Escape to the Movies: Green Lantern: Extended Cut

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

thatguy1:

Am I the only one who went into this review thinking "oh man, here we go."? I question the necessity of driving this point home multiple times.

No, you are not the only one. I was also disappointed to see Bob go back to a movie he certainly hated for reasons that are mostly personal.

We get that Green Lantern was bad, no one was expecting the "Extended Edition" to be better. We don't need 2 weeks to drive the point home... That would be understandable if it was actually different, but if its the same, why bother? Its not like there was no new releases this week or movies he hasn't covered (3 Musketeers opened this week, Ides of March is only 2 weeks old and I heard Footloose was actually rather decent)

And, not to piss off all those comic book fans, but wasn't "being chosen by higher powers" the whole point of being green lanterns? Its not like they take job applications...

Bob's my hero in this review. Why must a hero be 'chosen' in order to be.. well, a hero? To me, the power of fear is what corrupted the nerdy guy but then again when I looked more into it... the power just enhanced his abilities thus he became evil by will abusing them (because they weren't telling him to do anything bad, he just allowed himself to become corrupted.)

So yeah, I agree with Bob... not right to brush off good will and hard work just to say as a moral 'People are chosen to be heroes... oh but you're not one nor ever could be since you're not fit or good looking enough, so... you're the bad guy then!' ..No, just no please. If I choose to be a hero, it's through normal things like donations, voluntary service, and saving lives even with my red blood cells becoming a tribute. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and mainly people who risk their lives like the military (the noble individuals by the way), firefighters, policemen (noble individuals), along with other careers in medical or engineering do noble acts too.

This Green Lantern quote from the movie that you have to be chosen- is invalid.

Ah, Bob, seriously, stop torturing yourself...

No, I wasn't happy with a lot of things in GL either, and the 'You have to be chosen' thing is very much at odds with the comics (ie, the Ring chooses the worthy candidate based on their merits and willpower potential) but at the same time, I don't think it's doing you any favours to CONTINUALLY harp on about it.

The film wasn't great, but was no Batman and Robin. Ugh. Typing that heap's name makes me feel unwell.

I take it that you're not satisfied that people haven't signed up to your opinion that it's the biggest piece of shit in the universe.
It's, at best, a sad misfire that was not completely worthy of the source material.
A disappointment, not a case of violation of the medium.

Anyway, I'm off to play the sexist Arkham City because God knows criminals, thugs, murderers, rapists and general scumbags NEVER use the word bitch in real life.
And we are totally supposed to be viewing those characters as role models.

Not Batman.
Yeah, I saw Harley got thrown around. It's also Harley. And in the context, it was totally justifiable (she beats Batman around the head with a baseball bat in the same scen fer chrissakes).

*sexistly grapples into the night*

I know I'm in the minority here but I thought Green Lantern was a pretty sweet movie. It did change stuff from the comics yeah, but the movie itself wasn't bad.

HUnh, not often you see Bob being so openly petty.

I get that Paranormal wasnt shown to him, but picking on up the dvd release of a movie he didnt like and got so emotionally invested in even though as a film reviewer/critic youre supposed to not have that kinda bias just so you can blast it some more doesnt exactly scream professionalism.

Hell, just seeing this, Im surprised he didnt do this with each of the transformers DVDs, or the twilight DVDs.

I mean, he had a film festival movie (the might macs) and a heavily advertised movie (the three musketeers) to pick from.

...

Then again, I... well, I was able to enjoy watching the green lantern, so I'll always have a differing opinion than bob on the matter, which is something I accept. I dont know, I just think this is bob continuing his little bitch fit about the green lantern. still, was pretty humorous, which is about all I can ask of these.

moviedork:
seriously? Another "review" on Green Lantern. He can't use the excuse that a movie like Paranormal Activity 3 wasn't screened for critics because it was (movies that have a 75% on rottentomatoes are guaranteed to be screened). Pure laziness on Bob's end, pure laziness!

I should probably clarify this:

Some reviews that post to RT - especially early ones for lower-tier releases - see the films not at press screenings but at "preview screenings" that they gain access to by various means. In the case of "PA3," it wasn't (to the best of my knowledge) shown to most members of the professional press save for SOME invitations to early showings the day before it opened for critics in the big NY/LA markets. As I don't live/work in either of those areas, the only opportunity I would've had to see it would've been at midnight show the night before it opened, which would simply not have afforded enough time to write a review, record and edit sound, find/create visuals, edit the elements together and all the other aspects of production required to deliver and up-to-standards episode of this series. This is also the case with "The Three Musketeers," though in THAT case the reason you saw early reviews was because it actually opened in parts of Europe before it's U.S. debut.

