Green Lantern movie - thoughts?

[Yoc]

Anyone seen this one yet?
Seems Yahoo is reporting less than good things on it.
Even to the point of lumping it in with turkeys like Catwoman and Daredevil.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/opening-green-lantern-look-5-worst-superhero-movies-224506943.html

Thoughts?

[talkytina]

:-/Since Green Lantern was one of my very favorite comis as a kid, I must go see this one. Post my thoughts on it later. [/color]

[OtherEric]

I know the trailers I've seen have really, really unimpressed me with the CGI.  It just looks bad.  I'll probably see it eventually, but this weekend I'm planning to catch X-men First Class finally instead.

[narfstar]

We went to see Super 8. After the movie there was a storm so we stayed to watch GL in 3D. My wife did not expect to like GL but did and more than me. I liked GL better than Hal Jordan. I did not care for the lead up to him getting the ring. Movie itself was not great but still enjoyable. The 3D was as exciting as I would have liked for the action but the conversations was like they were sitting in the room with you.

[KevinP]

I liked it.  It could have been better.  The concept of Hal Jordan not being absolutely without fear, but possessing the ability to overcome fear was a good one and more dramatic.  Could have used a few setup scenes with GL using his powers (like in SUPERMAN 1 where he patrolled Metropolis and rescued kittens and caught burglars) to make him relatable to audiences.  The GL Corps did not appear in the comics till well after GL was established as a superhero on Earth, and though it's a major part of the mythology now it should have been minimized in the first movie.  My problem with its overuse is that GL as a superhero on Earth makes him unique but in the Corps he's just one of thousands with the same ring, even if he is "the greatest Green Lantern of all."

DC will never be as popular in the movies as Marvel until they figure how how to make their heroes sympathetic and relatable to the general public.  Chris Reeves' Superman had this, especially in Superman 2 with the odds stacked against him but refusing to give up.  The current Superman and Batman are mostly self-obsessed characters, and Hal Jordan is only a few steps above the Seth Rogen Green Hornet.  Marvel shows Peter Parker's self-sacrificing, Tony Stark's turn from indulgent rich guy to hero, Professor X's optimism and the X-Men's bonding, Thor's relating to humanity and now Steve Rogers' determination (falling on the grenade was a excellent character bit).

Could also have used more imaginative ring constructs than swords and guns.  I did like the springs to hurl trucks at the monster (who looked like an overgrown 4th of July black snake) and the racetrack, but the latter was a bit overwhelming for his first major use of the ring; that's where a little setup could have helped.

Looks like GL2 is going to be cosmic again, with Sinestro, and did you notice the setup with Carol Ferris - the call sign on her helmet was "Sapphire." 

[jfglade]

 Since I can no longer see new movies when they are released, I missed the Green Lantern movie. I'm not sure I would have attended a showing anyway, since the material could lend itself to a very convoluted storyline or even re-invention. I was relatively fond of the silver age Green Lantern series during its first few years but as the number of super-heroic titles proliferated, I read about Hal Jordan less and less, and gave up on it completely during the Green Lantern/Green Arrow era. The only reason I'm commenting at all is because of the paucity of messages on the subject. Didn't many people see it, or did those who did have small or no praise for the film?

[John C]

I didn't bother.  I like the character a lot (I jumped in in the early '80s, so my view of Hal Jordan is the powerless guy trying to piece his life back together, but was willing to basically hitchhike across the universe for a chance to help save the universe), but saw Kilowog in the previews and figured it was going to be the revisionist stuff that, to me, just isn't fun, since it treats the franchise more like cops than superheroes and focuses on boring characters like, well, Kilowog.

Add in the apparent mandate that all superhero movie franchises start with origin stories that link the villain to the hero's past (and hey, Green Lantern Sinestro's in the previews, too, wink, wink), and it just sounded like a waste of two hours and, what, fifteen bucks, these days?

[bminor]

It just did not have the "heart" that is was needed.

Frankly I had no empathy for the character, for the most part, of Hal Jordan.

I think I remember a story that Alfred Hitchcock once said, "The three most important things in a film are: story, story and story".

b

[Lady Sky Skipper]

It's not as bad as the movie reviewers say it is but it could have been better. The main problem was that they crammed in too many sub-plots when they should have focused on Hal getting  the ring and becoming a member of the GL Corps. I went to see it with my Mom and sister, my sister Holly is a HUGE Hal Jordan GL fan. Ryan Reynolds is a good choice for Hal.

