The Glade 4.0

Whether it's better than Rise of the Most Awkward Movie Title of the Year of the Apes, I couldn't tell you, as I haven't seen it.

FTFY.

I think we all need to stop settling for less. YMMV. IMO, "I got what I expected" isn't as good a defense as I once thought it was. I'm beginning to think I'm just setting the bar lower if I keep my expectations low.

I think we all need to stop settling for less. YMMV. IMO, "I got what I expected" isn't as good a defense as I once thought it was. I'm beginning to think I'm just setting the bar lower if I keep my expectations low.

If there was even an outside chance of you caring about this movie based on your already established love of the comic book source material or even just the progressively more interesting trailers that have been released over the last few months, then you've already likely read a half-dozen or more reviews of this film that have warned you to stay far, far away from GREEN LANTERN. I have not read any reviews of this film, but I've seen the headlines, so I'm aware of somewhat-justified piling on this film has received. But let me warn you about some terminology that you may stumble upon variation of while reading any positive reaction to this film.

"It's not perfect." No ****. Here's a newsflash: no film is perfect. This is an empty statement that critics and people use to mean "This movie is equal to or less than 50 percent ****."

"It good for what it is." Wait a second. If the movie is ****, are you saying it's good ****? In certain circles, this may be considered the ultimate slam on any movie. What I think this also empty statement is that the film isn't designated High Art, so it should be given a pass for its shortcomings on elements like plot and character development. My response: Bullshit. Every movie should strive to be great, and just because a film is designated a summer blockbuster or somehow feeding into the pop culture doesn't mean it gets to skate by in areas that wouldn't have cost any extra money to get right.

"I didn't hate it." Gee, aren't you generous. Guess what folks, you aren't supposed to hate it. This statement is not a compliment. The mission of the filmmakers was not to construct a movie that you didn't hate. You either liked it or you didn't. This statement reminds me of another favorite, "My expectations were low, therefore [something positive]." Again, not really a rousing endorsement. Just because a film met or didn't meet your expectations isn't really a gauge of its quality. Ideally, you walk into every film with neutral expectations (which is not the same as no expectations); let the film guide you through its good and bad moments on its own merits. I realize we all bring a certain level of expectational baggage into every film, but at least allow a movie to be something different than what you thought. Just because a movie is different from what you thought it would be doesn't mean it's bad; it's just unexpected, which is often quite fun.

I've seen other people comment disparagingly on the title; I'm wondering what all the fuss is about. It's not like it's out of the ordinary for the franchise.

I've seen other people comment disparagingly on the title; I'm wondering what all the fuss is about. It's not like it's out of the ordinary for the franchise.

From what I understand, the movie was going to originally be called "Caesar" but then they were forced to change it. So they called it "Rise of the Apes." But then they wanted to make sure they drew in the nostalgic crowd and that there were no misconceptions. So a final name change was mandated stupid.

This is something I've said for a long time. From an AICN review of Green Lantern:

Let's put it this way: when more than half of your title's words are "of the", you're doing it wrong. Exemptions get made for titles that only fail this test because of a leading "The."