Citation :

Originally Posted by GREEN =w= DAY
my main complaint with the film is that it seems that there are certain scenes missing or were shortened, especially in the middle of the film. you can definately tell because of how there are abrupt jumps in between scenes.
Exactly. I have no idea what happened, but that seemed to be it for me too. Like pieces of the puzzle were oddly missing.

Critique interessante de moviedoors (meme si je peux pas suivre ce qu'il pense de kick ass)

Citation :

Alright, I've seen it now. Spoilers follow.

The Good:

Ryan Reynolds- he really did give it his all and sold it as best he could. His sincerity was undeniable and he deserves most of the credit for what works in the movie. He succeeded were plenty of others would've fallen flat on their faces.

Peter Sarsgaard- not a great performance, but he was chewing the hell out of the scenery and having a blast doing it. I love that piercing scream he does.

The creature and Corp design work- The suits look great. They don't look phony at all on Reynolds. I love the bright colors. I was surprised how much I liked the look and presence of Parallax. Especially good sound work on him. There were some neat looking aliens tucked away in the corners.

The Bad:

The script- lazy, lazy, lazy. It's boiling over with clunky exposition. Who these characters were was shoehorned in in a very shoddy manner. Hal's flashback at the beginning

Spoiler:

was the height of plot convenience. Hal and Hector having a past is pretty much non existent. They don't share any scenes together until what seemed like an hour in and their interaction basically amounts to them bumping into each other and going "Oh, hey. What's up?" And speaking of Hector, I have no idea who this guy was. He's infected pretty much immediately after we meet. Am I supposed to like him? see his flaws? see how he could be susceptible to fear? I don't know! Near the end,

Spoiler:

Actors in nothing roles- Tim Robbins and Angela Bassett do nothing of note playing cardboard characters with nothing to do but further the plot and add some cred to the cast. I'm not overly familiar with Blake Lively and I left with basically no impression of her. I won't blame her as she had essentially nothing to work with.

The Corp- Speaking of doing nothing, the Corp and the Guardians do nothing either. This is all tell and no show. Tomar-Re is Basil Exposition, Kilowag trains Hal for what seemed like 2 minutes and then more or less vanished, the Guardians sit on their thrones making bizarre, head scratching decisions and they have a serious case of the CG rubber lips. I started to perk up when

Spoiler:

Oa- one of the biggest let downs for me. If you've seen the trailers, you've pretty much seen all this movie has to offer with this world. Some rocks, a purple sky, and Lanterns standing around doing, you guessed it, nothing. Asgard was a far more visually interesting place and forget about it even coming near Pandora.

The rest of the people on Earth- After Green Lantern makes his first appearance, there's a shocking lack of attention. There's a news report in the background of one scene "going who was this hero who saved the day?" as if that's the big story, and not a mention of, gee, I don't know, all the crazy energy constructs he created!

The credit cookie- Not earned in the slightest.

Spoiler:

This was nothing but cheap fan service and teeth grating plot contrivance.

Thor was a much more entertaining ride, and I thought Thor was merely good. Forget about it even coming close to Iron Man, Superman, Watchmen, or Nolan's Batmans. But, is it terrible? No. I'll watch this again before I go near Wolverine, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, or Kick-Ass again. By a long shot. It didn't suck, but I just can't say I liked it either and I wanted to so bad. Big disappointment.

5/10

Kick-Ass dans la même catégorie que Wolverine, Fantastic Four et Ghost Rider.
On aura tout vu.

Sinon yes intéressante et bien développée la critique.

A mince, ce n'est pas très rassurants toutes ces critiques

Peter travers from Rolling Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-green-lantern-20110616

Citation :

Don't let that brat Judy Moody tell you this is a not bummer summer. Has the kid seen Hangover II or Pirates 4? And wait till she gets a load of Green Lantern, a new primer on how not to make a comicbook movie unless you want to screw shit up. Flat FX, smirky acting, clunky writing and clueless direction. WTF?

