The Green Lantern

[b.c.]

So I finally got to see what many c.b. fans (and Green Lantern fans in particular) had waited a long time to see: a Green Lantern movie. And though there were some weak points in the overall plot, I found the movie to be quite enjoyable. Hell, just seeing G.L. on the big screen was a kick. So imagine my surprise to learn that most of the critics panned it. wtf??

Yes, a critic's job is to criticize, I know that, and they certainly were not remiss in doing their jobs here, but some of what I read was nit-picky bullshit, imo.

One was the CGI. One of the major reasons why Green Lantern would have to take so long to become a movie was the obvious difficulty of reproducing the world of the Green Lantern Corps, the aliens, and all the other stuff rendered in the comics. I think they did a great job of it. The critics were pissed because they knew they were looking at CGI. "Not believable," they panned. wtf??

Another criticism was the storyline, or, alleged lack of development. Here I may have some agreement with... but just some. For one, the mythos and storyline of this character is quite convoluted to begin with. And the story, perhaps being not that well known among the general public, required explaining.

So, they were supposed to explain the entire storyline of the Green Lantern, develop the background character of Jordan, develop a romantic relationship and story background between him and Ferris, sufficiently explain Parallax and the idea of emotions emitting various light frequencies, show a more developed training session for Jordan with storylines and character development for Tomar-re and Killowog, AND more developed conflict and battle sequences between G.L. and Parallax...and they were supposed to get ALL that done in 1 hour and 45 minutes?? wtf??

This film, I think was geared towards two audiences: 1. fans of the G.L. We didn't need it all spelled out for us. We got it. 2. moviegoers who wanted to see an action/superhero movie. Since 60% of those two groups liked the movie, and the movie is among the top summer moneymakers, it was good enuf... for an intro piece. The rest (character development, etc.) they can get around to... in the sequel.

As for the critics, maybe they should just stick to movies of fallen trees, horses, or elephants.

 

[D_Liv_R_Phoole]

totally fucking agree man

 

[kenny233]

Good to know. I'm not a big G.L. fan, but I plan to see it. I read that is was the most expensive movie made down here, so I'd like to check it out.

Thanks for the review.

 

[KTF40]

The movie was terrible. And this is coming from a big Green Lantern fan. I truly couldn't believe how bad, bland, and boring it was. And I'm hardly a harsh movie critic. I loved Transformers 2, so that just goes to show you how easy I am to impress.

My problems with the movie is that

1.) None of the main characters were likable. Frankly, outside of Synestro, none of the characters in the entire movie were likable. They weren't unlikeable either, just boring people. Even the villain wasn't really that unlikable. To be honest, one could easily sympathize more with him more than the actual Green Lantern.

2.) Virtually all the jokes failed. I think the only time anyone laughed in my theater was the middle finger joke and when Carrol Ferris learns GL's identity. Other than that, nobody laughed at anything. And the thing is, there was so much material to make fun of and yet they did nothing with it.

3.) Parallax was super cheesy looking. To go along with the obvious plot hole in one scene it's as large as a planet, in other scene no larger than a city if that.

4.) The movie was super boring, especially the first half. Here I am, this huge Green Lantern fan and half way through the movie I'm looking around the theater and just stunned by how bored I am. This is like one of my favorite super heroes, and I'm bored! Wtf?

I'm just gonna keep at 4 but I could keep going. Just no reason to keep writing about this terrible movie.

 

[Krusader]

It's a f*cking train wreck, hated it.

 

[Red_Rebel]

Surprise surprise they just wanted to make some cash. Honestly it was boring and unoriginal. Id much rather see Bridesmaid over thia

 

[CascadeMDG]

Coming from a Green Lantern fan who remembers virtually nothing about the comics I read nearly 20 years ago, I laughed my way through this movie. Not because I thought it was good, but because I thought it was ridiculous. This is one of those movies that has no substance beyond eye candy. The first half of the movie was a train wreck, and the second half was only bearable because it was Ryan Reynolds. It may be a top movie of this summer, which I suppose means a lot considering it's mid-June...

Eragon was a better movie. And for those of you who haven't seen it (aka poorly-scripted Star-Wars-with-Dragons), it was absolutely terrible.

 

[flame boy]

I was going to see it in the movies but after the reviews I'm waiting for it to come out on DVD. I didn't have a good feeling about it from the trailers.

 

[b.c.]

^Well, rather than wait for it based on the few pans written here, check out this broader movie fan-base at the following:

Top 10 Fan Rated Movies - Fandango.com

You'll find a WHOLE lot of people liked it very much, thank you.

