Green Lantern: The Fanboy Free Breakdown

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I liked it to be honest but then again I like to set the bar really low for Superhero movies as I tend to expect cash ins. To be honest the only thing I thought that was really crappy to the source material was Parallax the rest I have kinda come to be grudgingly accept as the norm. The Parallax design was shit.

Canid117:

Brad Shepard:
*Facepalm* Ok, this crap is getting old bob, first you attack people for liking the expendables, now this? Just stop the rage man, let people like what what they like, dont try to say there wrong for liking it, damn.

If you see this as on the same levels of his expendables rage then I really doubt that you actually read the article.

rage is rage

Brad Shepard:

Canid117:

Brad Shepard:
*Facepalm* Ok, this crap is getting old bob, first you attack people for liking the expendables, now this? Just stop the rage man, let people like what what they like, dont try to say there wrong for liking it, damn.

If you see this as on the same levels of his expendables rage then I really doubt that you actually read the article.

rage is rage

Except this isn't rage this is movie bob calmly explaining the technical failings of the movie. Did you even read what he wrote? Did you even read the title?

Canid117:

Brad Shepard:

Canid117:
If you see this as on the same levels of his expendables rage then I really doubt that you actually read the article.

rage is rage

Except this isn't rage this is movie bob calmly explaining the technical failings of the movie. Did you even read what he wrote? Did you even read the title?

do you know your comming off as snippy? and yes, I read it, and i think hes full of crap, it was a good movie, not the best, he has fanboy glasses on.

Brad Shepard:

Canid117:

Brad Shepard:
rage is rage

Except this isn't rage this is movie bob calmly explaining the technical failings of the movie. Did you even read what he wrote? Did you even read the title?

do you know your comming off as snippy? and yes, I read it, and i think hes full of crap, it was a good movie, not the best, he has fanboy glasses on.

Do you know that you are coming off as hating movie bob for being movie bob instead of for what he wrote? If you feel it is a good movie then that is your opinion and you are free to explain it. Movie Bob did not attack the people who liked this movie he attacked the movie. If you can not see the difference between those two things then you sir are the ones with fanboy glasses on not movie bob.

Off topic (sorta)

Did anyone know its part of dc canon that GL kyle rayner got drug raped in gotham city?

Seriously, I got round to reading JLA/HITMAN and theres a direct reference from GL himself as to why he hates gotham. He says he got his drink spiked and could remember nothing but a voice saying 'bueno, bueno'

This is a reference to garth ennis created character bueno excellente, who 'fights crime with the power of perversion', basically sodomising criminals to death. How ennis got away with this character I do not know but he's the one character from the book not killed off so technically he's running round the dc universe somewhere.

I find it pretty funny that the green lantern got ass his ass fucked...

Thanks for saying that about Iron man Bob, I thought I was crazy.

ccdohl:
Hal is meant to be a bit more serious. He isn't a comedic character

Wat.

Words like 'serious' and 'character' are not words that can be used to describe Hal Jordan.

I wasn't really expecting this movie to "not suck", especially if DC / Warner are trying to find their new cash cow since Harry Potter is pretty much done. And glowing veins will never be as classy as a bat-nipple.

image

One of these years critics will realize that bashing movies everyone liked is a bad business plan. I thought it was good, though Sinestro being a better character than Hal Jordan was kinda weird.

One problem I had with the film was Hal's whole "you have to be chosen" exchange with Hammond.

Pardon? This is the big moral summation of the film? Granted, Hal gets a much better one later on when he's with the Guardians before heading off to fight Parallax, but this is a major point in the film's plot, and we're expecting some sort of moral closure before Hal finishes off the primary villain. Especially since Hammond is so sympathetic (his dad's "doer" speech hits extremely hard to anybody who's felt that they don't live up to somebody's expectations), we're expecting some last "this is where you went wrong" speech, but all we get is "You have to be chosen."

So remember, kids, that no matter how hard you try or how many achievements you make, everybody (and that includes your father, your peers, the love of your life, and space aliens) will always, always love the handsome, cocky, thrill-loving "doer" more than they love you, because he's just naturally better. No getting around it, he was just born better.

LOL green lantern was eh.... Im not a fan of comics at all but i am a big movie fan. as far as super heroe movies it was average. :/ nothing beat zebraman

I'd like to bring up two problems I have with your review. But I will admit I liked the movie, but I didn't love it. So I agree with you on some aspects. But two others... not so much.

"Go nowhere characters."

I slightly agree with you on the aspect that the family could have been fleshed out slightly more. A return in the later part of the film would have been nice. But I do not agree with you on the point of them simply saying back to what we've already learned being pointless. Granted, that we have already seen what Hal's problem is, and hey. His family knows too. But it makes sense for his brother to give him the tounge lashing.

