Green Lantern Film - Box Office Flops (Director Leaves; Reviews=Bad; WB puts Embargo)

[Ratchet & CAG]

Update:

Box Office: Green Lantern Bombs

http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/green-lantern-makes-3-35m-midnights/

Warner Bros' 3D Green Lantern ($21.6M Friday, dropping -21% for $17.1M Saturday, and only a $53M weekend) underperforms, unable to meet even the studio's lowered expectation for North America despite the higher 3D ticket prices.

Green Lantern had well-known actor Ryan Reynolds playing the superhero, yet won't come near that other non-sequel Thor's recent $65.7M opening weekend for Marvel yet starring a complete unknown. Even though for weeks now, Green Lantern had been tracking better than Thor, which also was tasked with introducing a superhero to moviegoers. Warner Bros and DC Entertainment began freaking out Friday about the continuing negative buzz around Green Lantern especially the bad reviews.

The movie went $50 million over budget, and cost Warner Bros over $200 million to produce with an overall $300 million total after marketing.

24% Rotten with over 160 reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_lantern/

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=39343

WB trying to place an Embargo on Green Lantern movie reviews until June 16

I bet you've been wondering why we haven't seen a lot of reviews for Warner Bros. and Martin Campbell's upcoming comic book adaptation Green Lantern starring Ryan Reynolds, Mark Strong and Blake Lively.

That's because all reviews are embargoed until June 16. Yes, no reviews until only one day before the film is released.

In many cases this is definitely not a good sign and who knows what are the reasons for doing that. This could change, but it won't matter that much since the film is coming out this week.

====

We see why... (thanks for those that found the links)

IGN finally brought out their review, and it's sad when big comic book geeks like IGN actually hated the film, giving it 4/10 even comparing it to Jonah Hex:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/117/1175316p1.html

DC's latest superhero is a Cosmic Fail

Last summer gave us the DC bomb that was Jonah Hex and this summer offers the colossal disappointment that is Green Lantern. The epitome of spectacle over substance, Green Lantern is a cosmic mess and a huge letdown given the source material it had to draw from. Indeed, X-Men: The Last Stand and Wolverine are better than Green Lantern. This was DC and Warner Bros.' best bet yet at establishing a deeper bullpen of big screen superheroes beyond Batman and Superman, but the film is bad enough to possibly kill any hope for ever seeing The Flash or Justice League.

All the film's problems are on paper. Even though it borrows liberally from the fine Geoff Johns comic "Secret Origin" (Johns was a co-producer on the movie and its key creative consultant), Green Lantern has none of the smarts or the soul of that story. The script's a mess. Things just happen arbitrarily, with lots of set-up and very little in the way of satisfactory payoff. This is especially true in the Oa segment -- the film's most visually dynamic element and one its marketing is hyping -- which is just 15 minutes of intergalactic travelogue with CG eye candy in an otherwise earthbound movie. Were you expecting to see all those cool Green Lantern Corps members in battle? How's about Parallax attacking Oa? Nope, you get none of that.

...I can't stress enough what a setback the creative failure of Green Lantern is for DC and Warners' plans for a broader DC cinematic universe akin to Marvel's. Even if the movie makes money (I'm sure it will open strongly and probably do well overseas), it's not a film that DC or Warners can honestly say they're happy with. If DC and Warners had hoped this would be their Star Wars (a comparison the filmmakers have been all too happy to make for months now) then Green Lantern only offers fans the wonder of the creature-filled cantina scene, but none of the thrill of the Death Star run or the emotional resonance of any of its iconic characters. No, this isn't DC's Star Wars. It's not even their Last Starfighter; it's their Flash Gordon, but without the cool tunes or self-aware cheesiness. It's a frustrating, deeply flawed film rife with missed story opportunities and squandered potential. Green Lantern deserved better.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-15/film/green-lantern-does-not-light-up-the-screen/

Green Lantern Does Not Light Up the Screen

It’s 10 minutes before a human character appears on-screen in Green Lantern, a personality-free franchise-launcher that builds toward a quaint, if explosive, argument in favor of the nebulous quality of “humanity.”

Via a heavily CGI'd prologue, we learn that The Universe is patrolled by a group of fearless, multi-species warriors called The Green Lantern Corps––and, yes, each member is issued an actual old-school camping lantern, which they use to recharge the clunky rings that allow them to harness “the emerald energy of willpower” to “create what you see in your mind.” A new threat known as the Parallax—illustrated as a constantly morphing mass of something like flesh blended with rock, almost an Anselm Kiefer construction anthropomorphized—has managed to kill four members of the Corps, including an arrogant purple humanoid alien who crashes on Earth and uses his last breaths to command that his ring seek out his replacement.

The ring ropes in Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a bad-boy but regular-old-human pilot given to a specific brand of cockiness that manifests itself via conspicuous self-deprecation. “I may be a total screw-up in every other part of life, but the one thing I do know how to do is fly,” he says, after nearly dying in a test-flight exercise when he’s suddenly distracted by an attack of convenient exposition––er, that is, an uncontrollable flashback to the plane-crash death of his own dad. Hal doesn’t give himself enough credit: He also knows how to flirt, often via terrible double entendre, with Carol (Blake Lively), a former girlfriend now in line to run her father’s aircraft company.

Shortly after the ring finds him, Hal is transported via a green energy bubble into space, where he meets Lantern leader Sinestro (Mark Strong), an alien who is skeptical that a human could have the skill and intelligence to make it in the Corps. Hal, ever the self-saboteur, is also sure there must have been some kind of mistake, and he takes the first opportunity to escape this new assignment. But then the Parallax gets its hooks into Hector (Peter Sarsgaard), a scientist creepily obsessed with Carol, and from there somehow it becomes apparent that the future of the Earth is in danger, so, you know. . . .

I could easily fill pages running down the plot obstacles that Lantern director Martin Campbell soullessly cycles through; identifying all the characters introduced by the film's four screenwriters, only to be easily disposed of; and "explaining" the complete hodgepodge of psychological cause-and-effects, from the pervasive daddy issues and complete absence of mothers, to the arbitrary, less-than-convincing confidence issues that Hal is able to surmount as soon as it becomes clear that Carol really wants to kiss him. But the movie never bothers to suggest that any of that really matters: Campbell’s ADD style privileges spectacle over story—so much so that the film never rewards the viewer for even trying to keep track of what is going on.

So you give up, and instead try to grab on to the small pleasures, which momentarily distract from the fact that the narrative is nonsensical, the characters so boilerplate that their every action seem preordained from the earliest frames, even as the action on-screen is often incoherent. Sarsgaard, with a major latex assist, gives a grand camp performance only rivaled in the last 12 months by Michael Sheen in Tron: Legacy. While hardly even registering as a villain, the Parallax is a breathtaking visual idea––roasting its victims alive while simultaneously slurping up their flesh, the entire maneuver rendered as a lacy spray of golden fire and charcoal ash.

