• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

RTTP: Green Lantern (2011) - with the OG Amanda Waller, Sum 41, and colour correction

Status
Not open for further replies.

tomtom94

Member
So I decided to watch Green Lantern because I keep forgetting to cancel my Amazon Prime subscription and I thought "it can't be that bad, right"

WELL

First up - Ryan Reynolds is awful. Looks throughout the entire film like a man who fully aware that he is talking to fish people added in post and wondering where those years at drama school went.

ryan-reynolds-as-hal-jordan-in-green-lantern.jpg


Second - the plot is all over the place. Hal has his training montage, during which he's told how hard it is to fly through space. Immediately afterwards, he loses in a fight... and flies all the way back to Earth. Almost entirely off-screen. (The fact that we're basically never shown where Oa is in relation to Earth doesn't help here.) Hal regains his Green Lantern powers then immediately threatens to run away again. There's a baddie basically because there has to be a baddie. At the beginning the villain wants to take over Oa, at the end he wants to take over Earth. Why? Because the plot says so.

Did I mention this had four credited writers? It shows.

Third, it looks terrible. They've clearly tried to ape the look of Iron Man, bright colours and tonnes of visual effects - but it goes way, way overboard here. EVERYTHING is colour-corrected in post, and they went too far, to the extent that I swear there's a damn teal-and-orange contrast in every shot, and nothing looks like it could ever exist outside of a cosplay convention. If you thought Avengers looked over-lit, this is so bright and it's actually blinding.

The scenes on Oa are the worst of all. It looks like it came out of an episode of Doctor Who.

green-lantern006.jpg


green-lantern-oa001.jpg


And do you know what the worst part is?

It was directed by Martin Campbell.

Remember how Casino Royale made such a huge deal out of every painful moment and really made you feel it? Nothing in this movie does that. The camera has no reaction to any collisions that appear on screen and the physics of most of the Green Lantern objects look absurd. It's honestly like they looked at the live-action Inspector Gadget movie and went "this is what we want to aim for".

(If you're one of the people who want Martin Campbell back to helm another Bond reboot, this movie will cure you of that hope.)

The positives: They had a good thing going through the script about fear and will and humanity at one point and some of it even survives into the final cut. The voice cast of the Corps is pretty good. Taika Waititi now knows what a bad superhero film looks like to help him do the opposite with Thor: Ragnarok

latest


In summary: 109 minutes of superhero film and its legacy is going to be a couple of lines in Deadpool and it barely deserves that.

If you're wondering the Sum 41 is at the beginning and here's Amanda Waller before she regenerated into Viola Davis

green-lantern-still01.jpg
 
I have a friend who is a huge Hal Jordan fan who swears this movie doesn't suck and I'm like "Nah son you don't like Hal Jordan then."

What a piece of shit. Blake Lively tho.
 

shingi70

Banned
I always wonder with this movie aucking so hard, did Geoff John's cry himself to sleep.


Man that costume is really bad.
 
There's also multiple versions of the same scene from different drafts in the finished film, one where he goes over his powers and recharging them from the lantern alone in his apartment, and then one where he shows his roommate with no new information. You think this scene is going to be the foreshadowing of his powers running out in the middle of battle and him needing to recharge them for a bit of drama, but no, it's actually never mentioned again.

The best bit is the room-mate is sitting and leaning forwards across a narrow table, while Green Lantern is standing leading to the room-mate sticking his face uncomfortably close to Ryan Reynolds CGI crotch-bulge while acting amazed.
 

MMarston

Was getting caught part of your plan?
First up - Ryan Reynolds is awful. Looks throughout the entire film like a man who fully aware that he is talking to fish people added in post and wondering where those years at drama school went.
I'm from the same high school Reynolds went and apparently (though I can't really confirm this) he couldn't give two shits enough to pass drama class.
 

Joni

Member
It is funny how they went from executives ruining the movie by spending way too much micromanagement and demanding changes, to ruining movies by letting a guy run wild. There is a middleground.
 

WillyFive

Member
This movie would have been good in the late 90's or early 2000s where standards for superhero movies were lower and were still a new thing. But when this movie came out, it looked like the people making it assumed no one has seen a superhero movie before and thought that doing all these boring and retreaded tropes would be acceptable.

No, it was not. Ugly art design too.
 
The scientist villain has no motivation for being evil at all. He goes from a sensible, reasonable man one minute to physically assaulting his students the next.

But the whole thing ends with Hal punching a shit cloud into the sun and I think that's all you really need to know about the movie.

