Review: Green Lantern

In summers past we've seen big guns like Superman and Spider-man and Batman make big screen appearances, but this summer it's lesser known heroes like Thor and Green Lantern taking to the big screen with varying degrees of success. What follows is my brief review of the new GL film with some spoilers and commentary. You have been warned.

The plot is simple: Alien gives magical ring to brave test pilot which makes him a member of the space police, and unsurprisingly a big monster is coming to destroy the earth.

I feel like they cast Reynolds wanting him to play Kyle, but the executives had decided that they were going to cast Hal because they all remembered Superfriends. Reynolds is a charming actor with a gross streak, but the movie barely lets him run loose. Peter Sarsgaard is pretty awesome, but the whole daddy-issues thing is so belabored by the end of the movie that you just don't care. Everyone else is completely forgettable (Sinestro), underutilized (Kilowog), or just flat-out boring (Carol).

The special effects are ok. Not great, but not bad either. It doesn't help matters that the whole green lantern ring power is pretty silly. Using the power of will to create giant punching gloves and green gatling guns and springs is pretty cheesy stuff. Of course, that's the bread and butter of Green Lantern: using creative, imaginative solutions to fight monsters. Fun visual gags. The movie shies away from all that, instead just letting GL do flips and float around in a green ball except for occasional moments.

What it all comes down to for me is that the movie failed to embrace the raw 'Fun' in the same way that, lets say, Thor did. Let's face it: both super heroes have a lot of silly in them. OA and Asgard are over-the-top locations. Fighting with a magic ring that can create giant fists to punch people, or using a giant hammer, are sillier weapons than a utility belt or super strength.

The difference is that Thor made fun of it, goofing on the hammer, creating a charming supporting cast of superheroes and humans that made it clear you were supposed to smile and have some fun. But GL spends huge blocks of the movie trying to make you feel like OA is Awesome and that the Lantern Corps are a big deal. Unfortunately, it just doesn't succeed; it comes off as unintentionally cheesy. It spends so much time trying to convince you it's the epic start of a massive franchise that it forgets to have the fun that you want. For example: the joy when Peter Parker first figures out how to web-sling; the thrill of a Mutant displaying newly discovered powers; or just the joy of human flight. Reynolds could have done great stuff here, but it's limited to just a few moments sandwiched between so much grandiose plotting. Ugh.

X-Men: First Class is probably the best comic book movie so far this summer. But Thor is just more straight up "fun." Green Lantern just tries so hard that it feels boring; you'd be better off seeing Super 8, which at least has fun. But there's still Captain America around the corner, and it has had the strongest trailer so far. Here's hoping!

Comments

Re:So unimpressed

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why are you coming to Slashdot to get a demo of what 'humanity' can come up with? You must be angry every day.

Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[eldavojohn]

There's more sacrifice in real life than there are in modern movies. Really, it's an overused tactic from long ago but it has long since bored me when the main character makes a perceived sacrifice and the writers put everything back to normal. For long running series, this is necessary to keep the same characters rolling but a lot of what I see today just makes me feel patronized. Are they targeting a younger age group or afraid that I can't handle loss? And I'm not talking about "Oh boohoo, I have superpowers now and will never know what it's like to be a normal human." I'm talking about real permanent irrevocable loss from a tough decision. Whether it's fun or not gets overlooked in my mind when this act of personal sacrifice for the good is later trivialized.

<Thor Spoiler Alert> That's what bothered me about Thor ... "oh the king is sick, nope instantly better." "Oh, I'll never see Amidala again! Just kidding, there's always a way to restore the waygates." "Oh no, he lost his brother Loki! Wait now Loki's talking to Nick Fury in the post-credits scene." What the hell, Hollywood? I understand that people go to movies to escape reality but what does it even mean when Thor sacrifices any connection to his woman to save an enemy race from genocide and then scenes later it turns out you're just going to make a sequel to undo that? </Thor Spoiler Alert>

What draws me to Sunshine, The Watchmen and Game of Thrones more so than The Green Lantern or Harry Potter? Your friends don't step in and save you at the end and there aren't any phoenix tears to make everything instantly better. Lazy plot devices and disney endings are a dime a dozen--am I the only person that feels this way? I guess profit margin says "yes." Go ahead and check your boxes for love plot, slapstick comedy, action and a happy ending. People have to get sick of your formulas at some point.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[marnues]

Pretty much sums up why I gave up on Marvel and DC at the age of 11.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[bennomatic]

You are absolutely not alone. One of the things that stuck out for me about I am Legend was the hero's ongoing sacrifices. He lost his family. He lost his dog, the last vestiges of his humanity, and finally his life. The story goes on after the movie, but there's no hint of a Legend 2: Zombie Will Smith Fights Back.

