Green Lantern

A monumental mess that is only watchable thanks to the really effective special effects. The screenplay is the sort of utter atrocity that makes many people look down on the world of comic books. And it seemed to me that Campbell wasn’t even trying. The completely disgusting (God, that forehead!) villain, played by Peter Sarsgaard, is a superfluous character for the “story" and Reynold’s portrayal of Jordan is also lackluster. I really liked both the concept of a ring that can materialize the imagination and also an intergalactic police force, because although they are wacky, these ideas offered material for first class entertainment, not for this rehash. I don’t even know why I gave it three stars. Perhaps because of Blake Lively, maybe. (2011-09-24)

Several billion years ago, a race of immortals armed themselves with the most powerful force in existence: the emerald energy of willpower. Just as hallucinatory and incomprehensible as Flash Gordon in its day. Whether this is good or bad, I am not sure; in any case, guilty pleasure par excellence. (2011-11-07)

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. (2012-06-03)

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. (2011-12-08)

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. (2016-05-14)