Imo, the writers did a fairly good job of interweaving the obligatory explanation of a whole lot of G.L. mythos (even if tedious for G.L. fans who were already up to snuff on the storyline) while at the same time keeping up the pace of the action sequences.

I personally didn't find the characters "unlikable" nor the rendering of Parallax "cheesy". Some ethereal villains in comicdom get translated into movies in various ways. Fantastic Four's Galactus, for example, was depicted as this vague "space cloud" in the movie, though in the comics he early on had a human-like form. Interpretations of such are purely subjective. And as for jokes... well, I wasn't lookin' for 'em...not here. Shrek maybe. He's green.

Frankly, I'm not given to the high-brow critical analyses that critics (and those who place stock in their every word) employ. My simple, if uncultivated, litmus test is merely, "was I entertained." I was. As were many others.

Did the movie embrace my highest expectations of what I would've liked it to be? Perhaps not. In the first place, to have done that it would've had to run twice as long. Furthermore it would have had to eschew much of that which was needed to explain the mythos to the uninitiated. As I said, for an origin story intro of a not as well known superhero, the movie does a standup job. "Eye candy" for sure. And nothing wrong with that either.

 

[mephistopheles]

The Green Lantern is my favourite super hero and Ryan Reynolds is sexy, I'm gonna see and I better enjoy it.

Dammit.

 

[KTF40]

I personally didn't find the characters "unlikable" nor the rendering of Parallax "cheesy". Some ethereal villains in comicdom get translated into movies in various ways. Fantastic Four's Galactus, for example, was depicted as this vague "space cloud" in the movie, though in the comics he early on had a human-like form. Interpretations of such are purely subjective. And as for jokes... well, I wasn't lookin' for 'em...not here. Shrek maybe. He's green.

Even though you didn't quote me, this seems like a direct response to what I said so I'll quickly reply. No point in discussing subjective things, but at the very least you must admit the concept of Parallax was confusing at best. In one scene it's as large as a planet, in another scene maybe the size of a city if that. Especially since he was supposed to be getting more powerful, but why is he shrinking as the movie progresses? The cheesiness was mainly was directed at every seen where Parallax was talking. For example, the one scene where Parallax is alerted of GL's presence on Earth and starts talking to himself about how he is going to go destroy him. Like the only thing it was missing was some mad cackle laugh at the end. It seemed like something straight out of Power Rangers. Also, I love the Galactus portrayal in FF for what it is worth.

And also, I think we can both agree that if the theater isn't laughing at all your attempts at humor, that's not a good sign.

Also, not directed towards you, but another thing I forgot about the movie that was totally stupid was when GL is training against Synestro the first thing he uses to fight Synestro with his ring is a sword! A fucking sword! I mean really? You can create practically anything you can imagine and you think of a sword? And not only that, he's all of a sudden a master swordsman too? Wtf? It's like they put the most minimal amount of thought in this movie.

 

[b.c.]

Even though you didn't quote me, this seems like a direct response to what I said so I'll quickly reply. No point in discussing subjective things, but at the very least you must admit the concept of Parallax was confusing at best. In one scene it's as large as a planet, in another scene maybe the size of a city if that. Especially since he was supposed to be getting more powerful, but why is he shrinking as the movie progresses? The cheesiness was mainly was directed at every seen where Parallax was talking. For example, the one scene where Parallax is alerted of GL's presence on Earth and starts talking to himself about how he is going to go destroy him. Like the only thing it was missing was some mad cackle laugh at the end. It seemed like something straight out of Power Rangers. Also, I love the Galactus portrayal in FF for what it is worth.

And also, I think we can both agree that if the theater isn't laughing at all your attempts at humor, that's not a good sign.

Also, not directed towards you, but another thing I forgot about the movie that was totally stupid was when GL is training against Synestro the first thing he uses to fight Synestro with his ring is a sword! A fucking sword! I mean really? You can create practically anything you can imagine and you think of a sword? And not only that, he's all of a sudden a master swordsman too? Wtf? It's like they put the most minimal amount of thought in this movie.

I appreciate your viewpoints about the movie, KTF, as I do everyone's. Each is entitled to his or her opinion. I simply don't agree.

I think when you're watching fantasy you have to be able to let go of certain rationales and accept the fantasy for what it is. We accept that Dumbo can fly. We don't go into an analysis of whether his ears are sufficiently big enough to create the lift needed to fly him, do we? There are some things in a fantasy, even a sci-fi fantasy that aren't in need of explaining because the audience is assumed to have imagination enough to fill in the blanks.

If you have any inkling of the comic book Parallax upon which the movie is based then surely you know that "it" is not finite in form. If it changes sizes one must assume it can.

