Green Lantern

[tabuno]

Unlike Tom Cruise in Top Gun (1986), Ryan Reynolds' character is presented as a genuine human being that isn't scripted over the top, melodramatic two-dimensional character. Even though Hal Jordan (Reynolds) is the masculine over the top narcissist, this character maintains a delicate much more complex and even somewhat underplayed character making the star attraction even more acceptable and believable. Unlike Batman movies, unlike almost every other superhero, Hal is authentic in his nature. Even Peter Skarsgaard as Hector Hammond is the movie's nemesis is given a believable character development unlike those found in Spiderman (2002) and Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborn. The fantastic otherworldly set designs are superior in their innovative vision that sets it apart from Avatar (2009), Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (1999). What is accomplished is that Ryan Reynold's humor originates from not comedic nature, but just from the more difficult nature of events and circumstances and retaining the character that he is making this movie even more balanced and mature. There are great emotive subplots going on here that aren't exploited and there is an immediate harshness unlike Spiderman that aren't unwieldy or saccharin. Only three technical, but small weaknesses earlier in the movie became apparent, the unnecessary Star Gate (1994) motiff, the reverse alien leg design from The Arrival (1996), and the incongruity of Reynold's character receiving universal knowledge but still having to ask questions. Overall, this is a great fusion of less known superhero but as such it brings with it a potent and serious punch to this genre.

[Chris Knipp]

As I've pointed out earlier citing, and agreeing with, the Metacritic relative ratings, Green Lantern (39) ranks well below Thor (58) in quality, and Thor well below X-Men: First Class (65). Super 8 (72) was rated far above them all, for a human quality which, however, in my view fails to be sustained throughout the film, which gives in to the familiar CGI overkill when it degenerates (for all its many borrowings, some of which you cite) into an alien-monster-wrecks-the-town finale much like Thor's, but Thor's is clearer and more satisfying. In that sense Super 8 is the greatest disappointment of all, and X-Men provides more unalloyed fun, though it is surely flawed, feeding its franchise as a prequel/reboot and marked by some tasty acting turns and mutant coming of age sequences. Compare these to Iron Man (79), though Iron Man 2 (57) was much less well received. Or consider The Dark Knight (82) and Inception (74) and you'll see that critically speaking, the summer hasn't given us a comic book blockbuster to write home about. I'm determined to catch all the blockbusters this summer so I'm looking forward with hope to Captain America.

Meanwhile, tonight Harry Potter, whose fan base wipes away all the others, blew all these away with a complicated, grand piece of popular moviemaking (Harry Pottter the Last: Metacritic 87). And I was there, in the Loews Metreon iMax theater in San Francisco, with a packed house applauding the more epic sequences. Truly, an audience can make a show. You should listen to a live Umm Kalsoum performance.

[tabuno]

While I am in a position to comment on Harry Potter having seen it Wednesday at a special preview, I'm going to allow that honor to one of the respectable members of this site. Nevertheless, I shall be one of those in the minority that wasn't as impressed with all the hype and film critics and record-breaking numbers out there. I miss the original magical charm of the series.