Yeah, that was far from an imaginative title, but who could blame me?  This isn’t exactly an imaginative film.  Nay, it’s based off a seventy-or-so year-old comic book hero.  And that’s brilliant.  Green_Lantern_poster


I’d like to start this by taking on the critics that said this movie was poorly written or lacking plot. 

Well, what did you expect?  The film was based off 32-page pulp comics whose prime audience was children from 12-18.  This movie intended on commercializing an audience of families with children, teenagers, men of all ages, and young couples.  This was not a film for Roger Ebert and his ilk to analyze the character development (or lack thereof) over the 105 minute runtime.  It was the faithful reproduction of a golden age comic book. 

What does that mean?   Simply, that the colors should be vibrant and the characters be caricatures.  Your hero will be glowing green and he’ll battle a foe who’s bent on destroying the planet without reason.  The hero will be the edifice of good, whilst the villain hates everything he stands for.  The villain will only become more villainous as the hero becomes more heroic. This was expected and delivered.


The film was enjoyable, certainly, but that should be a given if I’m defending it from the critics.So, plot issues aside, what did I think of it?

610-green-lantern-2I thought it was fun to view.  In more words, the images stood out.  Hal Jordan wore a glowing green, skin-tight suit.  Parallax was a giant, city-sized smoke monster with a dreadful face.  Giant fists, artillery cannons, and race cars made of “will” were entertaining CGI constructions.  Furthermore, the fish-like creature, Tomar-Re, creates a magnificent cyclical construct that I could have stared at for much longer than the fifteen seconds for which it was on-screen.

I thought the acting was enjoyable for Hal Jordan, Sinestro, and Tomar-Re’s voice over.  Ryan Reynolds pulled the goofy playboy act that he’s known for, Mark Strong looked good embodying a soon-to-be foe, and Geoffrey Rush was as supportive to the fresh Lantern as we hoped.GL_tomar-re_Crop


The female characters were painfully underdeveloped.  Sadly, anything I say here is more or less negated by my comic book explanation.  The female characters were often minimal and static.  Likewise, the women in this film did not develop beyond being something to save or attracting the eye of certain male characters.

Also, I could have done without the screaming.  Not of damsels in distress, but of Dr. Hammond.  I understand that his character was experiencing nightmarish pain and probably envisioning horrors unheard of.  That said, watching his writhing and listening to the screams left a bad taste in my mouth.  To that same end, I applaud Peter Sarsgaard for fulfilling the demands of the


This film was fun.  It was a comic book brought to the big screen without losing anything. 

It was fun.

It was cheesy.

And it was green.


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: