I saw it last night. It wasn't bad, but wasn't great either. I have no complaints, except that it seemed kind of short. It had some humor and action, all I really expected out of it. I give it 7/10.
The movie looked like a complete annoying turd from the preview and Rotten Tomatoes seems to confirm it. Ryan Reynolds tries to walk the line between irreverent cheeseball and serious badass. For superhero movies aimed at a traditionally critical audience it just doesn't work unless you're going for the current Saturday morning cartoon watchers. You guys didn't cringe during the preview when he's growling something about "GRRR GREEN LANTERNS MIGHT!" Thor had plenty of funny moments for me but they came from the situation and Thor's arrogence in the real world. They might as well have cast Dane Cook as Green Lantern.
Too much API.. but it lacked an original story. Superhero movies usually have some sort of originality and it was very light in that dept for this movie. I think overall I'd prob give it a 5/10. It's not terrible but it's not that great either.
Ryan Reynolds was as low as they would go. Nothing against him, but did the producer say, Hey, if we hire this guy, we might even get some women to come watch the movie, and we can put together whatever piece of crap we want? Was there really NO ONE available who had the acting skills, or the gravitas, to go with the looks? Now, Dane Cook....even as a joke it made me shudder. "How to Ruin a Movie 101."
Saw the midnight showing. I enjoyed it. Its not Dark Knight, Iron Man, or even XMen First Class, its was your above average movie that can't be compared to another comic book character. The special effects were great, and Ryan Reynolds, was his usual self like in his other movies which I am a big fan of. Blake Lively shot up my list of hotties after watching the film FWIW, for those who do watch it, stay during the credits.
As is usually the case, it looks like critics are a lot harsher with it than the casual audiences, cause it has a 75% among them. Still, I'm gonna trust the critics on this one, because the trailers just looked bad to me.
I've liked all the trailers and I've enjoyed every movie I've seen RR in. As soon as I can get a bootleg, I'll give it a watch.
In fairness, Hangover 2 was blasted by RT. You can't always go by overall ratings, because most of those screening the film would rather be watching Sex in the City or The Notebook.
Yea, I really don't get what the critics problems were. It was really just a (more or less) family friendly superhero movie that kept the plot to good vs evil. The visuals were just fine. And Reynolds didn't annoy me as much as I was afraid he would. The plot's simplicity probably has much more appeal for average people who don't care for comics that much (or get confused by all the different characters) and just want to have a fun time at the movies.
Nero, some of the things in your post should have "spoiler" tags. Just sayin'. Most of us have yet to see the flick.
"Well, I thought it was a GREAT story. And [they] tell it so well!" - name that movie (difficulty: moderate ) I'll give it a 7 in a SwoLy scale of 10. It needs more behind the story... but it's too late for that. Spoiler This is a true spoiler, last warning. Spoiler Don't we know already that the SINISTER guy is the next villain? I mean, from the get go, you can just SMELL the villain-ness on him... Well, it's green... like a PERL? *crickets*
Damn, you're right.. I can't edit, maybe some kind Mod could delete the post? Spoiler Took my 10-year-old to see it this evening, and I will give it a 6/10. From the previews, I was getting a pretty strong 'Fantastic Four'-level vibe from it, and it turns out to have been very accurate. This is not a total stinkbomb like some suckfest superhero movies like Punisher or Ghost Rider, or the first Hulk. But it is not up to par with Spider Man or Iron Man or even the most recent X-Men: First Class. It is somewhere in the middle. It is as good as the X-Men sequels, as good as the Fantastic Four movie, about the same as Daredevil. In other words, it is DC's answer to formulaic summer-time cash-grab superhero movies, which has been dominated for years by Marvel. But don't misinterpret - it is not BAD. It is just tepid. Lukewarm. Not great, but not bad enough to be really aggravating. Just kind of 'there'. I have the same problem with this movie that I had with movies like Sucker Punch or even the first Kung Fu Panda: Just like in Sucker Punch (where the main character is supposed to be an extremely magically good dancer, and yet we never get to SEE HER DANCE), or in Kung Fu Panda (wherein there is virtually no... KUNG FU..) .. in Green Lantern, there is not nearly enough 'Green Lantern-ing'. There is SOME, and if there had been maybe 2 or 3 times more, the movie would have been better for it. As it is, most of the movie is spent just waiting for the green heroics. The most interesting character, Hector Hammond (played wonderfully by Peter Skarsgaard), is abruptly and arbitrarily snuffed out of the movie, and while Blake Lively is a nice hottie to look at all through the movie (and woo yes she IS hot), there isn't any rational thought behind anything the writers have her do, so none of her appearances ever feel genuine. Reynolds does everything he can, given the weird disinterested storytelling. I will give the movie a gold star for one thing, and it joins a very short list of movies I will praise because Tim Robbins dies a horrible death in it. The other movie which immediately pops to mind is War of the Worlds. So I give a big thumbs-up to both movies for that alone, but beyond that, the only thing I am left feeling at the end was, this could have been SUCH a much better movie. Oh well, maybe the sequel will be better.
I've just watched the GL cartoon movie: First Flight. I think it's about the same thing, Hal Jordan's beginnings as a GL. It sort of gave me an idea about what the hell GL is. If anyone's seen it, is the movie better than that? The cartoon was pretty cool.
