Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Review: Green Lantern

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the green-lanterns-light dept.

Movies 201

In summers past we've seen big guns like Superman and Spider-man and Batman make big screen appearances, but this summer it's lesser known heroes like Thor and Green Lantern taking to the big screen with varying degrees of success. What follows is my brief review of the new GL film with some spoilers and commentary. You have been warned.

The plot is simple: Alien gives magical ring to brave test pilot which makes him a member of the space police, and unsurprisingly a big monster is coming to destroy the earth.

I feel like they cast Reynolds wanting him to play Kyle, but the executives had decided that they were going to cast Hal because they all remembered Superfriends. Reynolds is a charming actor with a gross streak, but the movie barely lets him run loose. Peter Sarsgaard is pretty awesome, but the whole daddy-issues thing is so belabored by the end of the movie that you just don't care. Everyone else is completely forgettable (Sinestro), underutilized (Kilowog), or just flat-out boring (Carol).

The special effects are ok. Not great, but not bad either. It doesn't help matters that the whole green lantern ring power is pretty silly. Using the power of will to create giant punching gloves and green gatling guns and springs is pretty cheesy stuff. Of course, that's the bread and butter of Green Lantern: using creative, imaginative solutions to fight monsters. Fun visual gags. The movie shies away from all that, instead just letting GL do flips and float around in a green ball except for occasional moments.

What it all comes down to for me is that the movie failed to embrace the raw 'Fun' in the same way that, lets say, Thor did. Let's face it: both super heroes have a lot of silly in them. OA and Asgard are over-the-top locations. Fighting with a magic ring that can create giant fists to punch people, or using a giant hammer, are sillier weapons than a utility belt or super strength.

The difference is that Thor made fun of it, goofing on the hammer, creating a charming supporting cast of superheroes and humans that made it clear you were supposed to smile and have some fun. But GL spends huge blocks of the movie trying to make you feel like OA is Awesome and that the Lantern Corps are a big deal. Unfortunately, it just doesn't succeed; it comes off as unintentionally cheesy. It spends so much time trying to convince you it's the epic start of a massive franchise that it forgets to have the fun that you want. For example: the joy when Peter Parker first figures out how to web-sling; the thrill of a Mutant displaying newly discovered powers; or just the joy of human flight. Reynolds could have done great stuff here, but it's limited to just a few moments sandwiched between so much grandiose plotting. Ugh.

X-Men: First Class is probably the best comic book movie so far this summer. But Thor is just more straight up "fun." Green Lantern just tries so hard that it feels boring; you'd be better off seeing Super 8, which at least has fun. But there's still Captain America around the corner, and it has had the strongest trailer so far. Here's hoping!

cancel ×

201 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oh boy, oboy, oboyoboyoboy! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502414)

we've been graced with another movie review from der commander!

ICANN's New Domain Policy Resets the Web (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502416)

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) plan to let almost anything be a Top Level Domain (TLD) is about to take the Web back to its Wild West roost. And only those who remember history know what to expect.

Way back in the early days of the web, I remember the domain name gold rush. It was just like the Gold Rush of 1848, with domain name prospectors racing across a virtual country of possible top-level domain names (TLDs) to try and find the gold hidden among them. What constituted domain gold? Anything that anyone else might want—really, really badly.

So unimpressed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502432)

Is this the best humanity can come up with? . I am so not interested in this. I am interested in where we're going with this. Get a grip people, this stuff is totally irrelevant.

Re:So unimpressed (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502462)

Why are you coming to Slashdot to get a demo of what 'humanity' can come up with? You must be angry every day.

Re:So unimpressed (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504034)

Well, some people view that as positive. To paraphrase Henry Rollins from his Spoken Word Tour: "If you don't wake up with an erect dick and an erect middle finger each morning, you are wasting your life."

Re:So unimpressed (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502748)

Hmmmm, someone probably shouldn't be reading the "entertainment" section...

Re:So unimpressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503074)

I was about to read your post, but your UID distracted me. Does that happen often to you?

Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502482)

There's more sacrifice in real life than there are in modern movies. Really, it's an overused tactic from long ago but it has long since bored me when the main character makes a perceived sacrifice and the writers put everything back to normal. For long running series, this is necessary to keep the same characters rolling but a lot of what I see today just makes me feel patronized. Are they targeting a younger age group or afraid that I can't handle loss? And I'm not talking about "Oh boohoo, I have superpowers now and will never know what it's like to be a normal human." I'm talking about real permanent irrevocable loss from a tough decision. Whether it's fun or not gets overlooked in my mind when this act of personal sacrifice for the good is later trivialized.

<Thor Spoiler Alert> That's what bothered me about Thor ... "oh the king is sick, nope instantly better." "Oh, I'll never see Amidala again! Just kidding, there's always a way to restore the waygates." "Oh no, he lost his brother Loki! Wait now Loki's talking to Nick Fury in the post-credits scene." What the hell, Hollywood? I understand that people go to movies to escape reality but what does it even mean when Thor sacrifices any connection to his woman to save an enemy race from genocide and then scenes later it turns out you're just going to make a sequel to undo that? </Thor Spoiler Alert>

What draws me to Sunshine, The Watchmen and Game of Thrones more so than The Green Lantern or Harry Potter? Your friends don't step in and save you at the end and there aren't any phoenix tears to make everything instantly better. Lazy plot devices and disney endings are a dime a dozen--am I the only person that feels this way? I guess profit margin says "yes." Go ahead and check your boxes for love plot, slapstick comedy, action and a happy ending. People have to get sick of your formulas at some point.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

marnues (906739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502608)

Pretty much sums up why I gave up on Marvel and DC at the age of 11.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503700)

Maybe you have common sense but just look around you... these people don't want to give up comic books. Even our fearless leader here hardly says a peep unless it's to ramble on about comic book movies or video games.
 
Maybe you've matured. I'd like to think so. If this is the case and you're looking for hi-tech and science you really should move on. Slashdot has lost its wit a long time again.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (4, Interesting)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502656)

You are absolutely not alone. One of the things that stuck out for me about I am Legend was the hero's ongoing sacrifices. He lost his family. He lost his dog, the last vestiges of his humanity, and finally his life. The story goes on after the movie, but there's no hint of a Legend 2: Zombie Will Smith Fights Back.

