John Carter: IMAX 3D (2012)

Captain John Carter is a treasure hunting cowboy in the West not long after the Civil War.  Thanks to an amulet, Carter suddenly finds himself on Mars.  Due to the low gravity (about 37% of Earth's) he has superior strength and jumping ability. The planet is dying and there are only two great human-like cities and a few scattered tribes of indian-like aliens.  The cities have been fighting for 1000 years, but the evil city has just obtained a weapon that threatens to end the millennium long stalemate.


Will's Review:
The first thing that surprised me is that this movie is exceptionally violent for a Disney film.  The second thing is that the movie has a unique plot element, but it's implementation feels like a rehash of other movies, especially Star Wars The Clone Wars and Superman.  There is even a gladiator arena execution complete with giant beasts and a massive final battle.  I noticed a couple of continuity issues, but considering the scale of the special effects, and number of people (characters, CG and extras) it could have been much worse.


That being said, the movie is very entertaining and as visually stunning as one of the main characters played by Lynn Collins.  I really enjoyed watching the movie despite its flaws.  If you have read many of my reviews, you know that I don't approve of the trend of making every movie in 3D just to wrest more money from the pockets of movie goers; especially since many movies are not improved by being in 3D.  That being said, I watched John Carter in IMAX 3D, and the 3D effect is done amazingly well and actually improves the visual experience of the film.


The acting is okay, but nothing special in my opinion.  The fight choreography is good and the CG is beautiful.  The overall experience is one worth watching.  The PG-13 rating (for intense violence and action) is appropriate, so don't equate 'Disney' with kid friendly for this film.  I give it 8 / 10. (KopOut Magazine score 4 / 5.  Worth Going to See in the Theater)

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Westerns and Science Fiction. Two film genre’s that I’ve loved since I was a kid. One thing I remember thinking when I first watched Independence Day “What if they had come before we had jets and computers?” In Cowboys & Aliens, director Jon Favreau (director of Iron Man) and a team of seven writers tries to give you a taste of what it might have been like. You read that right, seven writers. The original comic book author, and six other people to turn it into a script suitable for an executive producer the likes of none other than Steven Spielberg.

Add in a cast to include Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Indiana Jones), Daniel Craig (Casino Royale) and Buck Taylor (Gunsmoke) and you have yourself a recipe for a sci-fi, western action move. Seriously, can you get any more Western than the cast of Gunsmoke; or any more Sci-Fi than Han Solo; or any more Action than James Bond? Not likely. So how does it work out? Poorly…

The acting was only mediocre. The horses gave better performances that some of the actors. Notably Walton Goggins, which is a shame since I really like his portrayal of Boyd Crowder on the TV show Justified. The CG is actually done well. They successfully blend the CG with daytime outdoor lighting in a way that puts to shame The Green Lantern (a recent movie that failed miserably at the integration). The action sequences are pretty entertaining despite being totally unbelievable. Then there was the actual story itself, which was less than stellar despite over a half dozen writers.

To enjoy the movie you of course have to suspend all logic. Aliens seem to have developed the ability to travel between stars and wipe out entire worlds, yet they still use lassos on their fighter aircraft? Lets not forget that their planes move extremely fast, yet at a very opportune moment can be overtaken by a man on horseback. Then you have the aliens who have never heard of an alarm, motion detectors, security cameras or even a damn guard dog for that matter. Oh, and the aliens are covered in a sort of armored carapace, yet open the carapace, exposing what is presumably their heart, when they go to feed.

Before seeing the movie, I thought it had a lot of potential to fuse two classic genres. However, the film never struck pay dirt. It might be worth watching when it comes out on video, but don’t waste your money at the theater. I have it a 6.5 / 10 (D).

