www.ComicBookPage.com

Saw it today and generally thought it was serviceable big-screen summer movie fare, and I'm glad I saw it in the theater. Saw it in 2D, and it looked fine to me. Stick around during the credits for a short bonus scene.

I don't know how much of a hand Geoff Johns had in the production, but I did not care for the character development at all. I found it hard getting a read on one of the main antagonists. It's like the movie needed another bad guy, so they plugged one in really crudely. I didn't see the need for it, nor did I like how it was done. Just strange.

I did like what I perceived as a couple of Marvel shout outs, and I liked what little we got to see of the Corps. The SFX were also really fun, though again I wish we got to see a bit more. I felt the actor who played Sinestro was dead on and really the only character in the movie you could sink your teeth into. Made me really notice how lacking in development and personality everyone else was.

Still, I'd recommend the movie and wasn't too hung up on what I thought were structural flaws.

did 52 million first weekend. A bit disappointing for a $150 million dollar film I'm sure. It will be interesting to see how much the numbers drop in the second weekend.

Gilgabob wrote:did 52 million first weekend. A bit disappointing for a $150 million dollar film I'm sure. It will be interesting to see how much the numbers drop in the second weekend.

It was the #1 movie.......I personally think the marketing decision to make this another superfluous 3-D film really hurt the box office. When Thor came out in 2-D & 3-D, there were a LOT more screens available near me that had 2-D versions of the film playing. For GL, there were very few 2-D screenings.

At the theater closest to me there were only 2 regular showings all day on Friday, the rest were 3-D. I know my son & his friends DID NOT want to pay the extra $$ to see it in 3-D.

I think a lot of people are pulling away from 3-D films because it's now an excuse to pick our pocket for an over-inflated ticket prices. When most of the showings are 3-D a lot of people may just decide to skip it if there is not a convenient 2-D showing instead of paying the extra $s.

This movie felt like a video game script that was turned into a big budget film. Especially the training scene. It was pretty disappointing and was missing any heart or inspiration. Not as bad as some people made it out to be, but still pretty lame.

BobBretall wrote:
It was the #1 movie.......I personally think the marketing decision to make this another superfluous 3-D film really hurt the box office. When Thor came out in 2-D & 3-D, there were a LOT more screens available near me that had 2-D versions of the film playing. For GL, there were very few 2-D screenings.

At the theater closest to me there were only 2 regular showings all day on Friday, the rest were 3-D. I know my son & his friends DID NOT want to pay the extra $$ to see it in 3-D.

I think a lot of people are pulling away from 3-D films because it's now an excuse to pick our pocket for an over-inflated ticket prices. When most of the showings are 3-D a lot of people may just decide to skip it if there is not a convenient 2-D showing instead of paying the extra $s.

The only 3-D films I see are ones that were filmed in 3-D, like the last Pirates film or Transformers 3.

GABE! wrote:This movie felt like a video game script that was turned into a big budget film. Especially the training scene. It was pretty disappointing and was missing any heart or inspiration. Not as bad as some people made it out to be, but still pretty lame.

I don't know....most people on the internet are just calling it "pretty lame" so you're right on board with the crowd, there.

You can pick apart most movies if you really want to, and most movies are not exactly like the viewer wants them to be.

I thought it was a perfectly fine movie. I was entertained for the duration.

Without seeing the film, I think I'd probably agree with one reviewer who said it felt like two movies crammed into one. Typically a superhero film will start out with their origin and maybe a smaller villain/problem, but this film tackled the origin AND a giant villain storyline.

Anyone else who has seen the film agree with that?

It's kind of what happened to Spider-Man 3, they rushed Venom in at the end and it really hurt the film. Ditch the Sandman and make the whole thing Venom.

About the 3-D thing, I'm glad people are starting to turn away from it. I mean, I'm not the oldest guy around but it seems like every 20 years or so 3-D comes back and everyone gets excited. Then they realize it's still pretty (bleep) and it goes away again.

Well I have been reading Green Lantern continuously since about 1976. I remember picking it up off the spinner rack as a Flash backup. I am also someone that can separate movies and TV from my comic book reading. I loved it and have seen it twice already. I probably will see it one more time. I was entertained from beginning to ending.

I thought the movie was OK. It was not great, but I do not think it is the worse thing I've seen. They should have made the movie a space cop movie, and left the earth stuff altogether.