This is pure cinematic magic, but the motives of the menace are muddled if not completely opaque. And while Reynolds isn’t a sharp enough actor to really find the crackle in his standard-issue superhero wisecracks, his body is a marvel of precision sculpting. As he breathes in and out in the skin-tight, digitally enhanced Lantern suit, each abdominal muscle seems to pulse independently. It's transfixing––and the closest Green Lantern gets to character detail.

http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/green-lantern

Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan is a pale imitation of Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark

After protecting the cosmos for over 70 years, you’d think that someone might have given the Green Lantern brigade some on-screen credit before now.

Amazingly, while the movie universe is littered with lesser comic book heroes, this is the first outing for one of the genre’s most enduring creations.

Perhaps, as the film’s miss-it-and-you’re-stuffed prologue explains, it’s because there isn’t just one Green Lantern, but thousands of them. So choosing one over the others would be unfair.

After all, each is responsible for maintaining order in their own vast sector of the universe, which was divided up gazillions of years ago by immortal ‘Guardians’ who now just sit around on the planet Oa looking grumpy when things go wrong.

And things couldn’t currently go much wronger. See, the rogue guardian called Parallax has just re-appeared as an evil, nebulous mass that feeds on fear. Parallax has already killed three Lanterns and, having mortally wounded the legendary Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), is about to make it four.

But not before the stricken warrior has flown to the nearest inhabited planet where his willpower-channelling ring might seek out a worthy successor. No green trinkets and Spandex leotards for guessing where and who that might be.

Thus fearless aviator Hal Jordan (Reynolds) finds himself the first human to reach Green Lanternhood.

Naturally, before Hal can go thwarting mad geniuses, getting the girl, and saving the fearful souls of everyone on Earth, he must learn how to be Lantern.

So it’s off to Oa for stern lessons in willpower and responsibility from a fishy alien bearing an uncanny resemblance to the one from Hellboy (voiced by Geoffrey Rush), a combat coach with a cosmically un-PC name (Michael Clarke Duncan), and the Lanterns’ devilish-looking leader, Sinestro (Strong).

Good and evil. Green and yellow. Signed, sealed and delivered. No doubt about it, as director of the best two Bond films of the last 20 years - GoldenEye and Casino Royale - Martin Campbell knows how to get on with it.

Unfortunately he’s underserved by some ordinary visuals (emphasised in 3D, most noticeably in a particularly shonky helicopter stunt) and a po-faced script that takes itself way too seriously and delivers no surprises.

Led by the ever-watchable Reynolds, the performances are fine. But as written, Hal is a pale imitation of Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark, while we've seen the Sarsgaard, Robbins and Lively characters a dozen times before.

Three parts Superman to one part Iron Man and a dash of Top Gun: it’s a comic-book cocktail for happy hour, a shot of quick-release gratification designed to give you a buzz from a top shelf of generic brands.

----

http://allhiphop.com/stories/reviews.../22784487.aspx

Ryan Reynolds won't light up your life

2 out of 5 stars

“Are you ready to have your mind blown?” asks Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern.

It’s a leading question that lays down the gauntlet for Martin Campbell’s belated intro to one of DC Comics’ second-tier crime-fighters. Put a line like that in your script and it practically requires you to be mind-blowing. Unfortunately, Lantern isn’t.

It’s instructional to compare and contrast with Kenneth Branagh’s Thor, the last attempt to alchemise a lesser-known property into box-office gold. That movie, you’ll remember, started off on Planet Earth, putting down roots before flashing back to fantastical Asgard.

Thor, you’ll recall, was also a swaggering upstart brought low by hubris. Over the course of Branagh’s film, however, he learned enough maturity to re-acquire his powers.

Jordan, alas, is a bit of a tool who – bar an unlikely third-act conversion to noble warrior – stays a bit of a tool. He is, in short, a hard guy to root for, even when having his clock cleaned back on Oa by a rhino-like alien with the unfortunate name of Kilowog.

Oa, incidentally, is a deeply unimpressive realm: a vast CG screensaver that feels as false and phoney as Reynolds’ CG super-suit.

Parallax, too, fails to cut the mustard, even when made flesh in the form of a bulbous-headed Peter Sarsgaard.

The result is a film that’s all set-up and no pay-off: an origin story for a hero we don’t much care for with an elaborate lore we have zero interest in, toplined by a star who’s little more than a torso and a smirk.

Verdict:

In a summer stuffed with superheroes, this underwhelming offering will likely leave you jaded. How it could have used some of Thor’s charm and The Green Hornet’s chutzpah.

----

http://movies.sky.com/green-lantern/review

Ryan Reynolds comes off as Van Wilder on Steroids

The film opens and spends quite a considerable amount of time on establishing Hal Jordan as an irresponsible, wild and undisciplined hot-shot haunted by the death of his pilot-father who died in a jet crash. Blake Lively, looking lovely as a brunette, stars as Carol Ferris who is running her father's company “Ferris Aerospace” - the employer of our soon-to-be superhero. Even though she is Hal's boss, it's not difficult to detect that these two have previously had a romantic relationship that's causing a lot of difficulty in their employer/employee relationship. Hal being the hot-shot that he is, gets himself in trouble by breaking the rules of a test combat situation and is on the verge of losing his job and alienating his family when redemption comes in the form of a dying alien who is on the search for replacement bearer of his super-power ring. The universe as it turns out is protected by an army of Green Lanterns, made up of species in all shapes and forms, who are protect their own sectors of the universe against evil. The rings which give them power uses the “will” of all living things to form a powerful force of energy that takes the shape of whatever its bearer desires.

The villain in this movie is an ancient being that is empowered by the fear in all living beings. This being known as the Parallox, is on the loose after being imprisoned and quickly starts to kill off the Green Lanterns and destroy entire civilizations of planets. Early on you can see that this is going to be a courage vs. fear contest with a message that you can conquer your fears by not being afraid. And of course the ring chooses a very flawed and unlikely individual to be the succeeding Green Lantern because movie heroes have to be of the redeemed type.

The problem is that Reynolds comes off as Van Wilder on steroids who fails to reach his potential until he has that Neo-in-the-Matrix type transformation where he realizes self confidence. The saving grace of the movie is the special effects. In this case it's good that a Green Lantern movie has lagged behind all of the Superman, Batman and countless other hero movies. Without today's technology and special effects, a Green Lantern movie would be a complete dud. Imagine if this came out in the early 80's or 90's? Something else that really puzzled me was that with all of the effects the movie failed to dazzle in 3-D. There isn't anything that shoots or charges out to you, which to me is a complete waste of 3-D because all it does is just make some of the objects and people stand out. Unless you really love all things 3-D, you are better off watching this in 2-D.