What made that scene believable is that his brother told Hal what he already knew and that he needs to get his act together. If that were not in the film, I'd be concerned with the fact that Hal's brother just doesn't care about him. Hal seemed to have a habit of avoiding people who'd tell him the truth of what's wrong with him. When they'd bring up what's wrong, he'd either run away or cause others to walk away because he's not facing his problem.

But again, I kinda agree that they could of had more face time.

"Nonsense Plotting."

Okay now this I disagree with you completely. Hal's ex was implied to be the best of their best as Hal is. Even being the daughter of the high muckity-mucks, she would be used in the test due to her skill, and her family would have nothing to do with that. It would make less sense to get someone who is not as talented as her take part in the test. Also I'm not sure how much you know about jet/airplane stalling....but it doesn't seem like much.

When a jet or airplane stalls, it's because of an error in the systems, because of the altitude, or because there is something wrong with the hardware. If the aircraft stalls because of the first two reasons, getting out of that situation is simple. All the pilot has to do is shut down all systems and reboot. At most,this process takes 20 seconds to 2 minutes (2 minutes IF there is something desperately wrong)

An airplane that falls from typical altitudes it takes about 15 minutes reach the ground (which is enough time to make bacon and eggs while falling). This means that there is no way someone would have to kill themselves to beat out those planes. Stall your aircraft as well as the A.I controlled crafts and then reboot and get out of there. His move was logical but the problems were that A) Hollywood overdrama queens made it look like it takes much less time to crash. B) He has a personal trauma that held back his proformance. Which can make 15 minutes seem like 10 seconds to the person who is suffering from it.

But I mainly blame that on anyone in hollywood. But it would make for dull movies if they showed the reality of it. Much like using a car for cover while under fire from small arms. You'll have more holes in you than a female freshman college student that got lost in France.

Maybe the dvd release will have the directors cut.
Not really sure I'll waste my time on this either way.

SideburnsPuppy:
One problem I had with the film was Hal's whole "you have to be chosen" exchange with Hammond.

Pardon? This is the big moral summation of the film? Granted, Hal gets a much better one later on when he's with the Guardians before heading off to fight Parallax, but this is a major point in the film's plot, and we're expecting some sort of moral closure before Hal finishes off the primary villain. Especially since Hammond is so sympathetic (his dad's "doer" speech hits extremely hard to anybody who's felt that they don't live up to somebody's expectations), we're expecting some last "this is where you went wrong" speech, but all we get is "You have to be chosen."

So remember, kids, that no matter how hard you try or how many achievements you make, everybody (and that includes your father, your peers, the love of your life, and space aliens) will always, always love the handsome, cocky, thrill-loving "doer" more than they love you, because he's just naturally better. No getting around it, he was just born better.

THIS. This so very, very much.

I don't regret paying to see it, and I'll be paying to see it again. While I agree with Hector's character arc, I disagree with both the pacing and the CGI.

Honestly, after watching Bob's rant, I don't think the movie can be faulted for any of those things. I'm almost certain WB had their hands all over this, since this was their first project after The Dark Knight. Warner Bros. probably laid down the pressure and did so with a vengeance. Director. Actors. Pacing. Even the score. Anyone who's familiar with James Newton Howard's discography will tell you the man is known for making magic in musical form.

A 2.5 hour running time, properly written and with a near identical approach to the CGI, and this movie would've soared.

Hitchmeister:
Okay, I've already said that this movie wasn't as bad as Bob made it out to be. Mind you, I'm not saying it's a great movie, but an acceptable inoffensive summer diversion that doesn't bear too much thought.

I can see from this analysis, and I can agree that every point he makes here is valid -- Green Lantern is an example of flawed movie making -- but it doesn't excuse Bob from going all-in with the fan-boy nerd-rage in his initial review.

sooooo it's a tragic wreckage on a technical level, AND terribly done cannon wise....and his rage was undesrved? im confuzzled...

Blindrooster:
It's funny, I like Green Lantern but I could tell from the preview it would be bad. Granted I'll still have to watch it to form a realistic opinion. I'm really not looking forward to doing that though...

Godspeed good citizen. When you get to the Inferno, tell Dante he left the oven on.

I just won't see this movie after seeing MB pan it so badly. If anything he was one pretty excited to see it until his expectations hit a brick wall.

Grahav:
Depressive lantern

I lol'd. This does bring up an important question. Ryan Reynolds was slated to play Deadpool in a feature length film that got delayed for Green Lantern. So I have a question for anyone whose seen it, should I trust him? Is he worthy to wear the crimson and black after this? Or should I begin buying tubs of Ben and Jerry's for the post film depression cycle?