Ryan Reynolds is all surface as Hal Jordan, the reckless test pilot recruited by the intergalactic Green Lantern Corps to protect the world from evil, in this case the many-tentacled Parallax, a former Lantern who went power-mad. Adapting the DC Comics franchise are four credited screenwriters who, besides deserving no credit, falsely indicate that Hal is the first human Lantern. Huh? Back in 1940, artist Martin Nodell and writer Bill Finger created the first one as railway engineer Alan Scott. Hal didn't show up on the page till 1959.

Pesky details. Listen, I wouldn't give a damn if this screen Lantern had its own energy source. But not even director Martin Campbell, who worked wonders intro-ing James Bond in 2006's Casino Royale, can get this cinematic corpse on its feet. Here's what's shaking. Hal gets off on playing with his green ring, which gives him powers limited only by his imagination. He goes galaxy-flying, meeting up with 3,600 peacemaking Lanterns, including fishlike Tomar-Re, voiced with welcome sass by Geoffrey Rush, and Sinestro (Mark Strong), a honcho from the guardian planet Oa, who threatens to fire Hal's ass if he doesn't start shaping up.

So Reynolds replaces his patented grin with square-jawed purpose, stops playing cutesy with his pilot sweetie, Carol Ferris (Blake Lively is decorative — no more), and realizes that his romantic rival, nerdy scientist Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), has been co-opted by Parallax, causing Hector's eyes to turn yellow, his head to expand and his rage to explode. It's an impossible role, but Sarsgaard plays it for real and gives the movie a touch of gravity. Nothing else sticks to the mind and heart. Hal claims that a Lantern's only enemy is fear itself. The thought of a sequel to this shamelessly soulless Hollywood product scares me plenty.

Rating: 1/4

En vidéo:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/blogs/the-travers-take/green-lantern-is-comic-book-movie-hell-20110616

Et Travers attendait le film, il l'avait inclus dans sa liste intitulée "Summer's Golden Dozen".

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/photos/peter-travers-dozen-must-see-summer-movies-20110510/green-lantern-0805768

Citation :

OK, I have my doubts. Ryan Reynolds makes an amiable hunk accessory for Sandra Bullock (The Proposal), but play a superhero out of DC Comics? Don't care that RR was Deadpool in that X-Men spinoff, Wolverine. I'm still worried. The role of Hal Jordan, the fighter pilot who becomes the first human ever selected to join the Green Lantern Corps, has challenges. Still, I get a good vibe that Geoffrey Rush is doing the voice work for the computer-generated Tomar-Re, the bird-beaked Yoda for Hal. And director Martin Campbell kicked ass refreshing the James Bond franchise with Casino Royale. So maybe. What are your thoughts?

Mark Millar attaque le film:

Citation :

“I hereby declare Green Lantern the worst superhero movie ever made. And yes I count The Phantom and The Shadow as superhero movies.

Green Lantern was the cheapest-looking 300 million dollar movie I’ve ever seen. Why didn’t they give that money (to) Africa?

It had a couple of good moments, all coming from Mark Strong. But oh man.

It was just such an ODD movie. Like it travelled here from a parallel universe where they made a Green Lantern movie in 1995.

But it was only eight quid and thus worth it. And I know I’ll go and see it again ”

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=39719

Je vois meme pas l'interet de s'attarder sur ce mec, il a du talent, , mais par contre, que dés qu'il a un truc à dire c'est pour dire des conneries. Opinon ou pas comme d'hab faut qu'il aille dans l'hyperbole. Pas vu le film mais il me semble évident au vue des retours qu'on est loin du pire des films comics books. Et, si je le pense demain, j'oublierais pas de penser que ca n'engage que moi

Citation :