As for action, you aren't going to get much until the end. The majority of the movie is spent telling the story of Hal Jordan feeling unworthy of new responsibility, the love tension between him and Carol Ferris and the creepy evil transformation of Dr. Hector Hammond who is infected by the Parallox. Even the action pay-off at the end isn't enough to satisfy. If an action hero movie is going to commit so heavily to story-telling, it has to have the kind of acting that can carry the movie on its shoulders such as The Dark Knight. Even with experienced veterans like Tim Robbins and Angela Bassett, The Green Lantern doesn't have that Dark Knight acting which is why it should've delivered a lot more action and the pay-off at the end should've been more satisfying. Like all things in Hollywood, expect a few more Green Lantern movies. Maybe with the origin out of the way, the next one can concentrate on more action.

----

http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/895/

Green Lantern Review

2 out of 5 stars

Enter square-jawed daredevil Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), he of the Ken doll physique and perfunctorily addressed daddy issues. The guy needs a calling, dammit! And boy, does he get one after being summoned to the side of a fallen Lantern, who gifts him his laser-lightshow ring and cosmos-protecting powers. Time to kick it into high gear, right? Uh, sure, just after we attend to Hal’s nonstarter romance with plastic girl Carol Ferris (Blake Lively, who isn’t). Oh, and there’s this other supervillain we gotta deal with – Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard, made up with a hilarious John Carpenter-esque bald pate).

Hal eventually travels to the mystical corps-HQ planet of Oa for some sequel-ready one-upmanship with baddie-in-training Sinestro (Mark Strong), and the film’s very talented director, Martin Campbell (‘Casino Royale’), handles these otherworld scenes, as well as the finale’s tentacle-tastic Parallax fight, with expected aplomb. But whenever this Lantern returns to terra firma (too often), its imaginative flights are ground beneath the DC overlords’ demographic-pandering heels.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: a bit more Tweet reviews coming in from people in the media, are now seeming more mixed:

http://www.tweetsoup.com/articles/green-lantern-2011-twitter-review/31770379

Positives:
- Very kid friendly film (so Mom's and Dad's have nothing to worry about)
- Blake Lively is hot (don't know why most of them are saying this - not sure if it's her acting they're complimenting)
- Mark Strong was great (both as great looking and great actor I'm guessing)
- Comic fans will like the film (reviewer says he's a comic fan but also was employed by WB so take it for what it's worth)
- Good amount of action with comedy
- Colorful and vibrant movie

Negatives:
- Plays a little too much for the younger kids crowd
- Movie plot a little too obvious
- Character development not one of the stronger points (one even pointed out Thor's relationships was done better)
- Green Lantern's ring a little "too godlike"; not enough time spent on Hal Jordan's "training"
- Ryan Reynolds is "not bad" (the way they word is more half glass empty than full)
- CGI parts of Hal Jordan are obvious and Alien movements not that great
- Too many characters and things going on

======================

Anyone excited / not excited about this Warner Bros film?

I'm a fan of the character, but not the Will Ferrell with love handles + Hulk feet costume:

Ugh, can't stand them hideous Incredible Hulk feet!

"Green Lantern Smash!"

Early reviews seems to be mixed, but notes that this movie is *kid-friendly* at least:

Gab & Max's review (just a YouTube mom and her kid): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZWLZV83zPI&feature=share

Mom didn't like movie, says it's for younger kids, says she actually liked THOR a lot more.

But the kid loves it though.

Someone mentioned that comments about Ryan Reynolds maybe a little concerning though coz if you read between the lines, rather than saying "Ryan Renolds looked great", the way they worded it, is that "Ryan Reynolds didn't look too bad" - which is a big difference in wording. But I'm sure Mr. Van Wilder did ok on his role though.

 

[BillyBob29]

Never been a fan of Green Lantern. The previews don't look like anything special and I just can't stand Reynolds. I'll pass and catch it on Starz or HBO next year.

 

[Dead of Knight]

The previews made it look like a CG-fest and nothing more.

 

[Scorch]

I'll catch it on Redbox.. or TBS in a few years

 

[whoknows]

I'm pretty excited for it.

I don't care about it being all CG...I don't know why people do. It's a movie.

 

[gargus]

Eh this movie looks like crap and I ing hate ryan reynolds. He cant act worth a shit and is basically how ben affleck was when he was younger, even has that same stupid look on his face all the time. He could be playing a elderly iraqi terrorist that lost his legs to a bomb and he would still have that shit eating grin on his face like he is saying "Yeah, Im ryan reynolds and your not. Just look at my muscles."


[quote name='whoknows']I'm pretty excited for it.

I don't care about it being all CG...I don't know why people do. It's a movie.[/QUOTE]

Because CG ruins more movies than it improves. CG is a cheap way out of doing effects.

1) CG effects dont mesh well with the real world so I cant suspend my disbelief long enough to forget that its a movie and just get into it. Like the star wars prequels, they looked good sure but there was no excitement to anything, no sense of danger or anything because it was all CG and so over the top it never seemed real.

2) Plus the more CG a movie has the higher the cost gets, when you have movies like this that are massively CG based they have to reduce the quality and time spent on all the effects so they can meet budget restraints and time restraints.

3) CG used sparingly works really well like in jurrasic park, but even the costumes are CG in this movie.

Like take the dark crystal for expample. That movie has 0% CG effects in it, its all practical effects and puppetry and even to this day its a amazing movie. If they made that movie today it would all be huge big swooning CG landscapes, with CG monsters, CG effects and it wouldnt be nearly as impactful as a bunch of puppets were.

Aliens, the thing, dune, empire strikes back, raiders of the lost ark and dozens more that are and still are awesome with no CG and look better than todays big blockbuster cg filled movies.

Even the effects in american werewolf in london outshine anything ever done with CG.

Take the devils rejects for instance. Great movie, I really get into it until the part where baby throws a knife into another person. Its done well but obviously CG and ruins the scene complete. Much like at the end you can tell they are infront of a green screen with fake fire behind, it sucks and ruins whatever tension it might have had.

 

[whoknows]

I disagree with a lot of that, besides I can't see how a Green Lantern movie could be done without CG. Or even minimal CG. It can be done well to where it looks realistic and you believe what you are seeing is part of the world. Take Transformers for example. Say what you want about the movie, but the CG in the movie is incredibly well done. The robots don't look like they're CG and they don't belong in the world. We only know they don't because nothing like that exists.

Then again, I'm not a film snob so I can enjoy a movie for what it is, whether it's an action movie like this or something meant to be taken seriously.


And Devils Rejects was a terrible movie.

 

[Dead of Knight]

I don't mind a movie with a lot of CG, but this movie appeared to be completely depending on it per the previews. Didn't really look like it had anything else to offer.

 

[Clak]

Costume looks ok, aside from the mask and his dumbass "I'm trying to look serious" expression. Actually, as long as they don't screw up Kilowog I'll be happy.

