web
counter
 

Green Lantern Review: Radioactive Swamp Ass

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (83)



7824_5170685408.jpg

Ryan Reynolds once suggested that his Green Lantern movie would be somewhere in the middle between Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies and Christopher Reeve’s Superman films, and even had the audacity to draw comparisons to the original Star Wars. A more apt comparison is a movie somewhere between Fantastic Four and the sticky floor of a strip club the morning after St. Patrick’s Day. The only thing in common with Star Wars that Green Lantern has are the CGI-cousins of Jar Jar Binks and the stool of Jabba the Hutt after a meal of Marvin the Martians. The Green Lantern is a pus-filled bedsore of a film, a wacky incoherent mess of Ryan Reynolds’ forehead, Blake Lively’s legs, and cheap CGI-creatures straight out of a Sid and Marty Krofft television show.

The Geek Bashers among us have resorted to every stereotype in the Handbook for Lazy Writers Who Want to Get a Cheap Rise Out of Comic-Book Nerds. Comic Book Geeks are dateless overweight bearded pasty white dudes who live in their parents basement and survive on a steady diet of Mt. Dew and Cheeto dust, right? But the one thing you can’t honestly say about the average comic-book dork is that they are dumb. Pedantic to the point of annoying? Absolutely. But dumb? Never. And Martin Campbell’s Green Lantern is dumb to the point of suicide. It’s insulting not just to the comic-book fans, but to everyone. It’s a puke green abomination, a terrible film that’s only real redeeming quality is in its ability to unite geeks, non-geeks, and the Male Society for the Appreciation of Ryan Reynolds’ Abs alike into a Hulk-colored maelstrom of contempt and repulsion.

In short, the movie is green-day dookie, and it’s not because of what many perceive to be flaws in the powers of the Green Lantern superhero or in the supposed daffy mythology. It’s shit because Greg Berlanti, the pissant television writer behind “Eli Stone,” “Brothers and Sisters,” and “Dawson’s Creek” had no business adapting Green Lantern for the screen. I gained more understanding of Green Lantern reading the Wikipedia page and skimming this Den of Geek article than Berlanti will ever understand about the superhero. Berlanti pays lip service to the title, but that’s it; he has no interest in the details.

Structurally, Green Lantern alternates between two worlds, Earth — where Hal Jordan (Reynolds) resides — and Oa, the planet inhabited by Sinestro and the poorly rendered CGI Fraggles that make up the Green Lantern Corps. In the opening act (easily the best 20 minutes of the film), we learn that Jordan is a second generation test pilot who has a history with boss’ daughter, Carol Ferris, a gorgeous wooden vessel with legs, hair, and lips played vacuously by Blake Lively. During a test mission, Jordan pulls some Top Gun shenanigans and nearly gets himself killed when he gets trapped in a flashback of his father’s death. Soon thereafter, a dying purple alien named Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), crashes his spaceship into Earth after he’s injured by Parallax, a creature of fear that looks like a larger, cartoon version of Marjory the Trash Heap. The Parallax, as the story goes, was once a member the Green Lantern Corp who attempted to master the power of fear (instead of the power of will); the plan backfired, and now Parallax goes around literally scaring people to death.

Ultimately, Hal Jordan is pulled against his will into this war with the Parallax by a pink CGI-version of a 70’s porn star, Sinestro, the leader of the Green Lantern Corp played by a criminally wasted Mark Strong. Sinestro believes that the only way to defeat Parallax is to master the yellow fear, but Hal Jordan convinces him otherwise after heroically creating a green racetrack to prevent a helicopter crash.

Meanwhile, parallel to these events on Earth, Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), a scientist with Daddy issues, absorbs some of the power of the Parallax while studying the corpse of Abin Sur. Hammond mixes that fear with petty jealousy in order to attempt to steal the affection of Carol Ferris, who would be an amazing character as depicted by Blake Lively if only she weren’t allowed to speak. Ever. Hammond snipes with his bullying father, a U.S. Senator played by Tim Robbins, and eventually succumbs to the full power of the Parallax’s fear and eventually his forehead grows almost as large as Reynolds’. After another hour of wacky nonsense, all of these elements — Hammond, the Parallax, Sinestro and the Green Lantern Corps — eventually converge almost spontaneously into a cataclysmic orb of stupidity so profound that you may experience dizziness, nausea and a bad case of the giggles.

I’ll grant Green Lantern this much: The scenes on Earth are passably bland, not unlike those in Thor, and Ryan Reynolds delivers a few breezy lines and — at least when he’s not covered in Slimer ooze — acquits himself respectfully. Unfortunately, at times it looks like his head has been inexpertly photoshopped onto a cartoon body, and Reynolds’ leading-man charisma is no power up against that full-body CGI suit. Once it comes on, not even Double-R, bless his poor wry heart, can wiseacre his way though that level of silliness.

