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)

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)

The green man has no trouble not taking himself seriously, so what ultimately kills him is rather the directorial and dramaturgical indecision. The whole problem of Green Lantern is contained in one scene: Hal flies in to see his chosen one in disguise to meander like Superman. What follows is a very good parody of similar "superhero" kitsch, which I laughed at with pleasure. But in the next scene, we find exactly the same, this time deadly serious kitsch, that feels like the scene before didn't even exist. And that's the way it is all the time. Campbell winking at the viewer for a while, but then serves us un-diluted dullness and naivety. The whole film has a similar structure to Thor, but while the guy at the "top" felt serious and the guy at the "bottom" light, Green Lantern appears like a stupid and genderless retouch on both levels. Yet its potential is undeniable - but the creators have turned a hero who can materialize anything from his fantasy into Tom Cruise from Top Gun. It’s no wonder that Warner insist on a second film. A missed chance like this hurts, especially at a time when comic book films are doing well. (11/08/2011)

Nice effects are everywhere these days. And so we get an accumulation of bland films that are nice to look at but evoke almost no emotion. Apart from a bunch of gimmicks, there was nothing to get me into the plot. Blake Lively is beautiful and Ryan Reynolds is quite likable. Except that I knew that before I saw it. Where are the days when I was rooting for the main character and couldn't tear myself away from the screen? Now I'm just watching him phone it in to see what he looks like doing it. A weak 2.5 stars. (08/12/2011)

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)