 

[lokizz]

[quote name='gargus']Eh this movie looks like crap and I ing hate ryan reynolds. He cant act worth a shit and is basically how ben affleck was when he was younger, even has that same stupid look on his face all the time. He could be playing a elderly iraqi terrorist that lost his legs to a bomb and he would still have that shit eating grin on his face like he is saying "Yeah, Im ryan reynolds and your not. Just look at my muscles."




Because CG ruins more movies than it improves. CG is a cheap way out of doing effects.

1) CG effects dont mesh well with the real world so I cant suspend my disbelief long enough to forget that its a movie and just get into it. Like the star wars prequels, they looked good sure but there was no excitement to anything, no sense of danger or anything because it was all CG and so over the top it never seemed real.

2) Plus the more CG a movie has the higher the cost gets, when you have movies like this that are massively CG based they have to reduce the quality and time spent on all the effects so they can meet budget restraints and time restraints.

3) CG used sparingly works really well like in jurrasic park, but even the costumes are CG in this movie.

Like take the dark crystal for expample. That movie has 0% CG effects in it, its all practical effects and puppetry and even to this day its a amazing movie. If they made that movie today it would all be huge big swooning CG landscapes, with CG monsters, CG effects and it wouldnt be nearly as impactful as a bunch of puppets were.

Aliens, the thing, dune, empire strikes back, raiders of the lost ark and dozens more that are and still are awesome with no CG and look better than todays big blockbuster cg filled movies.

Even the effects in american werewolf in london outshine anything ever done with CG.

Take the devils rejects for instance. Great movie, I really get into it until the part where baby throws a knife into another person. Its done well but obviously CG and ruins the scene complete. Much like at the end you can tell they are infront of a green screen with fake fire behind, it sucks and ruins whatever tension it might have had.[/QUOTE]



everything you said sir is truth. everytime i see the gl commercials the cgi looks horrible the only character that looks remotely decent/like the comic book version is sinestro but hes not enough to make me want to see that turd.

and kudos on the dark crystal props that movie is a classic man jim henson used to shit up when he did movies shame they dont make them like that anymore.

and yeah ryan reynolds is a curse upon the acting world and it kills me that they coudlnt have found an unknown actor with talent to play hal jordanr instead of letting him ruin another great comic book character ( like he did with deadpool). but like always with hollywood its looks first then acting ability last.

 

[elessar123]

It's Green Lantern. How are you going to not use CG? Make giant glass hammers and make it soft enough to bend? I can see the argument for not using CG for Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc... But Green Lantern is about his imagination, and that can be best represented with CG, imo.

That said, Green Lantern is one of the more interesting DC characters. (One of the main ones other than Batman that doesn't just have super strength and flies around. Not saying GL doesn't fly, but still.) Unfortunately, they should have picked someone else to be GL.

 

[lokizz]

[quote name='whoknows']I disagree with a lot of that, besides I can't see how a Green Lantern movie could be done without CG. Or even minimal CG. It can be done well to where it looks realistic and you believe what you are seeing is part of the world. Take Transformers for example. Say what you want about the movie, but the CG in the movie is incredibly well done. The robots don't look like they're CG and they don't belong in the world. We only know they don't because nothing like that exists.

Then again, I'm not a film snob so I can enjoy a movie for what it is, whether it's an action movie like this or something meant to be taken seriously.


And Devils Rejects was a terrible movie.[/QUOTE]



they should have waited to do a gl movie imo the kind of cgi youd need to make it look good imo isnt there yet. green arrow would have been a better choice or a teen titans film or if you were looking to take a risk a secret six film.

 

[basilofbkrst]

[quote name='gargus']Eh this movie looks like crap and I ing hate ryan reynolds. He cant act worth a shit and is basically how ben affleck was when he was younger, even has that same stupid look on his face all the time. He could be playing a elderly iraqi terrorist that lost his legs to a bomb and he would still have that shit eating grin on his face like he is saying "Yeah, Im ryan reynolds and your not. Just look at my muscles."




Because CG ruins more movies than it improves. CG is a cheap way out of doing effects.

1) CG effects dont mesh well with the real world so I cant suspend my disbelief long enough to forget that its a movie and just get into it. Like the star wars prequels, they looked good sure but there was no excitement to anything, no sense of danger or anything because it was all CG and so over the top it never seemed real.

2) Plus the more CG a movie has the higher the cost gets, when you have movies like this that are massively CG based they have to reduce the quality and time spent on all the effects so they can meet budget restraints and time restraints.

3) CG used sparingly works really well like in jurrasic park, but even the costumes are CG in this movie.

Like take the dark crystal for expample. That movie has 0% CG effects in it, its all practical effects and puppetry and even to this day its a amazing movie. If they made that movie today it would all be huge big swooning CG landscapes, with CG monsters, CG effects and it wouldnt be nearly as impactful as a bunch of puppets were.

Aliens, the thing, dune, empire strikes back, raiders of the lost ark and dozens more that are and still are awesome with no CG and look better than todays big blockbuster cg filled movies.

Even the effects in american werewolf in london outshine anything ever done with CG.

Take the devils rejects for instance. Great movie, I really get into it until the part where baby throws a knife into another person. Its done well but obviously CG and ruins the scene complete. Much like at the end you can tell they are infront of a green screen with fake fire behind, it sucks and ruins whatever tension it might have had.[/QUOTE]

Spoiler

 

[RedvsBlue]

[quote name='elessar123']It's Green Lantern. How are you going to not use CG? Make giant glass hammers and make it soft enough to bend? I can see the argument for not using CG for Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc... But Green Lantern is about his imagination, and that can be best represented with CG, imo.

That said, Green Lantern is one of the more interesting DC characters. (One of the main ones other than Batman that doesn't just have super strength and flies around. Not saying GL doesn't fly, but still.) Unfortunately, they should have picked someone else to be GL.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your first sentiment with one exception. The CG suit wasn't necessary and looks a little hokey. Also, I'm not entirely convinced they couldn't have used makeup and costumes for the aliens but some are a bit extreme to be able to legitimately use costumes.

 

[elessar123]

[quote name='RedvsBlue']I agree with your first sentiment with one exception. The CG suit wasn't necessary and looks a little hokey. Also, I'm not entirely convinced they couldn't have used makeup and costumes for the aliens but some are a bit extreme to be able to legitimately use costumes.[/QUOTE]

Yea, well, I don't like the costume either.

 

[PenguinoMF]

I won tickets to Green Lantern but my expectations aren't too high for it.

 

[ATK]

I want to see it I am just afraid after all the clips I have seen for it that I have already seen the entire movie...

 

[Ratchet & CAG]

Here's the 1st Official Review:

http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/895 ... ntern.html

Gave it 2 out of 5 stars. Ouch!

Enter square-jawed daredevil Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), he of the Ken doll physique and perfunctorily addressed daddy issues. The guy needs a calling, dammit! And boy, does he get one after being summoned to the side of a fallen Lantern, who gifts him his laser-lightshow ring and cosmos-protecting powers. Time to kick it into high gear, right? Uh, sure, just after we attend to Hal’s nonstarter romance with plastic girl Carol Ferris (Blake Lively, who isn’t). Oh, and there’s this other supervillain we gotta deal with – Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard, made up with a hilarious John Carpenter-esque bald pate).

