Green Lantern: The Early Reviews Are Bad. Really Bad.

In Brightest Day
In Darkest Night
No evil shall escape my sight
Let those who worship evil's might
Beware my power
"I know, right?!"

A movie where the main foe is the color yellow, and it is somehow failing to inspire rave reviews?

Color me ultraviolet(the color of shock on the emotional color spectrum).

I'll go to see it because I don't want to see it completely bomb and DC to revert to lets only make Batman and the occasional Superman flick mindset again. Someone else finnally made it out the gates. I probably go alone to see how it is before I recommend it to anyone else, but I'll see it.

was their an answer to why they went with a full CGI suit instead of a CGI transformation, followed by having a actual spandex suit of some sort?

Seeing a lot of "Fun/Enjoyable movie" comments from the non critics who've caught it. So I'm taking this as "Masterpiece? No. Summer Blockbuster Actiony Popcorn Movie? yes."

Just got back from watching it. Definitely a good movie. Was really fun, funny, they didn't skimp on the action/ring constructs, and Ryan Reynolds wasn't bad as Hal. The only problems I had was there wasn't enough time spent on Oa, and the CGI looked really weak at some parts. Other than that? Worth it to watch.

Of course, I didn't really read a whole lotta the comics that much. Waiting for someone who did to come in and nitpick the thing to pieces.

PS: As usual, stick around midway through the credits. Cool scene.

I, among others, thought this movie would be a soul sucking abomination. I hated the previews. I hated the costume. I was wishy washy about Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan.

I can't necessarily call myself a fan of Green Lantern comics. I only sort of know stuff by some kind of nerd-mind osmosis. But I did consider the Green Lanterns a fairly large influence on the DC Universe. This was an important movie for WB/DC to get right. Finally, something besides endless Batmans and tired Supermans for fans to enjoy and people who like movies where stuff happens to be exposed to.

I'll stand by my words saying Ryan Reynolds could be a good Hal Jordan (what little I know of the character). He does a fair to good job with the character he was given. I dont' care for the character they are saying is Hal Jordan, I think it's fair to say they missed the mark in that respect. They (the producers, I assume) were hoping to cash in on Reynolds' ability to play a seat-of-his-pants charismatic person when that isn't who I understand Jordan to be. Despite his silver age beginnings he's as four color, arrow straight as they come. That said, Reynolds played what I thought was a pretty good first human Green Lantern.

The costume was the costume. They didn't change anything from the promotional pictures that I can tell. But I will say that it wasn't as distractingly atrocious as I thought it would be. I still have my problems with it, especially the mask part, but it wasn't the horror I thought it would be.

The best news of the bad news is that all of the stupid stuff (or at least a heaping portion of it) was limited to what we've all seen (and hated) from the previews. There is some hoakey cornball stuff spread throughout but it is, thankfully, limited.

Now, on to the better good news and maybe some of the not so bad news.

Overall, I quite enjoyed it. As I said, I expected a bad, if not the worst, movie. The story was adequate enough. WB/DC did not mess it up. That is the best of the good news. It's not a great movie, but it was good. Everyone turned in a good performance, Mark Strong's Sinestro was the stand out. (Tim Robbins as Senator Hammond and Angela Bassett as Amanda Waller [!!] weren't utilized as fully as I'd like - especially Bassett.)

This won't be a surprise break out hit. It won't win any awards. But neither do I think the nerd rage and derision it's suffered already is warranted. I have to give this a 3.5 out of 5 stars. As a semi-fan, it wasn't bad - but even better than that - it was pretty good as a comic book movie. Entirely appropriate to that genre. Espeically if the nadir of comic movies is something like Batman and Robin. Fans of the series shouldn't be afraid to see it though I leave shelling out the cash to your discretion. (Note: I saw the 2D version.)

Just saw a midnight screening. Ugh. Very, very bad.

Nobody involved in the production of this $150-million movie could be bothered to present story elements in ways that make sense. For example:
- In the sequence where Green Lantern first battles the Parallax-infected Dr. Hammond, the battle ends when GL touches his power ring to Hammond, resulting in an explosion of green energy;
- Soon, we are shown Hal Jordan in his home, talking with Carol Ferris and Hal's tech buddy from Ferris Aerospace;
- Intercut is a shot of Hammond in bed in his home, receiving communication from Parallax.

Huh? GL survives a life-or-death battle with Hammond, and both combatants wind up in their respective homes? How did that happen? We aren't shown, and it isn't explained why this supposedly makes sense.

Storytelling leaps in logic, like this, insult the viewer's intelligence throughout the movie. The script, the directing, the editing... nobody could be bothered to make an intelligent, mature, sensical, appealing presentation.

[Reminds me of a quote I read by a comic book writer who complained about the first two Christopher Reeve Superman movies by noting: it bothered him that writers of $200-million movies could get away with storytelling cheats (such as Superman making time go backwards, Lex Luthor and associates traveling to Superman's Fortress of Solitude via hot-air balloon, Superman's kiss wiping out Lois' memory, etc.) that his editor wouldn't let him get away with in a 20-cent comic book.]

Alas, there are moments that show the promise that the GL movie held but was wasted. For example, when Parallax talks trash to GL about how his world will be destroyed because he has fear, and GL resolutely recites the Green Lantern oath, I thought, "You know, this could be a dramatic, fulfilling resolution if only the presentation leading up to it was better."

