I'll have to wait for dvd release.

Does anyone else get headaches watching in 3D? I don't know if it's because I wear glasses under the 3D glasses or if it's something else.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A number of people apparently do. I saw this in 2D the first time because one of the few people I'll make the concession for has problems with 3D. I find it completely natural.

[plynch]

I liked it. It was a movie about GL, one of my favorites all the way back to 1974. It was a big, loud, action movie with not great writng. Oops, that's redundant. C'mon, folks, it's spectacle, whaddya want?

I don't even like action flicks, but I like GL, so I gave it a B.

Plus it was Fathers Day, and I went with my 12 year old son, who loved it. How nice.

[Professor Zoom]

plynch wrote:

---

It was a big, loud, action movie with not great writng. Oops, that's redundant. C'mon, folks, it's spectacle, whaddya want?

Action movies can have great writing. They aren't mutually exclusive things.

[The Lensman]

RAMA wrote:

---

OK so I wrote a long review and lost it in a crash...so needless to say at the moment I'm just going to post a grade...B+

Grrr

Edit: Some quick thoughts: I thought the animated movie was better overall. I saw the movie in 3D and I enjoyed that aspect. Its only my second one but I enjoyed indoctrinating a newcomer to it as well and she was gasping at the beginning! I thought Oa was breathtaking. Weakest part: the ending. More on this tomo...

RAMA

I thought Oa was vastly underwhelming, unfortunately. Didn't care for the Guardians council area or the generic rocky place where the GL's assembled en masse. Both came off as set pieces rather than something believable....Heck, I would've preffered some variation of the council chamber you typically saw in the old comics.

Another problem I had with the movie, though it's not exclusive to this movie, is the overly busy design element. Sometimes less is more. Oa especially had this, as well as the GL suits for all. I would've preferred something a little less busy...but with some detail of course.

Overall, I gave the movie a D+. Unlike, say Iron Man, Reynolds could not shoulder the movie the way Downey did. The love story just felt like something I've seen a billion times, and some of the editing and writing left me shaking my head.

For me I feel like the negatives outweigh the positives. The ending was just awful and I felt like they really needed to cut elsewhere to give us an ending that felt epic. Something to really "Wow!!" the audience and get this franchise going in a big way.

[Valar]

I don't know what movie everyone else saw, I loved it, as did everyone I went to see it with, hell, as I left I heard a lot of people say, "wasn't as bad as all the bitchin on the internet"

Granted, none of my friends read GL comic books, and I thought that First Flight was a better film, but jeesus, everyone on these sites calling it the worst superhero movie ever is engaging in the mother of all hyperbole. It aint perfect, the motivations of the villains is kinda one dimensional, but its fun, its fast paced, the characterisations of the main group of actors is okay and the action is well done, I'd rank it at the same level as Iron man and thor, and the pirates of the carribean movies. I'm totally baffled by all the vitriol and the derision directed at it by fans and critics alike

[DarKush]

Dennis wrote:

---

The scripts for the Iron Man films are slapdash messes, and depend largely on Downey's remarkable talent and charisma for any shred of humanity - subtract him and there's not much to draw people in. There's a lot more going on in terms of recognizable human relationships and interaction in Green Lantern than in most superhero films. Thor is completely vapid in that regard, though Captain America looks promising.

Though I suppose a large percentage of the audience for these things is more interested in debating how far someone can throw a magic hammer than in why anyone would care.

Though the Iron Man movies did rely heavily on RDJ, I think the first movie's plot worked. The second one was all over the place. Whereas with GL I don't agree about more going on regarding human relationships and interactions than other superhero films; so much of stuff was done in a haphazard or stunted manner. There never seemed to be satisfying follow through with GL. Why does Hal's brother not like him? What happened to the family after the birthday party, they completely disappeared. And are Carol and Hal back on or what? Though I don't think every t needed to be crossed, but I wish they had at least dealt with the family situation better. It was one of the better parts of Johns' take on Hal for me. It helped humanize the character in the comics, seeing his strained family relations.

With Iron Man in comparison we got Tony and Pepper's unrequited friendship in the first that turned into a capricious kind of relationship in the second (which I didn't like, but it fit with RDJ's take on Tony). With Thor, we got the well rendered sibling relationship with Thor and Loki, the father v. son with Odin and Thor. Granted more could've been done with Thor and Jane, but I didn't think their relationship was completely unbelievable; I think the actors sold it as best they could with what they had.

When I think about it, almost every comic book movie over the last decade has done just as good or better with human relationships than GL. Some that I don't think did, Superman Returns, Punisher War Zone, Blade Trinity, for starters. My memory is starting to fail me.