Even Black Swan was great in that way. NP gives her all--she gives her very life--to be the perfect white+black swan.

I hate it when movies don't commit.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502826)

You are absolutely not alone. One of the things that stuck out for me about I am Legend was the hero's ongoing sacrifices. He lost his family. He lost his dog, the last vestiges of his humanity, and finally his life. The story goes on after the movie, but there's no hint of a Legend 2: Zombie Will Smith Fights Back.

Even Black Swan was great in that way. NP gives her all--she gives her very life--to be the perfect white+black swan.

I hate it when movies don't commit.

Sounds like you, too, are ready to move on to Indy Cinema - those films where you have good cast, good direction and a story which could end in any way possible. Much more impressive than anything at the corporate cinemas these days, where you see the trailer, you see the film.

Here's a thought for a Super Hero film .. someone suddenly is born with super powers/finds a rune which grants powers/is bitten by a radioactive leech/what have you, they're SUPER now, in some capacity. They are the only one like them in the world of ordinary mortals. Have them explore their own moral code with what they could get away with or what wrongs they could right ("That b**tard Gahaffi, I'll just fly over and grab him and take him to the Hague! Up, up and away!") and finally have the film end on a note of remorse, loss or even death - (what will the world do now that Superperson is dead?)

I'd like to see that .. done in a very serious manner, not with a bunch potty humor and in-jokes.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503038)

Sounds like you, too, are ready to move on to Indy Cinema - those films where you have good cast, good direction and a story which could end in any way possible. Much more impressive than anything at the corporate cinemas these days, where you see the trailer, you see the film.

Aren't the issues under discussion a problem with the comics the films are based on?

I don't read the comics, but after I see a movie I go read up on the topic on Wikipedia. Seems like nothing is permanent in the comic-verse.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503314)

If I had the budget, I'd film Mark Waid's "Irredeemable".

Oh Yea Gawds YES!!! (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503808)

And "Incorruptible" for the counter-perspective and analysis of the true costs of redemption. Waid was brilliant in mapping the 12 steps to the theme of super-hero redemption.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503578)

Sounds like you, too, are ready to move on to Indy Cinema - those films where you have good cast, good direction and a story which could end in any way possible. Much more impressive than anything at the corporate cinemas these days, where you see the trailer, you see the film.

Or, you end up watching something like Enter The Void [imdb.com] , and wishing you could have the last 161 minutes of your life back.

It may have been a good film, but it was well over 2 hours of film what was a cross between Midnight Express, Trainspotting, and something out of a Hunter S. Thompson novel ... all while having had a generous dose of peyote. The 5 minute cut scenes of nothing but sound and light, for instance, left me wanting to stop the DVD.

Sometimes Indy films are art-house and fringy to the point that everyone else finds themselves wondering WTF they've been watching -- while die-hard cinema geeks talk about imagery and subtext the rest of us never saw, and sneering how the uneducated masses can't appreciate a film like that.

I'm the first to admit my film tastes run to the mindless action film -- because I hate watching a movie that at the end I don't know anything more about than before I watched it. Give me car chases, giant robots, spaceships, and girls in tight spandex. I'm sure the fault lies in me, but I've decided I'm OK with that.

Unfortunately, the list of "critically acclaimed" indy films that I've watched and simply didn't "get" has pretty much soured me on them. It's like post-modernism -- if you're not deeply involved in it, it just sounds like gibberish.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504348)

Here's a thought for a Super Hero film .. someone suddenly is born with super powers/finds a rune which grants powers/is bitten by a radioactive leech/what have you, they're SUPER now, in some capacity. They are the only one like them in the world of ordinary mortals. Have them explore their own moral code with what they could get away with or what wrongs they could right ("That b**tard Gahaffi, I'll just fly over and grab him and take him to the Hague! Up, up and away!") and finally have the film end on a note of remorse, loss or even death - (what will the world do now that Superperson is dead?)

I'd like to see that .. done in a very serious manner, not with a bunch potty humor and in-jokes.

Isn't that what Hancock did? Not 100% serious, but it did look at real-world consequences such as, yes Superman you stopped the train before it hit the car stalled on the tracks. Now can you help us clean up the wreck of a train that suddenly goes from 60 MPH to 0?

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502708)

This past weekend I watched Twelve O'clock High. There's a movie about heroes and sacrifice. Probably one of the most honest war movies of the era.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503508)

See Command Decision.
Some similarities in plot, but another good movie ( IMHO ).

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

jomama717 (779243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502798)

Of course the ultimate example of what you are talking about is Lord of the Rings. [ducks]

Granted it was written for children and still manages to hold itself up through pure imagination and exploration of a fantasy world - but I think it has set the tone for many fantasy/scifi stories since, including the ones you reference.

If you watch children play with toys (or remember playing with them yourself, as I do) you'll notice a lot of parallels with modern day fantasy/hero movies - the hero is always put into a completely impossible situation, against enemies that are set up to be so evil and powerful that any hope of defeating them is absurd - and yet the hero always prevails. The details of how are irrelevant. How many times in Terminator: Salvation could the old-school terminator have snapped Connor's neck rather than throw him dramatically into a large cushiony vent pipe? Child's play.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503092)

Of course the ultimate example of what you are talking about is Lord of the Rings. [ducks]

If you read the stuff published posthumously, some of Tolkien's stuff is so grim that I find myself wondering whether he had psychological problems.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503334)

Given the experience of trench warfare in WWI, it would be hard for him not to have some issues.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503396)

Well, there's Boromir. It was an important character in the story until he was killed, sacrificing himself.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (4, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503854)

I remember having a very strong sense of loss at several points while reading the books way back when: at the very end of the books, all elves and mages leave; bilbo repeatedly is described as dying soon; frodo too, and he takes the boat. The ones left behind do not fare much better, I remember feeling sad for Aragorn, essentially reigning over decay, and the remaining hobbits, once again ensconced in their little lives. The only ones who seem to fare OK are the dwarves, back into their mines.

I found it much darker than comics, with their endless resurrections and deus ex machinas.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502828)

You aren't alone, but it's just personal preference.

I like unpredictability and misery in my movies. I like my comedies dark. I am a big fan of unhappy endings.

My wife likes predictability.

To me, her movies seem like watching the same movie over and over. To her, she can't possibly see why I'd want to watch something that isn't relaxing and removed from reality.