Saarsgard is great, really truly honestly great, and his uncomfortably creepy villain feels almost as though it belongs in a different, better film. If Green Lantern had been more focused on the conflict and history between Jordan and Hammond and less on Jordan playing hologram footsie with Kilowog (who looks like a large kitty-litter chunk crossed with a troll), the film might have been salvageable. But that would’ve also necessitated less CGI, and almost as much as the weak story, it’s the effects that kill the movie. They’re not just overdone, they look cheap and unrealistic, and take away any chance that Green Lantern has of building a believable universe.

To the uninitiated, which is most of us, the Green Lantern superhero is an easy target, ripe for sarcastic mockery. “Hey! Magic ring. Wow!” But even a half-brained idiot with 20 minutes of research can see the comics contain rich mythology and often dense plot lines. There’s more to the story than a dude who recites an oath and creates a green Uzi with his ring, but Martin Campbell’s film doesn’t have much interest in exploring it. There are some interesting themes about courage and overcoming fear at play here, but the movie reduces them to a juvenile level, afraid to embrace what it is about the Green Lantern that comic-book geeks are attracted to. Campbell and Berlanti crap in the face of the fanboys, and in doing so, fail to find anything that resonates with the rest of us. Green Lantern is worse than a mess; it’s a mess without any ambition. It wants to cash in on the surge of comic-book movies, but never wants to make an effort.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



10 Actors You Might Not Know Are Bilingual | Mr. Popper's Penguins Review: He's Not Stupid, He Just Dupes It









Comments

Let's face it: most superhero stories are stupid as hell and good superhero movies are just good for a superhero movie. They can be enjoyable, but really they're just on par with fairytales as source material.

They can't all be "Iron Man."

Posted by: Slash at June 17, 2011 1:36 PM

I know several people that very well might throw themselves off the roofs of cinemas after having their one true love shamed so thoroughly. I will weep for them.

Posted by: the_wakeful at June 17, 2011 1:39 PM

Ryan Reynolds once suggested that his Green Lantern movie would be somewhere in the middle between Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies and Christopher Reeves’ Superman films
Between pretentious pseudo philosophical mediocre stunt action and outdated movie with horrible effects,horrible acting, horrible costume and a horrible plot? Seems about right;)


*waits for the mob with torches and pitchforks*

Posted by: Minto at June 17, 2011 1:39 PM

It looked pretty mediocre, but I never imagined it'd be THAT bad. Bummer.

Posted by: Vick at June 17, 2011 1:40 PM

I say it will happen withing 12 comments.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at June 17, 2011 1:46 PM

but Hal Jordan convinces him otherwise after heroically creating a green racetrack to prevent a helicopter crash.

I've read that sentence at least 10 times and it still doesn't make any damn sense yet somehow I bet it's 100% accurate.

Posted by: TylerDFC at June 17, 2011 1:48 PM

Hey, now! I don't live in my parents' basement! They don't even have a basement!

Great review, if unsurprising. It just seems like if this were done in the vein of The Incredibles it might be pretty okay. At least fun.

This line, especially, slayed me: "During a test mission, Jordan pulls some Top Gun shenanigans and nearly gets himself killed when he gets trapped in a flashback of his father’s death."

It actually reminds me more of Hot Shots than the Cruise flick, which is why I can't stop laughing.

Posted by: RobP at June 17, 2011 1:50 PM

@Minto: While I agree that the acting in Star Wars wasn't exactly the best, and the story could be a little contrived in places (especially those goddamn Ewoks. That was the first sign that Lucas should never have been allowed to touch anything), the man created a world that we loved, and wanted to be a part of, and could spend entire lifetimes imagining. The Green Lantern writers, on the other hand, appear to have created an episode of Nickelodeon, with extra slime.

Posted by: the_wakeful at June 17, 2011 1:52 PM

Well that puts an end to my Sunday superhero trifecta plans. Now I have a spare slot to fill and no it isn't my vagina.

Posted by: admin at June 17, 2011 1:55 PM

I haven't read the whole review yet (waiting to see it) but shouldn't TK have written this? Or could he at least write an coda to it?

Posted by: Mike D at June 17, 2011 2:00 PM

15 comments.

Also, I somehow KNEW it was going to be this bad. The trailers only made the movie look worse.

Posted by: Melody at June 17, 2011 2:01 PM

How about I don't see it, but do a Total Recall kind of deal where I make up memories about a better movie, and that way I really liked it?

Posted by: Lucas at June 17, 2011 2:02 PM

*waits for the mob with torches and pitchforks*

Christ, you don't announce it. Too bad, you coulda had something.

Posted by: Jay at June 17, 2011 2:02 PM

but shouldn't TK have written this?

I thought that too, but then I remembered the abs. Rowles has abs privileges.

