Yeah, that bothered me that Parallax was able to defeat a pack of seasoned GLs but was beaten by one newbie.

Both GL cartoon movies were way better than this.

Beginner's luck?

“My mom’s a teacher in this school and she’s a lot better [Green Lantern] than you, too. On Monday nights, my mom tutors and Mrs. Quinn takes care of me. She’s a better [Green Lantern] than you, too. And Frankie, my swimming teacher and Gus, my T-ball coach, are better [Green Lanterns] than you, too.”

Ultimately, they needed a stronger focus for the film. As is, they were trying to establish Hal Jordan and his life, his new identity as Green Lantern, the Green Lantern Corps, Parallax, and Hector Hammond all at once. As a result, practically every one of them got short shrift.

It feels like Geoff Johns was the influence behind this. Not just for the concepts, but because, despite bringing Hal Jordan back in the comics, he has clearly been more intrigued by the corps and the concept of the rings than with his starring character. And Warner got behind that because they saw an opportunity to visually amaze with the film in a way similar to Avatar.

Now, I have no filmmaking experience, but I would have left the corps aspects of this movie for a later film. This film should have been about Hal Jordan and his personal journey from d-bag to hero. Parallax should not even have been here. To undertand Parallax, you have to understand the concept of the Green Lanterns and the casual viewer is being asked to come to an understanding of both at the same time. This should have been Hal Jordan's journey to being Green Lantern. Hector Hammond could have remained as the villain of the piece, tying in his origins to Hal's gaining of the ring. This would have allowed the filmmaker's to devote more time to developing the character, making a more well-rounded villain and, with the shared history he and Jordan clearly had, much of which seemed excised from the final cut of the film (assuming it was all there to begin with), would have enhanced the journey of Hal Jordan rather than seemingly like an anti-climactic afterthought.

Having the adventure be Earth-based would have provided a better sense of wonder at the visuals, contrasting with the normality of the planet they were occuring on, rather than having it contrasting with other visuals as on Oa, which downplays the uniqueness of what the character can do. Then the teaser at the end could have been of the corps, with the promise of further exploration in a sequel.

As is, this movie was the equivalent of Iron Man 2 if it had also been weighed down with the task of explaining who Tony Stark is and where he got the armor from.

The end credits scene? Really? Come out of left field much?

I saw a late showing last night and enjoyed it. Not the best comic book movie ever but nowhere near the bottom of the barrel.

The constructs were really fun and creative (even the race car). I have only a passing familiarity with GL through the Justice League cartoons and comics (I was more of a Marvel kid growing up) but I know that the comics have had goofy stuff like that too. I just thought it was fun.

I thought they set the world up well, Ryan Reynolds made the part enjoyable and I like that Carol called him out on his mask not really hiding his identity. I was prepared to roll my eyes that she didn't recognize him and they acknowledged it.

Anyway, I think it's getting way too much hate...especially from the purist nerds. It was a fun movie.

Retarded. Talk about a scene that wasn't built up to, nor did it make any dramatic sense, nor was it "earned" in any way.

A bunch of nerds in our audience started cheering. The rest of us stared at them like they'd seen another movie or something. Hollywood needs to stop listening to fanboys. They accept any old swill.

I had GL movie cash lying around and mustered up the courage to see it today in 3D. While I wouldn't put it in the "train wreck" category of stuff like Wild, Wild, West and Batman & Robin, GL is certainly a mess of a film. Everything felt rushed and nothing memorable happened. I think I'll probably forget what I saw later this evening.

The f/x were fairly decent and some of the 3D as well. But the dialogue is atrocious. I can't remember exactly how this line went, but which one of the screenwriters wrote "You're too afraid to even admit you're afraid."? That line landed with a gigantic cringe induced thud. Hector Hammond didn't quite work either.

The Oa parts were well done and Sinestro was one of the few bright spots of the film. I didn't mind Ryan Reynold's portrayal of Hal Jordan either. He had a horrible script to work with.

The end credits scene was definitely out of left field since there was no build up to that at all. I would like to see a sequel though with a new director that won't put in such a lazy effort.

Having known what the end credit scene was before seeing the film, I wondered how it would get there yet it never did. You could make a insignificant connection to why it happened, but it was such a superficial attempt at something that Marvel's been doing.

Great post.

While I enjoyed the film more than Super X did I agree with an awful lot of his post. Although I liked the Oa/Corps stuff, there was too much jammed in. I don't care for Geoff Johns' comic writing at all -- his writing is sloppy and relies on shock value more than anything, he really helped turn me off most DC Comics that aren't by Grant Morrison and is responsible for crap like the needless return of Barry Allen etc. I don't care at all for his whole green/red/blue/polka-dot rings mythology and Parallax has never been a particularly interesting villain. GL doesn't have a great rogue's gallery but certainly many of the weaknesses of the film were Geoff Johns trying to shoehorn HIS version of GL into a movie.

Can someone tell me what the end credit sequence is? Does Batman show up or something?

You sure about that?

Per Wikipedia:


Rushed, maybe. But certainly not out of left field or without buildup (albeit minor).

It had no internal logic; here's a guy who's talking about the greatness of the Green Lantern Corps and after the ending, then decides it's not the end-all, be-all? There was nothing that delineated what made Hal so special for that end credit to happen.

Rushed, inconsistent, illogical and embarassingly amateur.

Comic book movies are serious business!

Nice. Was "all your base" entirely too topical?

I was on the fence about seeing this movie. After reading the comments, I'll just wait to see it on cable now.

Wait they put Parallax in this? Didn't that character take about 30 years to come into play in the comic?

he was first mentioned and developed in 1994. That was his initial appearance.

I know but hasn't Hal been around since the 60's or 70's?

Never mind, didn't know about the retcon on Parallax.

Not sure if you are serious or not, but basically

50s actually.

I can overlook a lot of things in a movie - in this one I could overlook the repetitive and corny screenplay.

I couldn't overlook how utterly boring it was though. It was horribly plotted, poorly written (dialog), poorly rendered (cg), and save for about 10 minutes was an absolute bore. Also, I don't know much about Green Lantern so I was watching this purely as a movie fan, but is the comic as geared toward the young as this seemed to be?

For what it's worth, I saw it with 3 others. Two of them really enjoyed it, one thought it was among the worst (flatout boring) movies he'd seen. I've seen worse, but I watch a lot of movies.

That end credit scene is utterly pathetic considering how Sinestro was played during the film

You may as well take Star Wars and have a scene after the end credits where it turns out Luke Skywalker is the emperor and is giving the orders to Darth Vader

Thats the sort of narrative logic Green Lanter is following with that end credits sequence