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

I sure don't. It's a comic book movie.

 

How unexpected.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

Matine showings are where it's at.

 

1/5.

Absolutely, completely dreadful. I just can't believe how badly it all went down. You had a good cast, a good mythology to play around with, but somewhere in all that the execution of these things lead to an awful, awful, awful final product.

At least part of it for me were the special effects. They were just terrible, in my opinion. It just got worse from there.

 

I just saw it and quite enjoyed much of it.

Was it perfect? Hell no. They needed to dump the Hector Hammond/Tim Robbins as Bill Clinton/Angela Bassett as skinny Amanda Waller plot in its entirety, cast someone who could act as Carol and beef up Sinestro's story to explain the inevitable heel turn.

However, it had some great action sequences, the special effects worked really well overall and there was something really fun about seeing Hal recite the oath and later conjure up the inevitable giant glowing boxing glove.

It really doesn't deserve the bad buzz, especially compared to some other genre movies that are hits.

 

I forgot to be offended that they cast a stick as the Wall.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

If you pay attention to plot and details, it's really a horrible movie.

If you just like action, it's not the worst movie out there.

I don't regret seeing the movie. But I don't think it was very good either, if that makes sense.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

Not really. It makes as much sense as any superhero movie.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

I'm probably late to the party. Oh well.

If this had been the only superhero movie I'd seen in the past few years, or even this year, it might have seemed better. But the market's full of them, and this one just seems so inferior. The main character comes off like a dick for most of the movie and the villains were boring. There's only so much you can do with an origin story, especially since I gather that it's adapted material, but compared to stuff like Iron Man or Batman Begins, this just felt so paint by numbers. The outer space stuff looked pretty, at least.

X-Men was way better. Even Thor, which I felt was just decent, in retrospect looks superior.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

We get it. It can do no wrong because it's a super hero movie or a comic booke movie. (even though there are better comic book movies, we should just continue to lower the bar...just 'cause.)

 

I'm thinkin' the Sinestro scene at the end won't be a fait accomplit when the sequel starts. It's meant to tease something that we'll see happen again, this time in context.

 

^ That is how I felt about it and the only way it makes sense. I concur again with Guy about The Wall. I thought Angela Basset was perfectly cast but they didn't give her anything to do and made her look foolish and weak in the film. The Wall is anything but those things.

 

I forgot she was in the movie till I read the Abin Sur prequel Comic Yesterday. Apparently Amanda had an 80s adventure fighting an Alien trashheap while Abin played guaridan Angel from above and clean up without her noticing him.

Awful comic.

 

She was horribly written and therefor horribly acted by a great actress. Disappointing indeed. Another thing that I forgot...where the hell where the ScienCells? I don't remember seeing them or hearing them mentioned. Parallax/Krona (Rao I hate that movie adjustment) is sent to the Lost Sector (supposedly to one day set up Blackest Night in a third movie I suppose or at least allude to it to GL fans). Shouldn't he have been kept on Oa in a ScienCell and then break out after draining Power Battery energy?

 

She was a minor character used to move the plot forward, largely by providing exposition. She served that purpose well enough; no problem.

Someone pointed out to me that when Hammond read her memories, the flashback was in monochrome except for the blanket covering the corpse of one of her family...which was yellow.

 

^ Yeah I noticed that as well. Just because she was a minor character (hinting a possible larger things though since most fans are aware of her standing in the DCU) doesn't mean she needed to be written as horribly as she was. I didn't say there was a problem either, I just happened to not like her depiction in the movie. I agree if we're talking technically she served her purpose, doesn't mean that I have to like it

 

I thought she was written just fine - what's the problem? She was there to deliver some expository dialogue, and Bassett did it credibly. By "written horribly" I assume what's meant is that if I knew anything about the character from the comics and cared about her I wouldn't have liked it.

It's funny that writers for the sites that were knowingly declaring the sequels "dead" last week are now running columns just as "wisely" enumerating what Warners should do differently (now that a few reasonably sourced statements suggest that a sequel is moving forward. Hitfix, for example:

Link

They go on with other critically fatuous blather - the idea that Lively is "out of her depth" in a comic book movie is laughable to anyone familiar with her other work. Miscast she may be, in this case - not that I think so - but "out of her depth?" Give me a fucking break.

 

Now that assessment of Campbell I would agree with. I thought his work on the film was much stronger than others here did, but there was still a bit of a workmanlike feel to it.

The immense love for the character that you felt with Favreau and Iron Man, or Raimi and Spider-Man (or even Campbell and Zorro) for some reason doesn't quite come through in the same way here.

Those characters were all presented as these wondrous, larger than life, iconic figures, and I'm not sure in this movie if Green Lantern or his world really does.

 

The critics ripping this film apart baffle me. It has flaws, but it is an enjoyable movie overall. I don't think any of us were expecting it to be "The Dark Knight". I dunno. I've seen it twice now and will be seeing it a third time on the weekend. Aside from the gripes I've indicated in the thread I have enjoyed the movie. Campbell was a decent choice for the film in my opinion. It would have been obviously preferable had DC ENT and Warner Bros found a director that had a passion for the character but Campbell WAS a decent find.

 

Warners seems to have started out handling these potential franchises beyond Bats and Supes as Paramount handled the Star Trek films prior to Abrams - and to similar box office results. So they'd be smart not to continue doing it that way.