Other than causing endless conversations about how much each other's tastes suck, it's not a big deal. Just taste.

Just to Clarify What I Was Begging For (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503354)

I like unpredictability and misery in my movies. I like my comedies dark. I am a big fan of unhappy endings.

While I prefer unhappy endings, I should point out that there's such a thing as a happy but flawed ending. Where the hero wins but must make some sort of sacrifice. It might be their life, it might be someone they love ... hell, I would have been much more satiated with Thor's end of communication with the woman he loved. It's undoing the sacrifice that has made the hero what they are that bothers me. Many of my personal heroes in real life have made such drastic sacrifices through their lifetimes and it's made them better people because of it. When faced with adversity and loss, they have become what I love. Why is this absent from fantasy and fiction?

My wife likes predictability.

To me, her movies seem like watching the same movie over and over. To her, she can't possibly see why I'd want to watch something that isn't relaxing and removed from reality.

Other than causing endless conversations about how much each other's tastes suck, it's not a big deal. Just taste.

I don't want anyone to think my post was arguing against all happy endings or against Campbell's monomyth, it was more so a desire for diversity in film. Yes, predictability is bad but if the norm was for movies to have sacrifice, you shouldn't know what's coming next.

Other than causing endless conversations about how much each other's tastes suck, it's not a big deal. Just taste.

If you enjoyed all these movies, I'm not telling you your tastes suck I'm telling you that they are not very diverse. I can very much enjoy the occasional flawless ending if it's done in a novel or new way like Groundhog Day. What I can't deal with is the same old same old with not only a predictable ending but a flawless diabetes inducing ending. There's one or two directors (Aronofsky) I can cling to and that's about it. I just wish the big movies were more diverse. With movies like the reboot of Batman (as another reply noted), I got glimmers of that but it seems lately we're moving back to 100% happy 100% of the time.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503382)

You aren't alone, but it's just personal preference.

I like unpredictability and misery in my movies. I like my comedies dark. I am a big fan of unhappy endings.

My wife likes predictability.

To me, her movies seem like watching the same movie over and over. To her, she can't possibly see why I'd want to watch something that isn't relaxing and removed from reality.

Other than causing endless conversations about how much each other's tastes suck, it's not a big deal. Just taste.

Hollywood loves your wife's tastes and is catering to them, not yours. Interesting bit on the BBC this weekend, in analysis - many films are being geared to be friendly to the Chinese audiences - Hollywood knows where the money is.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503940)

Hollywood loves your wife's tastes and is catering to them, not yours. Interesting bit on the BBC this weekend, in analysis - many films are being geared to be friendly to the Chinese audiences - Hollywood knows where the money is.

In some territories Pulp Fiction was re-edited so that all the segments followed in correct chronological order, as they didn't think the audience in those places would accept the events being told the way they were for the rest of us because their story telling traditions were far more fixed format-wise and the execs thought the disjoint style of the original edit would be too jarring for them to find interesting or enjoyable.

Not quite the same as tweaking the standard edit we all see to account for possible differences in how the average Chinese audience member takes in entertainment, but Hollywood has been tweaking films for foreign markets for many years where they think it might improve sales. This is separate from censorship, where the differing cuts are usually imposed by an official body in the given territory in order to fit to locally defined standards of what is acceptable: in this case the studios are self editing to try make more money.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502836)

Rachel dieing in The Dark Knight was a pretty good example of a real sacrifice, then again, I am pretty sure that he was going to save her, and was simply lied to about who was where (a point they never really came back to, so you'll miss it if you don't listen carefully before it happens).

I too have to give props to George R R Martin for the Game of Thrones, I have seen the 'main' character die more than once, and characters I hated become likeable, if not loveable (Tyrion). When death happens, it happens like in real life, enemies gloat, friends and family grieve/vow revenge, and the story simply goes on without them (with one annoying exception).

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503452)

Rachel dieing in The Dark Knight was a pretty good example of a real sacrifice, then again, I am pretty sure that he was going to save her, and was simply lied to about who was where (a point they never really came back to, so you'll miss it if you don't listen carefully before it happens).

Slow to comprehend things huh?

You know, come to think of it, if you listen real closely during the end of The Empire Strikes Back, I believe that Darth Vader may actually be Luke's father. He kinda hints at it after he chops off Luke's hand.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502896)

As you listed, there are plenty of movies with "realistic" endings. Guess what? Unlike you, most people don't go to summer movies to get depressed. They want a happy ending. You want real sacrifice? Go to the Marine recruiter, do 13 weeks of boot camp, and go to Afghanistan. There's your reality! There's enough of that to find in real life, without needing a movie to give that to you.

Thor is supposed to fit into the larger Avengers cannon that Marvel is putting together, not just be a one-off superhero movie. Don't you think, since Thor is part of the AVENGERS, that maybe, just maybe, they would find a way to get him back to EARTH, where the Avengers are? Don't you think that, since Loki is Thor's enduring nemesis, that they would find a way for him not to be DEAD? You are looking at this from the myopic view of one movie, instead of through what Marvel is doing with the whole cannon, trying not to make the mistakes so many others make with comic superheroes brought to life.

They are aiming for a target audience. Just because you obviously aren't that audience, doesn't mean they are out of line.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503282)

Don't you think, since Thor is part of the AVENGERS, that maybe, just maybe, they would find a way to get him back to EARTH, where the Avengers are?

Understanding that these plot machinations are all in service of building some "franchise" doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

One thing though: Thor and the heroes of Asgard did fight their wars, occasionally got killed and then were reborn to fight (and drink) again So Marvel didn't invent the endless reboot style of storytelling.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503410)

Don't think of it as a franchise. Think of it in the same way that Marvel does/wants us to think they do: It's a single enormous story, told in several parts from several perspectives.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502936)

It's a very valid opinion, but you know how media producers cannot stay away from clichés. If sad, unhappy endings happened to be the standard, few movies would be worth watching. Pretty much the same as now but in reverse.

Personally, I enjoy movies that have a good ending, but a hard-earned one.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503006)

There's more sacrifice in real life than there are in modern movies.