From the sounds of it, Green Lantern seems similar to The Golden Compass- both are hugely expensive adaptations of works with sizeable fanbases, but which are nowhere near as popular as the franchises they're obviously supposed to be competing against.

Both of them had unrealistic expectations placed on them- Golden Compass was supposed to be the next Lord of The Rings even though that was never going to happen, and of course we've all heard the BS about Green Lantern being the next Star Wars.

From what the director of TGC has said, and from Movie bob's description, it sounds like this expectation led the respective studios of both films to spend way too much money, only to realise their mistake and cut the film to shreds in an attempt to play it safe.

And of course, both movies were supposed to launch franchises only to bomb hilariously (to be fair, The Golden Compass did much worse than Green Lantern).

The only difference here is that I've always suspected The Golden Compass could have been a good movie, whereas I'm not willing to be so generous with Green Lantern.

Captainguy42:

Grahav:
Depressive lantern

I lol'd. This does bring up an important question. Ryan Reynolds was slated to play Deadpool in a feature length film that got delayed for Green Lantern. So I have a question for anyone whose seen it, should I trust him? Is he worthy to wear the crimson and black after this? Or should I begin buying tubs of Ben and Jerry's for the post film depression cycle?

I think more attention should be given to the director than the actors. Who's going to direct Deadpools's movie?

It seems to me that even with Bob's fanboy glasses 'off' we still have a rather glaring type of prejudice at work here. Imagine that this movie actually cost $20 million to make and was otherwise identical except with significantly worse CGI, costumes replacing the computer-generated Green Lantern Corps. and a cheaper Ryan Reynolds knock-off.

Would Bob still hate it? Totally possible. But even if this nearly identical movie got as wide a release into aa many theaters, I cannot imagine MovieBob hating that movie nearly as venomously as the one that got released. It would literally just be another bad movie. Maybe a B- or so. But as a huge blockbuster it apparently rates an F+.

Politically, sure, it's totally worse that a hundred+ million dollar movie in this genre failed than a cheap one. But that's not part of a purely technical analysis of the film.

For comparison purposes: think back to Batman Forever. Not Batman & Robin, but Batman Forever. Bad movie? Yes. Worse than Green Lantern? Maybe. But it did really well at the box office that year and allowed for one more somehow worse movie in the franchise that actually did the series in. So...I guess what I'm saying is that if this movie was either cheaper or a success, I doubt this article would exist.

I finally saw this movie today, and while I agree with many of the points Bob makes in this article, I still don't feel the movie deserves the vitriolic hate he is spewing at it.

Oh, and all the whining about it needs to end Bob. We get it, you were disappointed, let it go.

Hitchmeister:
Okay, I've already said that this movie wasn't as bad as Bob made it out to be. Mind you, I'm not saying it's a great movie, but an acceptable inoffensive summer diversion that doesn't bear too much thought.

I can see from this analysis, and I can agree that every point he makes here is valid -- Green Lantern is an example of flawed movie making -- but it doesn't excuse Bob from going all-in with the fan-boy nerd-rage in his initial review.

He doesn't need to be excused for anything. I don't always agree with Bob but I don't come to here to validate my own opinions, I come here to listen to someone else's. He has a great style and will actually tell us WHY he didn't like a movie. Great reviews and always informative. I'll probably still see the movie at some point but I'll be skipping it in theaters.

Thank you, I now have ammo to use when my friends tell me I only dislike the movie because its "not the same as the comic."

So apparently the US is the only country on Earth again.

This film could still go on to be a hit, it hasn't even been released to the majority markets yet and won't be for months to come.

good job on an unbiased breakdown.
Now if you can use this same formula to prove Scott pilgrim was good, I'll gladly eat crow.
Consider that gauntlet thrown down bobbo.

This is a fanboy free breakdown?! Id hate to see your message board posts. The fact the you even felt the need to go on and negatively review the film again shows where you are really coming from. Even if you'd done a better job of attempting to mask the personal hate and injury behind your writing.

ccdohl:

The Gentleman:

Will Chandler:
I still would like to know why Ryan Reynolds was such a tragic miscast.

There's one problem that I have with this: who would you do it otherwise? Visually, I mean.

Here's what the Hal Jordan Green Lantern looks like in the comics
image

Visually, Reynolds is a decent pick, and, with all the actors looking for work, you really need to find someone that could immediately be identified as the character in the story. The problem is that his acting in this movie is terrible, which I can see as partially the fault of the director and producers. If he could act and they could do their jobs properly, this would have been a significantly better movie.

The alternative would be to frame the story around John Stewart (the marine/GL made famous by the recent Justice League series, not the comedian), but that would probably cause die-hard GL fans to sit out opening weekend.