This movie would have been good in the late 90's or early 2000s where standards for superhero movies were lower and were still a new thing. But when this movie came out, it looked like the people making it assumed no one has seen a superhero movie before and thought that doing all these boring and retreaded tropes would be acceptable.

No, it was not. Ugly art design too.

X-Men was 2000 and Spider-Man was 2002. If you want to be polite to its 12 fans, Blade was also in 1998. Before that, Superman '78 and Batman '89 were a couple of the most popular movies of the modern era. Shit like Green Lantern would have been unacceptable in any year. Batman & Robin was in 1997 and killed the franchise for 8 years.
 

Nudull

Banned
Remember when people praised Reynold's CGI abs and muscles as a true example of comic book art come to life?

Good times.
 
The scientist villain has no motivation for being evil at all. He goes from a sensible, reasonable man one minute to physically assaulting his students the next.

And his grand master plan because Blake Lively wants nothing to do with him is to... make her ugly. Like, he goes evil because his dad made fun of him or something.

And then space diarrhea.

Awful movie.
 
Best part of the movie was when Blake Lively immediately sees through Hal's disguise and says something like "I've seen you naked! Did you really think I wouldn't recognize you?" Got a sincere, earned laugh out of me.

Everything else was crap. Lol at the Hot Wheels commercial in the middle of it.
 
Honestly, the thing I hated most was how ridiculous the Guardians looked. Why did they have to have their robes so ludicrously long? It's the like the movie was trying to go "Oooh such splendor much fantasy" and it just came across as dumb.

Best part of the movie was when Blake Lively immediately sees through Hal's disguise and says something like "I've seen you naked! Did you really think I wouldn't recognize you?" Got a sincere, earned laugh out of me.

Everything else was crap. Lol at the Hot Wheels commercial in the middle of it.

This was funny, I agree.
 
Berlanti and Guggenheim have basically disowned it, they were kicked from the movie but still credited.

This is their script.

For Guggenheim, not at all. He came to my university about a year after the film came out and he was visibly disappointed that the movie wasn't well-received. I told him I liked it and saw it three times and asked if he would come back for a sequel if he had the opportunity. He thanked me for seeing it three times and said that he would absolutely come back if there were a sequel, that they had pitched a trilogy and it was actually really cool (he seemed really excited when he said that and clearly disappointed that it was likely never going to happen), then he said unfortunately even if you really like something, it doesn't mean audiences will, too.

OP, it's normal that there are bright colors. It's based on a comic book, and not a grim one.

It's not a perfect movie by any means but it was one of the most fun comic book movies to me. The powers are really cool and it was visually rather unique.
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
I actually rewatched this last night. FX showed it, with Thor 2 being shown today. Figured I'd revisit both.

This is just a paint by numbers superhero movie. They had Angela Basset as Waller but she lacked bite. The only thing my opinion has changed on is Blake Lively. She's still terrible in spots, but some of her interactions with Reynolds are decent.

I love Casino Royale but after seeing Edge of Darkness in theaters and then this the following year, I'd rather he stay far far away from Bond.

I actually did have a good time seeing Green Lantern in theaters simply for how the movie started. I saw it at my campus movie theater and I guess they forgot to rewind the film or whatever. So literally the first scene that played for us was the Sinestro midcredit tease. I didn't feel spoiled or anything, but I must have laughed for 5 minutes straight.
 

MC Safety

Member
It was dumb.

Green Lantern doesn't need an origin story.

He also doesn't need to go into space and have a pizza party with 500 other Green Lanterns. At least not immediately.
 

tomtom94

Member
OP, it's normal that there are bright colors. It's based on a comic book, and not a grim one.

I know. I compared it to Marvel for a reason, the reason being that when I watch a typical MCU film I can believe that the stuff is happening in this universe (even something crazy and ridiculous like Civil War or the first Avengers).

The colour palette of Green Lantern, by contrast, is so over-the-top it looks like a live-action cartoon.
 

Big_Al

Unconfirmed Member
X-Men was 2000 and Spider-Man was 2002. If you want to be polite to its 12 fans, Blade was also in 1998. Before that, Superman '78 and Batman '89 were a couple of the most popular movies of the modern era. Shit like Green Lantern would have been unacceptable in any year. Batman & Robin was in 1997 and killed the franchise for 8 years.

Oi what's this 12 fans shit in relation to Blade ? Blade's still a crackin film and so is Blade 2.
 
Oi what's this 12 fans shit in relation to Blade ? Blade's still a crackin film and so is Blade 2.

The shit is that not a lot of people have seen Blade and it's not a universally praised movie among those who have.

I was just being hyperbolic in a throwaway comment. I wasn't trying to derail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom