• 69 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Kid_Omega_Prime (1807 posts) - - Show Bio

Ok I have been read and watching lots of reviews and alot of people said the GL movie sucks and i'm wondering why ? I mean it was pretty close to the comics the guy they got to play Hal Jordan was cool. So whats the deal ?

#2 Posted by DocFatalis (1451 posts) - - Show Bio

I hate Hal Jordan anyway, he's the worst lantern to me.

#3 Posted by KevJoge (84 posts) - - Show Bio

I think it was because the script/writing was bad. I thought it was "ok" I just think Ryan Renolds has bad luck with the scripts he gets

#4 Posted by Dark_Vengeance_ (15329 posts) - - Show Bio

Because Hal shouldnt be played by Ryan Reynolds, Ryan should play Deadpool which he was really good at.

#5 Posted by jinxuandi (606 posts) - - Show Bio

The villains were not done well at all. A good superhero movie needs a villain you can hate, and it's hard to hate a big yellow cloud (even if it is threatening to destroy Earth). As for Hector Hammond, the viewer was almost made to feel sorry for him--I'm sure they did this to make him seem more human, but in the end it just made the movie worse.

#6 Posted by SoA (5752 posts) - - Show Bio

ryan reynolds is a comic movie killer. that and pacing, they tried to throw waaay too much in , Oa and the other lanterns, parallax and a love story so it all came out as crap

#7 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (39946 posts) - - Show Bio

Because everyone told you it sucked, therefore there opinions became your opinion 

#8 Posted by joshmightbe (25873 posts) - - Show Bio

Its mainly because it seemed like that didn't know what they wanted to do with it, that being said it wasn't nearly as bad as the freak out would lead you to believe but it was by no means a good movie

#9 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3807 posts) - - Show Bio

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.

#10 Posted by terry2012 (6903 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkKnightDetective: This

@SoA: This

#11 Edited by The_Tree (8466 posts) - - Show Bio

The script sucked, the editing sucked, direction sucked, the villains sucked. The only thing I can commend the movie for are the scenes that took place on Oa, all 15 minutes of them.

Online
#12 Posted by TheBigRedCheese (383 posts) - - Show Bio

You will probably sit through Green Lantern thinking, “How many remedial screenwriting 101 students did it take to scribble this on to a cocktail napkin?” I didn't care for Ryan Reynolds, jinxuandi already mentioned Hector Hammond and let's not forget the painfully bad CGI. WB thinks it failed because it wasn't dark or edgy. If that's how the company thinks expect the reboot to fail as well. If you want to check out a Green Lantern film, go ahead and rent Green Lantern: First Flight. Just my opinion.

#13 Posted by SHAZAM117 (4986 posts) - - Show Bio

IMO.....Bad script, bad editing...and lastly, not enough of Mark Strongs Sinestro

#14 Posted by The Stegman (28715 posts) - - Show Bio

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good

This, Hammond didn't need to be in the movie...at all, except maybe a cameo as him still being a human scientist, I say they should have focused more on Parralax and Hal being on Oa.
#15 Posted by x_29 (2375 posts) - - Show Bio

1. Did not get enough development with the Lanterns, especially Sinestro.

2. Hector Hammond felt unnecessary ( if you took that character out of the movie nothing would be drastically altered.)

3. Some bad editing

4. Hal Jordan's speech before the final showdown was CW worthy.

#16 Posted by JediXMan (32245 posts) - - Show Bio
  • Bad story
  • Ryan Reynolds
  • Bad acting
  • CLOUD Parallax (nobody liked that with Galactus and nobody liked it now)
  • Ryan Reynolds
  • Poorly rewritten characters
  • Ignored the comics
  • Ryan Reynolds
  • Plot holes

Oh, and Ryan Reynolds.

Moderator
#17 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23390 posts) - - Show Bio
@Kal'smahboi said:
It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.
^ We have a winner. 
#18 Posted by ReVamp (23014 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@Kal'smahboi said:
It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.
^ We have a winner.

o___O. You liked it? Well, you kinda liked it?

I'm genuinely surprised.