(Folks: TK has a real day job with real hours and real person responsibilities, which typically precludes him from reviewing wide releases, unfortunately. However, once he's seen Green Lantern, I'm certain he will share his opinion. (And before you suggest Steven, he's in Russia for the summer). You're stuck with me, I'm afraid. -- DR

Posted by: twig at June 17, 2011 2:09 PM

All entertainment -- be it movies, books, comics or TV -- rises or falls on the strength the writing and the richness of the characters. So what those who dismiss comics (this is for you, Slash) fail to see is that the only stuff that lasts is the stuff that's good. DC and Marvel have tried to push certain characters for years with limited success, Aquaman and Moon Knight spring immediately to mind, that just haven't stuck either because there's not enough behind the characters (he talks to fish) or there's nothing unique (he's Batman with higher dry cleaning bills). In good stories, no matter the genre, the characters are compelling and well-drawn (show me better villains than Magneto or Doom or Lex Luthor), and they exist in a complex, fully-realized universe. Yeah, superheros are deeply conservative, often silly power fantasies, but so is The Big Sleep and nobody questions Chandler's bona fides. A great story is a great story. If studios could just trust the damned story and quit hoping to distract us with loud noises, shitty comic book movies wouldn't be shitty.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at June 17, 2011 2:12 PM

Are his eyes supposed to look like that? *shiver*

Posted by: snapnhiss at June 17, 2011 2:14 PM

Fuck. I'm taking my dad to see this for Fathers Day.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at June 17, 2011 2:21 PM

yeesh. i had a sliver of hope for this considering how much i heart Casino Royale but damn!

I wud have been really worried for the future of a Justice League movie but Snyder did say it was going to be in an alternate universe so....

Lets tis be a lesson for you Reynolds. No good can come from role hogging.

Posted by: haplo at June 17, 2011 2:22 PM

an awful movie stays an awful movie and can't be saved by the comic fans

Posted by: carrie at June 17, 2011 2:38 PM

Thanks to the Fug Girls, I can't see Blake Lively's name in print without mentally replacing it with "Boobs Legsly".

Posted by: StoatCat at June 17, 2011 2:46 PM

Let's face it: most superhero stories are stupid as hell and good superhero movies are just good for a superhero movie. They can be enjoyable, but really they're just on par with fairytales as source material.

Disagree with this.

Just look at X-Men 2 or The Dark Knight for two recent examples of good superhero stories and good superhero movies that were good movies. Period.

Like any other form of fiction, you have to tap into what is it that makes it unique or important in order to make it right. Sounds like the people who made Green Lantern thought RR's abs and the GL Oath was enough to get it done.

Posted by: Fredo at June 17, 2011 2:54 PM

BTW, Rotten Tomatoes is tracking Green Lantern at 25% rotten. Meanwhile, Mr. Popper's Penguins is at 43%.

Posted by: Fredo at June 17, 2011 2:55 PM

This was an utter abortion

for a concept whose central conceit is about the power of will and imagination manifesting in reality this was so devoid of anything imagination it was depressing

even the music was bland horrid awfulness

even a free ticket couldn't salvage any good will from me

Posted by: PyD at June 17, 2011 2:59 PM

the Male Society for the Appreciation of Ryan Reynolds’ Abs

Awww, you started a club!

Posted by: Lauren at June 17, 2011 3:04 PM

*delurks*

This is just the sort of hilariously scathing review I was hoping for after seeing this abomination of a movie. Well done, Dustin. After being a faithful reader for years, I feel Pajiba's been putting up far too many SRLs and not enough great reviews like you used to, which are wonderfully snarky when the movie's bad and articulate and beautiful when it's great. More of this, please.

*sneaks back into the shadows*

Posted by: Moffet at June 17, 2011 3:30 PM

“The Sanford Arms” had a better review than this.

Posted by: Pookie at June 17, 2011 3:32 PM

"Well that puts an end to my Sunday superhero trifecta plans. Now I have a spare slot to fill and no it isn't my vagina. " admin

Yeah, but I bet your cloaca has been found wanting.

Posted by: D-Day at June 17, 2011 3:42 PM

I...I have no words. Well I have a couple...

Dustin - I've been married for years and have lived away from my parents even longer than that. Neener.

Sadly I'm probably going to like this just fine, since I'd long established myself as Pajiba's in-house superhero under this name, it's not easy to imagine that my bias may mask some needed objectivity. I will, objectively, say I'm sure Boobs Legly was *awful* as Carol Ferris.

I'll be MORE than happy to chime in with my two cents once I've seen the movie. Yes, I've been well aware that "Mr. Popper's Penguins" has been tracking more successfully than "Green Lantern". Certainly you all can imagine how thrilled I am to know that.

*pats power battery* There there. It'll be okay, little power battery...

Posted by: Green Lantern at June 17, 2011 3:49 PM

DeistBrawler: Go take your Dad to see X-Men or Kung Fu Panda, both were awesome. Kung Fu Panda is all about him being adopted and has some truly sweet father/child moments. Either is worth your cash and I would really like to see the haters (Bret Ratner) have to shut their fucking pieholes.

