Review: Green Lantern 201
The plot is simple: Alien gives magical ring to brave test pilot which makes him a member of the space police, and unsurprisingly a big monster is coming to destroy the earth.
I feel like they cast Reynolds wanting him to play Kyle, but the executives had decided that they were going to cast Hal because they all remembered Superfriends. Reynolds is a charming actor with a gross streak, but the movie barely lets him run loose. Peter Sarsgaard is pretty awesome, but the whole daddy-issues thing is so belabored by the end of the movie that you just don't care. Everyone else is completely forgettable (Sinestro), underutilized (Kilowog), or just flat-out boring (Carol).
The special effects are ok. Not great, but not bad either. It doesn't help matters that the whole green lantern ring power is pretty silly. Using the power of will to create giant punching gloves and green gatling guns and springs is pretty cheesy stuff. Of course, that's the bread and butter of Green Lantern: using creative, imaginative solutions to fight monsters. Fun visual gags. The movie shies away from all that, instead just letting GL do flips and float around in a green ball except for occasional moments.
What it all comes down to for me is that the movie failed to embrace the raw 'Fun' in the same way that, lets say, Thor did. Let's face it: both super heroes have a lot of silly in them. OA and Asgard are over-the-top locations. Fighting with a magic ring that can create giant fists to punch people, or using a giant hammer, are sillier weapons than a utility belt or super strength.
The difference is that Thor made fun of it, goofing on the hammer, creating a charming supporting cast of superheroes and humans that made it clear you were supposed to smile and have some fun. But GL spends huge blocks of the movie trying to make you feel like OA is Awesome and that the Lantern Corps are a big deal. Unfortunately, it just doesn't succeed; it comes off as unintentionally cheesy. It spends so much time trying to convince you it's the epic start of a massive franchise that it forgets to have the fun that you want. For example: the joy when Peter Parker first figures out how to web-sling; the thrill of a Mutant displaying newly discovered powers; or just the joy of human flight. Reynolds could have done great stuff here, but it's limited to just a few moments sandwiched between so much grandiose plotting. Ugh.
X-Men: First Class is probably the best comic book movie so far this summer. But Thor is just more straight up "fun." Green Lantern just tries so hard that it feels boring; you'd be better off seeing Super 8, which at least has fun. But there's still Captain America around the corner, and it has had the strongest trailer so far. Here's hoping!
Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (Score:5, Insightful)
<Thor Spoiler Alert> That's what bothered me about Thor
What draws me to Sunshine, The Watchmen and Game of Thrones more so than The Green Lantern or Harry Potter? Your friends don't step in and save you at the end and there aren't any phoenix tears to make everything instantly better. Lazy plot devices and disney endings are a dime a dozen--am I the only person that feels this way? I guess profit margin says "yes." Go ahead and check your boxes for love plot, slapstick comedy, action and a happy ending. People have to get sick of your formulas at some point.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (Score:5, Interesting)
Even Black Swan was great in that way. NP gives her all--she gives her very life--to be the perfect white+black swan.
I hate it when movies don't commit.
Re: (Score:3)
You are absolutely not alone. One of the things that stuck out for me about I am Legend was the hero's ongoing sacrifices. He lost his family. He lost his dog, the last vestiges of his humanity, and finally his life. The story goes on after the movie, but there's no hint of a Legend 2: Zombie Will Smith Fights Back.
Even Black Swan was great in that way. NP gives her all--she gives her very life--to be the perfect white+black swan.
I hate it when movies don't commit.
Sounds like you, too, are ready to move on to Indy Cinema - those films where you have good cast, good direction and a story which could end in any way possible. Much more impressive than anything at the corporate cinemas these days, where you see the trailer, you see the film.
Here's a thought for a Super Hero film .. someone suddenly is born with super powers/finds a rune which grants powers/is bitten by a radioactive leech/what have you, they're SUPER now, in some capacity. They are the only one like t
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you, too, are ready to move on to Indy Cinema - those films where you have good cast, good direction and a story which could end in any way possible. Much more impressive than anything at the corporate cinemas these days, where you see the trailer, you see the film.
Aren't the issues under discussion a problem with the comics the films are based on?
I don't read the comics, but after I see a movie I go read up on the topic on Wikipedia. Seems like nothing is permanent in the comic-verse.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of great comic stories (and they don't have to be graphic novels). So far, Hollywood has yet to put any of them to good use.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had the budget, I'd film Mark Waid's "Irredeemable".