#19 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23390 posts) - - Show Bio
@ReVamp said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@Kal'smahboi said:
It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.
^ We have a winner.

o___O. You liked it? Well, you kinda liked it?

I'm genuinely surprised.

I actually liked it quite a bit. The extended edition is pointless, but the standard release was really not that bad.  
 
It had great special effects, a likeable protagonist, a big threat for him to overcome (that he did with intelligence as well as power), a decent love interest. I mean, it wasn't perfect, obviously. But it was a fun popcorn movie based on a fun popcorn comic. It wasn't offensively bad like Ghost Rider 2, but it was a solid 6/10 movie.  
 
People act like the Green Lantern comics are some form of high-literature, come on. It's a popcorn comic. The spirit was carried into the movie. 
#20 Edited by Ms. Omega (4726 posts) - - Show Bio

For a space epic most of the movie took place on earth when it shouldn't have. Not enough time on Oa, Hector Hammond and Hal were whiney douchebags, Parallax was depicted as a giant fart cloud, Bad acting, Needed more time with the other Green Lanterns, Needed better writing. Needed a lot more Sinestro.

Online
#21 Posted by venomyak (1532 posts) - - Show Bio

Because a good movie doesn't make you go "Did I miss the part where he got a ransom note from Hector?" or "WTF how did he know that there was a secret lab there that needed saving?". Come on Spirit of Vengeance was better than this.

#22 Posted by Planewalker (356 posts) - - Show Bio

I really don't pay attention to critics I watched and enjoyed the movie it was a fun 2 hours. So what's the damn problem

#23 Posted by sinestro_GL (3505 posts) - - Show Bio

It was a bad story. I thought too much of the movie focused on Hal. He had to battle one of his childhood friends who also fell in love with Carol. For a movie focusing on a hero that regularly travels through space, not much attention was given to that aspect.

I also though that there was a lack of other Green Lanterns, and all Sinestro did throughout the movie was talk to the Guardians...no mentoring Hal or anything.

Green Lantern: First Flight was a better origin movie by far.

#24 Posted by capelesscrusader (128 posts) - - Show Bio

I was a huge proponent of this movie from the time it was announced. Hal had long been one of my favorite characters, as his "Chuck Yeager" sensibility really appealed to me.

That said, I was horribly disappointed by the Green Lantern movie. Why? I'll tell you.

1) Scripting

The script had some serious pacing problems. There was the obligatory "secret origins" sequence showcasing the death of Martin Jordan, which is fine, but there was very little time spent on making the audience care about the character of Hal. There are some nice moments with his nephew, but other than that, he seems like a rather generic cutout in the frat boy, "Top Gun" mold. This gives the audience nothing to really root for as the movie progresses.

The Oa sequences, which were by far the most visually spectacular portion of the movie, were poorly handled. WB spent an inordinate amount of time and money marketing the various Green Lantern Corps members only to reward them with perhaps a few seconds of screen time apiece (Kilowog being the lone exception). Again, this creates no emotional investment on the part of the audience, which means that when several of these characters bite the proverbial bullet at the end of the second act, there is no reason for the audience to care.

2) Direction

Martin Campbell deserves much of the fault for the critical failure of this film. All of the actors in the cast, from Ryan Reynolds on down, have all turned in far superior work from an acting standpoint on other films. Ryan Reynolds was allowed to slip, far too often, into his standard personality, which is completely on the director. His Hector Hammond was overblown, and many of the supporting characters felt like cartoons rather than fleshed out people. Again, when you know that the actors have the capability based on previous work, then the responsibility for this failure falls squarely on the shoulders of the director.

3) Wasted Opportunities

Parallax: Done. Hector Hammond: Done. Krona: Done. All great concepts that could carry films on their own, if done right, and were mashed together in an unintelligible jumble.

The original production design for the film included references to Gotham and Metropolis, which would have made this film feel a part of a larger universe, but was written out by WB execs as "confusing". There was even an Alan Scott reference in the original shooting script that was also canned.

In short, the production was rushed, the script was rewritten to death, and the studio didn't trust audiences to be intelligent enough to know a good movie when they saw it. The sequel has the opportunity to make up for a lot of these mistakes, but only if done right. Otherwise, WB will have squandered one of their best opportunities for an enduring science fiction franchise that could be the next Star Wars.