Posted by: Melody Be at June 17, 2011 4:09 PM

Well, in the Defense of the Lantern, Mr. Popper's Penguins does have penguins dancing to "Ice,Ice Baby", which has to be a highlight since it features prominently in the trailers. How can you expect to compete with that?

And for everyone who doesn't want Dustin to review GL, put on your big person underpants and take your beating. When EXACTLY did this movie look good? When you learned R squared was doing this movie as a live action Pez-dispenser? When the bad guy was shown as smoke? When Michael Clark Duncan was cast as Kilowog's voice, apparently last week or so? When Blake Lively was the love interest? Green Lantern is difficult to adapt. It would require money, talent, restraint, tact and quality storytelling. Yes, that can all happen, but how often does it? And yet, it'll be okay if someone familiar with the material reviews it? Pshaw I say, pshaw.

No, try it, pshaw is fun to say. Spit a little.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at June 17, 2011 4:21 PM

"Let's face it: most superhero stories are stupid as hell and good superhero movies are just good for a superhero movie. They can be enjoyable, but really they're just on par with fairytales as source material."

Oh you stupid, stupid man.

Posted by: traumaguy at June 17, 2011 4:25 PM

Everyone laugh at Jar-Jar Abs and his shitty movie!

Posted by: Aquaman at June 17, 2011 4:54 PM

sooo. it's crappy, right? that's all the first three paragraphs are telling me, and i can't be bothered to move on with this review after that.

Posted by: jubilat at June 17, 2011 5:11 PM

I want to form a band just so I can name it Radioactive Swamp Ass.

Too bad--I was kinda psyched for this film but a little wary after the GL states he can make anything his mind can think of, and then he makes a machine gun. Seriously, dude? You can't get any more inventive than that?

Incidentally, I was recently set up with a comic book nerd. He's in his thirties and only recently moved out of his parents' basement to an apartment he's furnished the way you'd expect a nerdy 18 yr. old's bedroom to look--framed cartoons on the walls, shitty sword replicas everywhere, and shelves of Dungeons and Dragons and World of Warcraft paraphanalia. He's living the stereotype to its fullest.

Posted by: DeadBessie at June 17, 2011 5:50 PM

x-men2 is NOT a great movie it needs to go straight to hell along with everyone that claims it to be art
it rips off so many movies, can't progress the plot without characters acting stupid, has serious moments that are treated as comical, comical moments that are treated as serious contains zero character development for all the interesting characters, and throw out the complex and emotionally rewarding source material in favor of a cliche juvenile plot
screw the director, screw the writers, screw the people that whine of other comic book movies falling short of its standards, screw the arrogance, screw the childishness, screw the hypocrisy, screw the decline of creativity
and screw the bullshit

Posted by: gregory at June 17, 2011 6:02 PM

Don't do it, TK. They just want you to SUFFER.

Posted by: AmbroseKalifornia at June 17, 2011 6:19 PM

Writer behind Dawson's Creek.

'nuff said.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 17, 2011 6:44 PM

Deadbessie, does the comic book nerd blind date have a brother? because, hubba hubba...

Posted by: lil_a at June 17, 2011 7:05 PM

This movie was so, so, so bad. I saw it at a free screening and I'm glad I didn't pay money for it.

Here's my main issue with the movie: there were no characters. None! The movie wants us to see Hal as a reckless cad, Hector as trod-upon and dorky, Hector's dad as a bully and Carol as Hal's rock. But none of that is bared out in the movie. Those are just assumptions the movie seems to want us to make based on certain cues. There seemed to be history in the Hector/Carol/Hal love-triangle, but it's never really apparent. There seemed to be duality between Hector and Hal, but it's just barely mined. It was such hugely lazy writing that I could barely stand it and none (none!) of the character interactions carried any weight as a result. The movie served up cardboard stand-ins and wanted the audience to project the rest. Ugh.

Posted by: Sassafrass Green at June 17, 2011 7:57 PM

I like penguins.

Posted by: MM at June 17, 2011 8:06 PM

I got your back Minto, you can borrow my spare sword.

Posted by: clancys_daddy at June 17, 2011 8:37 PM

It was like a Taco Shop the day after Cinco de Mayo.

It was like a pawn shop the day after Yom Kippur.

It was like a watermelon stand the day after MLK Day.

I'm just kidding. Mostly.

Posted by: The Mutt at June 17, 2011 9:17 PM

mrcreosote: I think the one scene with the farting penguin might be better than Green Lantern.

Posted by: Figgy at June 17, 2011 9:29 PM

What a review! I work for DISH Network so I like to read up on different reviews of movies in order to give a well-balanced gist to share with my customers when they inquire about a movie. In this case I can safely say that the movie may be fun for the family, but the Green Lantern cartoons on DISHonline are great renditions of this comic. http://bit.ly/dJzWgo

Posted by: Nicole at June 17, 2011 10:24 PM

That was spam, right? It was really well done!