Even Black Swan was great in that way. NP gives her all--she gives her very life--to be the perfect white+black swan.

I hate it when movies don't commit.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[ackthpt]

This past weekend I watched Twelve O'clock High. There's a movie about heroes and sacrifice. Probably one of the most honest war movies of the era.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[ackthpt]

You are absolutely not alone. One of the things that stuck out for me about I am Legend was the hero's ongoing sacrifices. He lost his family. He lost his dog, the last vestiges of his humanity, and finally his life. The story goes on after the movie, but there's no hint of a Legend 2: Zombie Will Smith Fights Back.

Even Black Swan was great in that way. NP gives her all--she gives her very life--to be the perfect white+black swan.

I hate it when movies don't commit.

Sounds like you, too, are ready to move on to Indy Cinema - those films where you have good cast, good direction and a story which could end in any way possible. Much more impressive than anything at the corporate cinemas these days, where you see the trailer, you see the film.

Here's a thought for a Super Hero film .. someone suddenly is born with super powers/finds a rune which grants powers/is bitten by a radioactive leech/what have you, they're SUPER now, in some capacity. They are the only one like them in the world of ordinary mortals. Have them explore their own moral code with what they could get away with or what wrongs they could right ("That b**tard Gahaffi, I'll just fly over and grab him and take him to the Hague! Up, up and away!") and finally have the film end on a note of remorse, loss or even death - (what will the world do now that Superperson is dead?)

I'd like to see that .. done in a very serious manner, not with a bunch potty humor and in-jokes.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[MightyYar]

You aren't alone, but it's just personal preference.

I like unpredictability and misery in my movies. I like my comedies dark. I am a big fan of unhappy endings.

My wife likes predictability.

To me, her movies seem like watching the same movie over and over. To her, she can't possibly see why I'd want to watch something that isn't relaxing and removed from reality.

Other than causing endless conversations about how much each other's tastes suck, it's not a big deal. Just taste.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[Artifakt]

There apparently isn't going to be a third Fantastic Four film. I doubt there will be a single sequel to Green Lantern. The Star Trek reboot must have not done well enough to get an immediate sequel either, and we're just coming up on the second attempt to reboot the Planet of the Apes, (apparently unconnected to the Ape Lincoln Memorial version).
        It's not just that sacrifice isn't permanent. Things don't get permanently changed in general. For the Fantastic 4 films, why not cure THE Thing? Why not have Reed Richards sell flying cars and other ultra tech to everybody until the world looks different? Why not permanently kill Dr. Doom? For Trek, why not make the 2009 Kirk not a womanizer? Did we really need a new Chekov? (Not that there's anything wrong with having one, but in the original series, he was added to target the same young girl audience that was interested in the Monkees - not exactly a good reason to add one for the film).
Hollywood slavishly retains some things and drops others, and usually doesn't see the bigger picture. In the original Wild Wild West, the two characters formed a balanced pair, one mostly Physical, one mostly Mental. The fact that we never saw the train crew in the original helped play up that fact, because the viewers didn't worry about whether they were there more to support the physical actions of West or the mental feats of Gordon. Original Trek did the same thing, but with a Physical-Mental-Emotional triad. Does anyone think that the people who made the film Wild Wild West took that into account one way or the other before deciding to show the train crew, or make the only source of comedic relief a 'pseudo-poofter' angle?

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[Ghostworks]

So far as Thor goes, sacrifice was not one of the things that bothered me. I expected Odin to be fine, since it would otherwise be Ragnarok, and I expected Loki to survive, because Loki is the reason the Avengers were formed in the comics. A comic fan and a non-fan viewer will see two slightly different movies, because the viewer may wonder "when does the villain die" while the fan will wonder "how does this sync up with canon and the Avenger movie coming out next year."

