gmanca

I totally agree and as Hokeyboy said, it would have worked 40 minutes into a sequel. At the end of this film, no way.

Pizza

All true but...

The Valeyard

I just got back from seeing it. After all the tepid reviews, my expectations were very low. I walked out enjoying the film. Not the GL film I've been waiting years for but much, much better than what I expected. No where near the "bottom of the barrel."

fumanstan

Just enjoy something for what it is, not for how it "fits"

GCS

Bummed to hear all the bad PR on this one. Guess I better hit it quick before it goes away. Sad because I was really looking forward to a good a GL film/franchise (supposedly they had planned 3 of these) and it looks like thats a bust now.

I will say I have been disappointed in the trailers for a while and I shouldn't be shocked its getting kicked in the teeth. I really wish they had gone "realistic" with the look vs. the CGIfest this appears to be. Of course realistic look or not if the movie has a crappy script (which everyone seems to comment on) its already up the creek.

RichC2

The whole thing is a bit of a trainwreck but I'd say the issues start with the terrible screenplay. Sarsgard came out of this looking pretty good (ironic?) but everybody else should be a bit embarassed.

Hokeyboy

Disregarding how "continuity" didn't even enter the conversation... what it "is" really, really sucks donkey doots

Superman07

I think this is the best summation to date.

Sure the film had some problems - too short, could have used some more character development, a bit more attention to earth - but overall it was a lot of fun and well done. What I can't get over is all of the negative reviews. Not only do they sound the same, but they don't even do the decent thing and cite what is wrong. Instead they just throw around lofty cliched blurbs.

ibobi

Well I'll throw in some specific negatives

1. Too long by at least 20 minutes. As with any film, this could be alleviated by either cutting 20 minutes or making the rest of the movie good so as to actually make us want to see more of it.

2. Who is the target audience for this movie? Its IQ is so low that you'd think, maybe this is really a kids movie... but then there is so much violence and even horror (the coolest effect by far is Parallax, who is wayy too scary and violent for kids under 12).

3. The ring constructs, like the Green Lantern concept itself, are hopelessly silly and out of date. I mean, really, do we need GL and Wonder Woman and all these un-updateable old-time heroes in new movies? SILLY. The whole sequence where the helicopter is made into a race car? So, so, so silly and dumb. Ugh. I almost walked out after that one.

4. People flying around without wings or machines has never looked anything but silly in movies, and it's as bad here as it's ever been. No significant advancements over the Christopher Reeve Superman green screen in this regard.

5. From the opening voice-over, the whole "power of will" thing... silly. Ugh. The "yellow ring" thing (which then just disappears after they make it?)... silly!

6. Ryan Reynolds is great. But not here. He's given nothing funny to do or say. What a waste.

7. Plodding story with not a single twist or turn. Everything by the numbers. Screenwriting 101. Just godawful.

Peter Sarsgaard is a lone ray of light as the villain, a nice performance wasted in a lame lame movie.

With any luck, this movie will kill the franchise. I thought X-Men: First Class was bad... this movie makes it look like X-Men: Citizen Kane.

Hokeyboy

Sarsgaard was a "lone ray of light" in this movie? He was laughably bad, both in his screechy, obnoxious, annoying performance and how the character was written in the god-awful script.

As far as the Green Lantern concept -- you either buy it or you don't. I buy the concept just fine. It's no more or less silly than Norse Gods, mutants, strange visitors from other planets, billionaire playboy crimefighters and/or inventors, etc.

Concept = agreeable. Movie = shit. Litvak != Galicianer. And Baba Booey to you all.

Superman07

1) I'd argue it was too short, and in fact need more time with several of the characters.

3) Yeah, except it directly tied back into the race car in his nephew's room that he played with

4 & 5) Sorry, Hokeyboy said, that's the story. You can't knock the film for following something that was established in comics decades ago!

6) I thought Reynold's did a good job. He was funny when he needed to be, hit the right beats and played serious when it was called for.

7) I will say it was rather basic, but I'm pretty sure every other superhero film has been paint by numbers as well. Perhaps you just don't like the subject area.

ibobi

Big fan of superhero movies (the first XMen, the new Batmans, the second Spidey, both Iron Mans); the problem I have is that Green lantern is dumb, and to bring something like that, or Wonder Woman into 2011 media, you have to treat it as what it is -- dumb -- and go campy. If you try to make it realistic (which they did here), it just falls apart.

Wait til Marvel has to deal with the world of Iron Man (where all "supers are tech based) colliding with Thor (where... magic and gods actually exist?) and Captain America (where... there was a superhero 60 years ago that nobody talks about any more?). Should be interesting. Probably bad.

