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

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Precisely. And if Parallax actually has the power for FTL travel, which by itself is kinda preposterous, he should have been able to devour the entire population of Earth in less than a second...etc, etc.

And which part of this is less plausible and less logical than what happens every month in the comics?

None of it. Not one bit.

If Green Lantern can't be a successful movie, then it can't - but this movie was observant and faithful to the spirit and most of the details of the Green Lantern comic. Maybe they need to make it something else to succeed on the big screen. Maybe they need to cast Keanu Reeves as Kyle Rayner or something, or Woody Harrellson as Guy Gardner blowing everything the fuck up.

I liked this one. I'm going to see it in 3D again tomorrow evening.

 

[Gaith]

The Asteroid Belt ISN"T between the Earth and the Sun.

?!?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new movie that's less science-friendly than The Core!

 

[Admiral_Young]

@Professor Zoom...I wouldn't call "Green Lantern" "X3" awful...it has it's flaws, most of which you mentioned in your post but I would see and have seen "Green Lantern" multiple times. "X3" I've seen twice and refuse to watch again.

 

[Dream]

Anyone else they will replace Hal with John Stewart as the GL for the Justice League, if that movie ever gets made?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Woody Harrelson as Guy Gardner blowing everything the fuck up.

Nah, if they have Guy in a sequel, I'm thinking Christopher Meloni.

If Elliot Stabler were a GL, he'd be Guy.

 

[Guy Gardener]

What about Damien Lewis from Life?

Quite the talented ginger.

 

[Jax]

The movie is set to drop by 70% in its 2nd weekend and with oversea $$$ still to get going, GL better use that ring to conjuer up some fans . Its North America gross will be around $91 million so at this rate it might only make $130ish at best so the worldwide total is now very important.

The budget was always too high IMO for an unknown comic book hero to the mainstream public.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, Deadline estimates closer to 60% for the weekend - the Friday drop was just over 70%. Not great - FC dropped 56% in the second week; Thor less than 50%. GL held up well during the week, so that helps.

 

[plynch]

Makes all the sense in the world, for Sinestro.

(I'm stealing from a reviewer)

Not the Sinestro as we see him in this film. He's the best character in a goodness sense. Internal logic doesn't support him donning the ring. Some hints needed to be dropped about a character flaw, or even showing him feeling seduced by it a la Bilbo.

IIRC, you just see him putting it on. Why? So he can become evil for the sequel, is all. I liked the move in general for its not-so-pretentiousness, but the Sinestro-ring thing did need a touch of characte develpment to explain it, IMO.

 

[Shazam!]

Unless the Sinestro putting the ring on scene is like, two-thirds into the sequel.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Precisely. And if Parallax actually has the power for FTL travel, which by itself is kinda preposterous, he should have been able to devour the entire population of Earth in less than a second...etc, etc.

And which part of this is less plausible and less logical than what happens every month in the comics?

None of it. Not one bit.

Yeah... it happens in EVERY comic EVERY month?

I'm sorry, Dennis, but, come on, not EVERY comic is this stupid. Sure, there are stupid comics with shallow characterization, and if you want to compare this movie to shallow poorly comics, fine. But there ARE good comics out there, like there are GOOD comic book movies.

If Green Lantern can't be a successful movie, then it can't - but this movie was observant and faithful to the spirit and most of the details of the Green Lantern comic.

And I agree with that actually. The details of the corps, etc, were accurate. But, movie making isn't just about getting facts right--well, except where the asteroid belt is--it's about character and story telling.

Maybe they need to make it something else to succeed on the big screen. Maybe they need to cast Keanu Reeves as Kyle Rayner or something, or Woody Harrellson as Guy Gardner blowing everything the fuck up.

Ryan Reynolds isn't to blame. The script (which seems to have had a lot of hands) and the direction are to blame. They didn't need to change casts, but change directors.

I liked this one. I'm going to see it in 3D again tomorrow evening.

I'm glad. I'm going to go see Super 8.

@Professor Zoom...I wouldn't call "Green Lantern" "X3" awful...it has it's flaws, most of which you mentioned in your post but I would see and have seen "Green Lantern" multiple times. "X3" I've seen twice and refuse to watch again.

You might not. But, I would. I can't believe you saw X3 TWICE? Once wasn't punishment enough?! It took you TWO TIMES to refuse to watch it again? I don't get that.

And, yeah, I do think Green Lantern is worse. X3's biggest crime was character assassination. (And Wolverine deciding to fly, or bike back across the US to warn the X-men, rather than... I don't know, making a phone call.)

Green Lantern was just idiotic. They took all the beats of every other action/comic book movie (and not even the good beats) and put them into Green Lantern. For god's sake, they even had that moment where the Hero just barely saves a civilian who has to be told to RUN! Really? REALLY? A giant CGI cloud is approaching you and you STILL need to be told to RUN?

 

[Captain Craig]

No, Deadline estimates closer to 60% for the weekend - the Friday drop was just over 70%. Not great - FC dropped 56% in the second week; Thor less than 50%. GL held up well during the week, so that helps.