Thor was irritating to me only because 1) they had to "science-up" the gods, and 2) because Thor's lesson in humility seemed incomplete and forced due to time constraints.

By point (1), I mean that they could not have true "gods". They had to be "a highly-evolved, long-lived race that primitives on some planes would worship as gods and build a mythos around." Yggdrasil* can't be a literal, mystical tree mapping the 9 worlds of the Norse cosmology, but is a metaphor for a network of wormholes between planets. And so on. I can only assume this was done as a preventative measure, just in case middle-America decided it couldn't cotton to the notion of strange gods in a fantasy, and decided to just stay home instead. (*Sidenote: why on Earth does Yggdrasil need to be in the firefox spellcheck dictionary?)

By point (2), I mean that the intent always seemed to be that Thor would live among the mortals, become a champion to them, and learn humility before he could return to Asgard (or at least get Mjolnir back). He got Mjolnir back at the very end, mostly because Odin (or the director) said "okay, this is running long, let's finish up."

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[MBGMorden]

Rachel dieing in The Dark Knight was a pretty good example of a real sacrifice, then again, I am pretty sure that he was going to save her, and was simply lied to about who was where (a point they never really came back to, so you'll miss it if you don't listen carefully before it happens).

Slow to comprehend things huh?

You know, come to think of it, if you listen real closely during the end of The Empire Strikes Back, I believe that Darth Vader may actually be Luke's father. He kinda hints at it after he chops off Luke's hand.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[MBGMorden]

To sum degree I think it's a bit unfair to cite characters dieing in the last installment of a 7-8 movie story arc as having any real significance. When you kill them the far along the characters are basically already spent. In the cases you cite too, those characters aren't really the main core. For real sacrifice in Harry Potter, they should have killed of Hermoine or Ron mid-series. THAT would have had a major effect.

My personal favorite of sacrifice was Terminator 2. They played that perfectly. Arnold's character was the weaker of the two terminators sent back, but they still managed to keep capturing that recurring theme from the first movie for BOTH terminators: these things are damned hard to kill. The T-800 kept getting up, even when you thought he was toast, it kept coming.

Then, after you were like "YES, the other Terminator is dead. He made it!", they STILL kill him off, but in a valiant and awesome way.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[gstoddart]

Sounds like you, too, are ready to move on to Indy Cinema - those films where you have good cast, good direction and a story which could end in any way possible. Much more impressive than anything at the corporate cinemas these days, where you see the trailer, you see the film.

Or, you end up watching something like Enter The Void, and wishing you could have the last 161 minutes of your life back.

It may have been a good film, but it was well over 2 hours of film what was a cross between Midnight Express, Trainspotting, and something out of a Hunter S. Thompson novel ... all while having had a generous dose of peyote. The 5 minute cut scenes of nothing but sound and light, for instance, left me wanting to stop the DVD.

Sometimes Indy films are art-house and fringy to the point that everyone else finds themselves wondering WTF they've been watching -- while die-hard cinema geeks talk about imagery and subtext the rest of us never saw, and sneering how the uneducated masses can't appreciate a film like that.

I'm the first to admit my film tastes run to the mindless action film -- because I hate watching a movie that at the end I don't know anything more about than before I watched it. Give me car chases, giant robots, spaceships, and girls in tight spandex. I'm sure the fault lies in me, but I've decided I'm OK with that.

Unfortunately, the list of "critically acclaimed" indy films that I've watched and simply didn't "get" has pretty much soured me on them. It's like post-modernism -- if you're not deeply involved in it, it just sounds like gibberish.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[obarthelemy]

I remember having a very strong sense of loss at several points while reading the books way back when: at the very end of the books, all elves and mages leave; bilbo repeatedly is described as dying soon; frodo too, and he takes the boat. The ones left behind do not fare much better, I remember feeling sad for Aragorn, essentially reigning over decay, and the remaining hobbits, once again ensconced in their little lives. The only ones who seem to fare OK are the dwarves, back into their mines.