Oh Yea Gawds YES!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, you end up watching something like Enter The Void [imdb.com], and wishing you could have the last 161 minutes of your life back.
It may have been a good film, but it was well over 2 hours of film what was a cross between Midnight Express, Tra
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. There have been some arthouse films I thoroughly enjoyed, though. The Thin Red Line was very, very impressive on a big screen with good audio. Avatar was a long snooze by comparison. And the weird movie from David Lynch, Lost Highway... well, I can't say I knew what it was all about, but it had a plot, a start, some ending and it was a well made movie with a great soundtrack.
Most other indy movies are meh... but so are a lot of big budget movies. I've been to Fortress (gawd that was so bad) and Spe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a thought for a Super Hero film .. someone suddenly is born with super powers/finds a rune which grants powers/is bitten by a radioactive leech/what have you, they're SUPER now, in some capacity. They are the only one like them in the world of ordinary mortals. Have them explore their own moral code with what they could get away with or what wrongs they could right ("That b**tard Gahaffi, I'll just fly over and grab him and take him to the Hague! Up, up and away!") and finally have the film end on a note of remorse, loss or even death - (what will the world do now that Superperson is dead?)
I'd like to see that .. done in a very serious manner, not with a bunch potty humor and in-jokes.
Isn't that what Hancock did? Not 100% serious, but it did look at real-world consequences such as, yes Superman you stopped the train before it hit the car stalled on the tracks. Now can you help us clean up the wreck of a train that suddenly goes from 60 MPH to 0?
Re: (Score:2)
But
Re: (Score:2)
The first fifteen premise-defining minutes of Hancock were fantastic. The delivery on that premise was awful.
So yeah, so disappointing.
Re: (Score:2)
Indy Film (Score:2)
You know what? I tried watching independent films. What it taught me is that Hollywood knows what they're doing.
There's a reason Hollywood films generally make a lot of money. They're well done and entertaining, they deliver a easy to watch story with characters that are easy to get into and a plot where you generally know the ending will turn out well.
I've decided that I don't want to bother wasting hours of my life watching movies where, once I get to the ending, I as often as not want to throw the charac
Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (Score:4, Informative)
This past weekend I watched Twelve O'clock High. There's a movie about heroes and sacrifice. Probably one of the most honest war movies of the era.
Re: (Score:2)
See Command Decision.
Some similarities in plot, but another good movie ( IMHO ).
Re: (Score:2)
Granted it was written for children and still manages to hold itself up through pure imagination and exploration of a fantasy world - but I think it has set the tone for many fantasy/scifi stories since, including the ones you reference.
If you watch children play with toys (or remember playing with them yourself, as I do) you'll notice a lot of parallels with modern day fantasy/hero movies - the hero is always put i
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the ultimate example of what you are talking about is Lord of the Rings. [ducks]
If you read the stuff published posthumously, some of Tolkien's stuff is so grim that I find myself wondering whether he had psychological problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Tolkien spent his war on the Somme, in the summer of 1916. In case anyone is unaware, this is the British by-word for slaughter. The French have Verdun, the Russians Stalingrad, Australian and Kiwis Gallipoli. Tolkien would have been an intimate part of the emerging mechanised slaughter of WWI at its peak.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's Boromir. It was an important character in the story until he was killed, sacrificing himself.
Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember having a very strong sense of loss at several points while reading the books way back when: at the very end of the books, all elves and mages leave; bilbo repeatedly is described as dying soon; frodo too, and he takes the boat. The ones left behind do not fare much better, I remember feeling sad for Aragorn, essentially reigning over decay, and the remaining hobbits, once again ensconced in their little lives. The only ones who seem to fare OK are the dwarves, back into their mines.
I found it much darker than comics, with their endless resurrections and deus ex machinas.
Re: (Score:2)
I found it much darker than comics, with their endless resurrections and deus ex machinas.
I suppose "endless" is a matter of opinion but LOTR certainly has no shortage of either.
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't alone, but it's just personal preference.
I like unpredictability and misery in my movies. I like my comedies dark. I am a big fan of unhappy endings.
My wife likes predictability.
To me, her movies seem like watching the same movie over and over. To her, she can't possibly see why I'd want to watch something that isn't relaxing and removed from reality.
Other than causing endless conversations about how much each other's tastes suck, it's not a big deal. Just taste.