/endrant

-----

CapelessCrusader.org

#25 Posted by SpideyIvyDaredevilFan26 (6711 posts) - - Show Bio

It sucked because of

  • Laughably bad dialogue: Seriously not kidding when I say almost as bad as Batman & Robin
  • The plot is basically a DC ripoff...er, "version" of Spider-Man with a little bit of Iron Man thrown in for good measure
  • I didn't care about any of the characters. They were very poorly developed
  • The villain was absolutley ridiculous. And this is coming from the guy who liked Absorbing Man from Ang Lee's Hulk
  • Plot holes
  • Sinestro is a good guy for the whole movie. WTF?
  • Fails to take advantage of an enormous universe of different lantern corps
  • I didn't hate the villain. If anything I felt sorry for him. Which was also a reason why Batman Returns sucked with the Penguin
#26 Posted by TDK_1997 (15868 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think it sucked that much.Yes,the story was bad,so was the Cloudy Parallax and Hector Hammond but basically it was an entertaining movie for me,

#27 Posted by SpideyIvyDaredevilFan26 (6711 posts) - - Show Bio

@TDK_1997:

If you liked Green Lantern you have to like Daredevil and Ang Lee's Hulk. Both were insanley underrated

#28 Posted by oraclefyre (944 posts) - - Show Bio

Because they turned Hal into an a$$. Plus how Carol recognised him through the mask broke all the superhero rules, it's not ground breaking to defy them.

#29 Posted by primepower53 (6064 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Because everyone told you it sucked, therefore there opinions became your opinion

this.

Personally, I found the movie enjoyable.

#30 Posted by Jnr6Lil (8198 posts) - - Show Bio

At the time it was competing with X-Men: First Class, Avengers, etc.

#31 Posted by Manwhohaseverything (2351 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, GL wasn't  great, but I don't think it sucked either. I agree Daredevil also did not suck, but also was not great...Ang Lee's Hulk, I think did suck! Anyhow, back on topic, the main thing wrong was LAME VILLAINS. They didn't look intimidating, they didn't act intimidating, and were hard to take seriously. I hope they don't reboot GL, just go on to part two with Sinestro. The weird thing is, the villains were also LAME in The Avengers, yet since it got good reviews, so many people have let that slide. Let me explain: We all knew Loki's "army" was not a threat. Those guys were basically like side-kicks for any villain. We know Batman won't have any problems with Joker's henchmen, the real showdown comes when he faces the Joker. Same here, we all know Loki's "army" wasn't the threat, the threat had to be Loki himself. Problem was...he wasn't a threat! Hulk jumps up, tosses him around for thirty seconds, and the threat is nullified. (which was a cool visual/comic relief, but nothing more.) There was no showdown like Batman had with Joker hanging off the building in TDK. Basically The Avengers was a film without a climax.Unless you thought for one second Iron man wasn't going to come back from the portal in time. But, in true cliche fashion, he barely escapes in the nick of time.If we think we know as much about writing as we say we do when critiquing a comic, that was a blatant example of bad writing. Worse than anything that happened in GL. Yet because Rotten Tomatoes gives Avengers a 93% rating and everyone becomes programmed to say how great it was, (I'll bet 90% of the people had their minds made up it was great before they stepped foot into the theatre.) everyone over-looks it's many flaws. With GL, everyone said it sucked and so do most of us. It's really nothing more than going along with the crowd. If i asses both film honestly, I think the Avengers was better than GL, but barely, the main thing is it LOOKED better.

#32 Posted by SupahForeigner (243 posts) - - Show Bio

Personally I liked the film, and the costume was very well done in my opinion. Ryan Reynolds played a great part as Hal Jordan, I just thought that maybe the 'imaginary car saving the helicopter crashing' and the 'imaginary gun firing at Parallax' was a bit to 'childish' for my liking, would like to see more expert use of the Green Lantern power.

But like someone said before, don't let other peoples opinions influence yours, if you enjoyed the film then stand by your opinion.