Hal eventually travels to the mystical corps-HQ planet of Oa for some sequel-ready one-upmanship with baddie-in-training Sinestro (Mark Strong), and the film’s very talented director, Martin Campbell (‘Casino Royale’), handles these otherworld scenes, as well as the finale’s tentacle-tastic Parallax fight, with expected aplomb. But whenever this Lantern returns to terra firma (too often), its imaginative flights are ground beneath the DC overlords’ demographic-pandering heels.

---

Another "Not so Good" review of GL.

http://allhiphop.com/stories/reviewsmusic/archive/2011/06/08/22784487.aspx

The majority of the movie is spent telling the story of Hal Jordan feeling unworthy of new responsibility, the love tension between him and Carol Ferris and the creepy evil transformation of Dr. Hector Hammond who is infected by the Parallox. Even the action pay-off at the end isn't enough to satisfy. If an action hero movie is going to commit so heavily to story-telling, it has to have the kind of acting that can carry the movie on its shoulders such as The Dark Knight. Even with experienced veterans like Tim Robbins and Angela Bassett, The Green Lantern doesn't have that Dark Knight acting which is why it should've delivered a lot more action and the pay-off at the end should've been more satisfying. Like all things in Hollywood, expect a few more Green Lantern movies. Maybe with the origin out of the way, the next one can concentrate on more action.

 

[Clak]

You realize that Jon Stewart has little to no imagination, right? That's why his constructs are usually pretty simple, if he uses any at all. Kyle Rayner on the other hand is an artist, and if he'd been in this you'd really be thinking "cartoony." Hal has always been kind of middle of the road.

 

[ITDEFX]

DC can't produce good quality live action movies based on their properties, with the exception of batman. They can do amazing DTV series though.

Marvel on the other hand does a pretty good job in the live action department but is shit when it comes to DTV series.

I hate RR, he was just the wrong guy to play HJ/GL. I don't understand why they can't make a good GL outfit...must it be all CG?

I am curious about Capt. America, but don't expect much.

I already have my two free passes to see GL so no loss except time and gas if it's not worth it...might even skip it to see another movie if that's the case.

 

[bardockkun]

[quote name='Clak']You realize that Jon Stewart has little to no imagination, right? That's why his constructs are usually pretty simple, if he uses any at all. Kyle Rayner on the other hand is an artist, and if he'd been in this you'd really be thinking "cartoony." Hal has always been kind of middle of the road.[/QUOTE]
Jon Stewart (at least after Geoff Johns) is more military based for all his constructs.

As for the movie, why am I not surprised?

 

[gargus]

[quote name='whoknows']I disagree with a lot of that, besides I can't see how a Green Lantern movie could be done without CG. Or even minimal CG. It can be done well to where it looks realistic and you believe what you are seeing is part of the world. Take Transformers for example. Say what you want about the movie, but the CG in the movie is incredibly well done. The robots don't look like they're CG and they don't belong in the world. We only know they don't because nothing like that exists.

Then again, I'm not a film snob so I can enjoy a movie for what it is, whether it's an action movie like this or something meant to be taken seriously.


And Devils Rejects was a terrible movie.[/QUOTE]

I did not say it should be done with none. Your putting words in my mouth so you have something to stand on. I said it looks like shit because they are overdoing it. I never said CG cant work, because infact I said it worked the best in jurrasic park.

Yes transformers looked good, partially. The fight scenes and further back shots were great and were very well done. They were great because they were fast moving scenes and that masked them a lot. The upclose scenes were noticeably worse and looked very much like CG.

Taking glib shots at someones calling them a film snob without actually calling them one is kind of cheap and beneath a discussion. Because again, I didnt say I couldnt enjoy a movie with CG in it I was simply saying how the majority of the time it doesnt work very well and gave many examples as to great effect based movies have done it better than a lot of current CG movies. Take the mummy 1 and 2 for instance, I liked those movies because they were cheesey in a good way and fun to watch. The pure CG parts of them were painful to watch because they looked like shit but I still enjoyed them.

And I dont care if you didnt like devils rejects, I wasnt discussing the quality of the movie, I was giving examples of CG vs practical effects in it. But your too busy wanting to argue that youd rather take digs at something off the topic and irrelevant so you can beef up your response.

But I never said CG was all bad, it has its uses and can enchance a movie in many ways. Like how david fincher pulls the camera up and out of a trashcan in fight club during a monolouge portion and it was all CG and couldnt be done in such effect without it. In moderation its fine but in cases like green lantern its done lazily and cheaply, movies that use it as a convience are movies that are usually shit because they are just slapped together to get slack jawed idiots into theater seats for 90 minutes because its bright and shiny.

So considering you and some of the other CG defenders cant suffer a decent response or discussion Ill consider this topic dead to me.

 

[Ratchet & CAG]

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=39343

WB trying to place an Embargo on Green Lantern movie reviews until June 16

I bet you've been wondering why we haven't seen a lot of reviews for Warner Bros. and Martin Campbell's upcoming comic book adaptation Green Lantern starring Ryan Reynolds, Mark Strong and Blake Lively.

That's because all reviews are embargoed until June 16. Yes, no reviews until only one day before the film is released.

In many cases this is definitely not a good sign and who knows what are the reasons for doing that. This could change, but it won't matter that much since the film is coming out this week.

Which is the opposite of what Fox and Marvel did with X-Men First Class and Thor, when both had critics reviews a whole week before the release date. I think those positive reviews helped both movies.

----

And we see why, here's the 1st Official Review of Green Lantern:

http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/895 ... ntern.html

Gave it 2 out of 5 stars. Ouch!

Enter square-jawed daredevil Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), he of the Ken doll physique and perfunctorily addressed daddy issues. The guy needs a calling, dammit! And boy, does he get one after being summoned to the side of a fallen Lantern, who gifts him his laser-lightshow ring and cosmos-protecting powers. Time to kick it into high gear, right? Uh, sure, just after we attend to Hal’s nonstarter romance with plastic girl Carol Ferris (Blake Lively, who isn’t). Oh, and there’s this other supervillain we gotta deal with – Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard, made up with a hilarious John Carpenter-esque bald pate).

Hal eventually travels to the mystical corps-HQ planet of Oa for some sequel-ready one-upmanship with baddie-in-training Sinestro (Mark Strong), and the film’s very talented director, Martin Campbell (‘Casino Royale’), handles these otherworld scenes, as well as the finale’s tentacle-tastic Parallax fight, with expected aplomb. But whenever this Lantern returns to terra firma (too often), its imaginative flights are ground beneath the DC overlords’ demographic-pandering heels.

---

Another "Not so Good" review of GL.

http://allhiphop.com/stories/reviewsmusic/archive/2011/06/08/22784487.aspx

The majority of the movie is spent telling the story of Hal Jordan feeling unworthy of new responsibility, the love tension between him and Carol Ferris and the creepy evil transformation of Dr. Hector Hammond who is infected by the Parallox. Even the action pay-off at the end isn't enough to satisfy. If an action hero movie is going to commit so heavily to story-telling, it has to have the kind of acting that can carry the movie on its shoulders such as The Dark Knight. Even with experienced veterans like Tim Robbins and Angela Bassett, The Green Lantern doesn't have that Dark Knight acting which is why it should've delivered a lot more action and the pay-off at the end should've been more satisfying. Like all things in Hollywood, expect a few more Green Lantern movies. Maybe with the origin out of the way, the next one can concentrate on more action.

Update: Some "official" reviews:

 

[Scorch]

DAMAGE CONTROL! SHUT IT DOWN!

The embargo doesn't bode well at all. I wasn't planning on seeing this at the theaters but would've definitely caught it on DVD/Blu .. but it's seeming like this one isn't even worth the time.

 

[Tony208]

I thought from looking at the trailer that the film looked too comic book for most audiences.

I'm still going to see it though since I have the lantern movie cash.

 

[Dead of Knight]

@ embargo

Definitely looks like a skip. Thanks for posting the reviews and everything, Ratchet & CAG.

 

[confoosious]

So what happens if you break embargo? You don't get WB's next film for review?

 

[kube00]

I'll see it.

 

[Ratchet & CAG]

[quote name='confoosious']So what happens if you break embargo? You don't get WB's next film for review?[/QUOTE]
They won't invite you for an early screening I guess.

Here's another one not pulled from the embargo, yet at least.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-15/film/green-lantern-does-not-light-up-the-screen/

Green Lantern Does Not Light Up the Screen

It’s 10 minutes before a human character appears on-screen in Green Lantern, a personality-free franchise-launcher that builds toward a quaint, if explosive, argument in favor of the nebulous quality of “humanity.”

Via a heavily CGI'd prologue, we learn that The Universe is patrolled by a group of fearless, multi-species warriors called The Green Lantern Corps––and, yes, each member is issued an actual old-school camping lantern, which they use to recharge the clunky rings that allow them to harness “the emerald energy of willpower” to “create what you see in your mind.” A new threat known as the Parallax—illustrated as a constantly morphing mass of something like flesh blended with rock, almost an Anselm Kiefer construction anthropomorphized—has managed to kill four members of the Corps, including an arrogant purple humanoid alien who crashes on Earth and uses his last breaths to command that his ring seek out his replacement.

The ring ropes in Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a bad-boy but regular-old-human pilot given to a specific brand of cockiness that manifests itself via conspicuous self-deprecation. “I may be a total screw-up in every other part of life, but the one thing I do know how to do is fly,” he says, after nearly dying in a test-flight exercise when he’s suddenly distracted by an attack of convenient exposition––er, that is, an uncontrollable flashback to the plane-crash death of his own dad. Hal doesn’t give himself enough credit: He also knows how to flirt, often via terrible double entendre, with Carol (Blake Lively), a former girlfriend now in line to run her father’s aircraft company.

Shortly after the ring finds him, Hal is transported via a green energy bubble into space, where he meets Lantern leader Sinestro (Mark Strong), an alien who is skeptical that a human could have the skill and intelligence to make it in the Corps. Hal, ever the self-saboteur, is also sure there must have been some kind of mistake, and he takes the first opportunity to escape this new assignment. But then the Parallax gets its hooks into Hector (Peter Sarsgaard), a scientist creepily obsessed with Carol, and from there somehow it becomes apparent that the future of the Earth is in danger, so, you know. . . .

I could easily fill pages running down the plot obstacles that Lantern director Martin Campbell soullessly cycles through; identifying all the characters introduced by the film's four screenwriters, only to be easily disposed of; and "explaining" the complete hodgepodge of psychological cause-and-effects, from the pervasive daddy issues and complete absence of mothers, to the arbitrary, less-than-convincing confidence issues that Hal is able to surmount as soon as it becomes clear that Carol really wants to kiss him. But the movie never bothers to suggest that any of that really matters: Campbell’s ADD style privileges spectacle over story—so much so that the film never rewards the viewer for even trying to keep track of what is going on.

So you give up, and instead try to grab on to the small pleasures, which momentarily distract from the fact that the narrative is nonsensical, the characters so boilerplate that their every action seem preordained from the earliest frames, even as the action on-screen is often incoherent. Sarsgaard, with a major latex assist, gives a grand camp performance only rivaled in the last 12 months by Michael Sheen in Tron: Legacy. While hardly even registering as a villain, the Parallax is a breathtaking visual idea––roasting its victims alive while simultaneously slurping up their flesh, the entire maneuver rendered as a lacy spray of golden fire and charcoal ash.

This is pure cinematic magic, but the motives of the menace are muddled if not completely opaque. And while Reynolds isn’t a sharp enough actor to really find the crackle in his standard-issue superhero wisecracks, his body is a marvel of precision sculpting. As he breathes in and out in the skin-tight, digitally enhanced Lantern suit, each abdominal muscle seems to pulse independently. It's transfixing––and the closest Green Lantern gets to character detail.

 

[Jcaugustine]

Here are some more reviews from other sites!

The avalanche of negative reviews aren't stopping!

http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/green-lantern

Ryan Reynolds won't light up your life

2 out of 5 stars

“Are you ready to have your mind blown?” asks Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern.

It’s a leading question that lays down the gauntlet for Martin Campbell’s belated intro to one of DC Comics’ second-tier crime-fighters. Put a line like that in your script and it practically requires you to be mind-blowing. Unfortunately, Lantern isn’t.

It’s instructional to compare and contrast with Kenneth Branagh’s Thor, the last attempt to alchemise a lesser-known property into box-office gold. That movie, you’ll remember, started off on Planet Earth, putting down roots before flashing back to fantastical Asgard.

Thor, you’ll recall, was also a swaggering upstart brought low by hubris. Over the course of Branagh’s film, however, he learned enough maturity to re-acquire his powers.

Jordan, alas, is a bit of a tool who – bar an unlikely third-act conversion to noble warrior – stays a bit of a tool. He is, in short, a hard guy to root for, even when having his clock cleaned back on Oa by a rhino-like alien with the unfortunate name of Kilowog.

Oa, incidentally, is a deeply unimpressive realm: a vast CG screensaver that feels as false and phoney as Reynolds’ CG super-suit.

Parallax, too, fails to cut the mustard, even when made flesh in the form of a bulbous-headed Peter Sarsgaard.

The result is a film that’s all set-up and no pay-off: an origin story for a hero we don’t much care for with an elaborate lore we have zero interest in, toplined by a star who’s little more than a torso and a smirk.