Just to Clarify What I Was Begging For (Score:2)
I like unpredictability and misery in my movies. I like my comedies dark. I am a big fan of unhappy endings.
While I prefer unhappy endings, I should point out that there's such a thing as a happy but flawed ending. Where the hero wins but must make some sort of sacrifice. It might be their life, it might be someone they love ... hell, I would have been much more satiated with Thor's end of communication with the woman he loved. It's undoing the sacrifice that has made the hero what they are that bothers me. Many of my personal heroes in real life have made such drastic sacrifices through their lifetimes and i
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, you are preaching to the choir. She likes the predictable rush of insulin. And it seems so does most of the American audience. We're in the minority, but there are still plenty of films out there for us. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't alone, but it's just personal preference.
I like unpredictability and misery in my movies. I like my comedies dark. I am a big fan of unhappy endings.
My wife likes predictability.
To me, her movies seem like watching the same movie over and over. To her, she can't possibly see why I'd want to watch something that isn't relaxing and removed from reality.
Other than causing endless conversations about how much each other's tastes suck, it's not a big deal. Just taste.
Hollywood loves your wife's tastes and is catering to them, not yours. Interesting bit on the BBC this weekend, in analysis - many films are being geared to be friendly to the Chinese audiences - Hollywood knows where the money is.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood loves your wife's tastes and is catering to them, not yours. Interesting bit on the BBC this weekend, in analysis - many films are being geared to be friendly to the Chinese audiences - Hollywood knows where the money is.
In some territories Pulp Fiction was re-edited so that all the segments followed in correct chronological order, as they didn't think the audience in those places would accept the events being told the way they were for the rest of us because their story telling traditions were far more fixed format-wise and the execs thought the disjoint style of the original edit would be too jarring for them to find interesting or enjoyable.
Not quite the same as tweaking the standard edit we all see to account for pos
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very valid opinion, but you know how media producers cannot stay away from clichés. If sad, unhappy endings happened to be the standard, few movies would be worth watching. Pretty much the same as now but in reverse.
Personally, I enjoy movies that have a good ending, but a hard-earned one.
Re: (Score:2)
There's more sacrifice in real life than there are in modern movies.
OK, agreed, but the business model is endless remakes / reboots / resets / reinterpretations.
Lets consider a decent western from the end of the western era... how bout "The Shootist"
Uh, I think thats gonna be a pretty hard sequel or reimagination task. Maybe the kid grows up to be a sniper in WWI and comes home to a "The Deer Hunter" crossover remake kinda thing? Maybe a Dune crossover where they clone the Shootist in to a Ghola and together with the Bene Geserit they save the town from ... uh, all the gu
Re: (Score:2)
Er... I can't speak for the Potter films, but in the book a number of good guy characters die by the end. I mean, geez, the story starts out with the main character's parents being murdered.
That being said, you are correct in you rassessment of the Green Lantern and Hollywood in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it heals injuries and cures poison, not death, as far as was ever said in the book.
I'll agree with the time turner, though. You can make up several other magical ways for someone to attend multiple classes at once without time travel.
The only use of time travel I ever *really* liked was Zelazny's temporal fugue in Creatures Of Light And Darkness. Two combatants face off, and begin making tiny hops back in time, building up armies of themselves, setting up attacks and defenses, until they all strike at
Re: (Score:3)
There apparently isn't going to be a third Fantastic Four film. I doubt there will be a single sequel to Green Lantern. The Star Trek reboot must have not done well enough to get an immediate sequel either, and we're just coming up on the second attempt to reboot the Planet of the Apes, (apparently unconnected to the Ape Lincoln Memorial version).
It's not just that sacrifice isn't permanent. Things don't get permanently changed in general. For the Fantastic 4 films, why not cure
Re: (Score:3)
So far as Thor goes, sacrifice was not one of the things that bothered me. I expected Odin to be fine, since it would otherwise be Ragnarok, and I expected Loki to survive, because Loki is the reason the Avengers were formed in the comics. A comic fan and a non-fan viewer will see two slightly different movies, because the viewer may wonder "when does the villain die" while the fan will wonder "how does this sync up with canon and the Avenger movie coming out next year."
