The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 1

[The Morningstar]

Because Thor was executed well. It's all about execution. Thor had compelling characters, it had a lot of emotion in the Father and two sons relationship. The lead character was likable and the villain was great.

Seems to me Green Lantern just doesn't execute. Apparently it's lead character is bland and poorly characterised (just like the comics! har har), the villain is laughable. That's the death of a superhero movie right there. When the titular character is crap... AND the villain is crap? It's game over.

 

[Crimson King]

Well, that's the question. When a few reviews I've read basically say that they have the same flaws, and yet one is getting killed and the other got a pass, then what is it that has everyone loathing Lantern and not Thor?

I think the answer to your question is that there are degrees of failure and success. If GL fails in the same areas Thor did, but it actually has a higher degree of failure, then the reviews will reflect that.

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

The execution of Thor is a matter of opinion, just like the execution of Lantern is a matter of opinion. I liked Thor a lot but I don't think it was executed well at all...

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

They didn't try to take this material seriously, that's where they failed. It's starting to sound like Fantastic Four. If they make a joke out of such unbelievable material, audiences won't take it seriously either.

They needed to go the serious sci-fi approach.


Attaching Ryan Reynolds to star in this thing immediately took away a lot of credibility too, and made it harder to take this thing seriously. He was a miscast for Hal.

 

[J.Howlett]

kingmatte,

Interesting point.

 

[Suzanne78]

It's been disheartening to me to read the incoming reviews about GL. I'd had my doubts about the movie (RR as Hal, Blake L., "Phantom Menance"-like CGI...um, Blake Lively...) but I wanted to check it out, keep an open mind. The reviews have made me a little hesitant to go see it this weekend. There are several movie people on Twitter who say GL doesn't deserve the shellacking it's getting... Although their overall response to the movie is mixed.

I don't really get why people are using this opportunity to bash Thor though. Sure, there were things that could've been better about the movie, but overall, the critical reception was better, and it was in big part to Hemsworth and Hiddleston nailing their roles. I agree with the other posters who said it would probably be a much different story if the Loki/Thor/Odin relationship hadn't been present in the movie, Thor wouldn't have been nearly as compelling.

More than a couple of reviews have said that there's a big problem with the writing and character development in this movie, among other issues. That's Green Lantern's problem, not Thor's...

It feels like this thread's getting more and more hostile thr further it gets and as more reviews come out. But I'm not necessarily not going to see GL. it might not be right away, but hopefully sometime in the next couple of weeks.

 

[J.Howlett]

Man of Tomorrow,

But that's just it. Some have said that they do take the material serious, even with the wit that's apparent in the film.

I personally thought the lack of seriousness is what killed Iron Man 2 for me. Thor could've been more serious but it found a pretty okay balance.

 

[HighFivingMF]

They didn't try to take this material seriously, that's where they failed. It's starting to sound like Fantastic Four. If they make a joke out of such unbelievable material, audiences won't take it seriously either.

They needed to go the serious sci-fi approach.

They do take it seriously when the scenes require it to be serious.

Also, the two things you've constantly complained about concerning this movie are the suits and Reynolds... But they're both the only things visible in your avatar. I don't get it?

 

[dark_b]

remember when i complained that Sinestro should be the main villain? and you all told me that he should be for the sequel?
then i said that you should always make the first movie like its your last movie. make the best movie you can make at that time.

so now i am reading that the villain is a stupid cloud. if this doesnt get a sequel we will know that Sinestro teh villain would be great since Strong is a good actor and nailed Sinestro.

this is what you get by holding back.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Man of Tomorrow,

But that's just it. Some have said that they do take the material serious, even with the wit that's apparent in the film.

I personally thought the lack of seriousness is what killed Iron Man 2 for me. Thor could've been more serious but it found a pretty okay balance.

Really?

Some of the reviews are saying they went the zany joke route with the typical Ryan Reynolds shtick for most of the film. Problem is, most of the humor fell flat too.

Only a small portion was on Oa and involved those sci-fi elements, it was the Star Wars Cantina... without the Death Star.


I think the FIRST trailer was a really exact representation of the actual film.

When it was panned, WB panicked and suddenly switched gears... trying to disguise this thing as a Sci-Fi epic.


However, the film was still the Van Wilder in Space we saw with the first trailer.. They clearly took the wrong approach to this material and they realized it.

 

[The Morningstar]

Morningstar,

The execution of Thor is a matter of opinion, just like the execution of Lantern is a matter of opinion. I liked Thor a lot but I don't think it was executed well at all...

Well Thor obviously was executed better... that's why it wasn't completely shredded by critics.

The complaints about GL that stand out to me is the Hal Jordan is just uninteresting and bland. Say what you want about Thor, but he definitely wasn't uninteresting and bland. Plus Reynolds is merely getting "It's not his fault". Hemsworth was getting praise from pretty much everyone.