Oh and an interesting thing I found out was that Mark Millar thought it was the worst movie ever

[Lanfeust]

Seen it this summer, and - well, not much to say. A story on the origins of Green Lantern, packed with lame interpretations of Parallax and Hector Hammond. Geoff Johns knows how to write with these ingredients, but the writers of the movie don't. It's basically the same scheme as the Spider-Man and Iron Man movies, so totally unoriginal these days. Not really good movie.

[theorbys]

I thought 10 minutes less of Hal Jordan-Carol Ferris and 10 minutes more of space, OA,  and the GL Corps would have made this movie much better, either that or get Bob Downey Jr. to play Hal Jordan.  This film should have soared, instead it waddled.  Not sorry I saw it though, the good parts were pretty good.

[CharlieRock]

My only gripe is that it was not long enough.

I mean, lookit all the other super-hero movies coming from the major comic book publishers; Watchmen, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Captain America, etc. They are all 2 1/2 hours long or so.

Green Lantern comes in at a disappointing 90-something minutes.

If it was beefier in the scenes where he was doing his power ring stuff, like maybe show him going on a training mission before returning from Oa, that would have been gnarly.

As it was, I thought it was an okay movie with a lot of unexplored potential.

[JustLucy]

It wasn't such a memorable film to be honest. Such a shame

[paw broon]

Apart from The Flash t.v. movie from yonks ago and The Phantom (which I watch for a Phantom fix), I haven't watched a superhero film right through. Masked men serials do it for me but I can't get into modern superhero films.  The effects look like effects, I could care less about X-Men, Spideys problems seem much more intriguing in the early comics, the G.L movie, or, at least my perception of it, seems to mix up different parts of G.L. history but I could be completely wrong. And the viewer seems to have to sit through a lot of soul searching and/or relationship problems in some of these entertainments.  Anyway, I prefer my films to be around 90 minutes, a civilised duration and one which tends to be short enough to avoid numb bum syndrome.
Actually, I remember now that I saw the 1st. Superman and the 1st. Batman movies and enjoyed bits here and there.  Neither of them compared well with the 1st. Spider serial or Captain Marvel or The Black Commando serial The Secret Code, or King of the Rocketmen.
Only my grumpy old man opinion.

[Roygbiv666]

Ha ha - "yonks". The Flash was a tv series, you may want to look it up on AmazonUK if you just saw a tv movie version.

Most movies are crap, most superhero movies are therefore crap.

Spider-Man II was fun, I personally love the Bale-Batman movies (voice aside), enjoyed the Rocketeer (no idea how faithful it was), Thor was mediocre, GL was mediocre, Captain America was pretty good (wish they went with the Avengers costume in it), first two Superman movies were great, like the 1st two XMen and Iron Man.

I actually liked the way they handled the dreaded "Origin Story Must Be Told, But It's Boring" problem in the second Hulk movie - a montage under the opening credits, done.

I think they should generally structure superhero movies like James Bond films (i.e. the longest running film series in history I think, with multiple actors playing the role, with only one of them being a "reboot" and pseudo-origin story, the Daniel Craig "Casino Royale") - start with a big action piece, maybe the hero is fighting a couple B- or C-list villains, they fight, hero wins, go to opening credits with an origin montage, back to the film and start the story. Boom, easy.

5 year olds understand superheroes, do we really need to "explain" them with origins at this point, even to the unwashed masses?

Apart from The Flash t.v. movie from yonks ago and The Phantom (which I watch for a Phantom fix), I haven't watched a superhero film right through. Masked men serials do it for me but I can't get into modern superhero films.  The effects look like effects, I could care less about X-Men, Spideys problems seem much more intriguing in the early comics, the G.L movie, or, at least my perception of it, seems to mix up different parts of G.L. history but I could be completely wrong. And the viewer seems to have to sit through a lot of soul searching and/or relationship problems in some of these entertainments.  Anyway, I prefer my films to be around 90 minutes, a civilised duration and one which tends to be short enough to avoid numb bum syndrome.
Actually, I remember now that I saw the 1st. Superman and the 1st. Batman movies and enjoyed bits here and there.  Neither of them compared well with the 1st. Spider serial or Captain Marvel or The Black Commando serial The Secret Code, or King of the Rocketmen.
Only my grumpy old man opinion.