I Am Number Four (2011)

Originally written March 4, 2011 at 3:39 am

If I told you of a movie about a child born on another world, sent to Earth on the eve of his race's destruction; and as he ages on Earth begins to discover he has tremendous powers, what movie would you think of? Superman of course. However, a grown man in a full body spandex suit with contrasting primary colors is not very popular with today's 13-30 year old market. I am Number Four definitely has a lot of influence from the Superman/Smallville franchise, but is not a remake of it.
The plot of the film is okay but not great. There are logic flaws that are not answered. The movie is definitely set up to be a franchise with at least one sequel. It is unknown if the gaps are to be filled with subsequent movies, but the gaps hurt the film a little. The dialogue is lacking but has a few good lines, all of which come from one of the supporting characters, Sam played by newcomer Callan McAuliffe, who ironically is the only actual teenager in a movie that takes place mostly in a high school.
Alex Pettyfer plays the protagonist, John, number 4 of 9 alien children sent to earth. He was raised and mentored by Henri, played by Timothy Olyphant (Justified, Hitman, etc), who is a soldier sent with John to Earth. Dianna Agron (Glee) plays the human love interest. And of course, Kevin Durand plays the antagonist, a different kind of alien, trying to kill the 9. I swear that guy is in everything recently, other than looking crazy, I can't see why he is so popular.
Now on to what the movie did well. It is gorgeous. The cinematography is as good as you would expect from a cinematographer the caliber of Oscar winner Guillermo Navarro. Steven Spielberg was originally a producer, but his name is no longer on the credits, not sure at what point he left the film. The special effects (CGI) are excellent and done very well. The fight choreography and action sequences are done very well too. It is action packed and moves at a very quick pace.
The movie is visually beautiful, but lacks in depth. It is carried by its action packed pace and cinematography, and for that alone is worth watching. I give it 7.5 / 10.

Gamer (2009)

Originally written January 14, 2011 at 2:59 pm

Social networking takes on a whole new meaning in the 2009 film Gamer, directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor. Imagine a virtual world like Second Life or the Sims, but instead of controlling computer generated avatar's you actually control people in real life. People pay to control a human avatar, and the avatars are paid to allow themselves to be controlled. Nanotechnology turns part of the actor's brain into a Wi-Fi receiver and the player gets to control them like a remote control toy. Of course, this becomes a huge hit and the inventor becomes a billionaire. Remote controlled parties, orgies, etc are the norm for the remote world "Society." A spawn off of that is a remote controlled TV show "Slayers" where inmates on death row are allowed to volunteer for a chance to win their freedom. They are remote controlled by teenage gamers (think Counter-Strike) and if they can survive 30 missions, they are released with a full pardon. The inmates are called...wait for it...."iCons." Very Apple like. This is the stage for Gamer.
With the explosion in popularity of games like Sims and social networking like Facebook, I can definitely see a huge market for people being willing to pay to control a human avatar. I can even see using convicted criminals to fight wars (though not as a TV show) to gain their freedom. Gamer gives a unique look at what might be possible. That is about all I can say good about the movie.
Starring Gerard Butler as Kable, the protagonist, and Michael Hall (Dexter) as the billionaire antagonist, Castle; Gamer certainly brought well-known actors to the leads. However, the acting was forced, the storyline lame and predictable. The combat sequences were laughable. They even included Crouch-Jumping in the combat scenes. For those of you who do not play first person shooting games, to clear hurdles in many games you have to jump and crouch in mid air. This results in a totally unrealistic looking motion where one tucks their legs up under them instead of one leg forward and one back, etc.
There are many sequences in the movie that just did not make much sense and added nothing to the storyline. The movie is a waste of time. Fortunately, it is only 95 minutes long, but that is still 80 minutes too long. Had the potential to be a neat movie, but instead it just sucked and never delivered. Do not waste your time. I give it a 2 / 10.

The Book of Eli (2010)

Originally written January 6, 2011 at 11:59 pm

The Book of Eli is set in a post apocalyptic world. Regardless the result is the same, humanity is in shambles, no one has really started rebuilding, they are move living off the scraps left behind. Think Mad Max. Eli (Denzel Washington) is one of the few alive who are old enough to remember the world before the apocalypse which occurred 30 years prior.


Eli is on a mission, and focused solely to that end. Eli is protecting a book and heading west. Eli states during the movie that he "Walks by faith." When you combine his name and the full statement of that abbreviated phrase and you will learn something very telling about Eli that might not be obvious when you watch the movie. I won't spoil it for you though.


One town Eli passes through is run by another old timer, Carnegie, played by Gregory Oldman (very fitting name). He is searching for a very specific book that he says has power. The power to help him unite and guide more people toward a rebuild civilization. He is obviously looking for The Bible. Though they don't come out and say it, the title of the movie, the advertising etc, make it apparent. He is ruthless in his search. Though he says he grew up with the book, it is obvious that he no longer remembers its lessons. When he finds that Eli has it he stops at nothing to take it from him. Eli continues on his quest west and picks up Mila Kunis's character, Solara, along the way. Together they fight to protect the book from Carnegie.


The storyline is not bad; the story does grab you and hold your attention for most of the movie. The cinematography is hit and miss. In some scenes it is good, in others it is poor. The fight choreography is pretty good. Washington delivers a good performance, as is normal for him. Some logical things were ridiculously beyond belief, but in post apocalypse movies thats normal. Overall the movie was entertaining. There was symbolism laced throughout the movie that is easy to overlook but adds to the depth of the movie. However most of that will not be noticed by the average person going to see an action movie. It is worth watching but not going to be winning any awards. I give it a 7 / 10.

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Originally written December 21, 2010 at 2:07 pm

Tron (1982) was before my time. I first saw it when I was a kid, and was amazed. The special effects were mind blowing for the time. When previews for Tron: Legacy first showed in theaters, I was stoked. I, admittedly, had unreasonably high expectations. They were let down some, but not too much.


I knew that I wanted to see Tron: Legacy in 3D. My fellow movie critic, Tony Route, decided to go IMAX 3D. At a hefty pricetag of $17.50 I nearly choked, but I'm glad I saw it in IMAX 3D. The huge screen made quite a difference. There were times that it really did feel like I could reach out and touch the action. I think that 3D makes a huge difference in the experience of watching this movie. Now on to the film itself.


Tron: Legacy takes place 20+ years after the first film. Without giving up too much of the story, Jeff Bridges character, Kevin Flynn, has been trapped inside The Grid for over 20 years. His son, Sam played by Garrett Hedlund, is grown up now and has turned into something of an angry rebel. No one, including Sam, knew what happened to his father. Sam accidentally finds his father's lab and gets sucked into The Grid. There he encounters his father's electronic doppelgänger, Clu (Codified Likeness). The plot reveals that Clu, Flynn and Tron had worked together to create a perfect digital world. When Clu staged a coup, Flynn found himself trapped inside. Sam and Flynn work together, along with Olivia Wilde's character, Quorra, to escape from The Grid and prevent Clu from escaping it.


The special effects in this movie are beyond top notch. Flynn and Clu are both played by Bridges, but their appearance is over 20 years difference. Clu is still young, while Flynn is old and gray. The effect to make Bridges look young again is done with CG. While not perfect, it is very good. I can't think of a better example of a human likeness in a movie done by CG. The light cycles, etc are awesome. The architecture, and design of The Grid are beautiful to watch, and in 3D they feel like they are coming right out at you. The movie is stunningly beautiful (as are the women characters LOL).


The plot leaves many questions unanswered, and some parts of it are a bit hard to follow. I'm guessing these areas will be expanded upon when a director's cut (or commentary) blueray is released. There are a few moments that are very cheesy and play to the vast majority of people who have no clue about computers but have watched CSI too much. Like when Sam accesses his dad's computer by typing "backdoor". Instead of being sent to a porn site, he magically bypasses his dad's security and has access to everything. Despite the cheese, and the vague areas, the movie is entertaining and could be much worse (see nearly every other sequel in the past decade).


The performances of the actors playing the main characters were not bad. Bridges's playing both a protagonist and antagonist, young and old, stood out above the rest. Some of the supporting characters were a bit on the bland side. It wouldn't be so noticeable, considering they are supposed to be playing computer programs, except that some of the other characters/programs are extremely emotional and animated.


While Tron: Legacy is not perfect and did not live up to my lofty expectations, it is still a very entertaining movie. One I would encourage you to go and see in theaters on a 3D screen. I give it 8 / 10.


*Edit*
I'm hearing from my buddies that have seen Tron in non-3D format that it doesn't look nearly as good as it does in 3D. Without the stunning visuals, I think an appropriate rating would be 6.5 / 10.

Skyline (2010)

Originally written November 23, 2010 at 3:02 am

When I first saw the previews for the movie Skyline, my first thought was "That looks FREAKING AWESOME!"


Tony Route and I are the Siskel & Ebert of the department. We go to the movies frequently. Amazingly, every time one of us has a free ticket the movie turns out to be horrible. As Tony and I were walking up to the theater to purchase tickets to watch Skyline, Tony told me he had a free ticket. I told him I hoped we didn't continue our trend. Unfortunately....we did.


Lets start with the good. The CG in Skyline is great, really top notch. The special effects are very good overall as was the cinematography. The movie delivers quite a bit of action for action junkies.
The lead characters are very attractive. Skyline stars staring Eric Balfour and Scottie Thompson. You may know Balfour as Duke on the TV show Haven, or from the series 24. Thompson is probably best known for the TV series Trauma and NCIS. Thompson is smoking, as are the other female characters. I'm sure women find Balfour attractive since everything I've ever seen him in they always find a way to incorporate him without a shirt. The two bring attractive leads to the movie, but that is about it. Acting is about average.


Now for the bad. The plot. Where was it? I have never seen a movie more devoid of purpose or meaning. Hell, even GI Joe had a plot. This movie was basically "Look the aliens are kicking ass, we are so screwed." "Oh look I'm an alien." The end. Skyline could have been condensed down into about 15 minutes and served as lead in to the next movie. Because they obviously set it up for a sequel. However not since Evil Dead has a movie this bad gotten a sequel. And Evil Dead was so bad it was great. This movie is just bad. I doubt this movie will see enough success to get a sequel. If it does, I pray it redeems this movie; because this movie can not stand on its own merits.


If you insist on seeing this movie wait till it comes out on Netflix, or it makes it to the $3.00 movie theater. I give it a 5 / 10. The only reason it scores that high is because it looks great. If the special effects and cinematography matched the rest of the movie in quality it would only score a 2.

Highlander 2 (1990)

Originally written October 14, 2010 at 5:00 am

Well if there was ever a sequel that was worse than the original, this would be it. The film links to the first movie, but at the same time totally disregards the plot and back story of the movie. Let me explain. In the first film part of the story is that MacLeod (Lambert) is killed in a battle between clans and suddenly comes back to life. He was amazed, his clansmen were amazed. He talks to his family and mentions knowing him his whole life implying he was born there. He has no idea he is immortal until Ramirez (Connery) finds him and explains. Yet in Highlander 2, MacLeod and Ramirez are rebel leaders on a distant planet hundreds of years ago. The two of them are banished to the future to be immortals. They know this, and throughout the movie reference it. When bad guys come from the past to attack MacLeod they are transported whole, adult, and fully aware. I won't even get into the totally illogical major plot line.


The acting was equally atrocious. Connery is his normal self and was the only one who played his character even somewhat well. Although I would count it as one of his worst performances. The special effects were terrible but that could just be due to the technology of the time the movie was made. I tried to watch it with that in mind, but they still seemed bad even by those standards.
While the characters in the movie seem to be able to move through time, I can not. If I could, I would go back and take the movie out of my Netflix queue and saved two hours of my life and watched a, hopefully, better movie. I give it a 2 / 10.

Surrogates (2009)

Originally written October 14, 2010 at 1:59 am

One of my favorite action stars, Bruce Willis, plays a FBI detective in this science fiction thriller set about 15 years in the future. In Surrogates, scientists have developed a way for people to live out their lives through robotic surrogates that are controlled by the user from a chair in their own homes. The surrogates look real, and transmit all the senses back to the user. The allure of being able to walk around looking like a cast member on Baywatch and not being able to be hurt etc, enticed nearly everyone world wide into living their entire lives through their surrogates. Willis gets called in when someone killed a surrogate (vandalism) but somehow managed to kill the user as well at the same time. This is the first 3 minutes of the movie. From that point on, the movie went down hill.


Most of the acting was as stiff and lifeless as you would expect from a robot. I'm sure that was probably intentional, but considering the surrogates are supposed to relay every emotion and sensation it just didn't work for me. The cinematography was acceptable however the special effects were laughable. The effects were surrogates were damaged to reveal the inner robotics was very lame considering how far special effects have come since Terminator. Men in Black, Terminator, 2, 3, 12, Sarah Connor Chronicles all did it better.


The plot was weak and very predictable. Most of the dialog screamed "This is going to come up later!" I won't even get into the totally ridiculous notions that everyone controlling robots somehow reduced crime to about 1% of historical levels, the human only reservation cities where the US Government has no authority, or how 97% of the US population could afford a fully functional synthetic android and base station to live out their lives in.


I thought about "unplugging" from Surrogates, but stuck through it vainly hoping for some reward in the form of a surprise ending, etc. Sadly there was no such luck. I would highly recommend that you not waste your own money on the film. If you want to watch it, borrow it from a buddy or catch it on Netflix. I give it a 6 / 10.

G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009)

Originally written September 29, 2010 at 6:00 am

Like nearly every man my age, I loved GI Joe when I was a little kid. Watching it was a staple of my weekend. When I saw they were making a movie of it, I had very low expectations. As such there was no way I was going to go and see it in the theater, nor was I going to pay money to rent it. Since it was a streamable movie on Netflix, I thought I would give it a try.


The movie exceeded my very low expectations, but just barely. The movie is extremely cheesy, but to be fair, so was the cartoon. The plot is far fetched and strained, but again, so were the plots in the cartoon. The choreography in the fight scenes is pretty good, but most of the action sequences are mostly CG.


For some reason they tried to add in Jackie Chan style humor to a fight between a young Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. It just didn't fit and added nothing to the movie. The physics of the movie kept changing. Toward the beginning of the movie Cobra soldiers are impervious to bullets/arrows/etc, but as the movie goes on their body armor seems to be as effective as a your standard issue US Army brown t-shirt. (SPOILER ALERT) Then there was the final sequence leading to the climax where Cobra detonates the ice above their secret underwater base. The ice sinks... Yeah.... So anyway. I won't even touch on the acting.


They totally left the movie open to a sequel. I checked and there is indeed a sequel being made. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or bad. They have a chance to redeem themselves, but there are very few instances where a sequel is better than the first installment. The writers for the sequel are the guys who wrote Zombieland so I'm guessing there will be more humor this time around.


In closing if you manage to shut your brain off and watch it as if you were 6 years old again, you will probably find it entertaining. I would discourage renting this. Let a buddy rent it, or stream it from Netflix, etc. I give it a 4.5 / 10.

District 9 (2009)

Originally written September 29, 2010 at 2:54 am

Saw District 9 was on Netflix and decided to give it a try. I'm quite happy I did. This movie has no star power to speak of, and half of the characters are CG and speak in clicks etc. However the movie is extremely enjoyable. The whole premise is such a departure from what we have come to expect in Sci-fi. As a Sci-fi fan, this was a breath of fresh air.


For starters the movie is set in Johannesburg, South Africa, instead of LA, San Francisco or New York etc. *GASP* you mean aliens might actually come to a single place on Earth and it not be in the USA? The location setting ends up working extremely well to the plot. Furthermore movie is set up like a History Channel documentary of a historical event complete with interviews etc. The movie shows the xenophobic relationship that developed after 20 years between humans and the technologically advanced aliens who happen to all be the dumb worker class of their race (think insect societal structure). When an accident occurs during the forced relocation of the aliens, the main character suddenly finds he needs their help; and they need his.


The cinematography was very well done, and the CG blended extremely well with the live action video. The storyline was compelling and well thought out. The acting of the human actors was believable, but certainly nothing that would deserve any sort of a prize. Looking up the Oscars shows that the film was nominated for Best Picture, Best Editing, Best Visual Effects, and Best Writing. However it didn't win any of the awards. It should be noted that it was up against powerhouse movies such as Avatar, The Hurt Locker and Precious.


I would highly recommend watching this film. It is well worth the cost of renting, and if you subscribe to Netflix, it is available for immediate streaming. I give it 8.5/10.

Source Code (2011)

Originally written April 22, 2011 at 1:05 am

Source Code is an action thriller about a soldier, Colter Stevens, who struggles desperately to learn the identity of a terrorist responsible for blowing up a train before the bomber strikes again. To do this, he is reliving the last eight minutes of the life of one of the passengers on the train in a kind of ADHD version of Groundhog’s Day. 


Between sessions Colter (Jake Gyllenhaal), is given direction and guidance by CPT Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) and Dr. Rudledge (Jeffrey Wright). During the sessions, Colter tries everything he can think of to determine who the bomber is, while simultaneously pursuing a romance interest in the form of Christina (Michelle Monaghan). Since the sessions are eight minutes long and memories for the other characters do not carry over, it has a “50 First Dates” feel.