Posted by: snapnhiss at June 17, 2011 10:46 PM

The other day, a spambot atually did a review of the post... Pretty soon we won't need Dustin et al anymore.

Bring on the SmartBots!®

Posted by: Uriah Creep at June 17, 2011 10:55 PM

"A pus-filled bedsore of a film."

I'm going to borrow that. I need to use it casual conversation.

Posted by: The Wanderer at June 17, 2011 11:18 PM

Nah, Dustin shouldn't have reviewed this movie because it is clear to anyone who even remotely follows this site that there would be zero objectivity to his review. Every time he has seen a screen shot or a trailer, he has said how awful it looks. If he gives it the scathing review we expected him to give (and he did), we have to take it with a grain of salt because it was clear going in that he really, really, REALLY just wanted to hate this movie. I honestly think he wanted to hate this movie more than any other movie ever made, mostly because I think he is sick of overblown comic book movies, and he chose this movie to be the scapegoat for all of them. If he gives it a good review, it is because of his man-crush on Ryan Reynolds. Really, anyone else but him should have reviewed it for there to be any sense of objectivity. Seriously, anyone. That being said, maybe it does suck, I haven't seen it. I just know this is the one review I absolutely can't count on to have an honest, objective opinion.

Posted by: Dante at June 17, 2011 11:28 PM

What a surprise.

And DON'T be dissing the Kroffts, or I'll have to ask you to step outside.

Posted by: , at June 17, 2011 11:36 PM

What kind of world do these Hollywood people live in?

This is the question I continually ask myself when I see a shit movie, especially a shit comic movie. It doesn't take much to learn the mythos behind a superhero character, and I'll share with you my two favorite ways how: go to Barnes and Noble, get yourself a bland, overpriced cup of flavored coffee, and stand in the graphic novel section for an hour minimum. The next one would be having a deadline and instead going on Wikipedia and typing in one comic book character's name; before you know it, there's 20 tabs open and it's six hours later.

I really should get paid for revealing these amazing trade secrets.

Posted by: duckandcover at June 18, 2011 12:37 AM

This could very well be a bad movie, but Dustin, man, I'm sorry, you were not the right man for the job. I think I'll wait for TK to chime in.

Posted by: Thijs at June 18, 2011 6:20 AM

The problem, as usual, is one of ego. It's exhibited here by those who shit on comic fans (the same ones who fueled AND created the wellspring of story the Hollywood Whores have been trolling for the last 20 years), by the producers, the director, the writers and the rest of the studio system where, unless you're a maniacal control freak, cannot be overcome. The resulting orgy of wanna-be chefs sticking their ladles in the pot are inevitably going to turn any story into this kind of crap.

The ladles are their dicks.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 18, 2011 6:43 AM

and the inclusion of Blake Lively is enough to make me not want to see this

Posted by: Protoguy at June 18, 2011 6:44 AM

You mean "Boobs Legsley?" Yes, yes I am stealing that forevermore.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at June 18, 2011 10:56 AM

Solid review, DR. You acquitted yourself well. You've come a long way since the early days of needless geek slamming.

It's too bad this movie sucks. I held out hope, but never had a good feeling about it. Hopefully, Captain America is better.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at June 18, 2011 11:35 AM

Dante, I would have been quick to say this was a Dustin problem, but for the fact that most of the other movie and geek sites have been as harsh on this movie too.

Posted by: Fredo at June 18, 2011 12:32 PM

Hello all, it's your friendly literature major Lord ninja.

I went and saw the opening night of G.L. I liked it enough to stay through the whole thing. That being said, my literature side is now taking over.

Firstly; I took a script writing/movie production course in college. I'm only an amateur, but most of my fellow "amateurs" and I created a lot better scripts, and our yearly film festival that my university does, has turned out a lot better short films then the first 30 minutes of Lantern put together. Hell, even the documentary producers at my university make better docs than this.

Secondly; I'm a major theater nut, heavily involved in theater in high school and involved a bit in college, as a tech and helper for various productions. The acting in this movie......The screaming people who died when Parallax blew through did better at acting then Reynolds, Lively or anyone else. If you're going to be a cardboard cut out, then go be in some tv series like Gossip girl or Beverly Hills which doesn't require anything other then looking good.

Radioactive Swamp Ass? Yes. Retrograde screw up worse then Star Gate Universe, and less dramatic forte then Hayden Christensen in RoTS....if that even counts, hell Revenge of The Sith had it's moments of cleverness......GL had none of that.

Word of advice to D.C movie makers, Batman will be your glory child, stop there.

Posted by: LordNinja at June 18, 2011 1:17 PM

Peter Saarsgard is always good.

