didn't mean to double post stupid thing made me agree to stuff the while trying to do that I get a stupid capta BS that is near impossible to read cause of the blur only to find out it double posted for me good times.
Escape to the Movies: Green Lantern
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Bob's Green Lantern Fanboy Nerd Rage is pretty strong in this one. I saw the movie this afternoon, is it a masterpiece? Hardly. It is pretty paint-by-numbers and the CG is a bit on the meh side, but you have to remember we're dealing with some pretty fantastical elements here; it's hard to make that look "real." An actual physical costume would have gone a long way. Regardless, saying it's Batman and Robin or Steel bad is a pretty over the top and unfaithful criticism.
It's not a good movie nor is it a bad movie, it's an "Ok" movie. If you're a gushing Green Lantern fan, it is going to piss you off. But, if you don't know anything about it, or can ignore the continuity flaws, and have an afternoon to blow on "Ok" super hero movie, you'll be entertained.
It's not a good movie nor is it a bad movie, it's an "Ok" movie. If you're a gushing Green Lantern fan, it is going to piss you off. But, if you don't know anything about it, or can ignore the continuity flaws, and have an afternoon to blow on "Ok" super hero movie, you'll be entertained.
I just saw it earlier. it wasn't that bad to me... wasn't fantastic by any means by i'd give it a nice 7/10. I dont feel like I wasted my money, at least. Ryan Reynolds isn't as bad as everyone is making him out to be if you ask me. i thought he did a good job. and the movie looked pretty fantastic, idk what he's saying about him looking all weird in space. i actually really liked the look of him flying and green energy leaving him as he did, looks pretty damn neat.
idk i mean it wasn't the dark knight but i really dont think it needs to be compared to batman and robin or whatever that other movie was that he considered even worse.
idk i mean it wasn't the dark knight but i really dont think it needs to be compared to batman and robin or whatever that other movie was that he considered even worse.
To describe MovieBob as "jaded" in this review would be a total understatement.
That's all I'm going to say.
That's all I'm going to say.
I like this idea MovieBob, I get more out of something that's thorough and in depth than a quick scan. I'd really enjoy something 10 minutes or longer.vviki said:
*Sigh* You'd think they'd have learnt from the mistakes of the past... I guess this is just another mistake to attempt to learn from, now.
I haven't seen this movie yet, but I'm willing to bet that I will personally enjoy it anyway on the grounds of entertainment.
Also, I'm willing to bet that Bob is merely critically annihalating it more than it deserves because it fell short of his expectation that everything based on comic books must be pure gold.
Also, I'm willing to bet that Bob is merely critically annihalating it more than it deserves because it fell short of his expectation that everything based on comic books must be pure gold.
Yeah, I'm thinking that this will be my opinion of it too.Sylveria said:
Sorry I meant to say it other way round, I'm more inclined to believe this review, because as you rightly pointed out, he actually gives a number of reasons, as opposed to just tearing into it like with Transformers which is what i felt he did before.AgentLex said:
Sorry for the confusion
A lot of Movie Bob's complaints, like the terrible costuming problems and bad CGI (and, to a lesser extent, Ryan Reynolds' poor acting) should have been evident from the trailers, yet Movie Bob built it up with two weeks of Big Picture anyway. This makes me seriously doubt how much the problems he should've seen coming are actually problems and, as a result, whether or not any of this review is at all reliable or just fanboy nerd rage that I can get for free by punching "Green Lantern forum" into Google and asking people what they thought of the movie. Why the Escapist would pay someone for this is beyond me.
So a movie based on a comic that's not very good to begin with and DEFINATELY not well suited to live action adaptation turns out to be bad.
I know Bob subscribes to the "You can make a good movie out of anything" school of thought, but this should not have been a suprise. This isn't like Daredevil or Superman Returns or X-men origins where there are expectations to be ruined. It's Green fucking Lantern. If it wasn't for Geoff Johns' constant masturbating over Hal Jordan, the character would've taken his rightful place next to Wonder Woman and Aquaman in the DC trinity of walking punchlines by now.
I know Bob subscribes to the "You can make a good movie out of anything" school of thought, but this should not have been a suprise. This isn't like Daredevil or Superman Returns or X-men origins where there are expectations to be ruined. It's Green fucking Lantern. If it wasn't for Geoff Johns' constant masturbating over Hal Jordan, the character would've taken his rightful place next to Wonder Woman and Aquaman in the DC trinity of walking punchlines by now.
No they made a bad comic film? Tell me its not so! I bet I will find it better than Xmen 2 and 3 and Transformers >>.
PS:3D is brain washingz!!!!!111
/tinfoil hat
PS:3D is brain washingz!!!!!111
/tinfoil hat
I have to disagree with you about "just film the comic" notion.Korroth Dyahwanre said:
We're dealing with two very different mediums, least of all is that comics are serialized, while movies are much more stand-alone. Why are Star Trek movies of such variable quality? Because it's based on a TV show, where you don't have to save the universe every single outing and can throw in change-of-pace episode where you run your cast through a fun, light-weight plot with the Tribbles. The comics that are most closely adapted tend to be the stand-alone stories, such as Sin City or Watchmen. Serialized stories like Green Lantern or Spider-Man require the ability to distill the essence of these stories and these characters from a 22 page never-ending adventure and present them in a completely different form: a two-hour movie adventure. A villain's best adventure usually isn't the one that introduced him, so if you start at the beginning, you're not putting your best foot forward.
And they constant saddle themselves with not placing them in a universe filled with super-powered characters (which is how most of these stories originate in comics), so far too many movies are origin stories. Wouldn't it be cool for a Spider-Man movie to start off with a pre-credit battle with the Rhino? I know I would. But would you really want to see a two-hour movie about the Rhino's origin and his big epic battle with Spider-Man? Probably not. There's simply not enough there to warrant any major exploration of his character. Comics can toss a Rhino adventure at you any time they like, because they have 12 shots at the apple every year for the last several decades (multiple by three or four since Spidey has multiple books). You've got three, maybe four good movies in a super-hero franchise before the reboots start happening, so a very large part of what makes the comics good simply can't get to the Big Screen... it's simply not big or important enough.
I think the big problem Green Lantern is one that is shared with Judge Dredd and the Doctor Who TV movie. They're trying to introduce way too much of the lore in two hours. There's really no reason for the Corps to be in this movie. They're in it because they want the sequel to be a big galaxy-spanning adventure and this movie's marketing is to ready the audience for the next movie. I think they should have led with a good, solid Earthbound adventure against Green Lantern's most popular foe, instead of half-assing a space adventure on top of it.
If Moviebob feels like doing five episodes about everything wrong with this movie I'd happily watch all of them and have a good laugh each time. Also
U mad bro?DAPLR said: