Jamedog Reviews Green Lantern

Jamedog Reviews Green Lantern

Were all the negative reviews right about this movie or are fans overreacting to what is simply a by the number superhero flick?

Review Opinion
By jamedog - Jun 17, 2011 01:06 PM EST
Filed Under: Green Lantern

We fans are a strange bunch. We like go around whining to anyone who will listen about how movie studios treat us and our favorite comic book heroes with disrespect, how Hollywood is ruining comic books, etc. But the fact of the matter is that we are nothing more than spoiled children. We scourge the internet looking for any news we can about upcoming comic book movies, and once we find something we don't agree with, we yell and scream and smash stuff until mommy and daddy (the studios) give us something to shut us up, and even then, that will only keep us happy for so long before we throw another tantrum.

Green Lantern is a great example of this behavior. Fans complained about the casting of Ryan Reynolds, the overuse of CGI, Blake Lively, etc. Warner Brothers did their best to appease us, spending millions to improve the CGI, casting Mark Strong as Sinestro, and getting Geoff Johns to consult. Despite Warner Brothers' best efforts, extremely negative reviews starting hitting earlier this week, and of course fans everywhere starting crying out "I told you so".

As the week went on, reviews went from negative to mixed to positive, so I really had no idea what to expect going into this movie. If you've read some of my previous articles, you know that I was a big supporter of this movie. I'm a big fan of director Martin Campbell (the man saved the Bond franchise, twice) and Green Lantern is my second favorite DC hero, so I really wanted this movie to be good.

Well, I'll say it, Green Lantern isn't nearly as bad as fans make it out to be, but it isn't good either. As a movie, Green Lantern simply... is. It's a fun way to spend two hours and be entertained, but it won't stick with you for long. I think that's part of the reason why fans have reacted so negatively to it, and this brings me back to us being spoiled. After The Dark Knight, fans seem to think that every comic book movie needs to be dark, serious, and Oscar caliber, and that's just plain impossible. The fact is that comic books were started as children's entertainment, and nowadays they serve as entertainment for kids people who refuse to grow up. A lot of reviewers knocked Green Lantern for being cheesy, but this is a movie that was almost required to be cheesy. The premise itself is pretty over the top, and director Martin Campbell knows this, so he never makes the tone too serious. So Green Lantern has more in common with Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies than with Christopher Nolan's Batman movie, but it works to it's advantage and for the most part makes it a fun movie.

But Green Lantern is still a flawed movie, and the biggest flaw is not with the tone but with the script. The script has far too much going on, but somehow still lacks any direction. What makes an origin story work is seeing what makes the hero tick, what motivates them, and the script really gives Hal Jordon nothing to motivate him. We get roughly ten speeches about Hal is a slacker and some really clunky daddy issues subplots, but we never get a feeling of Hal wanting something. In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne wants to save Gotham from crime, in Iron Man Tony Stark wants to redeem himself after a lifetime of arms dealing, but there's nothing driving Hal Jordon. This makes for a lot of moments where Hal is just kind of sitting around moping. The movie stops in it's tracks too many times to force the love story between Hal and Carol Ferris down our throats, and we still never really buy it.

The scenes on Oa are well done and were easily my favorite part of the movie. I really liked Hal's training scenes but sadly those were cut short to take us back to Earth. As I said before, this movie tries to fit so much in and nothing is really given the time it needs. On Oa, fan favorites Tomar Re and Kilowog really only get about one scene, but the whole Green Lantern Corp itself really doesn't do much. Sinestro gets the most screen time out of the Corp but even then he really doesn't get much to do other than have a pointless subplot that only serves to set up for an eventual heel turn in a sequel.

Parallax seems to be the main villain of the piece, but he really doesn't get much to do other than chill in space and monologue, and we never really see him as scary or as a threat. On Earth, the villain is Hector Hammond, who Peter Sarsgaard plays with an appropriate amount of creepiness. But much like Parallax, Hammond never really comes off as a threat, especially against a hero as powerful as Green Lantern.

As for the performances, Ryan Reynolds gives a great performance with the little he's given as Hal Jordan. He plays the cocky but vulnerable tough guy well, but his character is pretty by the numbers. Mark Strong as Sinestro has to be the best casting for a CBM I've seen in a while, and I hope this movie is successful enough for a sequel so we can see him flex his skills as a villain. As Carol Ferris, Blake Lively is just there, not good, but not bad. Tim Robbins is terribly miscast as Senator Hammond because he's too close in age to Peter Sarsgaard.

However flawed, I still enjoyed myself at Green Lantern. In film school, one of my professors would often say that, in regards to movies, that you can only have so much Filet Mignon before you just want a cheeseburger, and that's what Green Lantern is. It's an easily digestible movie but it wont' stick with you for long, but once again, because it's not a game changer, fans automatically declare it a failure. I hope this movie does well enough to warrant a sequel because there's tons of potential here and with a more focused script, we could get something really special. So if you're looking for a good way to spend the weekend, see Green Lantern, but don't expect to have your mind blown or anything.

Overall, I give it a 6/10.

By: TwitterButtons.com

By TwitterButtons.com

MAD MEN Star Jon Hamm Reflects On Pitching Role To Marvel And Confirms He Turned Down GREEN LANTERN
Related:

MAD MEN Star Jon Hamm Reflects On Pitching Role To Marvel And Confirms He Turned Down GREEN LANTERN

SUPERMAN: Nathan Fillion On Why He's Perfectly Suited To Play GREEN LANTERN Guy Gardner
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN: Nathan Fillion On Why He's Perfectly Suited To Play GREEN LANTERN Guy Gardner

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

vermillion
vermillion - 6/17/2011, 11:15 AM
I did enjoy this movie, but I still left disappointed. It mainly needed more time to really explain stuff, and not jump around so much. That's what irritated me most. I pretty much agree with everything in your review. RR & Strong were brilliant in this. Lively wasn't as bad as people were making her out from the trailers.

Needed more space scenes. I don't think they were in space past 20 minutes. So it lacked that "space epic" part to me.

I also felt it needed more GL action.

This is coming from a hardcore GL fan. 7/10
Coldblood6
Coldblood6 - 6/17/2011, 11:38 AM
Uh, folks, DO NOT GO TO SEE THIS CRAP.

DC fanboys need people to 'go see it/give it chance/it simple fun', etc., etc., so that it will make enough money to warrant a crappy sequel.

Let this piece of crap disappear down the toilet bowl the way it deserves too.

Do not support studios making crap movies.
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 6/17/2011, 4:20 PM
Great stuff. I'll stick this on main for ya asap.
GreenLanternMike
GreenLanternMike - 6/17/2011, 5:27 PM
That's one of the best reviews for it so far. Makes me even more excited to go see it! I am a huuuuge Green Lantern fan but I don't have any expectations going into this
theboy1der1001
theboy1der1001 - 6/17/2011, 6:34 PM
I went to a screening today and everyone clapped and cheered at the end. The film had it problems, but come on, it was NOT as bad as some people are saying.
JediJoker515
JediJoker515 - 6/17/2011, 6:48 PM
Ah, the world of fanboys. Where every CBM is either the best ever or the worst ever. Nice review man
CBMfan001
CBMfan001 - 6/17/2011, 7:00 PM
i enjoyed this movie,i won't say it was brilliant or great but it gave me what i was expecting from this and that is entertainment and fun,it was visually beautiful and had action in right proportions and i thought the 3D was really good.

Vital
Vital - 6/17/2011, 7:10 PM
I enjoyed the movie.
cartersabroad
cartersabroad - 6/17/2011, 9:04 PM
Green Lantern purists will probably not enjoy the movie for all the reasons this review expounds. While it wasn't the worst way to spend two hours, it also wasn't what it could have been. I say slap a ring on Chris Pine and let him square off against Strong's Sinestro for the sequel. Let Reynolds stick with Deadpool...
Bluestreak
Bluestreak - 6/17/2011, 9:39 PM
Personally I find this review a bit of a cop out. You say you enjoyed the movie but you also say that it wasn't good. Don't use the 'cheeseburger' line. Cheeseburger doesn't equal bad. Thor was a Cheeseburger but it wasn't a bad film (IMO). If you enjoyed it great, more power to you, but not being the worst film ever made is not enough to get my money anymore.