OK, agreed, but the business model is endless remakes / reboots / resets / reinterpretations.
Lets consider a decent western from the end of the western era... how bout "The Shootist"

Uh, I think thats gonna be a pretty hard sequel or reimagination task. Maybe the kid grows up to be a sniper in WWI and comes home to a "The Deer Hunter" crossover remake kinda thing? Maybe a Dune crossover where they clone the Shootist in to a Ghola and together with the Bene Geserit they save the town from ... uh, all the gunslingers were already dead .. .uh maybe the vampire nest from ringworld? I feel dirty just coming up with these plots, realizing there's probably some coked up studio exec (but, I repeat myself) trying to sell these scripts at this very moment.

As a side issue the weirdest part about The Shootist is it seemed to be set vaguely just before WWI and was made in the very late 60s, so we're getting close to that movie being older than the historical events it portrayed when it was being filmed, what I mean is 1970-1910=60 is rapidly nearing 2011-1970=41

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503078)

Not sure why you're mentioning Harry Potter there, because it's full of sacrifice that is permanent - in fact death is the core theme of the series. Harry's parents die to protect him (and the power of that sacrifice is a major plot point), Sirius Black dies, Dumbledore dies, and a lot of characters die in the final battle at the end. None of that gets undone, and the books go to great lengths to demonstrate that the cost of attempting to cheat death is horrifically high, and the end result isn't even desirable even if you do pay it.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503558)

To sum degree I think it's a bit unfair to cite characters dieing in the last installment of a 7-8 movie story arc as having any real significance. When you kill them the far along the characters are basically already spent. In the cases you cite too, those characters aren't really the main core. For real sacrifice in Harry Potter, they should have killed of Hermoine or Ron mid-series. THAT would have had a major effect.

My personal favorite of sacrifice was Terminator 2. They played that perfectly. Arnold's character was the weaker of the two terminators sent back, but they still managed to keep capturing that recurring theme from the first movie for BOTH terminators: these things are damned hard to kill. The T-800 kept getting up, even when you thought he was toast, it kept coming.

Then, after you were like "YES, the other Terminator is dead. He made it!", they STILL kill him off, but in a valiant and awesome way.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504008)

Comparing the Terminator films is always interesting to me. The first one is really just about survival. The second one has hope, a sense that the future is mutable. The third is fatalistic. And the fourth returns to a new kind of hope.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503260)

Er... I can't speak for the Potter films, but in the book a number of good guy characters die by the end. I mean, geez, the story starts out with the main character's parents being murdered.

That being said, you are correct in you rassessment of the Green Lantern and Hollywood in general.

"Phoenix Tears Cure Everything" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503568)

Er... I can't speak for the Potter films, but in the book a number of good guy characters die by the end. I mean, geez, the story starts out with the main character's parents being murdered.

Why didn't he just rub some phoenix tears [wikia.com] on them? Harry Potter is rife with lazy plot devices [tumblr.com] .

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503308)

There apparently isn't going to be a third Fantastic Four film. I doubt there will be a single sequel to Green Lantern. The Star Trek reboot must have not done well enough to get an immediate sequel either, and we're just coming up on the second attempt to reboot the Planet of the Apes, (apparently unconnected to the Ape Lincoln Memorial version).
        It's not just that sacrifice isn't permanent. Things don't get permanently changed in general. For the Fantastic 4 films, why not cure THE Thing? Why not have Reed Richards sell flying cars and other ultra tech to everybody until the world looks different? Why not permanently kill Dr. Doom? For Trek, why not make the 2009 Kirk not a womanizer? Did we really need a new Chekov? (Not that there's anything wrong with having one, but in the original series, he was added to target the same young girl audience that was interested in the Monkees - not exactly a good reason to add one for the film).
Hollywood slavishly retains some things and drops others, and usually doesn't see the bigger picture. In the original Wild Wild West, the two characters formed a balanced pair, one mostly Physical, one mostly Mental. The fact that we never saw the train crew in the original helped play up that fact, because the viewers didn't worry about whether they were there more to support the physical actions of West or the mental feats of Gordon. Original Trek did the same thing, but with a Physical-Mental-Emotional triad. Does anyone think that the people who made the film Wild Wild West took that into account one way or the other before deciding to show the train crew, or make the only source of comedic relief a 'pseudo-poofter' angle?

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (2)

Ghostworks (991012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503312)

So far as Thor goes, sacrifice was not one of the things that bothered me. I expected Odin to be fine, since it would otherwise be Ragnarok, and I expected Loki to survive, because Loki is the reason the Avengers were formed in the comics. A comic fan and a non-fan viewer will see two slightly different movies, because the viewer may wonder "when does the villain die" while the fan will wonder "how does this sync up with canon and the Avenger movie coming out next year."

Thor was irritating to me only because 1) they had to "science-up" the gods, and 2) because Thor's lesson in humility seemed incomplete and forced due to time constraints.

By point (1), I mean that they could not have true "gods". They had to be "a highly-evolved, long-lived race that primitives on some planes would worship as gods and build a mythos around." Yggdrasil* can't be a literal, mystical tree mapping the 9 worlds of the Norse cosmology, but is a metaphor for a network of wormholes between planets. And so on. I can only assume this was done as a preventative measure, just in case middle-America decided it couldn't cotton to the notion of strange gods in a fantasy, and decided to just stay home instead. (*Sidenote: why on Earth does Yggdrasil need to be in the firefox spellcheck dictionary?)

By point (2), I mean that the intent always seemed to be that Thor would live among the mortals, become a champion to them, and learn humility before he could return to Asgard (or at least get Mjolnir back). He got Mjolnir back at the very end, mostly because Odin (or the director) said "okay, this is running long, let's finish up."

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503502)

(*Sidenote: why on Earth does Yggdrasil need to be in the firefox spellcheck dictionary?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil_Linux/GNU/X [wikipedia.org]

It generally took the same beatings in the early 90s that Ubuntu took in the late 00s WRT to appealing to the n00bs, although they got some extra frying for trying to charge way too much money in a market where the competition was mostly free. They also got flamed for not including some source code, which wouldn't have been so bad if they weren't trying to overprice it.

My personal, possibly faulty, recollections are it was more or less free SLS except it was some years later to market than SLS and you got to pay $100 for it...

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503320)

Your friends don't step in and save you at the end.

It sounds like you need some better friends.