Thor was irritating to me only becaus
Re: (Score:2)
(*Sidenote: why on Earth does Yggdrasil need to be in the firefox spellcheck dictionary?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil_Linux/GNU/X [wikipedia.org]
It generally took the same beatings in the early 90s that Ubuntu took in the late 00s WRT to appealing to the n00bs, although they got some extra frying for trying to charge way too much money in a market where the competition was mostly free. They also got flamed for not including some source code, which wouldn't have been so bad if they weren't trying to overprice it.
My personal, possibly faulty, recollections are it was more or less free SLS except it w
Re: (Score:2)
Your friends don't step in and save you at the end.
It sounds like you need some better friends.
Perhaps I'm too young, but I've had friends come traveling overnight by car to help me when I needed it. A friend from my childhood went out, got into heroin, watch a dozen people die in front of her, and has since rebuilt her life into a reasonable facsimile of success. Happy endings do happen, and people can be loyal. Now, granted, having the ability to rebuild a life usually requires good friends, and having good friends usually requires being a decent person i
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you need some better friends.
Like the old saying goes:
Friends help you move;
Good friends help you move bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you need some better friends.
As the other poster said, "friends help you move, good friends help you move bodies".
That said, the big problem I have with friends is that it seems to me that you make your best friends when you're very young, and that it's really really hard to find new friends (the good kind, as defined above) later in life. Basically, it seems like you make your best friends either in grade/high school or in college, and once you're out in the "real world", that's it, because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gordon Gekko steals from his daughter, she disowns him, he turns that money into a trillion fucking dollars....donates an insignificant amount of that money to some bullshit cause, and they all make up....right at the end of the movie.
It felt so 'tacked on' and pointless. Let the man be an asshole, that's why Michael Douglas won an academy award in the first one. He was heartless, and the plot wasn't so jarring. It didn't even
Re: (Score:2)
Now that being said - I can understanding why we don't have as many any more. Everyday life is filled with bad endings, bad choices, missed opportunities. Movies are an escape for a reason.
Personally I like a mix. Game of Thrones is great for the reasons you describe; but I liked Thor's ending as well. The important part of Thor was that he didn't *know* his sacrifice wasn't permanent when he made it. The later impermanence of it is largely irreleva
Re: (Score:2)
It's just reflecting its comic book origins. No one ever really dies in comic books. No real sacrifices are made. Dead heroes are always brought back. Everything bad just turns out to be in some alternate universe. Pam always finds Bobby in the shower at the end.
But if you want to cite the most egregious example of this, you have to go back a lot further than modern superhero movies. The "Oh, I'll just reverse time and take it all back" cheat ending of the original Superman in 1978 was the worst example by
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Actions without consequences, success without sacrifice - all too annoyingly Disney for me. Some recent movies do buck this trend. Someone mentioned Black Swan; how about Body Heat (from way back when). For something a bit more classic, read/watch Hamlet (almost everyone dies) o
Re: (Score:2)
I also highly recommend the movie Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead - haven't read the play, but imagine it's also good - which is Hamlet from the perspective of the supporting characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern .
The play is also really good, but also goes a little farther and to darker places. One difference I noticed (reading play and watching movie in close proximity) was that in the part with the players, and "The Rape of the Sabine Women... or rather Woman... or rather Alfred," Alfred isn't some weird looking goon, but rather a young boy. I guess they didn't want to broach the subject of underage male prostitution in the film.
Re: (Score:2)
more so than The Green Lantern or Harry Potter?
I take it, you did not read the Harry Potter books and are only judging the movies. There is permanent loss in the sacrifices of Harry and the other wizards of the world - many die (including both his parents - at the very beginning) in the fight and a long repeated saying, even in the World of Magic, death is permanent, there is no coming/bringing someone back.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. The simplistic and safe storylines in addition to constant, gaping plotholes are two big reasons why I haven't been motivated to watch movies in years. I'll catch something from time to time, although never in theaters. But generally, I always feel like most movies are patronizing the way everything is spoon fed to the audience.
There are some indie gems, but a lot of that is lacking too, but for different reasons that the mainstream.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the headmaster's death in the Harry Potter series somehow? Sure, its mostly happy endings but there are some real tragedies in the series as well. On a whole its better than many. Canon or not, Professor X and Jean Grey were both allowed to be destroyed in the third X-men movie as well.
On the whole though I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think, since Thor is part of the AVENGERS, that maybe, just maybe, they would find a way to get him back to EARTH, where the Avengers are?