Overall, the acting was fairly good, although it isn’t going to win any Oscars. Gyllenhaal gives the best performance of the group. The special effects are not bad at all, especially the fire effects. The feel of the cinematography changes throughout the movie. Normally this shows a lack of consistency when filming at multiple locations (as this film was) but it worked for this movie simply due to the nature of the plot.


When you see this movie don’t think too hard on the science. If Quantum Entanglement and Parabolic Theory are your bread and butter you are not going to be happy. But if you suspend logic, the movie is quite enjoyable. I give it 8 / 10.

Thor 3D (2011)

Originally written May 21, 2011 at 3:26 am

I was not big into comic books when I was a kid. I would have been, I’m a geek like that, but couldn’t really afford them. I did however become familiar with most of the main ones due to movies, cartoons, books and friends. When Hollywood began the big push to take comics to the silver screen I was excited. Unfortunately, many of their attempts were lackluster or worse. However, there have been some that were done well. In my opinion, Thor joins the ranks of the latter.


Thor is based on the Norse god of thunder by the same name. Much of the movie and many of the characters are based upon Norse mythology. Some things are not quite right, but it provides the framework for the movie.


In this film, Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) disobeys his father and king, Odin (played by Sir Anthony Hopkins). Odin strips Thor of his powers and weapon and banishes him from Asgard to Earth. Thor finds himself in a modern day desert where he has the good fortune to run into, or rather be run into by, scientist Jane Foster (played by Natalie Portman). Meanwhile back home, Thor’s brother Loki (a divergence from mythology) is plotting mischief (not a divergence) that could be the end of entire worlds.


The first thing that struck me about the movie was the special effects, the 3D layering, and overall cinematography, especially in the realms of Asgard and Jotunheim. The costumes and armor are exceptionally detailed. The scenes where the camera is flying through star fields and nebula, especially at the end of the credits, is amazing in 3D. I only saw this in 3D because it was the only showing still available when I got to the theater, but it was worth the extra cost this time. The movie is stunning to watch.


The acting is not bad. No one’s performance stood out as horrendous, and all the actors portrayed their character well. While not Oscar worthy, I was quite surprised with Hemsworth’s performance since this seems to be his first major role. All I have ever seen him in is a ~5 minute scene in the newest Star Trek movie where he played Captain Kirk’s father.


Some things are irritating on the reality meter (like being rendered unconscious by a Taser, etc) but for the most part anything that was unrealistic actually fit with the movie. While not perfect, the movie is pretty darn good and well worth seeing in theaters. It is rated PG 13 for violence. I give it an 8 / 10.

Green Lantern 3D (2011)

I knew of the Green Lantern comic book, but never read one. Therefore, this review is based upon the movie itself and does not reflect if the movie was true to the comic. In the Green Lantern, an intelligent ring of immense power chooses test pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) to be its bearer. The ring grants the wearer the ability to create objects out of energy. The “constructs” are limited only by the wearer’s imagination. Brick wall, anti-aircraft gun, etc. Hal joins the ranks of the Green Lanterns, a sort of intergalactic law enforcement unit tasked with fighting the forces of evil. When an ancient evil escapes its prison and begins terrorizing the universe, Hal finds himself being the only thing to stand between it, and the annihilation of Earth and eventually every living thing in the universe.

Nearly all action movies have major plot holes and moments of “well that was convenient.” Green Lantern is no exception. It is however entertaining. The protagonist, Hal, is funny, flawed, good natured and a little narcissistic. Sounds a bit like Tony Stark (Iron Man). This combination seems to fit with the modern day take on superheroes. Reynolds fills this role very well. He fits the character well and delivers some great comic banter with other characters. The graphics are pretty good, with the exception of the antagonist, Parallax, which is a sort of cloud with tentacles and a face etc. In the scenes where they blend Parallax with regular video, it just isn't lit correctly and thus looks like CG.

Green Lantern, like most of the comic book turned movie films, is like cotton candy. Big, enjoyable, fun, but not very substantial. That doesn’t mean it is bad, you just don’t buy a bag of cotton candy for dinner and expect it to fill you up. Green Lantern is not a Godfather or a The Kings Speech, but it is entertaining as far as action movies go. I give it a 7 / 10.