I found it much darker than comics, with their endless resurrections and deus ex machinas.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[elrous0]

Comparing the Terminator films is always interesting to me. The first one is really just about survival. The second one has hope, a sense that the future is mutable. The third is fatalistic. And the fourth returns to a new kind of hope.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[mcmonkey]

Here's a thought for a Super Hero film .. someone suddenly is born with super powers/finds a rune which grants powers/is bitten by a radioactive leech/what have you, they're SUPER now, in some capacity. They are the only one like them in the world of ordinary mortals. Have them explore their own moral code with what they could get away with or what wrongs they could right ("That b**tard Gahaffi, I'll just fly over and grab him and take him to the Hague! Up, up and away!") and finally have the film end on a note of remorse, loss or even death - (what will the world do now that Superperson is dead?)

I'd like to see that .. done in a very serious manner, not with a bunch potty humor and in-jokes.

Isn't that what Hancock did? Not 100% serious, but it did look at real-world consequences such as, yes Superman you stopped the train before it hit the car stalled on the tracks. Now can you help us clean up the wreck of a train that suddenly goes from 60 MPH to 0?

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[Joe Mucchiello]

Real characters, important in the books, die in the 4th and 5th books. They just got so little screen time in the movies that their deaths were rendered impotent by the films.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[Rakarra]

Warning: I'm going to spoil your fond remembrances of T2!

Terminator was much better than T2. Terminator had plenty of flaws. (For instance, what is the deal with frickin time travel being so popular? Time travel is such an overused, tired, totally lame plot helper. It's our era's deus ex machina.) But on the whole the story is just plain better. The reason to watch T2 is to enjoy the special effects and action scenes, not the plot. T2 pushes forward the idea that the villanous, evil, unstoppable terminator can be co-opted with the flip of a switch. Urgh. It's like nothing is related, nothing depends on anything else, there is no history. There isn't any reason or logic for anything. Suppose in T3 (which I have not seen), they did the same thing? Just like that, that shape shifting liquid metal terminator is on our side. Or, heck, let's do a brain transplant or implant on young Connor, make him join the terminators, and now Sarah has to undo the conversion. For T2, I understand Schwarzenegger forced them because he wanted to play a good guy, so I don't blame the writers for that part at least. That doesn't absolve them for wanting to do T2 in the first place.

A flick of the switch? That's a horrible simplification that does a great disservice of the plot (such as it is). I don't think it's a great stretch to believe that they couldn't remove, reprogram, and replace the T200's computer core.

Yup, it's true, they died for ignorance. There was the notion that too much knowledge -can- be dangerous, and that a tipping point will be reached where inventions race on outside of human control. Do you really think this won't be a problem? As much of a technologist as I am, I admit the problem of "dear God, what have we unleashed" is a realistic and horrifying one. For some reason that works for me, though a similar idea killed my enjoyment of the Battlestar Galactica reboot. But I will concede this is a little bit of a plot hole -- killing one scientist isn't going to stop AI from happening. Human progress has never come down to one person making great leaps forward to exclusion of all others, as much as we enjoy the celebration of individuals. I suppose the ending came down to the notion that "the end" may someday come, but we don't know for certain anymore. They'd stopped one possible avenue, so the future was no longer set in stone. It could go in any direction.

While I thought T3 was generally bad, it did have a few good plot points:

1) Fixed the plot hole of the second movie by saying that Judgement Day was inevitable. That humanity, no matter what, would always progress to the point where machines of that level of sophistication and intelligence were possible.
2) The T200 was a good guy again, but the next T200 that Conner saw would kill him.
3) The fanservice terminator girl started taking out all of Conner's future lieutenants, people who would become leaders, when they were just kids. Good move.

In contrast, Harry Potter had a pretty good mix of random death and sacrifice. Admittedly, a character like Hedwig the owl had "red shirt" written all over her. Some of the deaths and escapes were a bit too convenient. But mostly, the fatalities are understandable, and except for R.A.B., the sacrifices are not cheesily certain. Life is chancy, and sometimes when people take risks, they pay the ultimate price. That's war.

Unfortunately Hedwig needed to die to serve the plot. Harry had to be isolated, so killing off his means of communication served two things -- No more sending covert notes, and it killed part of his emotional connection to the school the wizarding world in general.

Life is chancy, and sometimes when people take risks, they pay the ultimate price. That's war.

One thing I liked about Sirius Black's death is that it demonstrated the consequences of rashness -- Harry's rashness for rushing to the Department of Mysteries which was reflected by Sirius's own rashness through the book, with his "risk == fun" philosophy.