Understanding that these plot machinations are all in service of building some "franchise" doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
One thing though: Thor and the heroes of Asgard did fight their wars, occasionally got killed and then were reborn to fight (and drink) again So Marvel didn't invent the endless reboot style of storytelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Rachel dieing in The Dark Knight was a pretty good example of a real sacrifice, then again, I am pretty sure that he was going to save her, and was simply lied to about who was where (a point they never really came back to, so you'll miss it if you don't listen carefully before it happens).
Slow to comprehend things huh?
You know, come to think of it, if you listen real closely during the end of The Empire Strikes Back, I believe that Darth Vader may actually be Luke's father. He kinda hints at it after he chops off Luke's hand.
Re: (Score:3)
To sum degree I think it's a bit unfair to cite characters dieing in the last installment of a 7-8 movie story arc as having any real significance. When you kill them the far along the characters are basically already spent. In the cases you cite too, those characters aren't really the main core. For real sacrifice in Harry Potter, they should have killed of Hermoine or Ron mid-series. THAT would have had a major effect.
My personal favorite of sacrifice was Terminator 2. They played that perfectly. Ar
Re: (Score:3)
Comparing the Terminator films is always interesting to me. The first one is really just about survival. The second one has hope, a sense that the future is mutable. The third is fatalistic. And the fourth returns to a new kind of hope.
Re: (Score:2)
The third was crap. It's just like the Alien series: the first two were great, but in different ways, and then the third one came along and ruined everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Real characters, important in the books, die in the 4th and 5th books. They just got so little screen time in the movies that their deaths were rendered impotent by the films.
Re: (Score:2)
Warning: I'm going to spoil your fond remembrances of T2!
Terminator was much better than T2. Terminator had plenty of flaws. (For instance, what is the deal with frickin time travel being so popular? Time travel is such an overused, tired, totally lame plot helper. It's our era's deus ex machina.) But on the whole the story is just plain better. The reason to watch T2 is to enjoy the special effects and action scenes, not the plot. T2 pushes forward the idea that the villanous, evil, unstoppable t
Re: (Score:3)
Warning: I'm going to spoil your fond remembrances of T2!
Terminator was much better than T2. Terminator had plenty of flaws. (For instance, what is the deal with frickin time travel being so popular? Time travel is such an overused, tired, totally lame plot helper. It's our era's deus ex machina.) But on the whole the story is just plain better. The reason to watch T2 is to enjoy the special effects and action scenes, not the plot. T2 pushes forward the idea that the villanous, evil, unstoppable terminator can be co-opted with the flip of a switch. Urgh. It's like nothing is related, nothing depends on anything else, there is no history. There isn't any reason or logic for anything. Suppose in T3 (which I have not seen), they did the same thing? Just like that, that shape shifting liquid metal terminator is on our side. Or, heck, let's do a brain transplant or implant on young Connor, make him join the terminators, and now Sarah has to undo the conversion. For T2, I understand Schwarzenegger forced them because he wanted to play a good guy, so I don't blame the writers for that part at least. That doesn't absolve them for wanting to do T2 in the first place.
A flick of the switch? That's a horrible simplification that does a great disservice of the plot (such as it is). I don't think it's a great stretch to believe that they couldn't remove, reprogram, and replace the T200's computer core.
Yup, it's true, they died for ignorance. There was the notion that too much knowledge -can- be dangerous, and that a tipping point will be reached where inventions race on outside of human control. Do you really think this won't be a problem? As much of a technologist as I am,
Re: (Score:3)
Warning: I'm going to spoil your fond remembrances of T2!
Terminator was much better than T2. Terminator had plenty of flaws. (For instance, what is the deal with frickin time travel being so popular? Time travel is such an overused, tired, totally lame plot helper. It's our era's deus ex machina.) But on the whole the story is just plain better. The reason to watch T2 is to enjoy the special effects and action scenes, not the plot. T2 pushes forward the idea that the villanous, evil, unstoppable terminator can be co-opted with the flip of a switch. Urgh. It's like nothing is related, nothing depends on anything else, there is no history. There isn't any reason or logic for anything. Suppose in T3 (which I have not seen), they did the same thing? Just like that, that shape shifting liquid metal terminator is on our side. Or, heck, let's do a brain transplant or implant on young Connor, make him join the terminators, and now Sarah has to undo the conversion. For T2, I understand Schwarzenegger forced them because he wanted to play a good guy, so I don't blame the writers for that part at least. That doesn't absolve them for wanting to do T2 in the first place.