Perhaps I'm too young, but I've had friends come traveling overnight by car to help me when I needed it. A friend from my childhood went out, got into heroin, watch a dozen people die in front of her, and has since rebuilt her life into a reasonable facsimile of success. Happy endings do happen, and people can be loyal. Now, granted, having the ability to rebuild a life usually requires good friends, and having good friends usually requires being a decent person in the first place, but there are exceptions. Don't be an ass, and you'll find plenty of karma to work life out.

What's the fun in a story where everything just goes wrong? Oh, sure, there's a few things that pull it off well, like a certain Pisan tower, but they're best viewed as works of art rather than works of entertainment. A significant part of the fun in a movie is seeing how the hero can pull things together at the end. Maybe he apologizes to his friends, and assembles a team of dedicated sidekicks to combat some evil. Maybe he falls into an inventive trance and builds a perfect widget to save the day. Maybe he turns an earlier defeat into motivation to improve. Maybe he gives up, accepts the status quo, and realizes that he's actually the one causing problems.

The resolution is half of the story. If you don't want a happy ending, don't let the movie end. Walk out. When the Big Bad Monster is coming to eat the hero's soul, just leave and assume the hero's defeated. Are you missing something you really want to see, anyway?

Real life does have its happy endings, but they aren't placed squarely in front of your eyes. Go look for them. Go look for the kid graduating high school despite a brain injury in his third year. Go look for the guy who walks into a road, stopping traffic from hitting a child. Go look for the friend who will drop everything and come across the country to help clean up a deceased parent's house. Go find the other half of life.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503584)

It sounds like you need some better friends.

Like the old saying goes:

Friends help you move;
Good friends help you move bodies.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503338)

There's more sacrifice in real life than there are in modern movies. Really, it's an overused tactic from long ago but it has long since bored me when the main character makes a perceived sacrifice and the writers put everything back to normal.

Darn these modern movies! Whatever happened to the good old movies that didn't do this kind of stuff. Classics like "It's a Wonderful Life". Oh, wait.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503342)

as a note, it appears haven't read the last harry potter installment. hopefully they don't gloss over all those sacrifices in the movie though, otherwise you're rant would hold true on most points.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503384)

Without revealing any spoilers I think you should watch The Dark Knight. I enjoyed that movie immensely because it doesn't do any of the things you described. There are still some good movies out there, but they're pretty damn rare these days.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

berwiki (989827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503528)

I was really excited for the sequel to Wall Street. But it was a shithole.

Gordon Gekko steals from his daughter, she disowns him, he turns that money into a trillion fucking dollars....donates an insignificant amount of that money to some bullshit cause, and they all make up....right at the end of the movie.

It felt so 'tacked on' and pointless. Let the man be an asshole, that's why Michael Douglas won an academy award in the first one. He was heartless, and the plot wasn't so jarring. It didn't even make sense when the curtains closed.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503572)

The endings you seek went the way of the grues.

Now that being said - I can understanding why we don't have as many any more. Everyday life is filled with bad endings, bad choices, missed opportunities. Movies are an escape for a reason.

Personally I like a mix. Game of Thrones is great for the reasons you describe; but I liked Thor's ending as well. The important part of Thor was that he didn't *know* his sacrifice wasn't permanent when he made it. The later impermanence of it is largely irrelevant to the story.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503908)

It's just reflecting its comic book origins. No one ever really dies in comic books. No real sacrifices are made. Dead heroes are always brought back. Everything bad just turns out to be in some alternate universe. Pam always finds Bobby in the shower at the end.

But if you want to cite the most egregious example of this, you have to go back a lot further than modern superhero movies. The "Oh, I'll just reverse time and take it all back" cheat ending of the original Superman in 1978 was the worst example by far. It was a shame too, as that was one of the best superhero movies ever made (excluding the aforementioned lame-ass cheat at the end). If they had only had the balls to leave Lois Lane dead at the end, it would have gone down as a true legend of a film.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503930)

Your friends don't step in and save you at the end and there aren't any phoenix tears to make everything instantly better. Lazy plot devices and disney endings are a dime a dozen--am I the only person that feels this way?

Nope. Actions without consequences, success without sacrifice - all too annoyingly Disney for me. Some recent movies do buck this trend. Someone mentioned Black Swan; how about Body Heat (from way back when). For something a bit more classic, read/watch Hamlet (almost everyone dies) or Romeo and Juliet (hero and heroine commit suicide) - sorry "spoiler alert" :-)

I also highly recommend the movie Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead [wikipedia.org] - haven't read the play, but imagine it's also good - which is Hamlet from the perspective of the supporting characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern .

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

zzsmirkzz (974536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503960)

more so than The Green Lantern or Harry Potter?

I take it, you did not read the Harry Potter books and are only judging the movies. There is permanent loss in the sacrifices of Harry and the other wizards of the world - many die (including both his parents - at the very beginning) in the fight and a long repeated saying, even in the World of Magic, death is permanent, there is no coming/bringing someone back.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504534)

You're absolutely right. The simplistic and safe storylines in addition to constant, gaping plotholes are two big reasons why I haven't been motivated to watch movies in years. I'll catch something from time to time, although never in theaters. But generally, I always feel like most movies are patronizing the way everything is spoon fed to the audience.

There are some indie gems, but a lot of that is lacking too, but for different reasons that the mainstream.

it's hard to make a good superhero movie (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502584)

if you give it to a bunch of corporate suits and a squadron of rewriters, you get something boring like green lantern

if you give a fistful of money to a director you trust, you get christopher nolan's the dark knight. that's the way!

or... you may get ang lee's hulk. oh, oops

so you don't want to trust quirky directors with tons of money... but you don't want boring vomitus from a squadron of executives

so... split the difference. give jon favreau a wad of cash, but you attach some strings and keep yourself in the loop, and you get iron man

hollywood: you have to get the director with some quirk and passion. so sorry martin campbell, you've arrived at hired hack status

Re:it's hard to make a good superhero movie (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502982)

The deal with movies of comics these days seems to be make a cheesy attempt, rake in the millions based on the name, then wait 10 years and do it right and get everyone to see it done right. There are very few that do it right the first time.