Regarding the humor I was fearful (from what I've seen in the trailers) that the movie would be some attempt at a slapstick version of the character. I've read many a G.L. comic book, still have some 40 plus of them, and I never once found G.L. funny.

Also it's feasible that a person with a new found power thrown into a challenge would come up with a sword, especially if he's had lessons - who say's he hadn't? Maybe that's the first thing that came to mind, like when he later put the crashing copter on wheels. Some critiqued this, having no doubt missed the earlier scene when he launched a kid's Hot Wheels car down a track. Some critiqued the notion of Jordan having fear, totally missing the theme of being able to overcome fear, and no doubt, totally ignorant of the major conflict (within Jordan) as depicted in the comics (see Parallax Entity - Green Lantern Wiki - DC Comics, Hal Jordan, Green Lantern Corps).

As I said everyone has their own take, but the main point of my o.p. was that I think some of the movie critics were too involved with these kinds of trifles... questions like why did Abin Sur fly a ship? (Why not??) Or gruntings about the real life age discrepancies of the actors (so WHAT)?

Hey, I enjoyed it, some did not... wtf.

 

[Countryguy63]

For all you Green Lantern Fans...

Green Lantern relaunched as brave, mighty and gay - Yahoo! News

Wonder how a sequel would be handled? :wink:

 

[monel]

For all you Green Lantern Fans...

Green Lantern relaunched as brave, mighty and gay - Yahoo! News

Wonder how a sequel would be handled? :wink:

Of course it isn't the "Hall Jordan" incarnation or John Stewart, Kyle Rayner or Guy Gardner. Its the original 1940's version, Alan Scott in a new retelling. As such, it's a safe move by DC -maybe cloyingly so. It would be more interesting if they took a contemporary hero who came out as gay without having to re-write the character's history to do so. Maybe the current version of Superboy since he doesn't have an entrenched back-story. That would be a more meaningful and relevant event.

BTW, have I demonstrated sufficient bona fides to earn entry into NC BBC's Geeks and Nerds club?

 

[rbkwp]

The Phantom

&

Mandrake the Magician

 

[Countryguy63]

Of course it isn't the "Hall Jordan" incarnation or John Stewart, Kyle Rayner or Guy Gardner. Its the original 1940's version, Alan Scott in a new retelling. As such, it's a safe move by DC -maybe cloyingly so. It would be more interesting if they took a contemporary hero who came out as gay without having to re-write the character's history to do so. Maybe the current version of Superboy since he doesn't have an entrenched back-story. That would be a more meaningful and relevant event.

BTW, have I demonstrated sufficient bona fides to earn entry into NC BBC's Geeks and Nerds club?

I'm not smart enough to get in myself, or I would automatically bestow the honor on you :tongue:

 

[monel]

I'm not smart enough to get in myself, or I would automatically bestow the honor on you :tongue:

Unfortunately, smarts has nothing to do with it. Merely a tragically wasted youth.

 

[gumbii]

i just got into this on another forum... there have always been gay super heroes... but since green lantern is a big character... that's very balsy of DC...

 

[D_22]

God, this movie was just awful.

 

[b.c.]

D.C. has unfortunately convoluted their "universe" to such a degree (much more so than Marvel) that no amount of fixing can undo the damage already done. On the contrary, every time they do something to attempt to straighten out the mess they've made (imaginary storylines, dream sequences, crises on Earths ad nauseum, and their most recent character "jumpstarts") they do greater damage because imo, nothing undermines a story worse than undermining the story or the story characters' continuity.

For example when they started redoing the JSA, why didn't they just set the stories in this Earth's past? Meetings between them and JLA would be time jump themes, caused by villainous manipulations of "space time continuum thingy ma jiggy".

And even if you must have two, even three "Earths", for heaven's sake, don't fuck with the character's continuity in each of those. You've got all these "Earths" and you still can't keep up with the character's story line? Superman was married, wait, no he wasn't, Batman was dead, wait, no he wasn't, that was Superman, wait, no he isn't, not one Earth One at least... 'er are we on Earth One? or Earth Two? Guess it'd depend on perspective, on which "Earth" we're really on.

Which is to say there's nothing wrong with Alan Scott of that (other earth?) being rewritten as gay. Hell, on Earth Two, I'm gay, or is it this Earth? I get my "earths" confused. Point being...

I never bought into the John Stewart Green Lantern. I always figured a black superhero needed an entity/identity/power all his own. None of that re-thread bullshit with Marvel's Blade, or McFarlane's Spawn.

If you're going to have a gay superhero (and it's damn well high time), go all the way. Give the guy his own powers, entity, name, and identity. Not a borrowed one.

My two cents.