Then the villains. Going by reviews Parralax is an unscary "turd cloud" and Hector is laughable. Thor had Loki... who was amazing.

When your titular character and your villain(s) ain't up to scratch... that's the death of a superhero movie.

With Thor people could obviously overlook it's flaws because of the great performances by pretty much everyone. And it had an emotional heart people could resonate with in the father son dynamic.

Green Lantern apparently has none of that. No emotion, no connection to the characters. That's why it has failed to execute.

 

[J.Howlett]

Man of Tomorrow,

And other reviews have said exactly the opposite...so...?

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Okay.

 

[Micromind]

Imagine if they had Sinetro as a villain, the critics would be saying - "It comes a no surprise that an alien with a name like Sinestro eventually becomes villain, so predictable."

 

[HighFivingMF]

However, the film was still the Van Wilder in Space we saw with the first trailer..

No, it wasn't.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

so now i am reading that the villain is a stupid cloud. if this doesnt get a sequel we will know that Sinestro teh villain would be great since Strong is a good actor and nailed Sinestro.

I'm seeing it tonight, but from my friends who already saw it... they said Strong's Sinestro was really one dimensional.

All he did was make speeches pretty much. There was no range there.

The Hal/Sinestro relationship was barely in this.

 

[Crockett]

My short impression of what I thought.

The CG has improved and looked quite good, the scenes with Hal making constructions with the ring and being up on the outer-space and interacting with other green lanterns members is definitely the highlights of the movie, I wish we could've see more since too much time spent on Hal being on Earth. The cast are just passable.

I think the main problem is the balacing of the tone, it's the mixing between the serious and fun like Iron Man but for some reason it didn't work here. I was worried about the transition of Campbell's previous movie to this and it felt like he doesn't know how to handle the movie who has a big mythology. It could be the script too, the story line felt incoherent and clunky for the most part. I did even enjoyed the movie even with its shortcomings, but I'm quite perplexed that the end result is a mixed bag when it's based on a comic book which has so much potential.

 

[The Morningstar]

Really?

Some of the reviews are saying they went the zany joke route with the typical Ryan Reynolds shtick for most of the film. Problem is, most of the humor fell flat too.

Only a small portion was on Oa and involved those sci-fi elements, it was the Star Wars Cantina... without the Death Star.


I think the FIRST trailer was a really exact representation of the actual film.

When it was panned, WB panicked and suddenly switched gears... trying to disguise this thing as a Sci-Fi epic.


However, the film was still the Van Wilder in Space we saw with the first trailer.. They clearly took the wrong approach to this material and they realized it.

I kinda had that feeling all along. That the first trailer we saw was an accurate representation of the film. WB saw that the trailer was ridiculed, then tried to fool all of us into thinking the movie was something different.

 

[Mysteryman]

Timberlake was second in line? Warner Bros. just doesn't get it. They really don't. It's like they're trying to take a shortcut to make a really epic film...and you can't do that. Spend the time, find the right people to make your movie come together. Marvel Studios should have taught them that by now.

Timberlake was third,
Bradley Cooper was second.

 

[MadVillainy]

remember when i complained that Sinestro should be the main villain? and you all told me that he should be for the sequel?
then i said that you should always make the first movie like its your last movie. make the best movie you can make at that time.

so now i am reading that the villain is a stupid cloud. if this doesnt get a sequel we will know that Sinestro teh villain would be great since Strong is a good actor and nailed Sinestro.

this is what you get by holding back.

There are other good GL villians that wouldve been better than Parallax that arent Sinestro

Manhunters wouldve been cool, maybe Krona...i cant think of any others

 

[dark_b]

I'm seeing it tonight, but from my friends who already saw it... they said Strong's Sinestro was really one dimensional.

All he did was make speeches pretty much. There was no range there.

The Hal/Sinestro relationship was barely in this.

thats because this movie had to be short for kids.

imagine the same movie but without the 70's porn villain and cloud-man . but insted SInestro. on Oah you spend 30 minutes building up SInestro and Hal. then you bring everythign down on earth as an Epic fight between SInestro and Hal.

the reviews are pathetic bad and the 8 clips do nothing for me. but i swear to god that i will watch GL in ....................august

 

[dark_b]

There are other good GL villians that wouldve been better than Parallax that arent Sinestro

Manhunters wouldve been cool, maybe Krona...i cant think of any others

i would even be happy if one of the blue Guardians(on the big chairs) was the villain.

yeah i know the story from parallax.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Well Thor obviously was executed better... that's why it wasn't completely shredded by critics.

It's still a matter of opinion.

 

[The Morningstar]

It's still a matter of opinion.

The opinion of the vast majority.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The opinion of the vast majority.

I'm just saying you can't point to that in this particular instance while ignoring it in the case of something like TDK. Either you think the critical consensus is relevant or you don't.