Deadlines early estimates, which typically tend to be on the high side, show a 63% drop. The way GL has been going it's going to be more like 64-65%. So you saying it's closer to 60 is as accurate as me saying it's closer to 65%, which I'd be it's going to be. Thus putting it in league with Ang Lee's Hulk and Jonah Hex aka bad company.

 

[T'Baio]

@Professor Zoom...I wouldn't call "Green Lantern" "X3" awful...it has it's flaws, most of which you mentioned in your post but I would see and have seen "Green Lantern" multiple times. "X3" I've seen twice and refuse to watch again.

I hate to say it, but Green Lantern is just as bad and stupid as X3.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

Saw this for the second time yesterday. While it's far from perfect, I came away feeling better about the movie than I did after the first. The look is great, the CGI uniform works well on screen and in motion. The casting and performances are fine. Gave it a B- in the poll, largely because of the screenplay. It hits the notes of the Green Lantern origin as filtered through Emerald Dawn and Secret Origin, but feels more like an uninspired cover of that song rather than the stronger original.

 

[UssGlenn]

In addition to the misplacement of the asteroid belt, it was also the super dense kind. Of course dense asteroid belts are a staple in fiction, still annoying though. This one seemed particularly narrow and dense however.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

That it was the asteroid belt never occurred to me. The field covers a limited area and the size of the sun when Hal looks at it is larger than it would appear from Earth rather than smaller. More like what one would see near Venus. I'd guess it's the rocky remnants of a comet with all the volatiles boiled away. Yeah, it's too dense to be that either, but it's not the asteroid belt.

 

[StarTrek1701]

That it was the asteroid belt never occurred to me. The field covers a limited area and the size of the sun when Hal looks at it is larger than it would appear from Earth rather than smaller. More like what one would see near Venus. I'd guess it's the rocky remnants of a comet with all the volatiles boiled away. Yeah, it's too dense to be that either, but it's not the asteroid belt.

Then what was it?

 

[davejames]

If Green Lantern can't be a successful movie, then it can't - but this movie was observant and faithful to the spirit and most of the details of the Green Lantern comic.

I think the key is that it's faithful to the spirit of the simple, cornball original comics. Those are the ones I grew up on, and so I never have a problem when a movie like this (or Superman or Spidey or the Rocketeer) goes for the same kind of simple, cheesy tone.

Of course today's comics are MUCH more intricate and complex, and I get the impression that's what most people expect from the movies as well.

 

[Skywalker]

I finally got around to seeing this earlier (well, yesterday, now). I thought it was a decent, by-the-numbers origin story. It wasn't awful, but it wasn't all that remarkable, either. The theater I went to was only showing it in 3D, but I thought this movie used it fairly well, particularly on Oa.

Ryan Reynolds was enjoyable, though I still think he would have made a better Wally West. Still, Hal Jordan is not an especially deep or complex character, and Reynolds did a good job of adding some layers to him. I also thought Blake Lively did well as Carol Ferris, and Mark Strong's Sinestro was also pretty good.

My only gripe with Sinestro is that his motivation for taking the yellow power ring at the end felt pretty flimsy, since the threat had been defeated and no real schism between him and the Guardians had ever developed. I would have liked his storyline better if the Guardians had refused to give him the ring, and then he took it by force after deciding he was the only one willing to do whatever it took to stop Parallax. And then during the final battle he fails, and Hal Jordan proves that he's the better man by destroying Parallax--which just enrages Sinestro further, given his contempt for Jordan.

I also would have liked to see Hal spend more time on Oa, befriending Tomar-Re and earning Kilowog's grudging respect. I say that because I thought it would have been nice to see them, and only them, go with Hal to try and save Earth. But of course both would have to be incapacitated during the battle, leaving Hal to stop Parallax on his own.

The movie gets bonus points for calling out that ridiculous mask, though. I can accept the conceit in comic books, but in movies they're pretty ridiculous.

Final grade: B-

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If Green Lantern can't be a successful movie, then it can't - but this movie was observant and faithful to the spirit and most of the details of the Green Lantern comic.

I think the key is that it's faithful to the spirit of the simple, cornball original comics. Those are the ones I grew up on, and so I never have a problem when a movie like this (or Superman or Spidey or the Rocketeer) goes for the same kind of simple, cheesy tone.

Of course today's comics are MUCH more intricate and complex, and I get the impression that's what most people expect from the movies as well.

Nah, I still read Green Lantern from time to time - this movie is right in line with Johns' take on GL, which is not surprising considering the level of his involvement with it. In fact, there's more of his Green Lantern here than there is of the 1960s version.

Nor is there a single way in which a somewhat more successful movie like Thor can be described as "intricate" or "complex" in its storytelling; the movie's almost schematic in its simplicity, and about as cornball as you can get. So that's not an explanation for the complaints about GL (and of course, you cite Spidey as another example of a movie with a "cheesy" tone, and its popularity humbles all but Nolan's Batman and maybe Iron Man in its success - every other superhero movie is trailing those three by a long distance now).

Of course, there were comparisons between Star Wars and GL, in terms of the scope and tone, before it was released - and that might not have been a good model for them. If a space opera movie with the broad tone, goofy humor and heavy-handed dichotomy between the good and bad characters that Star Wars is memorable for were released now, it'd likely be savaged.