I went and saw Three Musketeers today. Despite a few transition problems and a couple pacing issues... it wasn't "bad".

Not "great", but maybe "almost good"

On the other hand, I saw the trailer for "The Darkest Hour" in theaters and am intrigued.

BUT WAIT!

You can have your very own Sinestro Corps Batman skin for Arkham City if you buy the Green Lantern blu ray!

..... still not worth the money or embarrassment of buying it though :P

Also the skin is kinda poo....

messy:
The ting that annoys me the most about the Green Lantern film is that the latest Green lantern comics (read: Geoff Johns taking over) have been fucking awesome. Like spine tingling, goosebump raising amazing.

Thank you for distracting me from how terrible the film was by making me start re-reading all that. Let's start from Sinestro Corps War, and laugh at how badly it doesn't tie into the film.

Yes, that sounds like 'waa! It's not the same as the comics so I don't like it!' It's not. Well, not entirely. Since Parallax was introduced as a character/entity, it has underpinned pretty much every major event in the GL continuity. Hell, it's had a huge effect on the DC universe as a whole. Without it, pretty much anything you could do in a sequel to Green Lantern (which I hear rumours of from time to time) would be pretty much nonsensical. Sure, you could give Sinestro a yellow fear ring without a big-ass avatar of said emotion to back him up, but it removes the drama slightly. One guy/smaller corps with fear power as opposed to a practical god with said power. No contest. Also, having fear be something the guardians can access...
Look, there's a lot wrong with this film from a comparative storyline angle, and a lot of ways in which it destroys its own potential sequels before they start.

That's separate to the shitty CGI, worse characterisation, total failure to deliver on promised epicness, and the fact that the first half of the film wasn't actually that bad.

Sober Thal:
I don't understand how people can think Green Lantern was so horrible, yet praise movies like Capatin America and Thor.

They were all equally ridiculous stupid dumb fun. Nothing great by any means, but nothing to make people (like Bob) sound so insulted.

Captain America (and to some degree Thor) were actually fun to watch! Green Lantern... Eugh. Next to nothing actually happens in it. Everything that does happen is over in seconds and obscured by so much sentient space dust that you can't see it. The pacing and action are just badly done. It goes from being big dumb fun action film (see: Transformers 3, Drive Angry) to slow dumb boring nothing film.
And insults one of my favourite franchises. I'll admit there's a little fanboy rage in there.

Was it necessary to make another episode about how much Green Lantern the movie sucks? You've got, like, two columns here.

Let's pray the Avenger's isn't as bad.

Zachary Amaranth:
Opinions are like assholes. They all stink.

Mine doesn't. I clean it very well and spray it with perfume.

Well, thats a bummer.

You know Bob, sometimes I just don't understand you. Yes, Green Lantern was horrible. Nobody is arguing with you on that, and it is pretty much unanimous. So why bother dragging this corpse up again? Do we, as a group of comic and movie fans, really get anything else about heaping more hate on it? What's the point of just reminding everybody about how shitty it was?

Immediately when I saw they were releasing an extended cut, I wondered, "what does Moviebob have to say about this?" Now I know... Thank you Moviebob, thank you very mitch.

Sober Thal:
Thanks for a giving me a serious answer instead of 'you need ta see a doctor'.

I guess I just don't see it the way you (most people) do when talking about Thor, Cptn, and Lantern. The narrative, the progression of characters, how tightly written the dialogue is, the underlying messages... all these things I saw done well in the Batman and Ironman movies. The other three were just okay popcorn fluff to me.

Again, thanks for the reply.

Why, you're welcome! There's never really a reason people can't be civil in a conversation, especially in a matter that is more about opinion than anything else. :D

Indeed special edition should be reserved for quality productions.

Also can you next time take a non-comic related movie. I like seeing you do videos with that kind of passion, but really there are enough other movies out there.

Zachary Amaranth:
It really is a shame that director's cuts and special editions tend to be crap. I usually don't bother with them, though I do remember the good old days where that sort of thing was rare and usually awesome.

Or, at least, not 2 minutes of B footage hastily edited in.

Outcast107:

Sober Thal:
I don't understand how people can think Green Lantern was so horrible, yet praise movies like Capatin America and Thor.