I wanted to see this movie for like, a second and a half when I realized he was in it. Then I remembered what the rest of the previews were like, and decided I was having a brief moment of insanity.

I am the kind of person who attracts comic book geeks, although I am not one myself, and I have several good friends who think The Green Lantern is the bestest most amazing superhero ever. They have been looking forward to this movie for ages.
One already posted that "it was not as bad as everyone made it out to be, and in the comic book movie scale it sits somewhere between the first X-Men and Superman Returns".

I'm going to assume that means it really sucks, because he said "not as bad" and was someone going in with a strong bias toward the character and movie, wanting to like it.

Posted by: DominaNefret at June 18, 2011 1:17 PM

I should also add, that I am not a comic book geek....well, I am, but not so much. I also don't live in my parents basement, I have a place of my own, and a job.

Posted by: LordNinja at June 18, 2011 1:31 PM

My husband really wants to see this. He just had major surgery so it is going to be tough to deny him anything for a while. However, he is also the reason I have seen both the stupid Silver Surfer movie and fucking Apocalypto, so I'm kind of hoping I suddenly need major surgery so I can get out of this.

Posted by: Anne At Large at June 18, 2011 3:47 PM

duckandcover wrote:
"This is the question I continually ask myself when I see a shit movie, especially a shit comic movie. It doesn't take much to learn the mythos behind a superhero character, and I'll share with you my two favorite ways how: go to Barnes and Noble, get yourself a bland, overpriced cup of flavored coffee, and stand in the graphic novel section for an hour minimum."

Do you really think the problem here was lack of knowledge of comic minutia? Seems to me most reviews complain more about the lack of good characterization, a problem shared by a lot of comics (I usually only read superhero comics if they're written by someone I know is good with characters, like Grant Morrison or Alan Moore). Geoff Johns, a major Green Lantern comics writer, had part of the writing and production credit on this movie, and I haven't seen anything that suggests the movie was particularly unfaithful to the comic's mythos, it just wasn't a very good movie.

Posted by: Jesse M. at June 18, 2011 6:24 PM

That's my point about ego.

There is zero chance they didn't research this. Zero chance.

Their egos won't let them admit that some comic geek can write a better story than they can. Their egos prevent them from simply retelling an already written story. And regardless of how many comic geek writers they consult or work with, their egos won't let them stay out of the way of the story.

I keep going back to The Lord of the Rings. One of, if not the most beloved fantasy fiction stories of the last century and Peter Jackson and his wives just COULD NOT leave the story alone. It HAD to be made better. It had to be scarier or more dramatic or more epic.

Every shred they made "better" sucked ass hard. Every bit they left alone was sublime.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 18, 2011 7:56 PM

"Their egos won't let them admit that some comic geek can write a better story than they can. Their egos prevent them from simply retelling an already written story."

Do you know of any green lantern comic that would make a great movie? Superhero comics are typically aimed at an audience that's already very familiar with the material and lots of backstory, so even one that's well written won't necessarily make a good movie. And I don't think most superhero comics are that great at doing character depth, they tend to just focus more on exciting plots with somewhat cardboard characters.

"Peter Jackson and his wives just COULD NOT leave the story alone."

Fran Walsh is Peter Jackson's wife, but Philippa Boyens never was in any kind of relationship with him as far as I know. And are you saying they should have filmed everything that was written, or do you at least accept the need to have shortened things and cut out lots of scenes? Look at how people already complained about the movie going on for too long after Sauron was destroyed ('too many endings'), I don't think the movies would have succeeded as popular entertainment if they were at all faithful to the length of the books.

Posted by: Jesse M. at June 18, 2011 8:50 PM

I agree with this review, and I'm addicted to being the Devil's advocate. So I still will be.

One thing I feel needs mentioning: this is not Martin Campbell's cut of the film, but the studio's. I live in New Orleans where it was shot, I read the shooting script, all of which was painstakingly filmed with intense research, and all of that was left on the cutting room floor -- a sort of combination of what happened to Daredevil and Watchmen, respectively -- character development sacrificed for CG, scenes made irrelevant by removing their setup. The movie in the theater starts with an explanation of mythos that is made redundant by the more natural, scripted questions from Hal when he gets the ring. Ten minutes of childhood Hal, Carol, and Hector that sets up Hal's first ring construct is reduced to an awkwardly placed flashback in the middle of another scene. The training with the ring is almost completely excised except for one minor scene. Most appallingly, the ending completely deletes the fact that Kilowog, Sinestro, and Toma-Re arrive at the end and help Hal defeat Parallax. Not to mention Parallax was supposed to be a 3rd act reveal after we spend the film worried about Hammond going evil, not the main villain for the entire film. I sincerely hope we get a director's cut or at least all the deleted scenes on the video release.

Posted by: puppetDoug at June 18, 2011 9:15 PM

Protoguy,
I don't regret Jackson leaving out Tom Bombadil.