And I found the sacrifices in T2 especially cheesy and obnoxious. They die for ... ignorance! Yes, they bravely die to destroy the dangerous knowledge that leads to the creation of the terminators. Yep, that computer "genius" guy, after Sarah tries to murder him, joins her "cause" with astonishing rapidity, and bravely finishes the job by killing himself! The Terminator does likewise at the end. Never mind the logical difficulties and basic stupidities of such thinking.
Warning: I've rewatched T2 less than 2 years ago - I'm not viewing the movie in hindsight.
I think you're complaining about one of the main parts of the show that make it good. The whole POINT that they were emphasizing throughout that movie was that the Terminators aren't really *evil*. They simply have a job do to. Whatever command you feed them is what they're going to do. Tell them to go kill person A and their very reason for existence is to kill that person. Tell them to protect the same person an
it's hard to make a good superhero movie (Score:2)
if you give it to a bunch of corporate suits and a squadron of rewriters, you get something boring like green lantern
if you give a fistful of money to a director you trust, you get christopher nolan's the dark knight. that's the way!
or... you may get ang lee's hulk. oh, oops
so you don't want to trust quirky directors with tons of money... but you don't want boring vomitus from a squadron of executives
so... split the difference. give jon favreau a wad of cash, but you attach some strings and keep yourself in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i think you are referring to batman
actually, the original 1989 was a pretty damn good movie. of course, totally different than dark knight, but good on its own merits in its own time. yes, by the time mr. freeze and poison ivy and bane and nippled suits showed up, it was suckage, but it took time to get there
likewise, in a few iterations, nolan's batman universe will be suckage too, much like cameron leaving the terminator universe left it as suckage. let's hope nolan and thomas hardy can do something inspi
Re: (Score:2)
i think you are referring to batman
actually, the original 1989 was a pretty damn good movie. of course, totally different than dark knight, but good on its own merits in its own time. yes, by the time mr. freeze and poison ivy and bane and nippled suits showed up, it was suckage, but it took time to get there
Agreed. I like Nolan's take on Batman, but as far as I am concerned Michael Keaton is THE Batman of film. Kevin Conroy is my TV Batman (at least in voice).
The first Michael Keaton Batman was great, and still holds up fairly well today. I can't think of many 80's action-type movies that hold up well over 20 years later. It was dark, action packed, and all out fun. The second one wasn't my favorite film but it was OK. After that it got progressively cheesier.
Re: (Score:2)
Liking it less over time (Score:2)
The first Michael Keaton Batman was great, and still holds up fairly well today.
I actually have been liking it less and less. It's certainly far better than the later abominations in the series. (Batman & Robin and Batman Forever are two of the worst movies ever IMO) But it's not far enough away from the campy TV version for my tastes. Plus it is too obvious that everything was done on a sound stage. Michael Keaton was fairly forgettable in the title role for me. He just didn't dominate the screen the way he did in other films. Jack Nicholson made a valiant effort for the ti
I found it entertaining (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not my Green Lantern (Score:2)
This is the problem with growing up - you return one day to see what they have done with your old comic book heroes. Nothing looks familiar, so you pass.
If it were quirky or fun to watch I might go for it, but these very purposeful heroes of today's cinema are so preposterous I can't really stomach it (plus the cost of admission would buy me a pizza, which I'm sure to enjoy more fully.)
Here's an exercise - stand on a street corner in your downtown area and try to visualize any of these "heroes" at work. T
Re: (Score:2)
(plus the cost of admission would buy me a pizza, which I'm sure to enjoy more fully.)
What kind of theater charges so little to see a movie? Or you mean some kind of pro-rated monthly cost of a torrenting cablemodem instead of a theater? Around here actually attending a movie at a theater is more like a full homemade steak dinner... a nice london broil with homemade garlic butter slathered on after grilling to perfection and a homemade Caesar salad (well, maybe I'll buy the dressing) and some steak fries (oil the grates and grill until crispy of course) dipped in salsa instead of ketchup a
Re: (Score:2)
I can't figure out how to mod this salivating.
$200 million on that turkey? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't see how they spent $200 million on that turkey. There aren't that many sets, and the big ones are obviously green-screen work. The alien city (?) is so fuzzy that it looks like bad video game art.
The hero is a jerk. The villain is pointless. The Green Lantern corps meeting looks like a Nazi rally, fist-raising and all.
