Thank you, vegetable-lady …
Excellent symbolism, using Carr to represent the roughed up and ragged industry that is journalism.
See, and I would think that's an upgrade.
That can't be it, Joe. You know I own a car. I'm thinking it's because my car doesn't talk like Larry the Cable Guy.
First, allow me to blow your mind, Shehawks: I have a son. And -- are you sitting down? -- he liked Cars 2.
Second, I never said kids wouldn't like Cars 2, which, if I had, would be the only way the first sentence of your comment makes any sense. I did, however, say that a lot of the plot would go over their heads. Which really doesn't matter in a film as shiny and pretty as this one. But since I'm writing about a film whose target audience is children, I thought it worth mentioning.
He does have a kid, so that can't be it. Perhaps he doesn't own a car?
You must not have kids... cuz my son LOVED IT! We've already seen it twice and will probably see it a third time before it leaves the theaters
Dumbledore vs. The Death Eaters = Wrong! This movie ending changed so much I couldn't stand it. They missed what should have been awesome fight scenes to cut budget and time. Ruined the movie for me, and ruins my anticipation of the last film.
We're trying to instill in him an appreciation for the rock n' roll lifestyle at a very early age. So far, it seems to be working — but I think he might be selling illicit breast milk to the other babies in the neighborhood.
Thanks, Joe. I think it's cute that you've got the little tyke started out on the Bardi path with Phish apparrel.
Nice review, Sal. It makes me want to see it with my kid, but he's got a few years to go before it's movie-watching time. For now, I'd settle for him to get the ability to hold his neck straight.
Simply can't wait.
This review is quite accurate, Sal. I saw the movie last night and was disappointed with it as well.
There was a whole lot of potential plot there, but much of it was underdeveloped and therefore we didn't really care too much about what was going on. In addition, Peter Sarsgaard had a fairly intriguing performance, but again, his character was drastically underdeveloped.
I'm a Ryan Reynolds fan but he had little to work with and some of his lines might as well have come out of Van Wilder or Just Friends. I still enjoyed the movie a little bit just for its superhero entertainment value. Beyond that, there really isn't much there.
Good review, there's definitely no need to see this again haha.
It seems I made the mistake of viewing this film outside the progressive context of the original Green Lantern comics that the previous commenter cited.
Perhaps I should see it again, as a second viewing may reveal that this is, in fact, a sensitive call for respecting and nurturing the diversity of our shared universe, and not a poorly plotted, acted and directed piece of CGI-driven swill.
Or maybe we can accept that not everyone will like the same films. I like that kind of diversity, too.
Green Lantern is not derivative of the other films you cite; it preceded them all, telling the story in comics over 50 years ago exactly as portrayed in the film, inspiring much of what has followed that you wrongly assume it now copies. While X-Men 1st Class attempts to recreate an era, the Green Lantern mythos actually was created in the early 60's, blazing trails that are now taken for granted. In the Mad Men era of men dominating women in the workplace, for instance, Green Lantern's alter ego worked FOR his girlfriend. Showing that relationship now may not impress, but 50 years ago it was radical, a first in popular culture, showing a generation of Baby Boomers that life could be different.
It also portrays the universe as being full of life as diverse as we can imagine: plant, mineral, machine, and animals of every type. A universe where we are not the center of it all but probably just another who needs to adapt and live with the rest, to earn their respect. Again, that was all there in 1961, teaching respect for diversity before the civil rights had gotten very far with the same message.
Sorry you didn't care for it, but you're wrong on every point - it rocks, shining brightly on the screen. Only dim critics fail to see that.
It's definitely worth seeing. (And as with most blockbusters these days, the younger you are, the more you're going to like it.)
Side note: I'm wondering if the projector in the theater I saw Super 8 in was set correctly. I've seen recent stories about theaters not resetting the projectors from 3D to 2D, causing sharp reductions in brightness. The climax of the movie seemed unbearably dark to me. Check it and let me know what you think.
Very nice review, Joe. I had a feeling this would be a case of Abrams trying too hard to emulate the master, but I appreciate the ambition, and will definitely be seeing it.
You might want to read a little more closely. I said I enjoyed it, not that it was good.
anybody who thinks X3 was any good had zero credentials to review movies
Powered by Foundation