If you’ve seen any of this movie’s 150 million dollars worth of advertising (the whole thing supposedly cost over 300 million to make and distribute) you know what it’s about. [If you haven’t seen any previews for this movie…what are you doing on this website Amish children?] And maybe that’s the problem. I knew so much about this movie going in that absolutely nothing about it surprised or thrilled me.
Ryan Reynolds–Hollywood’s version of Mitt Romney–gave a performance that was functional but had no fire or passion to it whatsoever. And maybe that’s a good stand in for the entire movie and character of Green Lantern, who seems warmed over from better superheroes.
What Works: Even though Thor did a much better job with its space scenes, Green Lantern is best when in space. Blake Lively is not awful in this. And the way the Lantern defeats the ambiguous blob of smoke that makes up the villain (why do superheroes have to fight something so abstract?) is clever…
What Doesn’t Work: Which is all the more noticeable since nothing else in the movie is clever. Also, it wastes the talented Peter Sarsgaard as the villain, and it made me wonder why the villain always has to be a scientist anyway. What kind of message is that sending to kids? “Hey, if you become really smart you can be a horribly deformed villain that the hero–who is usually some dumbass–can beat the shit out of for the beautiful heroine.” I guess kids are learning a hard truth young though.
What I Would Have Done Differently: Realized that nobody cares about The Green Lantern–box office was weak–and not made yet another superhero movie as we’ve already had Thor, X-Men, Captain America later this Summer, and The Green Hornet.
Blake Lively would be the ONLY reason I WOULD go see this.
You really need to get a job reviewing movies. You are right on the money.
Anything green is ? What about a really good movie? I am tired of wasting my money.
Great review.
You need to work in the movie review department like Mary said. Spot on.