Bubonic,
I liked Thor well enough to see it three times in the theatre but that doesn't blind me to the fact that it's not a particularly good film. It's better than Iron Man 2 and the Incredible Hulk but that's not really saying much.
Thor is a film that's just "good enough". It's meant to introduce the character for Avengers, not to actually tell a real Thor story...and you can feel that with every decision that's made in the film.
But again, that cast carries it to the point where you can look past it's faults.
It seems that Lantern is the exact same thing, except that it doesn't cheap on the action and it doesn't look, in fact, cheap. Say what you will about Thor but Marvel Studios' cut corners with film, in the money department...and you can feel it. It's not a particularly good looking film at all.
Devin Faraci said an interesting thing on twitter yesterday. He believes that Thor and Lantern are essentially the same, lazy film. But, he said that the visual effects and the love story of Lantern are far superior to Thor's.
Those two aspects are a big thing for me because the love story of Thor only works because of Portman and Hemsworth's chemistry. That's it. It's not particularly written well at all but both of the actors play it as a "first date/flirtation" love story...which I bought but there should've been more of it.
If Lantern has better visual effects and a better love story, then it's already better than Thor, in my opinion.
And yet, it's getting killed....