Pat,
a Comic Book Geek (although I left home for good at the age of 21, and haven't cared for pictures on my wall for decades. Actually, as far as I'm concerned walls are to keep the weather out and to lean bookcases against).

Posted by: Pat C. at June 18, 2011 11:53 PM

The wives thing was a joke.

I'm sure there wasn't a single comic or even a single arc that could have made it onscreen as is. I'm also sure that a great many of the decisions in a mess like this were made by committee, not by a single director. My point is that there are way too many hands in the pot with this type of movie.

As for LOTR, no, I don't expect the film to be verbatim, I expected Jackson to leave characters as written. There are reasons why they were written the way they were and the changes did not sweeten the story at all, they muddied it. They cheapened it.

They turned hard, bad ass Gimli into a running short joke. Half the jokes surrounding him were the complete opposite of what his character was meant to be. Even small things like him exclaiming that "Dwarves are natural sprinters". They are the embodiment of hardy, long distance endurance every-fucking-thing.
They made Frodo a pussy who spent the movie falling on his ass. He was supposed to embody the remnants of nobility in the common man, not the chicken shit who was carried the whole film.
They made Merry and Pippin into the 'baggage' that in the book they feared they were, rather than the example of growth and strength from youth to manhood that they were meant to be.
Sam was supposed to be the go-to-guy. Frodo's most loyal friend. More than serf yet still connected to Frodo in that now too frequently misunderstood dynamic that shaped Europe in the days prior to Renaissance. Instead they turned it into a thinly veiled pseudo-homosexual unrequited love affair. He was the main character in the story, despite what many may think. They didn't ruin Sam like other characters, but they changed it enough to show that they didn't know or didn't care about Tolkien's story enough to be faithful to at least the author's favorite character.

I think worst of all was their treatment of Faramir. He was supposed to be the last remnant of true nobility, the last piece of Numenorean blood in Gondor, even watered down as it was. The was epitomized by the scene in Ithilien where he was supposed to be the one strong human who was NOT tempted by the Ring. He was supposed to set them free, but instead these three a-holes turned him into a dick who beat and tortured Gollum AND took Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath as prisoners.

I know I'm extremely biased, but I've never heard people complain that the book was boring because of character development of because of plot or action. Every complaint is based upon Tolkien's tendency to describe minutia like the types of trees in the area and his maps and languages, not that it needed to be more scary. Watch the special extras and you can hear Jackson himself talk about the changes he made to make the Ring an entity and emphasize the grasp it can have on people, but it doesn't explain many of the changes he made.

As I tell everyone, I'm thrilled they made the movie and didn't screw it up as bad as Bakshi or someone else might have, but it doesn't take away from the awful things he did to what is an amazing story - yes, as written. If you want to talk about changes for the sake of flow or length, fine, but changing a character's base motivations can't be explained away as easily as that.

I'm sure many GL fans feel the same anger when they see their heroes shat on.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 19, 2011 12:05 AM

Pat C, no, I do not regret that at all. That character was the most easily throw-away-able. Many people did complain though. For some reason he's a favorite. I've never liked him.

I fear for The Hobbit. I'm sure they're going to write in a battle with the three trolls or make Legolas some noble prince who helps the company escape his father's dungeons or something equally lame.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 19, 2011 12:21 AM

Come on Protoguy, you knoe you wanted more elves. Elves in slo-Mo, Elves chanting, a played up Elvish love story, elves, elves and more damn elves. Gimli and Legolas were both hardy fighters and valuable members of the company in the book, however in the movie Legolas was slighty more powerful than Superman and Batman combined. What's wrong with that? Tom Bombadil, fine, leave him out (although don't just throw the swords at the halflings-they do end up serving a pivotal role after all) But the part at the end with the Shire? One of my favorite parts of the book-couldn't all the time devoted to chanting and longing loks be given to a little hobbit ass kicking? Please?

Also Green Lantern blew.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at June 19, 2011 12:42 AM

The Scouring of the Shire would have been much better than the BS love story they shoved down our throats, or the extended Elrond junk, or especially the awful way they changed Saruman's death.

I didn't even talk about how they made Theoden into a big crybaby who doubted himself to the point of paralysis. Or the Saruman/Theoden seance scene. Or making the Rohirrim dark thugs who can't protect their king, or even needed to. Rtarded.

More elves would have been bad. The army of the dead was bad enough. Even the elf battle scenes that once seemed epic now feel trite.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 19, 2011 12:57 AM

I don't think it's invalid for Dustin to review the film. I'm sure many people expect the same things as Dustin from a film, and his take on it would be useful to them.
Personally, as a comic book geek I find a mediocre super-hero film easier to sit through than a mediocre "romantic" "comedy". I can't endure a bad one though, like Catwoman.

