Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
So I've come home from my packed screener, still wearing my Green Lantern T-Shirt and decided to go ahead and give some 'first blush' opinions on the movie. I've seen worse comic films, I've seen better, this summer already in fact but hey, they tried.
This will contain spoilers, like all our review threads, If you don't want to be spoiled skip this post but do know this: THERE IS NO POST CREDIT SCENE IF YOUR CURIOUS---HOWEVER, THERE IS A SCENE ABOUT 45 SECONDS INTO THE CREDITS.
The movie opens with a narration about what the GLC is, what it's comprised of, how many sectors it covers and just what it is they fear: Parallax. How a noble Lantern managed to trap and entomb this entity in a far off sector of space :cut to our first scene:
At this point we open on a small moon where a crash landed alien ship is and 3 survivors are walking the surface. Their weight causes a hole to open in the surface and they fall through, down into the moon itself. As they stumble up they realize they are in a cavern and come face to face with the just described Paralax. Parallax is able to abosorb their fear and break free of his prison :Six Months Later:
We jump to OA, meet Sinestro, see a brief shot of the planet. He contacts Abin Sur whose on a rescue mission to help vicitims of Parallax whose been roaming the galaxy amassing power and destroying civilizations. Parallax finds Sur, attacks, mortally wounding him and he takes off for "the nearest inhabited world" :cut to Hal Jordan waking up next to a babe:
We meet Hal, he goes to Ferris, we meet Carol and are shown a scene of why Hal is fearless, brave, couragous, stupid or all of the above.
^^^END SPOILERS^^^END SPOILERS^^^^END SPOILERS
I really don't intend to do a full play-by-play, my feelings are that the movie is choppy, uneven and at times unsure of what it's trying to be. Is it taking the material serious and giving us a movie that is intense and serious OR is it going to be a rom/com/action campy flick? There are times when I felt it was working then abruptly shifted gears in tone.
I know on this site and a few others the Thor comparisons were made early based just on the plot synopsis and having seen the movie I think they are there in a few other areas. Sadly, they didn't put it together as well as Thor(and Thor wasn't perfect per se) but Thor did do it better.
Hector's Father, a senator=Odin
Hector=Loki
Hal and Thor are opposites: Earthman to Alien world, Godly alien to Earth
The movie needed more character development, badly imo. I don't buy Hal's friend in the movie as someone that would be close pals with Hal. No chemistry.
The one area of the film I was surprised about was Blake Lively as Carol honestly. She didn't look like Carol but I bought her hard nosed, steel reserve attitude that Blake brought to her. I did feel like Carol and Hal had a past.
Hammond has one really big action sequence near the end but I never fully bought into him as "evil" per se. Again, were they going for the sympathetic tragedy angle with him?
The movie kept telling me Hal was irresponsible, reckless and a possible aloof player but I never SAW those things. One chick in bed doesn't make you a player. Being late to work the one time we saw isn't irresponsible. He wasn't reckless in the faux dog fight, it's his job, like he said to "push the limits and test the prototype".
The screener was in 3-D and it was fairly effective for at least half the movie.
How was the CGI? He worked in more places than it didn't, I'll say that. They did manage to clean up a lot of it as most of us suspected but sadly with that much really alien landscaping and creatures when it's all there in a clump it shows in this case.
My girl-friend that I saw it with made the comment about Parallax at the end that she's seen that affect before, in FFour2. Which didn't cross my mind but really she's right. A giant malevolent force destroying civilizations as it absorbs them in it's mass to gain power & strength. It's seen doing this in the trailer so it's not a spoiler imo.
Summary: Forced, Uneven, Lacks Good Flow, Disjointed but good action scenes, some good 3-D for a change(cough Pirates,Priest).
^^^
Honestly the above sums my feelings up very accurately as well.
One spoilerish comment:
The ending scene (for me) just came out of nowhere. After hearing Hals speech to the Guardians and praising him for a job well done/reminding Sinestro of the Latern Ring's ability to choose corectly - he just goes off and puts on the Yellow/fear ring? I the original GL continuity, I believe Sinestro was expelled and crafted the yellow ring himself for use in revenge. I would have lliked to SEE something like that rather then a quick end clip of him doning the ring and having the uniiform turn yellow.
FRIDAY 5PM UPDATE: Both Green Lantern ($24M Friday, $60+M weekend) and Mr. Popper's Penguins ($6M Friday, $18M weekend) look on target right now. Refined numbers later.
