The Green Lantern

Saw it today. It was decent enough. A bit too bogged down in the mythology, and very little action for a comic book movie, but otherwise okay.

"The"?

Sure.

Well whatever. Did the CG costume look any better than it did in the trailers?

They were CG? Like, the entire time?

Pretty much all of it was CG. Apparently it was because the suit is supposed to look otherworldly or something.

According to the guys down at Spill, the movie was apparently really good during the parts in space.

Savage∞ wrote:

Pretty much all of it was CG. Apparently it was because the suit is supposed to look otherworldly or something.

I think it's because the suit is made of energy.

Isn't that the same essential explanation? A suit made of energy is otherworldly.

Hal's looked real enough, barring the magic light and stuff. Ohm was more enjoyable than Asgard was. The yellow ring went nowhere, although I didn't stick around for the credits so there may have been something at the end about that.

Why does everybody like this movie? It looks like shit and the critics are slamming it.

The human villain was pretty bad though.

A_Nonny_Moose wrote:

The yellow ring went nowhere, although I didn't stick around for the credits so there may have been something at the end about that.

Sinestro and probably his corps were set up for the sequel.

Kaio wrote:

Why does everybody like this movie? It looks like shit and the critics are slamming it.

I don't see much difference between this and Thor to be honest. Thor had more action, but none of it was particularly great.

That's what I was going to say. Thor looked like shit from the trailers too, and early reviews were giving it far too much credit than it deserved. Green Lantern was a worthwhile endeavor. Also, there's X-Men: First Class coming in lower than any of the other X movies even though it was one of the, if not *the* best. I just go with my gut.

Kaio wrote:

Why does everybody like this movie? It looks like shit and the critics are slamming it.

Critics praise some real bollocks programmes. Their opinion hardly governs the experience of the individual. Sometimes generic romps are great if executed well.

Thor has a better villain. But they both suffered from being origin films about characters with a huge mythology behind them. It was like all the story elements only had one scene each just because there was so many of them.

You lost your face.

Huh?

What he's trying to say is that you lost your face.

Savage∞ wrote:

Isn't that the same essential explanation? A suit made of energy is otherworldly.

Depends.

Anyways, yeah the movie doesn't look all that great. From what I've heard from Spills review they seem to think there's too much pussyfooting on Earth along with a very boring villain. They praised Mark Strong highly for how he acted as Sinestro even though Sinestro is in like five scenes, so I'm assuming they don't do much with him.

Which is bad because they're probably gonna use him as a villain for the next movie and you kind of need that friendship with Hal to make it work.

Why? He worked as a competent and threatening villain for decades before his friendship with Hal had any emphasis placed on it.

Because it works better when your villain has chemistry with the hero. He may be a good villain on his own but his relationship with Hal made the fights between them all the more personal and emotional.

I don't disagree that it made his fights with Hal better, but he definitely doesn't need an underlying connection with any one person to work as a villain, especially since most of his arguments are centered around how the Guardians run the GLC in general.

Oh definitely, I'm not saying Sinestro needs the relationship with Hal to be a great villain, I'm saying he needs the relationship with Half for the movie to make it an amazing movie.