Noisy, overproduced, and thinly written, Green Lantern squanders an impressive budget and decades of comics mythology. - Rotten Tomatoes
The bottom line: This is a comic-book movie. Fans of the Green Lantern (in his intergalactic story mode and not his earthbound TV series) will no doubt enjoy its visualizations and its references to details of the back story that escaped me. There's a whole lot going on. We don't really expect subtle acting or nuanced dialogue. We appreciate an effective villain. We demand one chaste kiss between hero and heroine, but no funny stuff. We enjoy spectacular visuals like the Green elders, who are immortal and apparently spend eternity balancing on top of towering pillars. "Green Lantern" delivers all of those things, and for what it's worth, I liked it more than "Thor." - Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
Take me to your garage sale.
...“Green Lantern” is bad. This despite Mr. Reynolds’s dazzling dentistry, hard-body physique and earnest efforts, and the support of fine performers like Peter Sarsgaard (as Hector Hammond, a nutty professor turned baddie), Mark Strong (almost unrecognizable as the fuchsia-tinted Sinestro) and Angela Bassett (Doctor Waller, a government drone in mile-high heels). They, along with Blake Lively, who plays Carol Ferris, a pilot and aeronautics executive, and who’s miscast on both counts, look as if they’re working hard, and not only to keep a straight face. Only Mr. Sarsgaard, who invests his transformation with levity, earning grateful laughter, shoulders the lugubriosity well, rising above the scripted clichés and dreary battles, featuring an alien enemy with a skull head and the body of a dryer-lint octopus.
In comics, the Green Lantern has been through blackest night but here he’s a typical DC Golden Age do-gooder, as unambiguous as when he was revived in the Silver Age 1959 and looked like Paul Newman. Mr. Reynolds isn’t wrong for the job; the movie is. One issue is tone and hitting the sweet spot between sincerity and self-awareness that can work for today and that made the first “Superman” movies fly in an age of post-Vietnam, post-Watergate cynicism. It’s also about finding a reason for superheroes beyond the box office, which leads to the question troubling every superhero movie in which the protagonist isn’t as twisted as Batman is now or as ironic as Iron Man: Is there still a place in American movies for square heroes? - Manohla Dargis, New York Times
I kept waiting... I had read the earlier reviews, which seemed to confirm all of the worst fears stretching back to last November. But the hate never came. Martin Campbell's Green Lantern is a deeply problematic comic book adventure, with structural and character development issues that should damn-well have felled the film. But like its title character, it overcomes its own weaknesses and embraces its inherent flaws. The picture has signs of tinkering and studio interference. But it also has several fine action scenes, a strong visual style that feels like a living comic book, and arguably the best 3D conversion yet achieved in live-action. Oh, and it also has Peter Sarsgaard, but more on that later. I have no idea how Green Lantern purists will react, but the film as it is remains a weird combination of gee-whiz kid-friendly superhero antics and truly disturbing horror elements. That the film is not quite the triumph we wanted may be tragic. That the film as it stands works at all may qualify as a miracle. - Scott Mendelson, Huffington Post* * *
There is a way to deal with a superhero who is square, or better still, with a relatively ordinary, somewhat flawed human being required to hew to a super-human standard of virtue.
Show him struggling with that call to duty, to the point of suffering, if need be. Show him failing, succumbing to the temptations of power, and nearly forfeiting the ring. Show him not as the chosen one, but as a choice by accident. Show him trying to grasp the powers of the ring and at the same time deal with its moral imperatives by himself, in isolation from the great intergalactic brotherhood.
In essence, the protagonist would be modern man, a prosthetic deity (to use Freud's phrase) who faces life's hard choices in the apparent absence of God, but with no assurance that HE does not exist and is not watching.