Verdict:

In a summer stuffed with superheroes, this underwhelming offering will likely leave you jaded. How it could have used some of Thor’s charm and The Green Hornet’s chutzpah.

----

http://movies.sky.com/green-lantern/review

Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan is a pale imitation of Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark

After protecting the cosmos for over 70 years, you’d think that someone might have given the Green Lantern brigade some on-screen credit before now.

Amazingly, while the movie universe is littered with lesser comic book heroes, this is the first outing for one of the genre’s most enduring creations.

Perhaps, as the film’s miss-it-and-you’re-stuffed prologue explains, it’s because there isn’t just one Green Lantern, but thousands of them. So choosing one over the others would be unfair.

After all, each is responsible for maintaining order in their own vast sector of the universe, which was divided up gazillions of years ago by immortal ‘Guardians’ who now just sit around on the planet Oa looking grumpy when things go wrong.

And things couldn’t currently go much wronger. See, the rogue guardian called Parallax has just re-appeared as an evil, nebulous mass that feeds on fear. Parallax has already killed three Lanterns and, having mortally wounded the legendary Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), is about to make it four.

But not before the stricken warrior has flown to the nearest inhabited planet where his willpower-channelling ring might seek out a worthy successor. No green trinkets and Spandex leotards for guessing where and who that might be.

Thus fearless aviator Hal Jordan (Reynolds) finds himself the first human to reach Green Lanternhood.

Naturally, before Hal can go thwarting mad geniuses, getting the girl, and saving the fearful souls of everyone on Earth, he must learn how to be Lantern.

So it’s off to Oa for stern lessons in willpower and responsibility from a fishy alien bearing an uncanny resemblance to the one from Hellboy (voiced by Geoffrey Rush), a combat coach with a cosmically un-PC name (Michael Clarke Duncan), and the Lanterns’ devilish-looking leader, Sinestro (Strong).

Good and evil. Green and yellow. Signed, sealed and delivered. No doubt about it, as director of the best two Bond films of the last 20 years - GoldenEye and Casino Royale - Martin Campbell knows how to get on with it.

Unfortunately he’s underserved by some ordinary visuals (emphasised in 3D, most noticeably in a particularly shonky helicopter stunt) and a po-faced script that takes itself way too seriously and delivers no surprises.

Led by the ever-watchable Reynolds, the performances are fine. But as written, Hal is a pale imitation of Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark, while we've seen the Sarsgaard, Robbins and Lively characters a dozen times before.

Three parts Superman to one part Iron Man and a dash of Top Gun: it’s a comic-book cocktail for happy hour, a shot of quick-release gratification designed to give you a buzz from a top shelf of generic brands.

----

http://allhiphop.com/stories/reviews.../22784487.aspx

Ryan Reynolds comes off as Van Wilder on Steroids

The film opens and spends quite a considerable amount of time on establishing Hal Jordan as an irresponsible, wild and undisciplined hot-shot haunted by the death of his pilot-father who died in a jet crash. Blake Lively, looking lovely as a brunette, stars as Carol Ferris who is running her father's company “Ferris Aerospace” - the employer of our soon-to-be superhero. Even though she is Hal's boss, it's not difficult to detect that these two have previously had a romantic relationship that's causing a lot of difficulty in their employer/employee relationship. Hal being the hot-shot that he is, gets himself in trouble by breaking the rules of a test combat situation and is on the verge of losing his job and alienating his family when redemption comes in the form of a dying alien who is on the search for replacement bearer of his super-power ring. The universe as it turns out is protected by an army of Green Lanterns, made up of species in all shapes and forms, who are protect their own sectors of the universe against evil. The rings which give them power uses the “will” of all living things to form a powerful force of energy that takes the shape of whatever its bearer desires.

The villain in this movie is an ancient being that is empowered by the fear in all living beings. This being known as the Parallox, is on the loose after being imprisoned and quickly starts to kill off the Green Lanterns and destroy entire civilizations of planets. Early on you can see that this is going to be a courage vs. fear contest with a message that you can conquer your fears by not being afraid. And of course the ring chooses a very flawed and unlikely individual to be the succeeding Green Lantern because movie heroes have to be of the redeemed type.

The problem is that Reynolds comes off as Van Wilder on steroids who fails to reach his potential until he has that Neo-in-the-Matrix type transformation where he realizes self confidence. The saving grace of the movie is the special effects. In this case it's good that a Green Lantern movie has lagged behind all of the Superman, Batman and countless other hero movies. Without today's technology and special effects, a Green Lantern movie would be a complete dud. Imagine if this came out in the early 80's or 90's? Something else that really puzzled me was that with all of the effects the movie failed to dazzle in 3-D. There isn't anything that shoots or charges out to you, which to me is a complete waste of 3-D because all it does is just make some of the objects and people stand out. Unless you really love all things 3-D, you are better off watching this in 2-D.

As for action, you aren't going to get much until the end. The majority of the movie is spent telling the story of Hal Jordan feeling unworthy of new responsibility, the love tension between him and Carol Ferris and the creepy evil transformation of Dr. Hector Hammond who is infected by the Parallox. Even the action pay-off at the end isn't enough to satisfy. If an action hero movie is going to commit so heavily to story-telling, it has to have the kind of acting that can carry the movie on its shoulders such as The Dark Knight. Even with experienced veterans like Tim Robbins and Angela Bassett, The Green Lantern doesn't have that Dark Knight acting which is why it should've delivered a lot more action and the pay-off at the end should've been more satisfying. Like all things in Hollywood, expect a few more Green Lantern movies. Maybe with the origin out of the way, the next one can concentrate on more action.

----

http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/895/

Green Lantern Review

2 out of 5 stars

Enter square-jawed daredevil Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), he of the Ken doll physique and perfunctorily addressed daddy issues. The guy needs a calling, dammit! And boy, does he get one after being summoned to the side of a fallen Lantern, who gifts him his laser-lightshow ring and cosmos-protecting powers. Time to kick it into high gear, right? Uh, sure, just after we attend to Hal’s nonstarter romance with plastic girl Carol Ferris (Blake Lively, who isn’t). Oh, and there’s this other supervillain we gotta deal with – Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard, made up with a hilarious John Carpenter-esque bald pate).

Hal eventually travels to the mystical corps-HQ planet of Oa for some sequel-ready one-upmanship with baddie-in-training Sinestro (Mark Strong), and the film’s very talented director, Martin Campbell (‘Casino Royale’), handles these otherworld scenes, as well as the finale’s tentacle-tastic Parallax fight, with expected aplomb. But whenever this Lantern returns to terra firma (too often), its imaginative flights are ground beneath the DC overlords’ demographic-pandering heels.

 

[lokizz]

[quote name='confoosious']So what happens if you break embargo? You don't get WB's next film for review?[/QUOTE]


they make you watch it again with extra scenes added lol. i wonder why they went with the weird foot look instead of giving him shoes.

