I seem to be the only person I know that likes this.
I wish there had been a sequel, it was so setup for a sequel and I still wish it had happened.
No. Im rewatching it right now and can't believe how underated it is. Especially after films like Iron man 3, age of Ultron and well, plenty of other undeservdly higher praised films
shareIt's not a great movie but I really like it
shareHey, I'm with you. I saw this when it came out and I thought it was fine. Maybe my expectation level wasn't on par with a bulk of viewers but the movie was enjoyable to me. Green Lantern isn't on the same par, popularity-wise, as Superman or Batman, so I went into the theater with an open mind.
This movie might be disliked but it's at least watchable and can be enjoyed for what it is. The same can't be said for BVS, JL or even Suicide Squad. None of those movies was what I'd describe as "fun", whereas Green Lantern had it's fun moments and the CGI was quite good.
I'd give GL a 6 out of 10. Not a ringing endorsement but then again, I wasn't looking for something epic. It's kind of the way I felt when I went to see Ant-Man. I loved it but I didn't go in with grandiose expectations. And even though Ant-Man was a better movie than Green Lantern, my approach beforehand was the same.
Me 2.
Not amazing, but fair enough. I dig the all energy (cgi) suite thing, I never understood why that gets the most flag.... and Ryan is perfect cast.
This was broadcast in the UK on Channel 4.
I recorded it because I tend to record most sci-fi.
I wasn't expecting much because I was lazily confusing it with a Seth Rogan film (Green Hornet).
I found it very enjoyable.
Mark Strong's acting was great.
Ryan Reynolds was good in the title role.
I liked the green CGI stuff.
And I wasn't bored in the action sequences the way I sometimes am in Marvel films.
In light of the movie's bad rep, I was surprised by how compelling and entertaining the first half is. Unfortunately, the second half fails to capitalize on the solid set-up. It's hard to pinpoint what exactly goes wrong, but the weak secondary villain, Hector, doesn't help; nor does the nigh-amorphous main villain, Parallax. Sinestro (Strong) would've made for a better villain, but the writers were obviously saving him for the sequel, which will never manifest since the movie didn't do too well at the box office (it cost a whopping $200 million and "only" made back $219 million worldwide). Nevertheless, I felt there was enough good to give "Green Lantern" a mild 'thumbs up' if you're in the mood for an imaginative and colorful superhero flick.
shareI never understood why so many people hated this movie. I found it quite fun to watch.
Aren't comic book movies supposed to be fun?
It occurs to me that, following the Nolan Batman trilogy, a lot of fans and critics expected every movie based on a DC character to be "dark and gritty" which doesn't cover the more colorful and light characters, such as Green Lantern. I think the assumption that GL would be in the same league as those aforementioned Batman movies, also raised expectations too high.
Not every character can be Batman in the DC Universe.
Green Lantern wasn't a horrible movie, just a victim of character ignorance and critic misunderstanding of this particular comic book superhero.
I agree, the green lantern was very watchable, and re-watchable a few years later.
in retrospect, not that bad. just had a terrible villain and an odd take on Hal Jordan.
share