They were all equally ridiculous dumb fun.

Because its bob. That is all.

It's not just Bob, though. It'd be one thing if it was just one man's opinion, but you look at their rotten tomatoes scores, the fan response, it all screams "Green Lantern was shite while these others rocked!"

Now, I should add I haven't seen any of the three movies yet. I've actually got Thor in my PS3 now, and I'm about to go start watching it, but I cannot personally say whether I agree with the general feeling or not. I've had a string of health issues that meant I missed the theatrical releases and am watching them as I can get them on Netflix. I'm just pointing out that such a general feeling is there.

Having seen all three, I agree with you. I'd rank them CA->GL------------->Thor.

**spoilers below**

Thor was awful, IMO (I don't even wanna know whether it was true to the comics--I'll stay positive and assume the comics are significantly better). It had significantly less substance than GL. Bob complains that all the details about Hammond's daddy issues/his unrequited love for Carol aren't enough to establish him as a foe for Hal, but Loki's only characterization is "I have daddy issues cause my brother's cool and I'm adopted, so Imma try and take the throne by almost-killing my dad and then actually-killing my brother". All of which take up maybe 10 minutes of the movie to develop. Thor is barely developed as a character at all (he's impulsive for the sake of the plot and then immediately becomes responsible/etc all of a sudden for the sake of the plot), and the second half/two thirds is basically filled with Natalie Portman swooning over him all the time, and Thor dishing out one-liners and looking attractive. It's not a good action movie, because except for the LotR-esque opening fight there is no good action; it's not a good comic book movie, because it plot-dumps everything into the first twenty minutes and then spends the rest of the time doing what I can only hope is butchering all the characters and turning them into one-dimensional archetypes so that they don't distract from the flashy bits (which aren't flashy enough to excuse the poor writing; I don't know how anyone can think GL looked awful but Thor's non-desert scenes looked awesome).

CA I didn't like all that much simply because I think CA/CA's universe is dull, but it was a much better-constructed film than Thor, and to some extent GL (though the premise is simpler, and therefore easier to lay out).

OT: GL didn't disappoint me, personally, because it had a light-hearted Silver Age feel to it that made it stand out to me from all the other reboots/debuts happening around it. That and the fact that it fleshed out all the characters just as well as the comics have (some even more so; the fact that Carol recognized Hal off the bat as GL because she wasn't a total ditz was awesome, for example). I don't get how Movie Bob can criticize the film for not being deep when the subject material (not even Blackest Night) ain't that deep either (and this is a friggin' origin movie, and considering Hal's origins aren't anything close to Bruce Wayne-level dark, that'd be nigh impossible). I don't get how anyone would be upset that the film wasn't basically Blackest Night, considering the character and his world had to be introduced before they could launch into that insanity. I'm not saying the film is gold by any means, but for what it was (an origin story for a character whose origins really aren't that deep/dark/gritty/etc for the purpose of further exploring the more interesting material in future installlments)...I don't understand the hatred for it.

Henkie36:
Well, I was kindof hoping for The Three Musketeers, but was doubley dissappointed when I saw that he was basically going to rehash his original review. When he said ''I could spend another 5 eposides explaining everything that's wrong with Green Lantern'' I thought he was joking. Now, I'm starting to worry that he wasn't. Why a review he already did, when there are juicy new movies out there?

I did like the way he pointed out the whole director's cut/extended cut issue, that the whole thing is being abused.

Even when it isn't being abused, and the extended cut really is longer, sometimes, things really were meant to leave on the editing room floor.

Sadly, with too much of this stuff, we might overlook genuinely good director's cuts. Example: I thought "Butterfly Effect" had a good alternate ending.

Why exactly did Movie Bob do an episode on this? He doesn't usually do DVD and the home version as it were. He usually does stuff from the cinema. On top of that, he's already reviewed the movie and hated it. Why would he want to do it again? I sure hope this isn't another bash something even harder using his internet show because he didn't like it.

Aside from that, did you consider that maybe the guy who gets his power from the evil fear thing is evil because... I dunno his powers are evil? Also, doesn't being chosen, since the status is only given to those who have courage and heroic properties, imply that the person is heroic and good and noble and all that stuff. Maybe it needs to be worded better but it seems like a misaimed fit of rage for one bad line.

EDIT: Oh forgot, be careful on elitism of implying that only people who are good at something should do it. The irony of only people who are "chosen" should do something like writing or film making might make the universe implode.