Wait for the DVD, coming to a bargain bin near you soon. Maybe this will kill off the second-tier comic superhero genre for a while.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't see how they spent $200 million on that turkey. There aren't that many sets, and the big ones are obviously green-screen work. The alien city (?) is so fuzzy that it looks like bad video game art.
Psst! Hollywood accounting. "Sorry we can't pay your bonus, the film lost money. Lolz."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe this will kill off the second-tier comic superhero genre for a while.
I hope not. If going to next year's big blockbuster requires me to watch Spiderman, Superman, or Batman's origin story again, I'll just stay home. At least with the 2nd tiers, you get a chance to do something new. Iron Man was a 2nd tier after all.
advertising and marketing (Score:2)
This movie is so hyped up, it's everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the marketing/advertising exceeded the cost of the actual film. Go have a look at the website for the film. The lenths they go to in order to try and establish something as legitimate before it even comes out is astounding.
The Onion (Score:5, Funny)
the other green movie..... (Score:3)
Garbage (Score:5, Interesting)
Before you read this, understand I'm particularly harsh on films, but, with so many good films out there, it's not fair to treat the bad ones with a gentle touch.
Personally I found the film to be quite bad. I went in there expecting nothing and still left disappointed. It's not that they didn't come up with a compelling story (they didn't). It's not that I never felt attached to any of the characters (I didn't). It's not even that so many of the lines and characters felt out of place (they do). It's that the film suffers from fluidity issues from the very beginning. I want to believe that there was a much more comprehensible film originally shot and then some jackass in the editing room decided to take out chunks of the film and slap it together so that it could be under 1:45, because the film feels jerked around and unnatural, not to mention the plot hole issues. There is a particular scene where right before Hal is chilling with his girl. Then, the villain attacks this underground military base where Hal has never been, and all of a sudden he bursts through the wall with no explanation as to how he got there or knew what was going on. After the battle is over, both the hero and villain are suddenly in their home, with no explanation as to how that happened. This is probably the worst it gets in the film, but that same lack of fluidity is what seeped into ever part of the film and made it a complete failure to me. That said, it's not the worst super hero film ever made. It's better than X-men 3 and Spiderman 3, but not by much. I give it a 4.5/10.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a better written review than Taco's.
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
I would have had a much longer and grueling training sequence.
Cut out the romance- I'm not anti-romance, but I get that in every other film. This is superhero fiction. Give me more god-like beings punching one another. It's not like Superman/Lois Lane where it's pretty ingrained into the mythos.
Also cut the whole scientist infected by the yellow goo subplot. That seemed bolted on for no reason at all.
The fallen Guardian as a villain was good idea, but make him less giant monster and more just misguided bast
I liked it. (Score:4, Interesting)
To summarize, I thought the movie was fun enough for your average summer movie goer and did better than expected from the POV of a long time GL fan. I would have liked some more inside type of stuff thrown in (even a mention of Alan Scott), but it was still pretty freaking cool hearing the Oath in a movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I thought the concise introduction to the Corps at the beginning was pretty well done. Short and sweet and told you what you needed.
Unless you're a big fan, GL is one to skip (Score:3)
I was never a comic book fan, and I saw Green Lantern on Friday only because a group of friends who are fans wanted to see it. I knew I was in trouble when a dramatic voiceover introduced us to a solid dozen names and places, including the happy planet of intergalactic peacekeepers and the main arch-villain, who's names I promptly forgot.
Not only did the story come with an enormous amount of baggage, but it made quite a mess of a story going forward. It seemed like the setting was driving the narrative instead of the other way around. As if some screenwriter was standing by with a stopwatch worrying that the audience will lose interest since Hal hasn't flown anywhere off planet for over two minutes.
The never-ending fight scenes were made less dramatic by virtue of the fact that Hal's limitations were never really explained or explored. It wasn't even clear whether he knew himself. That really spoiled the movie for me more than anything else -- when Batman was pinned by Liam Neeson in the EL-train car, you knew that he was vulnerable, and it was that collateral of mortality that defined the character. Here, when the main character had no problem flying across the galaxy for a quick meeting with his idiot boss and was literally dodging asteroids in the climax, it wasn't so clear.
