Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Green Lantern

This is topic Green Lantern in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001793

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 08-13-2011, 08:43 PM:

There's been so many comic book adaptations over the past decade, from the exemplary Nolan Batman movies to the abysmal Fantastic Four abominations, that next years The Avengers will practically have to reinvent the genre if it's to come off feeling fresh and new. When even the competent entries are beginning to look tired, how does a relatively obscure title like Green Lantern hold up? Surely this is scraping the bottom of the barrel, right?

Well the good news is that Green Lantern holds up surprising well. It may be standard superhero fare but it's entertaining enough, mostly due to the appeal of its cast and special effects. But a more than perfunctory analysis does reveal some scripting flaws.

Strangely the guardians and Green Lantern leader, Sinestro (clearly destined to be a bad guy with a name like that), are not that smart, both being guilty of the most appalling judgement on several critical occasions that you wonder how they managed to acquire such positions of authority let alone keep the universe in check. If there is one thing that the proceedings of the story show it is that there is a very good reason why the ring chooses the Green Lanterns and not the encumbent authority figures as otherwise we'd all be dead. The leaders of our universe seem to possess a remarkable sense of self assurance coupled with an equally remarkable level of incompetence. Thank heavens Lantern rookie, Hal Jordon (Ryan Reynolds), was there to save our skins from this farcical intergalactic bureaucracy.

But criticising the film too heavily feels a bit like beating up on the Dark Knight's younger, weaker brother. Green Lantern shoots for fun and if you're willing to sit back and go along for the ride it hits the mark. The special effects are excellent and exciting, and all the cosmic and aerial space featured in the film make this a worthy 3D watch. Ryan Reynolds is a likeable hero and the rest of the cast hold up their end of the bargain. Writer/director/star of Eagle vs. Shark and Boy, Taika Waititi, makes the rather inexplicable leap from indie NZ auteur to Hollywood actor and doesn't look out of place.

All in all, Green Lantern looks a lot better than you feel it ought to and this is a good thing.

7 out of 10.

P.S. Don't bother waiting for a post credits sequence typical of a comic book movie, all you get is a boring static slide advertising the associated comic books. There is the obligatory sequel teaser following the picture credits, however, the content of which is a tad silly and obvious given all that has come before.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 08-14-2011, 12:37 PM:

wow, one person here on this board who's actually seen the Green Lantern - I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 08-14-2011, 09:54 PM:

Well you should and see it. You might just be surprised.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-16-2011, 05:46 AM:

Stu, I'm sorry but I think your way off on this one. Its just a giant mess. Peter Sarsgaard was a total waste of space, he had no reason to be in this film. He just collected a paycheck. Yea, the space effects looked good...but the character designs were horrible. On Oa some of the aliens just looked goofy, and not a good goofy. The Guardians looked horrible. But to cap off the horrible CGI work on the aliens has to be the opening, when the aliens fall through the planet.

The only good quality for this movie was Reynolds, he was great as Hal Jordan. He has all kinds of charisma, its just sad it was lost in this movie.

2/5 [thumbsup]

Side note, screened this movie back in June. But had zero desire to review it.