Remind me again why the Fantastic Four movies sucked? I mean, at least the first one, I think I can understand why the second one sucks.

WHAT THE F, Bob?

You watched this piece of shit again, and then you have to tell everyone about it?
Seriously?

Congrats on increasing the view count for this blu-ray.

I do own the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions. Sadly, I only own the boxes of the first two. But still all three of them extended!

Sober Thal:
I don't understand how people can think Green Lantern was so horrible, yet praise movies like Capatin America and Thor.

They were all equally ridiculous stupid dumb fun. Nothing great by any means, but nothing to make people (like Bob) sound so insulted.

while not having seen Captain America, yet. so it won't be part of the fallowing.

but did see Thor, and did seen Green Lantern, and your correct, GL isn't 'the worst movie ever', nor was it imo 'fantastic 4 bad' (i seem to have a mental block on batman and robin). how ever, there is a very jarring difference in quality between Thor and Green Lantern, from writing, to acting, to special effects, there's no real excuse a movie that cost as much as GL did should look as poor as it dose.

not when you have movies like Thor, with its gorgeous visuals, CGI that almost looks real and so on. Green Lantern IS very flawed, its not total awful, but its now where near the levels of production value of the Marvel or recent Batman movies are.

Uh... actually, Green Lantern wasn't a "bomb" at the global box office:

Box Office Mojo:

Production Budget: $200 Million
...
Domestic: $116,601,172 53.0%
+ Foreign: $103,250,000 47.0%
= Worldwide: $219,851,172

So, it's hard to call it a "complete" box office failure, as the numbers show that it made its production budget back, at least.

Also, we'll probably see the (now-looking inevitable) sequel do a lot more with the property. With the way it has been set up at the end of the film, along with the critical mistakes being pointed out, we can all hope the sequel will become the Wrath of Khan rebirth of the franchise that Warner Bros. really needs.

GloryQuestor:
Uh... actually, Green Lantern wasn't a "bomb" at the global box office:

Box Office Mojo:

Production Budget: $200 Million
...
Domestic: $116,601,172 53.0%
+ Foreign: $103,250,000 47.0%
= Worldwide: $219,851,172

So, it's hard to call it a "complete" box office failure, as the numbers show that it made its production budget back, at least.

Also, we'll probably see the (now-looking inevitable) sequel do a lot more with the property. With the way it has been set up at the end of the film, along with the critical mistakes being pointed out, we can all hope the sequel will become the Wrath of Khan rebirth of the franchise that Warner Bros. really needs.

That doesn't consider distribution and advertisment costs. It's probably not an absolute failure, but it won't have made it's backers a lot of money.

I suppose the context of the villain makes sense, considering that for some reason, the American news outlets view intelligence as a sign of being evil.

Movies are considered bombs if they don't make back at least 50% of their original budget. Hollywood mathematics has never made much sense to me, but then again Hollywood has been making very little sense the last 15 years.

If it makes back what you spent it can't really be called a success, getting 19mill over what you paid to make it doesn't exactly qualify it as a resounding success either.

MovieBob:

moviedork:
seriously? Another "review" on Green Lantern. He can't use the excuse that a movie like Paranormal Activity 3 wasn't screened for critics because it was (movies that have a 75% on rottentomatoes are guaranteed to be screened). Pure laziness on Bob's end, pure laziness!

I should probably clarify this:

Some reviews that post to RT - especially early ones for lower-tier releases - see the films not at press screenings but at "preview screenings" that they gain access to by various means. In the case of "PA3," it wasn't (to the best of my knowledge) shown to most members of the professional press save for SOME invitations to early showings the day before it opened for critics in the big NY/LA markets. As I don't live/work in either of those areas, the only opportunity I would've had to see it would've been at midnight show the night before it opened, which would simply not have afforded enough time to write a review, record and edit sound, find/create visuals, edit the elements together and all the other aspects of production required to deliver and up-to-standards episode of this series. This is also the case with "The Three Musketeers," though in THAT case the reason you saw early reviews was because it actually opened in parts of Europe before it's U.S. debut.

Thanks for clarifying.

The reviews I saw were from some of the bigger film loving locations like New York, LA, or Austin, TX.I assumed the Boston area was apart of that.

Green Lantern again? It is amazing how incredibly lazy this is.