So, yes, I can knock the film for following the established comics mythos, when the mythos does not work in 2011. Just don't make the movie. Or make it camp. But don't TRY to make a realistic movie where it just can't work.

And all you apologists: sorry, but the box office numbers are already proving you wrong. People hate the Green lantern movie, because it stinks.

Hokeyboy

While I agree with you on the GL movie being lousy, this statement could not be more wrong. Case in point: "Batman and Robin", "Superman III", "Superman IV", "Catwoman", "Spider-Man III"...

I'm the last person to apologize for the turd that is the Green Lantern movie, and I agree that it stinks, but it isn't terrible because it wasn't "campy". It's terrible the movie fails in its direction, screenwriting, and editing (first and foremost), with some dodgy special effects, spotty acting, and a lousy score.

ibobi

Hokeyboy, I don't like camp. I would not see it if it went that way. I'm saying it's the only way to make it and have a shot at being good for a big swath of the public.

Those campy movies you mentioned, I completely agree -- they are trash. Camp does not equal good -- camp is a way to try to salvage a silly concept, because at least when you TERAT it as silly, you can be honest. Moveis like GL fail because even before the first scene is written, the first frame shot, the first actor cast, it is dishonestly treating its concept.

RichC2

Calling bullshit on that, he was literally the only redeemable one in this entire castastrophe.

gmanca

Yeah, don't agree with that at all. Maybe it would suck if it was a total departure from the comics but in the confines of the film, Sarsgaard was good.

JumpCutz

I thought Strong was the only good thing about GL. Sarsgaard, who I like as an actor, didn't do himself any favors with this performance. Though perhaps that had more to do with the abysmal script he was handed.

Hokeyboy

Mark Strong's Sinestro was the one character I really bought into the most. Everyone else was kinda sketchy to outright bad.

ibobi

I don't trust that Sinestro as far as I can throw him with a giant green Jai-alai energy thingie.

darkblue

I haven't seen the movie and don't really want to - though I always liked Green Lantern back in the day (early 60's).

The problem for me is the colour. Green Lantern green was not originally a lime shade. Not his costume, anyway. The costume was a darker, forest green shade. Much more respectable. Lime looks childish - both in the costume and in the effects. I always took my DC heroes seriously and still want to. So, the Batman films are great. But the Green Lantern movie looks silly. That's disappointing.

And Wonder Woman also looks terrible, costume wise. Linda Carter's costume was right-on. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Solid Snake

....Carter's costume had one major issue that wouldn't work today...the stupid design of that underwear.

RichC2

Strong didn't register with me in the Sinestro role, felt like the character was just mugging for the camera, it was goofy as hell. But to each their own.

dvdjunkie32

Why even bother going to see ANY superhero movie if that's how you feel? You are obviously not a comic book fan if you are looking for realism.

RichC2

He didn't really knock the realism, but I agree with most of his points (I haven't seen First Class, though I do want to). It was too long (or at least seemed like it --as Ebert put it "No good movie is too long, no bad movie is short enough"), and way too slow, the target audience was never clear (it was really childish then really dark, mostly though it does seem geared toward the young), the entire will vs. fear aspect and constructs were embarassingly cheesy. This was simply a bad movie.

The biggest problem is the first hour and fifteen minutes lacked anything that could so much as be considered drive, it was going through the superhero motions -which is fine for people that know the character and story and want to see certain things on screen, not so good for the uninitiated who want a reason to care. There was no impending doom, no sense of wonder (Spider-man), it wasn't cool (X-men), it wasn't carefree or funny (Iron Man), it wasn't serious (Batman), it wasn't so corny it was bad thankfully (Batman and Robin) nor was it so bad it was good (the '94 Fantastic Four movie), it wasn't good. I don't ask much of my movies, but Hal isn't an interesting character, nor are any of the lanterns, nor his love interest, nor the events surrounding him getting the ring and lantern. The sole part of intrigue was with Sarsgard and even that seemed forced.

This movie scored 25% on rottentomatoes which suggests 1 in 4 people would recommend it at the other 3 out of 4 like/dislike it to varying degrees. Seems pretty accurate to me.

Pizza

Generally, I'm a purist when it comes to the costumes. I hate it when they switch them up, such as the upcoming Captain America. (They nailed Red Skull, however.) In this case, I see the logic that the suit is created by the ring. I still would have liked to seen the black part of the suit be a little more defined. All the same, no problem with the "lime green" because it better represents glowing green. Dark green just doesn't jump off the screen. Certainly dark green looks better in print than lime, but on the big screen, lime wins.