Neither the best or the worst superhero movie of the year, Green Lantern offers an ambitious story sunk by belabored storytelling. Like Thor it's both goofy and brash, aimed squarely at 12 year-olds and those who can slip into that sort of mindset. But where Thor was finely tuned to be middle-of-the-road, mediocre and satisfying, Green Lantern is a bit more all-over-the-place.

Ryan Reynolds effortlessly plays the maverick Hal Jordan, proving that he has the capacity to headline a big Hollywood blockbuster. It's not an amazing performance, and even Chris Hemsworth's Thor was more charismatic, but no matter how things pan out he should walk away unscathed. Unfortunately, for every cast member who shines, there are three more who are wasted. For instance, Taika Waititi's 'sidekick role' is incredibly thankless, and no members of the intergalactic superforce The Corp are given much to do, which sort of nullifies its claims to be such an amazing peace-keeping force. If the non-Reynolds 'good guys' are short-changed, I have to admit the villians are surprisingly strong. Peter Saarsgard's character Hector Hammond is kinda icky, but he's clearly having a blast with the role. The all-CGI Parallax is an imposing presence - a much scarier intergalactic black cloud of doom than the formless foe from Rise of the Silver Surfer. Even Tim Robbins gets to have some fun as a slimy senator!

That said, there's also a lot of squandered opportunities for conflict and drama. We're told that Blake Liveley's character has a bit of a love-triangle between Hal Jordan and Hector Hammond, but the three characters are barely ever on-screen at the same time. I don't think the earth scenes are the disaster some people are making them out to be, but too few of them really crackle or pop. The elements are there, but too many scenes are exposition-heavy instead of having the easy charm of Iron Man or X-Men: First Class.

Anyone who can't leave their brain at the door need not apply for this space opera. And even if you can, you may find plenty to be frustrated with. But there's also lots of pretty sweet action and special effects, and always the possibility of something better than what we're actually watching lurks just off-screen.

I give it a B/B+. I enjoyed it, but there is so much potential here I can't help but feel like it was a lost opportunity. Hopefully it does well enough that there is a sequel with less humans and more Green Lanterns.

lol MovieDude uses all the same phrases from critics on RT.

Hammond and Parallax were crap villains and Sinestro's villainous descent is pretty pathetic and underdeveloped.

Abin Sur is defeated like a joke, the special effects weren't even amazing and there just doesn't seem to be any good material for a sequel. Sorry, but I'd rather not see another entry into this series and with its 300m budget it is likely we won't.

Hammond does not have a love triangle with Blake Lively, unless that's in the comics, because the way I saw it was the fella was a creepy paedophile preying on innocent women with his disgusting stalker affections. I was laughing and cheering when his soul was sucked from him. Fuck the character and special effects.

This was basically a really generic movie throughout though. Just so, so derivative.

Implying what?? That he put together his review from other reviews??

Passable but it's less enjoyable than First Class and Thor. Too much CG, never enough of Blake Lively.

B-

Fixed

Luved it! I want a sequel!!!!!!

No, but I'd see a sequel too, regardless.

Green Lantern

I must admit that I enjoy big summer superhero flicks especially when it's a new product with a new storyline. This film is no different for me. I enjoyed Ryan Reynolds performAnce. The other actors were all very flimsy. Only lively's character had a bit more nuance to it. I really loved the visual creation and interpretation of the green lanterns. The story was interesting to me and held my attention throughout. I was never bored with this film. The encounters with the villain(s) were good enough for me. I'd love to see a continuation in the story so I hope it does well enough to justify that.

Grade - A

A review from one of my friends...

So, what's Blake Lively like in it? I'm not some pervy guy who's obsessed with an actress or anything, but I find myself rooting for her to do well. She seems likeable.

She's nice nude. Online.

She gorgeous & smoking hot!

My favorite review of the film is the one where they assumed Blake Lively is deaf and was just trying really hard.

Green Lantern is not a good film. Nor is it an awful film. What director Martin Campbell (responsible for films as good as Casino Royale and as bad as The Legend of Zorro, but, in general, a solid enough craftsman) has created is the ultimate generic superhero adventure. Everything, from the strong-jawed hero's character arc to the almost entirely computer-generated action sequences, is so predictable and so very dull.

Ryan Reynolds stars as Hal Jordan, a cocksure, womanizing pilot who is given a powerful ring by a dying purple-skinned alien and becomes the first human member of the Green Lantern Corps, a group of celestial peacekeepers. He faces two villains: Parallax, a giant cloud monster devouring planets to gain enough strength to challenge the Corps, and Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), a mild-mannered scientist infected by Parallax and turned into a bulbous-headed criminal. The love interest/damsel-in-distress duties fall to Blake Lively as Carol Ferris, a pilot and businesswoman.

Lively is not very good in the role. A far cry from her impressive supporting turn in last year's The Town. There's a grating playacting quality to what she does here, similar to watching a child pretend to be authoritative and grown up. I have mixed feelings in regards to Reynolds. He does what he was hired to do--lay on the oily charisma and be a handsome devil--but every note of the performance is overly familiar. It's Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds, not Ryan Reynolds bringing classic character Hal Jordan to life. Far better (easily stealing the meager show) is Peter Sarsgaard. The nearly always reliable character actor has fun as the film's primary antagonist (who, post-transformation, resembles the Elephant Man) and sells the character's emotional and physical torment. It helps Hector Hammond, who, under the influence of Parallax, gives into long-burning resentments and jealousies, is the film's most complex and human character. Reynolds' Hal is a one-liner-dispensing log of wood by comparison.

The film's screenplay is credited to, count 'em, four writers: Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg. It's very poorly written. Character and plot details are often lazily revealed, a good example being the overlong, incredibly wordy narration at the beginning. There's also almost no plot, even by genre standards, and no themes to grapple with beyond "it's good to overcome your fear." The film often seems to be stalling and lumbering, then everything comes to a head and is resolved very quickly and all too tidily. The still-playing X-Men: First Class puts Green Lantern to shame in terms of pacing and storytelling. To be honest, it puts it to shame in general.

Despite the presumptuous mid-credits scene, it's hard to imagine such a vanilla, uninspired picture resulting in a long-running franchise.

C-

Attention, Peter dancing in Spider-Man 3 and nearly everything in Batman & Robin, you now have a friend: Green Lantern's racetrack. SO embarrassing.

This is pretty wack.

The whole film feels so rushed. Things are happening in the film, one after another, and I felt like nothing was explained enough. There honestly wasn't even much of a plot. It's a huge mess. And the villian was lame. It's not like god awful, but I'm very disappointed.

The best part is Blake Lively being in it. She's oh so fine in this.

I agree with nghtvsn. I really enjoyed it.

really? seriously comparing it to that horrible emo dancing spidey scene. that scene in SP3 was worse than everything in B&R.

I also can't believe they never showed the nephew from the first act again. It seemed an obvious (and smart) setup for a fun, Spielberg-style moment where the child is amazed by his uncle's new powers, but...nope.

So what? Then you would've complained that his character was only there for a cheesy Spielberg-style moment where the child is amazed by his uncle's new powers.

Not if it was nicely done. Granted, considering the quality of most of this film, chances are they would've found a way to fumble it.

Shocking.

Ah, yes, the "dismissive asshole" approach. Nice.