Here's the deal: Green Lantern could NEVER be a good big budget live action movie. Ever. The fact that the director/writer/actors/special effects people failed so spectacularly does not diminish the fact that they could not have succeeded.

It could have been better, but the core of the movie: guy with magic ring that can do anything but in green, could never ever have been a good live-action movie. It would always have looked cheesy and there's no way to feel empathy for a guy who can do literally anything. The best they could have hoped for are some Spider Man being a dork sort of antics. It was doomed.

What I wanted to see this week instead was an episode on the great 1973 Three Musketeers after pretty much everything interesting about the new one (Three Musketeers 2011) was blatantly stolen from that particular version. The new additions worked okay about half the time, but it was ultimately pretty uninspired.

GloryQuestor:
Uh... actually, Green Lantern wasn't a "bomb" at the global box office:

Box Office Mojo:

Production Budget: $200 Million
...
Domestic: $116,601,172 53.0%
+ Foreign: $103,250,000 47.0%
= Worldwide: $219,851,172

So, it's hard to call it a "complete" box office failure, as the numbers show that it made its production budget back, at least.

Also, we'll probably see the (now-looking inevitable) sequel do a lot more with the property. With the way it has been set up at the end of the film, along with the critical mistakes being pointed out, we can all hope the sequel will become the Wrath of Khan rebirth of the franchise that Warner Bros. really needs.

I would like to continue with what wolfthomas said. With all the advertising, distribution, and other costs the movie had a budget of around three hundred million dollars. A loss of around 80 million dollars is, what I would consider to be, a flop. Captain America on the other hand made around 366,000,000 on a 140 million dollar budget or after all expenses a 200-220 million dollar budget which was pretty dang good.

I didn't mind that Bob reused a movie for this, I quite enjoyed his discussion of director's cuts (which seemed to take up the majority of the episode).

I remember when my friend's and I were eagerly awaiting the Aliens and Army of Darkness director's cuts, and how cool they were to watch. But today they almost always disappoint. The past few years I think every director's cut I've gotten has been incidental - sometimes it was even the only choice available.

Sober Thal:
I don't understand how people can think Green Lantern was so horrible, yet praise movies like Capatin America and Thor.

They were all equally ridiculous stupid dumb fun. Nothing great by any means, but nothing to make people (like Bob) sound so insulted.

Certainly Thor... (Haven't seen Captain America)

OT: Eh, now i kinda want to see it just to get a picture of what the hate is all about. Though i probably won't hate it 'cause i can forgive loose plot ends so long as i don't see them (which i usually don't). That's probably why i'm not professionally involved in movies in any other way than being part of the audience.

Stall:
Are you seriously still bitching about people finding out your secret club of movie fandom, Bob? For god's sake man, move on! I thought you got all that immature garbage out during the Scream review.

Fucking seriously man. It's just depressing to see a grown man so traumatized by such insignificant things in his past.

What? Um, what did you just watch? Cause your comment has no apparent relation to the video i just saw...

Reading too much subtext into the hal jordan/hector hammond powers plot. Hector got parralax which is fear, hence he started acting all supervillainy while hal had the green lantern which CHOSE him for his ability to confront fear.

That said, I watched the extended blu-ray cut and I 100% agree. This is a BAD movie. I can deal with ropey plot, poor editing and poor effects but Green lantern was BORING. REALLY, REALLY boring. So lets just pretend it never happend. Give it 5 years and we'll probably see a 'reeboot' hopefully with the right casting for hal jordan (ryan reynolds just isnt Hal) and a more focused plot. Plus some decent FX!

ps..... wether you liked it or not, THOR (weakest of the marvel films) is a much much better piece of filmmaking than Green lantern, any 3rd class honours film student could watch both back to back and identify why. Anyone who disagrees, like some above are more likely whiney DC fanboys upset DC dont have the success in live action marvel does.

Get over it.

Dc has a much better output with animation, batman, superman justice league unlimited are all excellent, and I too would like to see a big budget justice leage movie, DC just need to get their act together and MAKE BETTER FILMS!

(besides its looking very likely the new spiderman is going to topple Green lantern as worst hero movie in recent memory going by the trailers.)

Stall:
Are you seriously still bitching about people finding out your secret club of movie fandom, Bob? For god's sake man, move on! I thought you got all that immature garbage out during the Scream review.

Fucking seriously man. It's just depressing to see a grown man so traumatized by such insignificant things in his past.

Yeah, it is getting pretty silly.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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