Re:Impermanence of Sacrifice Bores Me

[MBGMorden]

Warning: I'm going to spoil your fond remembrances of T2!

Terminator was much better than T2. Terminator had plenty of flaws. (For instance, what is the deal with frickin time travel being so popular? Time travel is such an overused, tired, totally lame plot helper. It's our era's deus ex machina.) But on the whole the story is just plain better. The reason to watch T2 is to enjoy the special effects and action scenes, not the plot. T2 pushes forward the idea that the villanous, evil, unstoppable terminator can be co-opted with the flip of a switch. Urgh. It's like nothing is related, nothing depends on anything else, there is no history. There isn't any reason or logic for anything. Suppose in T3 (which I have not seen), they did the same thing? Just like that, that shape shifting liquid metal terminator is on our side. Or, heck, let's do a brain transplant or implant on young Connor, make him join the terminators, and now Sarah has to undo the conversion. For T2, I understand Schwarzenegger forced them because he wanted to play a good guy, so I don't blame the writers for that part at least. That doesn't absolve them for wanting to do T2 in the first place.

And I found the sacrifices in T2 especially cheesy and obnoxious. They die for ... ignorance! Yes, they bravely die to destroy the dangerous knowledge that leads to the creation of the terminators. Yep, that computer "genius" guy, after Sarah tries to murder him, joins her "cause" with astonishing rapidity, and bravely finishes the job by killing himself! The Terminator does likewise at the end. Never mind the logical difficulties and basic stupidities of such thinking.

Warning: I've rewatched T2 less than 2 years ago - I'm not viewing the movie in hindsight.

I think you're complaining about one of the main parts of the show that make it good. The whole POINT that they were emphasizing throughout that movie was that the Terminators aren't really *evil*. They simply have a job do to. Whatever command you feed them is what they're going to do. Tell them to go kill person A and their very reason for existence is to kill that person. Tell them to protect the same person and they serve that role in the same fashion. To some degree, that's a level of loyalty that is only possible from a machine, much as humanity is fighting them. To quote Sarah from the movie:

"Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. Of all the would-be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine, was the only one who measured up. The Terminator would never stop. It would never leave him. It would never hurt him. It would never shout at him or get drunk and hit him. Or say it was too busy to spend time with him. And it would die to protect him."

To think that a machine can't be given a new objective is a bit naive. The theme is carried over in further Terminator franchise parts (though admittedly none of them reach the level of Terminator 2, which was the pinnacle of the series). In T3 the terminator protecting him states very non-chalantly that in the future he comes from John Connor is already dead - because HE killed him. Also later in the movie when his programming is corrupted the thing that John emphasizes in order to force him back in line is that he is about to fail his mission, which basically send him into a tizzy as failing his mission is absolutely incomprehensible.

In Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles it carries the concept even further and basically shows the future where some of the humans in the future are distrusting John to some degree because he's utilizing the reprogrammed Terminators a bit too frequently. They, when their programming is turned around, offer a level of loyalty that the human counterparts can't match - they gossip while the terminators simply work towards their mission objective.

Sorry, but the original Terminator, much as I liked it, was simply a low budget 1980's horror flick. It was a good one, but that's the extent of it. Terminator 2 is what really took that franchise and made it into a classic. It dealt with issues for more complex, and basically made us question just who really are the bad guys, and if there really is such a thing.

Re:Reelz Fyzicks

[Assmasher]

Made Michael Bay look like Shakespeare...

That is the cruelest comment in history.

$200 million on that turkey?

[Animats]

I can't see how they spent $200 million on that turkey. There aren't that many sets, and the big ones are obviously green-screen work. The alien city (?) is so fuzzy that it looks like bad video game art.

The hero is a jerk. The villain is pointless. The Green Lantern corps meeting looks like a Nazi rally, fist-raising and all.

Wait for the DVD, coming to a bargain bin near you soon. Maybe this will kill off the second-tier comic superhero genre for a while.

Re:$200 million on that turkey?

[ackthpt]

I can't see how they spent $200 million on that turkey. There aren't that many sets, and the big ones are obviously green-screen work. The alien city (?) is so fuzzy that it looks like bad video game art.