Are they? That article you quote doesn't seem to suggest that:
But those numbers mean falling stars in Hollywood. The picture had well-known actor Ryan Reynolds in it, yet looks like it can't better Thor's recent $65.7M opening weekend starring a complete unknown.
The more important figure is that the budget of this film was almost double that of Thor (AFAIK), so it needs to have decent legs to be as successful as that.
The ending scene (for me) just came out of nowhere. After hearing Hals speech to the Guardians and praising him for a job well done/reminding Sinestro of the Latern Ring's ability to choose corectly - he just goes off and puts on the Yellow/fear ring?
FRIDAY 5PM UPDATE: Both Green Lantern ($24M Friday, $60+M weekend) and Mr. Popper's Penguins ($6M Friday, $18M weekend) look on target right now. Refined numbers later.
That's the writer's opinion, and can be read as a commentary on Reynolds' appeal as the movie itself - the article goes on to also discuss Jim Carrey's waning box office apeal (hence, "falling stars") .
The numbers are facts.
And yes, Warners is very happy with this. The studio was worried enough that they didn't even float an expectation - which they would have lowballed - and the business professionals (as opposed to, say, writers for comic book sites) - were projecting more like 50 million dollars. At no point did anyone in the know expect an opening better than this one.
Bandying putative budgets versus costs versus box office is fun but it's armchair quarterbacking. The budget was 150 million, with additional work negative costs hit around 160 million, they may have spent 100 million to promote this. They're fine. I know people were rooting for this to flop, but...better luck next time.
^^ Yes he did...but Dennis point is that Vaughn, Goodman, and the actors were more responsible for the film part than Millar was. He was a consultant I believe.
Yes, the fact that the movie was made by the director, writers, actors and crew is not open for debate or parsing.
The business is full of "consultants;" Gene Roddenberry was a consultant on films where the only interest the filmmakers had in him was the use of his name. "Consultant" = sinecure most of the time.
So do you think this is doing well enough that DC might start expanding their movie roster with more hero(ines) like the Flash, Wonder Woman, or Green Arrow?
I don't care either way, I like talking the numbers and don't think it has legs but I have no emotional investment about the matter - I'd have to actual money on it or being involved in a project to care in that way (which is also why I don't care about or understand team sports).
It was a bit distracting at times. Not only does it course through the "veins" on the suit, nearly all the time, but several times little sparks of energy are flaring off the mask while he's talking.
This movie imo, falls into the mediocrity range of comic films like Fantastic Four or the first Ang Lee Hulk movie. It has it's stretches where it feels like a nice adaptation then shifts in tone for a sequence or two and just doesn't click.
Another thing I left out due to being tired I guess last night was:
When Hal, as Green Lantern, first approaches Carol in her office he begins speaking in this deeper, gravely voice and the audience burst out laughing...not in a good way. There is no way that was meant to be funny, him going all Bale as Batman vocally.
The GL I've always read hasn't been an intentionally funny book, like say wise cracking Peter Parker. I'm sure that has to do with my problem with the scene. Misplaced humor. Just my opinion.
I went B. It was a fun superhero flick with sci-fi overtones. I think it could have been improved by making the universe a bit bigger or having more stuff on Oa. A sequel with more Sinestro would be welcome.
Haven't paid much attention to this movie till now but from what I've seen, the eye candy just ain't up to snuff. Other than Ryan Reynolds of course. Sounds like a misfire. Too bad, this had the potential to be a good franchise. (And I wouldn't bet against financial success and sequels, either. The international box office doesn't care how good or bad these kinds of movies are, which is why we're getting another Tron sequel. )
...the filmmakers mock their own bid for seriousness with a jokey, self-conscious attitude elsewhere that, far from providing knowing comic relief, merely saps the picture of gravitas.
Ugh. If there's one thing I hate in a sci fi movie, it's campy humor. (Humor that is part of the in-universe setting, not commenting from the outside, is another thing - I like to see that.)
All comic book characters are inherently silly. A guy shooting spiderwebs from his wrist is no less silly than some guy getting a green ring that powers a lantern that lets him have whatever he wants. Magic rings and magic lanterns have been staples of fantasy fiction for longer than I care to contemplate.
But if you're doing a "silly" story, you need to have the courage of your convictions. Take the damn ring and lantern and believe in it, and make the audience believe in it. If you have such contempt for the material that you need to make fun of it, make a different movie instead.
Sounds like Reynold's performance ain't all that either (but the problem might be how the character was written and how he was directed - he certainly could play the Luke Skywalker type character if called upon to.)