Re:it's hard to make a good superhero movie (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503214)

i think you are referring to batman

actually, the original 1989 was a pretty damn good movie. of course, totally different than dark knight, but good on its own merits in its own time. yes, by the time mr. freeze and poison ivy and bane and nippled suits showed up, it was suckage, but it took time to get there

likewise, in a few iterations, nolan's batman universe will be suckage too, much like cameron leaving the terminator universe left it as suckage. let's hope nolan and thomas hardy can do something inspiring with bane in the meantime:

http://watchplayread.com/first-images-of-tom-hardy-as-bane-in-dark-knight-rises/ [watchplayread.com]

also, superman was done right the first time, and was suckage the second time (now they're trying for a third time!)

and let's not talk about the hulk

Re:it's hard to make a good superhero movie (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503464)

i think you are referring to batman

actually, the original 1989 was a pretty damn good movie. of course, totally different than dark knight, but good on its own merits in its own time. yes, by the time mr. freeze and poison ivy and bane and nippled suits showed up, it was suckage, but it took time to get there

Agreed. I like Nolan's take on Batman, but as far as I am concerned Michael Keaton is THE Batman of film. Kevin Conroy is my TV Batman (at least in voice).

The first Michael Keaton Batman was great, and still holds up fairly well today. I can't think of many 80's action-type movies that hold up well over 20 years later. It was dark, action packed, and all out fun. The second one wasn't my favorite film but it was OK. After that it got progressively cheesier.

Re:it's hard to make a good superhero movie (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503694)

Yes, the original [youtube.com] was the best by far..

Re:it's hard to make a good superhero movie (1)

paedobear (808689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504584)

Original [youtube.com] you say?

and (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502592)

they all suck

Re:and (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502988)

And the real reason is that most superheroes do have a way too black and white view of what's right and wrong.

Maybe they should have made a movie where Green Arrow was the main figure instead - and look into the character as it were depicted during the 70's. Sometimes it's the darker parts of a hero's mind that has to be reflected too. Very much of the "why" behind something that happened in addition to the act of crime.

Another character that actually shows more than the plastic personality is Ben in Fantastic Four. He is showing that it's not always easy to be a hero.

Re:and (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503418)

What really makes or breaks a super-hero movie is how well the non-superhero section of the movie goes. In green lantern, I felt like any time the ring was off, and Ryan Renolds was acting like Ryan Renolds, we were just marking time waiting for him to use the ring. The love interest was boring and pointless. Contrast this with iron-man, where they cast a lead actor who could carry the character when he wasn't in uniform. An Oscar caliber actress also helps a great deal. This same formula helped Thor, but to a lesser degree. Despite trying to make us like her because she was a cool fighter pilot, the girlfriend character was a drag on the movie.

Plus, there was no logical reason for the Lantern Core to change their minds and show up at the end and save his bacon. The movie would have been better if he had extricated himself, then flown back to Oa with a big heaping bag of "I told you so", followed by some "We'll consider that" by the Guardians. Not great, but better.

Reelz Fyzicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502618)

I really enjoyed how a helicopter flying 20ft of the ground created zero wind for the party literally right under it and when becoming crippled, the pilot decided to accelerate and fly forward as fast as possible, instead of just landing. Made Michael Bay look like Shakespeare...

Re:Reelz Fyzicks (2, Funny)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502720)

Made Michael Bay look like Shakespeare...

That is the cruelest comment in history.

I found it entertaining (1)

Mandrake (3939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502628)

I guess I mostly found this movie entertaining because I went in expecting garbage, and was pleasantly surprised to find that unlike some other movies recently, there was a coherent plot, and the acting wasn't terrible. I concur that it wasn't as good as first class or thor, but I still found it to be an enjoyable movie, not half as bad as everyone seems to make it out to be.

Re:I found it entertaining (1)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502960)

Same here. I just didn't go into this (or Thor, or Iron Man, or Incredible Hulk, or any of them really) thinking I was going to get my Shakespear fix. Green Lantern was no worse than many of the superhero films of recent years and better than several. It just has enough flaws and to have arrived at the exact moment in time when the public has had enough and wants something more than what they're seeing on the screen. Marvel is about to deliver with Captain America and the upcoming Avengers tie-in picture. Nolan's film was very good and upped the expectation of quality where these kinds of films are concerned and Marvel is in the process of scaling up the stage. This Green Lantern film made 5 years ago makes $300 million and a couple of profitable sequels. Made today it runs face first into the growing backlash against comic book movies and the overindulged and cynical fanboys who would have creamed in their pants at it years ago. I can't understand the hate that's been poured on this film. I watched it in a full theater full of people who seemed to really like it. Walking out all I heard were positive comments. Nobody was running back to the box office to buy another ticket but nobody was bitching about it either.

Re:I found it entertaining (1)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504266)

Lowered expectations are the key to happiness

Can we have a review from a non-Marvel fanboy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502668)

Thor, Spider-man and X-Men. Three references to other movies who did things better. Very nice; also not that relevant.

I feel that this movie had a massive mountain to climb according to the reviewer. Pretty short too, but I guess that's all you can fill on one of the napkins they give you at the movie theatre nowadays. At least it wasn't in crayon.

Re:Can we have a review from a non-Marvel fanboy? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503412)

Who, besides a Marvel fanboy, would go to such a train wreck of a movie?

I would, and did (1)

axl917 (1542205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503858)

I don't read comic books...oh, excuse me..."graphic novels"....and what I know of Green Lantern is just from the old Superfriends cartoons of the 70's/80's.

For what it was, a fluff early-summer action movie, it was entertaining. standard comic plot devices...outsider/loner with daddy issues, a girl that is also desired by the nerds soon-to-be-supervillian friend, etc...etc...aside. Kindof a weak fight at the end...flinging prlalax-whatever into the sun just didn't feel satisfying...but you don't go to summer movies expecting Oscar material.

Not my Green Lantern (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502680)

This is the problem with growing up - you return one day to see what they have done with your old comic book heroes. Nothing looks familiar, so you pass.

If it were quirky or fun to watch I might go for it, but these very purposeful heroes of today's cinema are so preposterous I can't really stomach it (plus the cost of admission would buy me a pizza, which I'm sure to enjoy more fully.)

Here's an exercise - stand on a street corner in your downtown area and try to visualize any of these "heroes" at work. Takes a heck of a leap of imagination, doesn't it? Works much better if you read the comics in your bedroom or treehouse.