Psst! Hollywood accounting. "Sorry we can't pay your bonus, the film lost money. Lolz."

Re:$200 million on that turkey?

[localman57]

Maybe this will kill off the second-tier comic superhero genre for a while.

I hope not. If going to next year's big blockbuster requires me to watch Spiderman, Superman, or Batman's origin story again, I'll just stay home. At least with the 2nd tiers, you get a chance to do something new. Iron Man was a 2nd tier after all.

The Onion

[Xelios]

I thought their take on The Green Lantern was pretty funny.

the other green movie.....

[Spy Handler]

green hornet... was better than this drivel... and that's saying alot considering how green hornet also sucked

Garbage

[redemtionboy]

Before you read this, understand I'm particularly harsh on films, but, with so many good films out there, it's not fair to treat the bad ones with a gentle touch.

Personally I found the film to be quite bad. I went in there expecting nothing and still left disappointed. It's not that they didn't come up with a compelling story (they didn't). It's not that I never felt attached to any of the characters (I didn't). It's not even that so many of the lines and characters felt out of place (they do). It's that the film suffers from fluidity issues from the very beginning. I want to believe that there was a much more comprehensible film originally shot and then some jackass in the editing room decided to take out chunks of the film and slap it together so that it could be under 1:45, because the film feels jerked around and unnatural, not to mention the plot hole issues. There is a particular scene where right before Hal is chilling with his girl. Then, the villain attacks this underground military base where Hal has never been, and all of a sudden he bursts through the wall with no explanation as to how he got there or knew what was going on. After the battle is over, both the hero and villain are suddenly in their home, with no explanation as to how that happened. This is probably the worst it gets in the film, but that same lack of fluidity is what seeped into ever part of the film and made it a complete failure to me. That said, it's not the worst super hero film ever made. It's better than X-men 3 and Spiderman 3, but not by much. I give it a 4.5/10.

I liked it.

[TechHSV]

I've been a Green Lantern fan for about 20 years. I can still remember going through the white boxes at the comic book store trying to find any issue that I missed. I liked the movie for what it was. They had to skim and condense many things from the GL lore, but explaining a history that begins at the big bang can really eat into the 2 hours that people will sit through a movie. The OP mentions that the GL Corps is played up to be a big deal and OA as being awesome as bad things. These are freaking awesome things, this isn't the Rascals club house. The cool part about Green Lantern is that imagination and will power can be used to do amazing things. Realizing this as a young geek reading comics was a huge deal for me and many others.

To summarize, I thought the movie was fun enough for your average summer movie goer and did better than expected from the POV of a long time GL fan. I would have liked some more inside type of stuff thrown in (even a mention of Alan Scott), but it was still pretty freaking cool hearing the Oath in a movie.

Unless you're a big fan, GL is one to skip

[macwhizkid]

I was never a comic book fan, and I saw Green Lantern on Friday only because a group of friends who are fans wanted to see it. I knew I was in trouble when a dramatic voiceover introduced us to a solid dozen names and places, including the happy planet of intergalactic peacekeepers and the main arch-villain, who's names I promptly forgot.

Not only did the story come with an enormous amount of baggage, but it made quite a mess of a story going forward. It seemed like the setting was driving the narrative instead of the other way around. As if some screenwriter was standing by with a stopwatch worrying that the audience will lose interest since Hal hasn't flown anywhere off planet for over two minutes.

The never-ending fight scenes were made less dramatic by virtue of the fact that Hal's limitations were never really explained or explored. It wasn't even clear whether he knew himself. That really spoiled the movie for me more than anything else -- when Batman was pinned by Liam Neeson in the EL-train car, you knew that he was vulnerable, and it was that collateral of mortality that defined the character. Here, when the main character had no problem flying across the galaxy for a quick meeting with his idiot boss and was literally dodging asteroids in the climax, it wasn't so clear.

It was a blast!

[cbybear]

I went in with good expectations (been reading Green Lantern and DC in general since I was a kid). It was a lot of fun, tons of great lines, and the VFX were interesting. Of course you can always armchair quarterback to say what you think would be better. Instead of watching it with that kind of critical eye, I decided I was going to go along for the ride. So worth it. Saw it in 2D and I want to see it in 3D.

--kev