#33 Posted by Kid_Omega_Prime (1807 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkKnightDetective: Ok if Ryan Reynolds should not play Hal Jordan then who ? Oh funny you said Deadpool because I heard there going to make a deadpool movie and Ryan is going to play him.

#34 Posted by SupahForeigner (243 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kid_Omega_Prime said:

@DarkKnightDetective: Ok if Ryan Reynolds should not play Hal Jordan then who ? Oh funny you said Deadpool because I heard there going to make a deadpool movie and Ryan is going to play him.

I don't see why there should be any problems with Ryan Reynolds playing both Hal Jordan and Deadpool; both characters are from different universes and comics all together so there wouldn't be any clashes. I think he played great both as Deadpool and Hal Jordan, in my opinion keep him for both roles.

#35 Posted by Dark_Vengeance_ (15329 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kid_Omega_Prime: I think he should be played by Chris Pine or Nathan Fillion, and I am awere of that movie that keep getting postponed.

#36 Posted by Jnr6Lil (8198 posts) - - Show Bio

@Manwhohaseverything said:

Well, GL wasn't great, but I don't think it sucked either. I agree Daredevil also did not suck, but also was not great...Ang Lee's Hulk, I think did suck! Anyhow, back on topic, the main thing wrong was LAME VILLAINS. They didn't look intimidating, they didn't act intimidating, and were hard to take seriously. I hope they don't reboot GL, just go on to part two with Sinestro. The weird thing is, the villains were also LAME in The Avengers, yet since it got good reviews, so many people have let that slide. Let me explain: We all knew Loki's "army" was not a threat. Those guys were basically like side-kicks for any villain. We know Batman won't have any problems with Joker's henchmen, the real showdown comes when he faces the Joker. Same here, we all know Loki's "army" wasn't the threat, the threat had to be Loki himself. Problem was...he wasn't a threat! Hulk jumps up, tosses him around for thirty seconds, and the threat is nullified. (which was a cool visual/comic relief, but nothing more.) There was no showdown like Batman had with Joker hanging off the building in TDK. Basically The Avengers was a film without a climax.Unless you thought for one second Iron man wasn't going to come back from the portal in time. But, in true cliche fashion, he barely escapes in the nick of time.If we think we know as much about writing as we say we do when critiquing a comic, that was a blatant example of bad writing. Worse than anything that happened in GL. Yet because Rotten Tomatoes gives Avengers a 93% rating and everyone becomes programmed to say how great it was, (I'll bet 90% of the people had their minds made up it was great before they stepped foot into the theatre.) everyone over-looks it's many flaws. With GL, everyone said it sucked and so do most of us. It's really nothing more than going along with the crowd. If i asses both film honestly, I think the Avengers was better than GL, but barely, the main thing is it LOOKED better.

Finally someone thinks Avvengers was overrated

#37 Posted by htb106 (1724 posts) - - Show Bio

They tried to do to much in the movie with Parallax and Hector hall, it took about half the film for him to get his power ring.

I think the film would have been a lot better if they introduced John Stewart instead of Hal Jordan.

#38 Posted by deadpool6_6_6 (1064 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkKnightDetective said:

Because Hal shouldnt be played by Ryan Reynolds, Ryan should play Deadpool which he was really good at.

Agreed, but i heard he was gonna play deadpool, did they change planes or something?

#39 Posted by FearTheLiving (5172 posts) - - Show Bio

Hot Wheels thing really made me just hate the movie to be honest other than I was just an okay movie to me that really didn't stand out though I'm not a huge GL fan either.

#40 Posted by KingofMadCows (349 posts) - - Show Bio

It has terrible and contrived writing. You may not notice it but it just feels weird and wrong.

Take for example the scene where Hal has just beaten the two computer controlled jets. He looks down and sees a picture of his father, which triggers a painful flashback and causes him to crash. That scene might seem OK when you watch it but if you just think about it for a second, you'll realize that it makes no sense. How is he even a pilot, let alone one of the best pilots, if he's that easily distracted? The picture was right next to the jet's instruments, there's no way he pilot the plane without seeing it. If that picture can cause such emotional distress, why did he even take it with him?