Reynolds looks alternately flabbergasted and self-satisfied, providing little emotional bandwidth for a hero whose sense of wonder the viewer is never allowed to access.
I like Millar's comic work, for the most part, but I think the Kick-Ass movie is kind of overrated. Everyone seems to love it, and I don't think it quite earns that love.
Maybe it's incompetence rather than campiness - I did get a chance to watch that scene, and yuck, whatever they were going for, they didn't accomplish it, unless they're trying to make the audience cringe.
Anyway, I feel sympathy for GL fans who are having their hopes dashed by this mess. I can only imagine how bad I'd have felt if the news on Star Trek 09 had sounded dire before its release, or if the news about Captain America and (to a lesser extent) Conan did right now. But I've never been into any of the DC characters.
I think I'll be giving this one a miss, might catch it when it's on DVD or TV. I know I mught get killed for saying this but the studios are starting to move into the B list of comic book heroes. GL might be well known in the States, but aside from regonising the name and it's a ring that gives him power I know next to nothing about this particular character. Oh sure I could name plenty of other comic book heroes but outside of the big names
Superman
Batman
Spiderman
The X-Men
Fantastic Four
GL is relatively unkown, it hasn't quite entered the public consious as much as some. I think Captain America: The First Avenger might suffer the same when it hits the foreign markets.
But then again perhaps being unkown can help as much as hinder.
So do you think this is doing well enough that DC might start expanding their movie roster with more hero(ines) like the Flash, Wonder Woman, or Green Arrow?
That's what I'm curious about. I'm waiting to see what the actual weekend take will be as well as seeing if this film has legs. As I said somewhat in my review, I don't think the film did enough to establish the tentpole of a franchise or to get casual fans excited in the DCU or wanting to see more DC heroes. I don't think it will bomb, not from the early numbers people have put up on this board, but I wonder if it will underperform and that in itself my scare away WB/DC from pursuing other heroes. I do hope that Flash and Wonder Woman at least get a shot. I doubt we'll see Green Arrow in anything solo, maybe as part of the Justice League, or Smallville: The Movie .
If there's one thing I hate in a sci fi movie, it's campy humor. (Humor that is part of the in-universe setting, not commenting from the outside, is another thing - I like to see that.)
I know I mught get killed for saying this but the studios are starting to move into the B list of comic book heroes. GL might be well known in the States, but aside from regonising the name and it's a ring that gives him power I know next to nothing about this particular character. Oh sure I could name plenty of other comic book heroes but outside of the big names
Superman
Batman
Spiderman
The X-Men
Fantastic Four
GL is relatively unkown, it hasn't quite entered the public consious as much as some. I think Captain America: The First Avenger might suffer the same when it hits the foreign markets.
But then again perhaps being unkown can help as much as hinder.
The news clip in Kegg's post also made fun of the fact that they're making a movie about a relatively unknown character. I don't know why though, since it's nice to see something other than another Batman/Superman remake.
I've just been to see GL and all I can say is wow!
Wow!200 million bucks and still they couldn't afford a decent script!
Such a tepid,cliche-ridden pile of nonsense.It's movies like this that will kill the superhero genre and probably rightly so.I find it hard to believe that a movie about a guy that can fly etc. could be so absolutely joyless,it beggars belief.
Saw it last night as a GL fan I was disappointed it was not as bad as I feared but not as good as I had hoped.
They explained a lot of stuff for the newcomers however it was so quick it didn't give enough time for things to sink in for people who are not familiar with the source material. Some of the CGI was mediocre at times on Oa at certain points it looks like Ryan Reynolds head was floating around in a CG background. The editing was not very good it looks like a lot was taken out to meet the run time I wonder if a directors cut would be better in that department.
The character design is hideous while the suits look good moving around and animated in a still shot they look terrible I really hope the comics don't change themselves to look like this movie (I hate it when they do that). The movie almost suffers the same problem that Spiderman 3 had too much going on.
Ryan Reynolds did make a good Hal Jordan and Mark Strong was awesome as Sinestro. If they had just slowed things down and developed a few characters the movie would have been so much better. The movie had the potential to be great but they blew it something I had feared would happen to Iron Man.
I don't think these companies realize how damaging a bad movie can be to their properties I'd rather have no movie at all than have my favorite characters associated with garbage.
Sounds like a misfire. Too bad, this had the potential to be a good franchise. (And I wouldn't bet against financial success and sequels, either. The international box office doesn't care how good or bad these kinds of movies are, which is why we're getting another Tron sequel. 
.