Re:Not my Green Lantern (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503288)

(plus the cost of admission would buy me a pizza, which I'm sure to enjoy more fully.)

What kind of theater charges so little to see a movie? Or you mean some kind of pro-rated monthly cost of a torrenting cablemodem instead of a theater? Around here actually attending a movie at a theater is more like a full homemade steak dinner... a nice london broil with homemade garlic butter slathered on after grilling to perfection and a homemade Caesar salad (well, maybe I'll buy the dressing) and some steak fries (oil the grates and grill until crispy of course) dipped in salsa instead of ketchup and some homemade garlic bread and a small glass of sweet cherry wine to finish it off as desert... is still cheaper that going to the movies and buying some popcorn and sodas. And having said that, I'm feeling really hungry right now... I can (and have, repeatedly) easily serve four adults that quality of dinner for less than the cost of taking them to the theater. Its not like we're talking "theater" vs "kraft mac and cheese" here. Movies at a theater are really freaking expensive for what you get...

$200 million on that turkey? (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502728)

I can't see how they spent $200 million on that turkey. There aren't that many sets, and the big ones are obviously green-screen work. The alien city (?) is so fuzzy that it looks like bad video game art.

The hero is a jerk. The villain is pointless. The Green Lantern corps meeting looks like a Nazi rally, fist-raising and all.

Wait for the DVD, coming to a bargain bin near you soon. Maybe this will kill off the second-tier comic superhero genre for a while.

Re:$200 million on that turkey? (2, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503034)

I can't see how they spent $200 million on that turkey. There aren't that many sets, and the big ones are obviously green-screen work. The alien city (?) is so fuzzy that it looks like bad video game art.

Psst! Hollywood accounting. "Sorry we can't pay your bonus, the film lost money. Lolz."

Re:$200 million on that turkey? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503072)

But that's what the US propaganda machine intended, when they started spreading all those "super heroes" stories in the cold war times.
It's the same thing, as the concept of the "Übermensch"/"Übersoldat" in Nazi Germany.
Or those huge statues of "the worker from the working class" is communist states.
Or did you think the US was an exception? ^^

Re:$200 million on that turkey? (2, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503264)

Maybe this will kill off the second-tier comic superhero genre for a while.

I hope not. If going to next year's big blockbuster requires me to watch Spiderman, Superman, or Batman's origin story again, I'll just stay home. At least with the 2nd tiers, you get a chance to do something new. Iron Man was a 2nd tier after all.

We liked it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502766)

My wife and I saw it this weekend and we both enjoyed it a lot. We also enjoyed Thor and The Green Hornet earlier this year. Of the three Green Lantern was my least favorite, but still good fun with visual effects that were quite good.

I'm so sick of people watching a movie like Lantern and examining it with the same lens you'd use for a Woody Allen film or a Scorcese film. That's like reading Dora the Explorer and complaining about the flat characters and unrealistic situations. They are different things with different purposes.

So stop over-analyzing, suspend your disbelief, relax and enjoy the movie. That's why they make them.

Re:We liked it (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502956)

So stop over-analyzing, suspend your disbelief, relax and enjoy the movie. That's why they make them.

That has to be the saddest comment I read this month.

Re:We liked it (1)

coronaride (222264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503506)

Agreed - I wouldn't read Dora the Explorer to my kids, let alone admit that that's the sort of guilty pleasure that I would pay to indulge in. If you want to turn your brain off, take a nap - it's free, easy, and better for you.

Re:We liked it (1)

torgis (840592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503756)

That's like reading Dora the Explorer and complaining about the flat characters and unrealistic situations. They are different things with different purposes.

So stop over-analyzing, suspend your disbelief, relax and enjoy the movie. That's why they make them.

So we are comparing the depth and plotlines of a movie with production costs of around $200,000,000 USD to an animated short meant for 4 year old girls? Got it. I knew the expectations for summer movies was low, but never quite realized how low.

the other green movie..... (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502804)

green hornet... was better than this drivel... and that's saying alot considering how green hornet also sucked

agreed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502842)

but its not a "magick" ring its a piece of tech - lol
    and yes they tried for too much and didnt have enough and jordan with Reynolds wasnt as
awesome crazynuff lol especially for a fighter pilot let alone imaginative enough.
the whole daddy issues is too much for the movie concept and i had a lot called before hand
but the "cameo" of the biggest B* in the dcU American Government was actually pretty cool if
drastically underplayed
it reminded me too much of HULK - though i think hulk was better but not good enough lol

It's a middle ground movie. (1)

indecks (1208854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502852)

I saw Lantern on Saturday. I've always liked the Green Lantern since I was a kid but I've never been super-familiar with it like I was with Spider-man or Batman.

Again I'd say it was a mid-grade comic book movie. Good visuals, but it was a tad slow. I'd have liked to see more of Hal being a Lantern on Earth, and of course it could have used a lot more Sinestro (or Mark Strong, for that matter). Also, the reviewer made a mistake - Sinestro was hardly forgettable. He was awesome, because he was played by the talented Mark Strong. I couldn't wait to see more of him and that last bit with him and the Yellow Power Ring was awesome.

It wasn't as well done as something like Dark Knight or Spider-man 2, but it also wasn't horribly done like Spider-man 3 or Fantastic Four. I got my $10 at the theater. I won't see it at the theater again, but I'll likely purchase the BluRay when it's released.

Come on Captain America.

BTW I'm not really a Marvel fanboy. I do 'prefer' Marvel comics to DC, but when it comes to the heavy hitters like Superman, Batman, (and pretty much the entire Top Tier Justice League members) I WAYYY prefer DC. The Avengers WISH they could be as cool as the JLA.

Re:It's a middle ground movie. (1)

rilian4 (591569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503514)

"I couldn't wait to see more of him and that last bit with him and the Yellow Power Ring was awesome."

While it was certainly cool, I didn't see a connection for him using it based in the movie plot. Hal makes the guardians and Sinestro see that Will is good enough and they don't need fear to beat fear. Sinestro even shows up to rescue Hal at the end...there is no plot connection between that and him putting on the yellow ring. Why did he do it? There was no sign of any temptation. No voice in his head egging him on, nothing. He just does it....I don't get it. There is nothing there showing me any reason he would turn at that point in the movie

Guess I'm in the minority (1)

emeyer (30603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502876)

I loved this movie! I'm looking forward to seeing it again. I guess I'm a sucker for Super Hero movies, but I loved Thor and X-Men first class too. Much better than the Spiderman movies ... those were yawners.