I had to wait an extra 1 and half to see the 3-D version.

abysslord wrote:Without seeing the film, I think I'd probably agree with one reviewer who said it felt like two movies crammed into one. Typically a superhero film will start out with their origin and maybe a smaller villain/problem, but this film tackled the origin AND a giant villain storyline.

Anyone else who has seen the film agree with that?

Didn't seem like 2 movies to me.

If I wanted to I could have concentrated on the stuff that didn't work for me, but I chose to concentrate on the cool parts, and as a result I really enjoyed the movie experience.

I saw it this weekend and really enjoyed it. I thought it was a better movie than X-Men First Class. Green Lantern felt more like the comic book coming to life than First Class did. My only complaint is the 3D glasses aspect was lame. I kept thinking why do I need these glasses when there are so few scenes really utlilizing them. I wished I had seen it in 2D and saved the money. Other than that it was a lot of fun and I'd like to see more GL on the big screen.

IanG wrote:I saw it this weekend and really enjoyed it. I thought it was a better movie than X-Men First Class. Green Lantern felt more like the comic book coming to life than First Class did. My only complaint is the 3D glasses aspect was lame. I kept thinking why do I need these glasses when there are so few scenes really utlilizing them. I wished I had seen it in 2D and saved the money. Other than that it was a lot of fun and I'd like to see more GL on the big screen.

I think movie fans are starting to sour on the 3D thing if they haven't already. I see more and more complaints about how unnecessary the 3D experience was. I always look for the non-3D version of the film but sometimes when it's a new release it can be difficult to find.

****Spoiler Warning**** This review will discuss plot points of both Green Lantern and X-Men: First Class. Read at your own risk if you have not seen these films.

I saw this and thought it was a decent movie. Not great, but decent.

I also saw X-Men: First Class, and thought that that film did a much better job of telling their story. Was it a story that you would've read in the comic book? No. Was it a very good telling of how Professor X and Magneto met, how they became friends, and how they eventually had to go their seperate ways? Yes.

While Green Lantern told their story, the one aspect that they truly failed on was the relationship between Hal Jordan and Sinestro. We've always been told that before they were enemies, they were great friends, that Sinestro trained Hal, and they had great respect for each other. Shouldn't we have seen that in this film? The relationship with Tomar Re and Kilowag were great, but just seemed to fall flat to me.

Again, I DID enjoy the Green Lantern film, and look forward to GL2, I just really wished we had seen more of the relationship between Sinestro and Jordan.

yensid4disney wrote: We've always been told that before they were enemies, they were great friends, that Sinestro trained Hal, and they had great respect for each other. Shouldn't we have seen that in this film? The relationship with Tomar Re and Kilowag were great, but just seemed to fall flat to me.

While you may have been told this, it certainly wasn't anything the (even with lousy box office) the 25x number of people who see the film would know.

Developing that kind of backstory would have slowed the film down.

In general, I don't downgrade films for being dissimilar to the comics (especially in skipping things like Sinestro/Hal, which, in truth, was not in the original Green Lantern stories, but was added later).

Those differences are something I just accept as part of the Hollywood system.

That said, everyone has certain things that are going to set their teeth on edge about a movie/book/comic/etc. These will vary by person.

I disagree that showing Sinestro and Hal Jordan becoming friends would have slowed the friend. I think it would have sped the film up. Instead of having him moan about not being worthy for 30 minutes in the middle of the film they could have kick butt action sequences of Sinestro taking Hal Jordan on training missions. X-Men first class succeeded in many ways because they took the time to establish that relationship.

spid wrote:I disagree that showing Sinestro and Hal Jordan becoming friends would have slowed the friend. I think it would have sped the film up. Instead of having him moan about not being worthy for 30 minutes in the middle of the film they could have kick butt action sequences of Sinestro taking Hal Jordan on training missions. X-Men first class succeeded in many ways because they took the time to establish that relationship.

Could be......pretty much any film is open to "arm chair quarterbacking" on how each person would have done parts differently, though.

Personally, I didn't miss Hal/Sinestro being friends. That was never a core part of the mythology for me, it was a late in the game add-on. For the majority of people seeing the film (e.g. people who never read a comic) they would not miss this either.

That said, I'd have liked anything with more action on OA and less whining from Reynolds, but I still liked the film.

It certainly was not a "Reb Brown" Captain America or "Roger Corman" FF or "David Ogden Stiers as Martian Manhunter" JLA film. Or even a Halle Berry Catwoman or Superman III/IV. Lots of truly bad super-hero films out there. GL was a masterpiece compared to the really poor movies that have been done.