I think that it is more about Hal's personality and demeanor. Ryan Reynolds is a great pick for Deadpool or, in my opinion, The Flash, but Hal is meant to be a bit more serious. He isn't a comedic character, and while Reynold's is a fine actor, he does the comedic roles much more effectively.

agreed, i haven't looked into it but if they are making a deadpool movie to stand alone i pray they pick him for it again, and not to judge on the green lantern movie, which as a B movie it wasn't "horrible" to just sit and somewhat enjoy if you just had some snacks and were just watching for fun, but i definitely think they could have found someone a bit more serious to use for this movie than ryan..can't think of someone off the top of my head but someone.

Scarim Coral:
From the sound of it I won't have any regreat watching X-Men: First Class instead (I didn't wany to pay extra cash for a bad film in 3D).
Yeah DC comics is only known to be good at Batman only in terms of turning them into films. Too bad they didn't turn the animated film Green Lantern First Flight into a live action instead since the animated film is good.

Exactly. I've always been a proponent of animation and books when it comes to the Green Lantern IP, since there's only so much you can do with CGI without making it look phony and cheap. When a power ring can literally bring to life any thought, capturing that in animation is just easier, less expensive, and allows for more creativity.

Completely agree and support the message, Bob.

It's one thing to get the fanboys riled up. They'll always find SOMETHING that isn't perfect, so I generally let those complaints slide.

However, basic film making is something that needs to be addressed. I think you summed it up nicely back in your 2012 review (11/13/09) when you mentioned that any movie, even silly ones can still be made well. Pacing, shot composition, proper editing, coherent visual storytelling, technical acumen... It's spelled out already, between Film 101 and the basic 3-act structure, any movie today really just needs to connect the dots to have a somewhat decent movie. If you decide to skip around and ignore the basics you only have yourself to blame for the disastrous result

As for Ryan Reynolds, I've gotta agree with some of the other people in this thread. He's a good actor, and does well in action/comedy roles with a bit of camp to them. But Hal Jordan is supposed to be a square-jawed, classic hero kinda guy. "John Wayne in green tights" to quote the Bob. Ryan Reynolds is not that guy. On the other hand, that is why Reynolds makes a perfect Deadpool. Action and comedy, with a big helping of campy... right in his wheelhouse. And I don't think Reynolds' situation was helped any in this movie, when the majority of his scenes were alone on a green screen. "Look up at the camera and start talking."

Here's to hoping that a director cut GL eventually surfaces. While it won't be able to fix the hideous suit, at least it can (hopefully) put the story back together and make the narrative worthwhile.

Just recently I saw The Spirit for the first time and, egads, was that an awful movie... but I get the feeling that I'll remember more of it in a year's time than the meh Green Lantern.

I think the big problem with Green Lantern is that it's just not going for broke. It's playing it extremely safe and no one seems to be trying to make the movie their own. Say what you will about Batman & Robin, but Joe Schumacher is making the movie he wants to make. Frank Miller made the Spirit movie he wanted to make. Green Lantern has a made-by-committee feel about it, which is why a few days later, my memories of the movie are fading quick.

To be honest, I don't think its quality alone is to blame for this movie's commercial failure. Being part of the target age group (22-year-old university student) but not of the target cultural group (from Europe, not the US), I find the appeal of this movie very hard to understand. Certainly, I know Batman, Superman, Hulk and some others, but that's because they were cultural icons besides their comic book existence.

Iron Man, for example, wasn't. The movie was still decent, but I would never have spent money to see it in theatres or buy the DVD/BluRay. Instead, I watched it with friends because we wanted some not-too-brainy action with lots of special effects one evening.

Green Lantern, on the other hand... To be honest, I have heard of the character, but if it weren't for MovieBob, I would have no idea what he is about. And still, the concept itself seems insanely silly and overpowered to me, lacking any sort of potential conflict. I don't want to bash GL itself though, as the comics might be interesting to comic readers - I can't judge that. What I can judge is the likelihood of someone like me going to see this movie:

Zero.

Not because it's a bad movie. Not because of the critiques online. Not because it's an action movie. But because I just can't relate to it. I have no idea what to expect from this, no idea at all. And that is why this movie will fail with all but the most hardcore comic book fans. The producers seemingly miscalculated the appeal of less known comic books, and this is what they get for it.

On a related note: where have all the original SciFi movies gone? Why don't we get any science fiction movies based on an original idea anymore? Everything these days seems to be an adaption or spin-off. When do we get the next "Star Wars"?

Well after all the reviews I've seen for the movie its a definite pass, not even worth piracy.

Brad Shepard:
*Facepalm* Ok, this crap is getting old bob, first you attack people for liking the expendables, now this? Just stop the rage man, let people like what what they like, dont try to say there wrong for liking it, damn.

What??? He's saying it's a bad movie...

It is a bad movie. It really, really, is.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here