Green Lantern has all the ingredients for an awesome movie, but a substandard villain on Earth and a lack of story focus keep all the various parts from meshing into a cohesive whole. It’s obvious that a lot of time, effort and ambition went into making this film great, yet for whatever reason — be it lack of time, lack of budget or lack of talent — the execution got muddled along the way. Still, some decent performances (particularly by Reynolds), a few funny moments, some clever action, nice effects and good use of 3D keep this movie from being a total waste of money. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if DC/WB is going to give Marvel a run for their money and give comic book fans the quality films they’ve been clamoring for, those in charge will have to do a lot better than this.

http://www.chud.com/57506/green-lantern/?utm_source=C.H.U.D.&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.cinefeeling.com/cinema/green-lantern-2-spots-tv/

cubi a écrit:

http://www.cinefeeling.com/cinema/green-lantern-2-spots-tv/

Ca à l'air bien
pourquooooaaaaAaaaAAAaaaa lui?!?

cubi a écrit:

http://www.cinefeeling.com/cinema/green-lantern-2-spots-tv/

Merci Cubi pour les spots et franchement là, en plus de l'autre TV Spot, ça me donne bcp plus envie d'aller le voir.

j'ai pas vu mais au vu des autres extrait vraiment du mal à me faire à l'idée des critiques

de ce que je vois dans tv spots, moi aussi, oui.

Par contre, je trouvais que dans les trailers, ça faisait un peu cheap, limite ring', à certains moments...pour moi, hein enfin j'aimais pas trop ce que je voyais.

Mais là, ça me bluffe plus qu'autre chose...A voir.

Disons que a lire les différentes critiques, je crois pas que les trailers et spots mentent bcp, juste que malheureusement selon eux, si je recoupe le tout, mis a part l'action et les fx, voir un acting correct, ca manque de maitrise tout ça, et c un peu survolé, avec des raccourcis monstres.

peut etre que y a un director's cut qui traine quelque part?

Tduke, j'avais pas l'impression que tu avais, mais ce qui est sur c que ca c'est amélioré, ils ont bossé sur le visuel jusqu'au dernier moment, il y a deux semaines

D'accord, ok, effectivement.

quand tu parles de raccourcis, ils ont zappés des trucs essentiels aux origines de Green Lantern dans le comics ?

N'empeche yes, je viens d'en voir un, en dehors de l'appréciation que on aura, et si c relativement moins important, sous réserves que ca continue de marcher quand meme, c frustrant de voir la réception que ça a eu, car je me dis que tout est là quoi pour donner un univers de taré. Quelque part, c'est un peu le super héros ultime en terme de pouvoir déja (et c'est ce qui peut plaire je crois aussi )

Tduke a écrit:

D'accord, ok, effectivement.

quand tu parles de raccourcis, ils ont zappés des trucs essentiels aux origines de Green Lantern dans le comics ?

Non, non je parle du scénario.

D'accord. Mais sur l'adaptation à proprement dite, j'ai pas vu sur les reviews, l'univers est respecté ? Y'aurait il des choses bizarres que les connaisseurs du comics ont relevés ?

Yop, je crois que la question se pose pas sur ce point apriori, c juste selon eux pas trés bien traité

Perso, au mieux, je m'attends à un nouveau Tron Legacy, à savoir un univers de ouf et de bons interprètes mais un scénario trèèès simple alors qu'il y avait davantage de potentiel. Par contre, les musiques, je viens d'écouter la BO et c'est pas terrible en soi. Il n'y a pas de thème fort, emblématique.

Je ne crois pas que le problème vienne de la simplicité du scénario (et je ne crois absolument pas que c'est le problème de Tron Legacy)

Tu peux faire d'excellents films à partir de scénario simples, c'est pas ce qui manque d'ailleurs.

La complexité n'est absolument pas un critère de qualité.

Exactement. Comment penser le contraire, quand tant de simple histoires ont été raconté à travers les siecles encore et encore? Simplement il y a maniere de raconter

Je me suis mal exprimé. Par simple, je voulais en fait dire "banal". On peut faire une histoire simple qui soit en même temps originale, en effet.

Originale? Dans l'écriture, tu veux dire?