There are a lot of scenes like that where you may not initially notice how contrived they are but they just feel wrong and make little sense when you go back and think about it.

#41 Edited by Dark_Vengeance_ (15329 posts) - - Show Bio

@deadpool6_6_6: no but Deadpool keeps getting postponed because Green Lantern 2 is in the making.

#42 Posted by Manwhohaseverything (2351 posts) - - Show Bio
@KingofMadCows: This is true. There were also a lot of things he did with his ring that were contrived. It's been too long for me to recall all the details, but I remember thinking a few times "Giant hand! Use your ring to make a giant hand either pick something up or punch something!" The part where he used his ring to "construct" a mini-highway, I think, to curtail a runaway truck was one of them. C'mon dude..giant hand! 
#43 Posted by Manwhohaseverything (2351 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jnr6Lil: Thing is, those of us who think it was over-rated can actually give examples of bad writing/plot holes etc...the exact same things movies like GL get so criticized for. I think the double-standard is what bothers me the most. Why were all those things in "The Avengers" okay, when they aren't okay in GL? And why all the praise for "bringing the characters together?" That's NOT HARD TO DO. Heck, Whedon had the previous movies basically do that for him. Besides having characters interact is writing/directing 101, and folks act like Whedon cured cancer. 
#44 Posted by KainScion (2993 posts) - - Show Bio

because

#45 Posted by oraclefyre (944 posts) - - Show Bio

@KainScion said:

because

This^

#46 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (39946 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@ReVamp said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@Kal'smahboi said:
It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.
^ We have a winner.

o___O. You liked it? Well, you kinda liked it?

I'm genuinely surprised.

I actually liked it quite a bit. The extended edition is pointless, but the standard release was really not that bad. It had great special effects, a likeable protagonist, a big threat for him to overcome (that he did with intelligence as well as power), a decent love interest. I mean, it wasn't perfect, obviously. But it was a fun popcorn movie based on a fun popcorn comic. It wasn't offensively bad like Ghost Rider 2, but it was a solid 6/10 movie. People act like the Green Lantern comics are some form of high-literature, come on. It's a popcorn comic. The spirit was carried into the movie.

IMO it isn't any worse than Thor

#47 Posted by ReVamp (23014 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous: Me and Fade actually talked about that, I liked GL more than Thor.

#48 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23390 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@ReVamp said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@Kal'smahboi said:
It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.
^ We have a winner.

o___O. You liked it? Well, you kinda liked it?

I'm genuinely surprised.

I actually liked it quite a bit. The extended edition is pointless, but the standard release was really not that bad. It had great special effects, a likeable protagonist, a big threat for him to overcome (that he did with intelligence as well as power), a decent love interest. I mean, it wasn't perfect, obviously. But it was a fun popcorn movie based on a fun popcorn comic. It wasn't offensively bad like Ghost Rider 2, but it was a solid 6/10 movie. People act like the Green Lantern comics are some form of high-literature, come on. It's a popcorn comic. The spirit was carried into the movie.

IMO it isn't any worse than Thor

I agree. Take out Loki and Thor was very average. But Loki was superb, to be fair. 
#49 Posted by Agent9149 (3024 posts) - - Show Bio

Let me list you why: too many plot lines...that didn't interconnect well

they had:

1. Hal's social life: both family and work plus emotional and psychological baggage.

2. Hal as a Green Lantern protecting earth

3. Hal as a Green Lantern training on OA

4. Green Lanterns vs Parallax

5. Hal and Carol's relationship

6. Hector's terrible life: his relationship with his father, and his obsession with Carol

7. Hector's gaining of powers and corruption

8. Hal Jordan vs Hector

9. Sinestro's gaining of the yellow ring.

10. Hal Jordan vs Parallax

If your going to make a Green Lantern movie you either focus on earth life or space life, you don't mix until you've had a two individual movies thats grounded both

#50 Posted by AtPhantom (14434 posts) - - Show Bio

@Agent9149: You're not listing plot lines. You're listing scenes. There are at best three plot lines in the movie: Hal's, Hector's and the corps' as they fight Parallax. Of any problems the movie had, being overcrowded with plot was not one of them.