Hey, I'm not going to defend the movie to the ends of the earth, but I have to say that I'm mystified about the critical beating the movie Green Lantern is getting.
Is it a really great movie? No. For what was spent on the movie and what the many, many advertisements promised, I was expecting something more epic, more memorable, more "wow!". But you know what? What was there was fine. Ryan Reynolds' Hal Jordan is a flawed but decent man who becomes a flawed but decent superhero, learning some identifiable lessons in the process of getting used to his new powers. Yes, the movie's villains are serviceable at best, but they provide decent action-oriented and dramatic scenes.
Again, while not as wondrous as Warner Bros. Pictures told me it would be, I still enjoyed seeing Green Lantern. Even though it's more like an ambitious, extra-long episode of Smallville than a big-budget summer movie, the character moments are good, the special effects are generous and skillful enough to please, and I cared enough about the world the movie presented that I wouldn't hesitate to watch a sequel that would further explore the characters and situations presented in this initial installment.
In other words: critics, get a grip. This movie is more than worth the eight to ten bucks or so it costs to see it on the big screen. I'll even recommend paying the premium price to see it in 3D, which is how I experienced it. Since when do big summer movies need to justify themselves as great, nuanced works of museum-level art? Geez, it's Green Lantern. As long as there's a half-decent effort to deliver something fun, what's to complain about?
No comments:
Post a Comment