Maybe it is an age thing. I'm mid-thirties ( sigh) and i could imagine saying this when i was in my twenties and saw any piece of crap at the movies. Now that time is more precious i really have no patience for a movie that is bad. It's the same with eating out.

I know what it is like, I did my share of apologies for the Star Wars prequels, but I have no time for that shit now.

JYCowboy
JYCowboy - 6/17/2011, 10:22 PM
Something I have noticed with many Superhero films released today is the score. None of them have a strong theme or marches that help identify characters or aspects of the films. There is no dominate Superman Theme or Imperial March. "X-Men: First Class" didn't use the theme esablished in the first film to any degree. In "Thor", where was the hero march when Goldie Locks appears?
Since the release of "Batman Begins" and enforced with "The Dark Knight" mood music seems to be the trend as aposed to establishing character id. Sure, it can be called elementry or insultive to the audiance but without it you don't have that id marker for emotional appeal.
Green Lanturn suffers this loss, as do many films such as Wolverine, Thor, Superman Returns (minus intro & credits) etc. etc. Call it Comic Book Opera, but its important for your average Joe to connect to your shlock film.
bryanvman
bryanvman - 6/17/2011, 11:22 PM
THIS MOVIE WAS EPIC!!! i dont understand everyone's frustration with this. i am a devoted reader and this movie was the closest comic book movie that was made after the original material. this was so much better than that crappy xmen first class movie.
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 6/17/2011, 11:33 PM


GREEN LANTERN was a beautiful movie!

True to the comic, no Guy Gardner tho, not even an F'ing cameo and it should have been much longer... like THOR!

But both much better than First Class easy!

Bring on THE FLASH and all the other DC Heroes!
gandalf550
gandalf550 - 6/18/2011, 5:45 AM
Movie was still good. Won't say that is was fantastic, but it definitely wasn't horrible either. I left the theater still entertained.
TheSchemer
TheSchemer - 6/18/2011, 6:06 AM
I thought it was interesting to note the differences and similarities btw. GL and Thor.

First of all, I thought GL was 'meh,' but some things I did think were done really well. Oa, the suits, the Guardians, Sinestro, they were great. But the plot...oh what a lame plot.

It was disappointing on so many levels. Nothing was really happening. Parallax was really lame. Not enough Green Lantern training, no Sinestro mentoring. And while Sinestro was great, we don't see enough of him to REALLY care or 'gasp' when he puts the yellow ring on after the credits. I got the feeling that they didn't put it at the very end of the credits because that's Marvel's thing and they wanted people to see it.

There is so much GL mythos they could have used that its a shame they didn't, and a shame they pushed so much together to try to fit. Why does Hector Hammond have to be connected to Parallax? Why in the world would the Guardians allow a yellow ring to happen when they saw what happened to the Guardian who turned into Parallax? Why did a Guardian have to be Parallax? No yellow impurity to explain in a sequel. We never see what makes Sinestro tick or police his own sector or him mentoring Hal.

Hindsight being 20/20 and all, I would have done a Secret Origin adaptation with Atrocitus being the main villian, and maybe keep Hector Hammond in there too. Then they could have Parallax in a sequel, and Sinestro and the Sinestro Corp for the third.

Now the thing btw. GL and Thor is that I think Thor sets up for a sequel well, and not GL. Thor, while not the best CBM ever, is strong enough to say ok, lets improve on this and make a better sequel. I just don't feel the same about GL.
TheSchemer
TheSchemer - 6/18/2011, 6:13 AM
@bryanvman

No, this wasn't the closest to the comic source at all.

#1) Parallax is a fallen Guardian.
#2) Hector Hammond is possessed by Parallax.
#3) They killed off Hammond (would have been great as a Hannibal Lecter type character in a sequel)
#4) Abin Sur dies from a wound from Parallax and not Atrocitus.
#5) Sinestro doesn't train/help Jordan on Earth.
#6) No yellow impurity or Parallax trapped in a power battery
#7) Parallax isn't an entity of fear

Mostly they really missed with Parallax.
Coldblood6
Coldblood6 - 6/18/2011, 9:46 AM
Let this shit die.
CaptainPresley
CaptainPresley - 6/19/2011, 4:08 AM
I've been a GL fan since the 70's and I loved this movie!
View Recorder