 

[muffin1man]

The problem I have with the suit is the tight, musculature system look it has to it. I love the fact that it has a constant "pulse" on it.

I personally can't wait to see the film because I'm a comic geek and I'd love to see all my favorite super heroes with live action adaptations. It's a popcorn flick, nothing more nothing less

 

[perdition(troy]

Those reviews make me actually want to see it.

 

[murph17]

looks horrible, and i actual like Ryan Reynolds. he killed it in Waiting and Just Friends, but as a superhero?? not so much....

 

[dohdough]

I think we need some spoiler tags up in this mofo.

 

[giantqtipz]

I knew there was something up, because in the commercials, the citations of the quotes by critics are soooo small. Can't see shit!

 

[dkcecil]

One review complained there were no humans for the first 10 minutes. So? Humans are in every movie ever made, I think we can survive without seeing them for 10 minutes. The opening of 2001 was 7 minutes of no dialog and just apes. (not comparing the two, just making a point...that movie is brilliant btw)

I just hope they don't blow it out of the gate. Been waiting too long for this to turn out to be Batman and Robin.

 

[Sulik2]

The reviews complaining it plays to a younger crowd really worry me. I had hoped bringing in Geoff Johns to consult would have made this the dark green lantern story that it should be. But it appears WB still does not get how to make a superhero movie in this day and age. I will still see it, I trust Martin Campbell to not make something totally terrible, but it sounds like the suits got involved and may have destroyed the story.

On a side note, the Green Lantern movie game is actually a fairly well done God of War clone.

 

[chimpian]

I'll be seeing this with my son, its good to hear its actually geared toward the young'ens we got the hard cover 'origin' comic not too long ago and he loves 'killerwog!' So im excited to get him into comic book stuff. This summer should be fun with all the hero movies.

 

[Clak]

The costume has always been my biggest gripe, they should have done a real costume with CG glow and all. I really don't think Reynolds was the best choice, but I'm surprised this got made at all, so I guess I can live with him. they jumped the gun with having parralax so early in though, unless they weren't sure there would be another one.

 

[Ratchet & CAG]

Rotten Tomatoes currently at 29%... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_lantern/

IGN finally brought out their review, and it's sad when big comic book geeks like IGN actually hated the film, giving it 4/10 even comparing it to Jonah Hex:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/117/1175316p1.html

DC's latest superhero is a Cosmic Fail

Last summer gave us the DC bomb that was Jonah Hex and this summer offers the colossal disappointment that is Green Lantern. The epitome of spectacle over substance, Green Lantern is a cosmic mess and a huge letdown given the source material it had to draw from. Indeed, X-Men: The Last Stand and Wolverine are better than Green Lantern. This was DC and Warner Bros.' best bet yet at establishing a deeper bullpen of big screen superheroes beyond Batman and Superman, but the film is bad enough to possibly kill any hope for ever seeing The Flash or Justice League.

All the film's problems are on paper. Even though it borrows liberally from the fine Geoff Johns comic "Secret Origin" (Johns was a co-producer on the movie and its key creative consultant), Green Lantern has none of the smarts or the soul of that story. The script's a mess. Things just happen arbitrarily, with lots of set-up and very little in the way of satisfactory payoff. This is especially true in the Oa segment -- the film's most visually dynamic element and one its marketing is hyping -- which is just 15 minutes of intergalactic travelogue with CG eye candy in an otherwise earthbound movie. Were you expecting to see all those cool Green Lantern Corps members in battle? How's about Parallax attacking Oa? Nope, you get none of that.

What you do get is the Corps listening to Sinestro give solemn, momentous addresses about threats they will never face. Mark Strong is cool in the role, but he's all Saint Crispin's Day speech and no Agincourt. Similarly underutilized are Kilowog and Tomar-Re, whose training of Hal is even briefer than Luke's Jedi boot camp on Dagobah.. Remember, these scenes on Oa and with the Corps are the film's coolest and most entertaining ones. We're not even talking about the crap yet.

The movie starts off promising enough, but quickly nosedives once Hector Hammond enters the mix. The character is ludicrous and ultimately pointless, and he detracts from the movie much as he did in "Secret Origin." His backstory of growing up with Hal and Carol is barely hinted at here, leaving one with the sense that they hardly know him. Sarsgaard's campy performance is borderline Razzie-worthy, veering from Malkovich-esque creepy quirkiness to leering malevolence. He's an evil, talking gonad.

There's just no point to Hector being in the film if they weren't going to make it about a conflict between two lifelong friends. Otherwise, he's simply a homing beacon for Parallax (a gimmick that could have been accomplished in another way). You don't care about his relationship with his jerk career politician dad (poor Tim Robbins is now two-for-two in the bad comic book movies department, his first being Howard The Duck). Another wasted character is Amanda Waller, whose tragic backstory is needlessly revealed via flashback at one point...

...I can't stress enough what a setback the creative failure of Green Lantern is for DC and Warners' plans for a broader DC cinematic universe akin to Marvel's. Even if the movie makes money (I'm sure it will open strongly and probably do well overseas), it's not a film that DC or Warners can honestly say they're happy with. If DC and Warners had hoped this would be their Star Wars (a comparison the filmmakers have been all too happy to make for months now) then Green Lantern only offers fans the wonder of the creature-filled cantina scene, but none of the thrill of the Death Star run or the emotional resonance of any of its iconic characters. No, this isn't DC's Star Wars. It's not even their Last Starfighter; it's their Flash Gordon, but without the cool tunes or self-aware cheesiness. It's a frustrating, deeply flawed film rife with missed story opportunities and squandered potential. Green Lantern deserved better.

 

[Clak]

They actually put Amanda Waller in this? Wow, didn't expect that.

 

[sotc1988]

God dammit, I was looking forward to this. I like Captain America, but that movie isn't getting me very excited. Green Lantern was supposed to be THE superhero epic I could really get behind this summer. I'm still tempted to see it, but I hate sitting through a long, bad movie.

 

[Clak]

I've got plans with friends to see it this weekend. They'll probably like it just because they don't know anything about the character or anything. I'm just hoping it's bearable at this point.

 

[giantqtipz]

if you think this is bad.. duke nukem got 3.5 from gamespot

 

[Vacabck]

Ryan Reynolds was not my first choice of people to see playing Hal Jordan, but I will be seeing this regardless of the reviews. Most of the reviews will chalk it up as boring based on the fact that they know little about the GL Universe and it's Corps.

And OP, when you post everything in the original post, delete it from other spots in the thread. And maybe spoilerize the reviews themselves.

 

[ITDEFX]

[quote name='giantqtipz']if you think this is bad.. duke nukem got 3.5 from gamespot[/QUOTE]


what the hell dude? We are talking about Green Lantern the movie, not comparing a movie to a video game...

 

[ITDEFX]

hmm so there is no John Stewart cameo?

 

[whoknows]

I'll still see this. I've liked a lot of movies that have gotten bad scores.