-Eric

Garbage (4, Interesting)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502906)

Before you read this, understand I'm particularly harsh on films, but, with so many good films out there, it's not fair to treat the bad ones with a gentle touch.

Personally I found the film to be quite bad. I went in there expecting nothing and still left disappointed. It's not that they didn't come up with a compelling story (they didn't). It's not that I never felt attached to any of the characters (I didn't). It's not even that so many of the lines and characters felt out of place (they do). It's that the film suffers from fluidity issues from the very beginning. I want to believe that there was a much more comprehensible film originally shot and then some jackass in the editing room decided to take out chunks of the film and slap it together so that it could be under 1:45, because the film feels jerked around and unnatural, not to mention the plot hole issues. There is a particular scene where right before Hal is chilling with his girl. Then, the villain attacks this underground military base where Hal has never been, and all of a sudden he bursts through the wall with no explanation as to how he got there or knew what was going on. After the battle is over, both the hero and villain are suddenly in their home, with no explanation as to how that happened. This is probably the worst it gets in the film, but that same lack of fluidity is what seeped into ever part of the film and made it a complete failure to me. That said, it's not the worst super hero film ever made. It's better than X-men 3 and Spiderman 3, but not by much. I give it a 4.5/10.

Re:Garbage (1)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503588)

That was a better written review than Taco's.

Thanks!

Re:Garbage (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503618)

I would have had a much longer and grueling training sequence.

Cut out the romance- I'm not anti-romance, but I get that in every other film. This is superhero fiction. Give me more god-like beings punching one another. It's not like Superman/Lois Lane where it's pretty ingrained into the mythos.

Also cut the whole scientist infected by the yellow goo subplot. That seemed bolted on for no reason at all.

The fallen Guardian as a villain was good idea, but make him less giant monster and more just misguided bastard. Would have been more interesting to have him still be a little old-looking Guardian guy, but able able to drop kick Jordan over a mountain. And give me his motivations. He was destroying worlds... why, exactly? How does being imbued with the primal force of fear make you do that?

There's actually some good, potentially deep ideas at play in the Green Lantern universe. Be nice to see them used. I like the whole spectral approach to the various emotions and facets of sentience. Would red be hate or love? Or both? ;-)

I also would have had the other Lanterns show up to help Hal much sooner. The Lantern Corps is supposed to be about unity which implies teamwork. Have Sinestro save Hal's life. That makes it even more tragic when Sinestro turns.

I liked it. (4, Interesting)

TechHSV (864317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503040)

I've been a Green Lantern fan for about 20 years. I can still remember going through the white boxes at the comic book store trying to find any issue that I missed. I liked the movie for what it was. They had to skim and condense many things from the GL lore, but explaining a history that begins at the big bang can really eat into the 2 hours that people will sit through a movie. The OP mentions that the GL Corps is played up to be a big deal and OA as being awesome as bad things. These are freaking awesome things, this isn't the Rascals club house. The cool part about Green Lantern is that imagination and will power can be used to do amazing things. Realizing this as a young geek reading comics was a huge deal for me and many others.

To summarize, I thought the movie was fun enough for your average summer movie goer and did better than expected from the POV of a long time GL fan. I would have liked some more inside type of stuff thrown in (even a mention of Alan Scott), but it was still pretty freaking cool hearing the Oath in a movie.

Re:I liked it. (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503638)

Actually, I thought the concise introduction to the Corps at the beginning was pretty well done. Short and sweet and told you what you needed.

Unless you're a big fan, GL is one to skip (2)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503186)

I was never a comic book fan, and I saw Green Lantern on Friday only because a group of friends who are fans wanted to see it. I knew I was in trouble when a dramatic voiceover introduced us to a solid dozen names and places, including the happy planet of intergalactic peacekeepers and the main arch-villain, who's names I promptly forgot.

Not only did the story come with an enormous amount of baggage, but it made quite a mess of a story going forward. It seemed like the setting was driving the narrative instead of the other way around. As if some screenwriter was standing by with a stopwatch worrying that the audience will lose interest since Hal hasn't flown anywhere off planet for over two minutes.

The never-ending fight scenes were made less dramatic by virtue of the fact that Hal's limitations were never really explained or explored. It wasn't even clear whether he knew himself. That really spoiled the movie for me more than anything else -- when Batman was pinned by Liam Neeson in the EL-train car, you knew that he was vulnerable, and it was that collateral of mortality that defined the character. Here, when the main character had no problem flying across the galaxy for a quick meeting with his idiot boss and was literally dodging asteroids in the climax, it wasn't so clear.

The American (1)

bsy_at_play (718756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503222)

If Hollywood is getting to the lesser-known superhero comics, I'd like to see The American made into a movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_(comics) [wikipedia.org] It's darker and has more room for serious stuff. As well as fun....

Re:The American (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503564)

If Hollywood is getting to the lesser-known superhero comics, I'd like to see

"Black Hat Hacker" and "Megan" from XKCD? Now that I would actually pay to see...

Thor, I loved the movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503316)

As a long time comic book collector I thoroughly enjoyed Thor as a movie. To be frank I was a little concerned when I heard they were making it and hoped they would not ruin the the story or totally redefine the character as is often the case with Hollywood.

green lantern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503330)

if I used the same logic as everyone who commented on their comments
then they all are blowing it out their &&ss
same whiney drivel trying to apply real world logic to a comic book

Radioactive Swamp Ass (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503414)

I thought Pajiba nailed it [pajiba.com] .

DC Animated Studio (1)

zaibazu (976612) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503728)

If you like Green Lantern, watch the recent Green Lantern: Emerald Knights

Less annoying than the mess up X-Men (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504420)

Actually this didn't bother me as much as the totally screwed up X-Men flick with the characters completely messed-up time line wise. Mystique the same age as Xavier? Beast probably 10 or more years older than his regular teammates? Alex a decade older than Scott???

Green Lantern has been retconed by DC so many times and is such a minor hero you can mess with his character with impunity but Hollywood's treatment of the X-Men in all it's attempts confirms my opinion that the sooner the faultline dumps it into the Pacific the better.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>