Posted by: Pat C. at June 19, 2011 1:16 AM

Do you really think the problem here was lack of knowledge of comic minutia? Seems to me most reviews complain more about the lack of good characterization, a problem shared by a lot of comics (I usually only read superhero comics if they're written by someone I know is good with characters, like Grant Morrison or Alan Moore). Geoff Johns, a major Green Lantern comics writer, had part of the writing and production credit on this movie, and I haven't seen anything that suggests the movie was particularly unfaithful to the comic's mythos, it just wasn't a very good movie.
Posted by: Jesse M. at June 18, 2011 6:24 PM

I haven't seen this movie, so I can't particularly comment on its flaws, etc. However, the majority of complaints I've seen in reviews is that the people who are helming these movies don't understand the universe in which the movie's supposed to be set. Either the production team's too lazy and require people to know the backstory of the comic before they go into the movie (usually when the director claims to be a "big fan" of the series) or the team provides their own interpretation in an industry that's rife with convoluted interpretations already.

There are two ways to go with comic book movies: completely copy a storyline that's already been told or go the Nolan route. The half-assed in-betweens that have been churned out recently where you can see the moment the writers asked, "Well, where do we go from here?" shows an exasperating cluelessness.

Posted by: duckandcover at June 19, 2011 4:13 AM

At least two of the screenwriters have been writing comics, so I don't really get this "ego" argument. However, one of them (Marc Guggenheim) writes FUCKING AWFUL COMICS. I haven't read all of what he's written (because, like, why keep going back to a well I know is poisonous?) but suffice to say, I think he has fundamental problems in his storytelling capabilities.

Of course, the fact that there are 4 screenwriters also doesn't inspire confidence.

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at June 19, 2011 5:51 AM

The sad part of this is, no matter how much this blows, it won't kill the mediocre superhero movie.

"Mediocre" modifying "superhero," not "movie."

Posted by: , at June 19, 2011 11:13 AM

However, the majority of complaints I've seen in reviews is that the people who are helming these movies don't understand the universe in which the movie's supposed to be set.

When you say "the majority of complaints I've seen in reviews", are you talking specifically about reviews of green lantern, or just superhero movies in general? (or something even more general, like any sci-fi or fantasy movie based on some preexisting book?) I've read a few of the green lantern reviews, I haven't seen any that said the problem was a lack of understanding of the green lantern universe. If you are talking specifically about green lantern, could you point some out?

Posted by: Jesse M. at June 19, 2011 1:42 PM

I hate to rain on everybody's hate parade, but I actually found it to be entertaining and fun. Mindless, yes, but it's a comic book movie, and GOODGODDAMN Rsquared is HOT.

Posted by: Ginger at June 19, 2011 2:15 PM

"Comics don't focus on characterization" is just nonsense. The problem, as far as movies are concerned, is that 1) a comic book has years to flesh out the characters and 2) moviemakers try to cram way too much story into the film. And since moviemakers are obsessed with telling origin stories, they don't have the time to develop characters, create an entire universe and get to the whiz-bang theatrics.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at June 19, 2011 7:01 PM

This just proves my point, Ryan Reynolds has never turned down a script in his entire adult life.

I could write random buzz words on a double cheeseburger wrapper and dude would sign on to it as long as we met his quota.

I think the man is talented at what he does, but he needs to get a better agent. This shit-trap had uh-oh stamped on it from the outset.

A usually-drunk outsider like myself smelled that 10 miles away, how couldn't he?

Posted by: Tajmccall at June 19, 2011 10:59 PM

"Comics don't focus on characterization" is just nonsense.

Most superhero comics don't, or they do so in a hamhanded soap-operatic way. The number that consistently do well-written, subtle character stuff is pretty small.

Posted by: Jesse M. at June 20, 2011 12:05 AM

Each Green Lantern possesses a power ring and power lantern that gives the user great control over the physical world.

Posted by: James at June 20, 2011 1:39 AM

I think some of you are overestimating the power a screenwriter has on a production like this. When I talk about ego, I'm not talking about writers or screenwriters or art directors or best boys, I'm talking about the legions of producers and executive producers and the cousins of producers and studio execs and even directors. The people who regularly overstep their filmmaking mandates and tinker with the product out of the need to have their little fingers deeper in the pie.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 20, 2011 4:05 AM

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/06/20/45330-just-who-is-tauriel-let-the-speculation-begin/

That's the shit I'm talking about right there. Already screwing with the story.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 20, 2011 9:20 AM

Most superhero comics don't, or they do so in a hamhanded soap-operatic way. The number that consistently do well-written, subtle character stuff is pretty small.

I would say this is a matter of writer and arc rather than 'superhero comics' in general. I've seen superb runs on Thor, X-Men and Incredible Hercules, but that's mostly because they were being written by superb writers.

Posted by: twig at June 20, 2011 9:22 AM

they KILLED the Deadpool project over this... crap?

somebody should SHOOT them...

Posted by: angus mcleod at June 22, 2011 8:59 PM