Green Lantern

Unfortunately, it's the same thing again. Saving the world, an indestructible villain, some kind of magical energy, the right values. Not even the proven hitmaker Martin Campbell, otherwise known as a great innovator of established brands (Zorro, James Bond), can save this from boredom and mediocrity. Not that Reynolds isn't great, it's just that the insanely overblown space worlds set pieces are just a hair worse than the whole questionable mythology. So hats off to the visual effects artists, yes, but I wanted a better project, or better execution. The big advantage goes to Blake Lively, who could have easily just stood somewhere in an evening gown and everything would have been fine. But that's not enough for a cinematic experience, especially in a comic book adaptation, where the overkill is insane and destroying planets in the umpteenth way would already put off even a die-hard fan of the color green. (14/05/2016)

This comic book madness is guaranteed to be appreciated by the fans the original comic book. The film doesn’t pull its punches, and during its uncompromising 109 minutes it presents a story that goes against all usual comic book adaptation characteristics. It’s just science fiction about superheroes from outer space fighting for Mother Earth outside of Earth. I have to say that it had its charm, but it was off to a rather slow start. Ryan Reynolds was great, but he could hasten the transformation and not wait for it until the middle of the film. Anyhow, I can’t say that I wasn’t captivated, as this was something else than you’d expect and that also counts for something. (24/12/2012)

This is a pretty underrated comic book movie. Yet Green Lantern has everything it should have: Fantastic visuals and top-notch special effects (on a level more bombastic than Thor, Iron Man and others), an excellent, likable and above all funny main character, action scenes, of which there are not many, but when it comes to them (major training with rocks, swords, a motorbike, rotary machine gun...), one tends to stare, Newton Howard's precisely paced soundtrack... etc. In addition to this, however, Green Lantern is also very unlucky. In competition with the more popular Marvel films, it feels like their stepbrother that no one really wants to play with (Forman's Valmont went through a battle like this with Dangerous Liaisons back in the day, and yet it's not a bad film either). And that's a great pity. The only criticism I can make of it is the slightly overstuffed plot, which shows how much the filmmakers were counting on a sequel, in which the supporting characters (and perhaps the hundreds of amazing alien Lanterns) would now get the proper space they need, and in which a proper villain would appear (hold on until halfway through the credits). I'd take the second film now. Four pure stars.__P.S. Hearing a "fish alien" speak in Geoffrey Rush's voice is a treat.__P.P.S. For the first time since Avatar, I didn't find 3D unnecessary in a feature film (Parallax’s attack!) .__P.P.P.S. I wonder how many sage, disgruntled smarties saw Green Lantern in the movie theatre, and how many at home on a 15x20 cm screen. (22/08/2011)

At first glance, everything is as it should be. Ryan is a likable guy, Blake is every straight man's wet dream who isn't blind, the special effects team has been paid generously for their overtime, and proven hitmaker Martin Campbell manages it all. Yet only half of it works. No, more like a third because that's about how much the "civilian" world takes off the whole. The section in which the lanterns glow green tries to cloak the boundless naivety in a cheap pomposity that probably comes from the comic books, but it struck me as a cheap carnival ride that (hand on heart) looks pretty stupid. It's not boring and it keeps on flashing, and someone is always jabbering (quite often humorously), but it lacks that drop of soulfulness. This was the worst comic book film six months before Thor. (12/10/2011)

I definitely like DC better and would rather see a Justice League than an Avengers movie. So far, however, this equation is still very much askew. So far, we have the DC cartoons and this bold Green Lantern. It doesn't matter too much that it didn't particularly succeed, as the competition's desire for Marvel-esque success is stronger than one incremental step toward it. Personally, I'm not that interested in Green Lantern as a standalone character, but he's fine as part of the Justice League. So if he manages to confuse audiences lost in comic book adaptations enough that they will one day make a Justice League movie, Hal Jordan has done his part. As such, I treat it as a standalone film. It's been loaded with a lot of stuff, but it's still just a feature-length story derived from Aladdin's magic lamp and the need to fight evil in the age of rising Nazism. Today, Green Lantern has a 72-year history and this is his first feature film. On the basis of the classic Superman scheme, he introduced us to what happens on the brightest day and the blackest night. It’s like, "The bigger you are, the faster you burn." It's a shame about Blake Lively, but maybe in the sequel, she'll come out of the shadow of her Super Gossip Girl role a lot more. (03/06/2012)