Re: (Score:2)
The never-ending fight scenes were made less dramatic by virtue of the fact that Hal's limitations were never really explained or explored. It wasn't even clear whether he knew himself. That really spoiled the movie for me more than anything else -- when Batman was pinned by Liam Neeson in the EL-train car, you knew that he was vulnerable, and it was that collateral of mortality that defined the character. Here, when the main character had no problem flying across the galaxy for a quick meeting with his idiot boss and was literally dodging asteroids in the climax, it wasn't so clear.
Depending on the era: Green Lantern's vulnerability has been wood, yellow, or the emotion of fear. At one point any of those 3 would either injure them, drop their constructs, or make them ineffective. The "Fear" thing is the most recent one: if you can overcome it with a strong will then you're unstoppable.
That is the problem with the "incredibly powerful super heroes" realm of comics. DC's roster of quite full of these insanely powerful being that might as well be the gods of old.
Marvel's heroes are ra
Re: (Score:2)
In his more recent incarnations and especially in the movies, I don't think Wolverine is a good example of what you're trying to say... regenerating faster than he can be disintegrated by the phoenix force, a billion super powers based on his animal nature, being able to survive an adamantium bullet to the head point blank range and the worse that happens is he loses his memory... He's a bit over the top now.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, his skull was supposed to be plated with adamantium, which is supposed to be indestructible. So what's supposed to happen when you shoot an indestructible (but hollow) object with a bullet made from the same indestructible material?
I would have preferred if they had just avoided that dilemma altogether. Better yet, they should have stuck with Brian Singer for directing all X-men sequels, because after he left they sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but in the movie's interpretation, they made it pretty damn clear: the bullet goes through and he regenerates with no damage except for his memory being lost. What happens to his skull being adamantium isn't the issue here: its that even after (what was it, 3-4?) a bunch of bullets in the head at point blank through his -brain-, he loses his memories and thats it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that that's really over-the-top, given the premise that he has super-healing powers. If any of his tissues can regenerate quickly, the brain should be included in this. So if a bullet bounces around in there, but he's really able to regenerate any damaged cells within, say, 30 seconds, than any damaged neurons should be regenerated too, including those in the brain stem that control respiration and heartbeat (though obviously there'd be a little down time there, but normal humans can survive
It was a blast! (Score:2)
I went in with good expectations (been reading Green Lantern and DC in general since I was a kid). It was a lot of fun, tons of great lines, and the VFX were interesting. Of course you can always armchair quarterback to say what you think would be better. Instead of watching it with that kind of critical eye, I decided I was going to go along for the ride. So worth it. Saw it in 2D and I want to see it in 3D.
--kev
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you coming to Slashdot to get a demo of what 'humanity' can come up with? You must be angry every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm, someone probably shouldn't be reading the "entertainment" section...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it does. What are the chances?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Made Michael Bay look like Shakespeare...
That is the cruelest comment in history.
Re: (Score:2)
And the real reason is that most superheroes do have a way too black and white view of what's right and wrong.
Maybe they should have made a movie where Green Arrow was the main figure instead - and look into the character as it were depicted during the 70's. Sometimes it's the darker parts of a hero's mind that has to be reflected too. Very much of the "why" behind something that happened in addition to the act of crime.
Another character that actually shows more than the plastic personality is Ben in Fantas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - I wouldn't read Dora the Explorer to my kids, let alone admit that that's the sort of guilty pleasure that I would pay to indulge in. If you want to turn your brain off, take a nap - it's free, easy, and better for you.
Re: (Score:2)
While it was certainly cool, I didn't see a connection for him using it based in the movie plot. Hal makes the guardians and Sinestro see that Will is good enough and they don't need fear to beat fear. Sinestro even shows up to rescue Hal at the end...there is no plot connection between that and him putting on the yellow ring. Why did he do it? There was no sign of any temptation. No voice in his head egg
Re: (Score:2)
If Hollywood is getting to the lesser-known superhero comics, I'd like to see
"Black Hat Hacker" and "Megan" from XKCD? Now that I would actually pay to see...
I would, and did (Score:2)
I don't read comic books...oh, excuse me..."graphic novels"....and what I know of Green Lantern is just from the old Superfriends cartoons of the 70's/80's.
For what it was, a fluff early-summer action movie, it was entertaining. standard comic plot devices...outsider/loner with daddy issues, a girl that is also desired by the nerds soon-to-be-supervillian friend, etc...etc...aside. Kindof a weak fight at the end...flinging prlalax-whatever into the sun just didn't feel satisfying...but you don't go to sum
Re: (Score:2)
Green Lantern is DC.....