Sadly, the GL movie reminded me of the "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" movie. Both of these movies adapted storylines from source comics that comic book fans regarded as classic, epic, profound, beloved tales; yet, the movie versions presented the stories in such a short-thrift, juvenile, disjointed fashion that any redeeming quality was lost.

TIME magazine recently ranked "The Impossibles" as the best super-hero movie ever. What made that movie great was planning. Each second of that computer-animated movie was painstakingly, intelligently planned to present an entertaining story that made sense.

Too often, live-action superhero movies seem to skip over the planning stage in the haste to get other aspects--such as CGI special effects and marketing tie-ins--in place.

I can just imagine, studio honchos scheming about the tone of their Green Lantern movie: "He's gotta be a flawed character, who changes and grows over the course of the movie. And we gotta make him witty and irreverent--you know, like Robert Downey, Jr. in "Iron Man"--to appeal to today's audience."

Actually, I would have preferred if Hal Jordan was presented as a test pilot with "the right stuff"... a mature, self-actualized hero who displayed admirable responsibility and morality. At least, that's the way I've perceived the character from the comics and animated TV shows.

I haven't kept up with comics in recent years, so I don't know how the character has been presented lately. But, to my mind, the movie's characterization of Hal Jordan--as a young, emotionally damaged, immature, irresponsible cad who, nonetheless, is really good at his job--is just wrong.

Saw this and it made me laugh.



In brightest night
I'm still the darkest knight
Evil fears me on sight
I'm ******* Batman!

I caught a midnight showing, and I thought it was "meh." I don't hate the movie, but I don't intend to ever see it again. At every level, this movie felt like it was phoned in.

Ryan Reynolds was playing the same character that he plays in every movie that he's in...again. The stoytelling and writing were weak, hackneyed, and full of cheats. And even the CGI special effects were, for the most part, cheap-looking.

If you're planning to see this movie, keep your expectations low. Don't go in expecting something anywhere near the quality of a The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Kill Bill, or even any random episode of Firefly. Honestly, I felt like I was watching a made-for-TV movie on the SyFy Channel.

Saw it last night at the midnight showing in 3D. Liked it alot. Was it the best CBM of all time, no. But it was a solid movie none the less. And as to all the detractors of the characterization of Hal not being square jawed enough, i say read some of the original GL comics. The uber confident "Right Stuff" Hal is more of a newer telling. This was definatly a "Heroes Journey" Hal that really pulled it together in the third act. I hope there is a sequel where Reynolds gets to show a fully realized Hal.

I enjoyed myself watching it. Was it as good as The Dark Knight or Iron Man? No. Were there issues in the script or editing/direction that could have been corrected or improved during production? Of course. But then, the same is true of the first X-Men or Spider-Man films.

Yes, the "reluctant hero's journey" origin story has been done to death by now in these movies, but everyone on screen does their best with what they've got. It's not trying to be terribly deep or insightful or socially relevant like The Dark Knight or an X-Men movie, but it doesn't try to make excuses for what it is, either. Green Lantern raises the freak flag high and runs with it; you either accept the premise of an army of aliens in glow-in-the-dark spandex and magic rings flying around and making stuff out of light, or you don't.

Catwoman or Wolverine are truly bad comic book movies that I've seen in recent memory. Even Watchmen or, as I said, the first Spidey and X-Men flicks had their cringe-inducing moments. At no point is this anywhere near as bad. Green Lantern might not be terribly spectacular or original in the story department, but it didn't make me wince the way it might have if handled by people with far less respect for the concept or the audience. And there are a number of truly awesome moments when Hal is ring-slinging.

There have been (and likely will be) better comic book movies this year, but I'd say it's still worth at least one look to decide for yourself. Maybe more, if you're like me and end up liking it. The elements are all there for a really great GL movie, and while this might not be it quite yet, hopefully the people behind this have got their sea legs by now and we'll get to see that great movie in the sequel.

(I didn't see it in 3-D, but I'm curious what others who did thought of it. It looked like there were far less lighting issues that might interfere with the more spectacular scenes than in, say, Thor.)

Saw it last night and to me it was on the "meh" side. It wasn't great but it certainly wasn't bad as Catwoman, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, or Elektra. Unfortunately the midnight showing was 3D, and there really wasn't anything spectacular about the 3D usage, aside from making every scene dimly light and hard to see. See the 2D if you can, 3D is a waste.

Only issue I really had was the CGI in the movie. To me it felt that certain CGI scenes in the film looked unfinished or very rough. Example of this was near the end were Parallax is chasing after Hal. Might as well as had a paper cut out of Parallax glued on a stick and move him around and still would have got the same effect.

Story had some rough spots, but I didn't find anything really bad about it. It's the relunctant hero tale that we've all seen and heard before, and thought Reynolds did a good job pulling it off.

I never anticipate any summer action movie filled with CGI to be an overwhelmingly great movie, other than for just the action and effects themselves. If you're expecting more, you are being a bit ignorant.

Going to see this saturday with a Intro and QA with Geoff Johns, who also produced this.

If its as bad as they say, i cant imagine GJ will stick around. And what is really sad, if the movie is genuinely bad, GJ will just ham it up to nerdrage.

bah cant win either way.

Wow. Mr. Poppler's Penguins is getting better reviews than this >.<