Title: Green Lantern (2011)
Cinema is such an interesting field. As cinephiles it is very easy to get caught up with the changing of a guard, that we become complacent, spoiled if you will, with high quality fare. So it should come to no surprise, that while not a horrendous effort, the big screen debut of "The Green Lantern" is seen as nothing more mediocre, annoying at best.
The pieces all seem to be in place, engaging lead (Ryan Reynolds, slightly checking back into his "Van Wilder" days here), super-powers (a ring that makes hard-light constructs), epic mythology (OA is right there, several times), big special effects set pieces (true the effects are rather lackluster, but still). The culprit at hand here is two-fold sadly; it lacks a menacing antagonist, and has no true threat to our hero, let alone the universe. Essentially, DC decided to take 15 steps back (see: years) in it's superhero effort, and hope that it could ride the wave of everything surrounding it. If you missed the reference before, I was pointing out that most DC efforts not including a gravely voiced half detective/half ninja, named after a nocturnal animal, usually see a main threat as an almost crashing plane or helicopter. This is 2011, even an 11 month old child would expect better. Then again this is an origin story in it's truest fashion, one that still believes that cribbing from Campbell's monomyth is neither trite or overdone. Beyond even the quibbles with narrative, the film finds many instances to stop itself in it's tracks. Literally, there are at least 4 different scenes that follow action beats, which threaten to derail the entire film. Yes, the marketing analysts decided that Blake Lively needed more screen time (apparently to wear a dress and or push-up bra), but she essentially has no purpose to be wedged into the already stuffy proceedings. A lot of that blame can be placed on the 5 screenwriters & director Martin Campbell. Campbell, has a string of successes making mainstream films more entertaining than they should in GoldenEye, Casino Royale (2006), Mask of Zorro and recently Edge of Darkness under. The transition to comic book sci-fi could easily be a detractor, though most of that works despite itself. Truth be told, many of the films faults are the same ones shared by another superhero venture from the '11 summer slot, THOR. The difference between the films is that THOR coasts along with it's performances, as well as a pervading aura of "cool". When we are spending time on OA, meeting a few of the Lantern Corps best, and being handed a lot of mythology, the film feels like something special, and if they manage to make a sequel with a few tweaks behind the scenes, it could be worth your money. It's difficult to say that, because you shouldn't have to slog through a so-so film to get to a great one. Most of those films find themselves dead in the water, as the detractors come forward, picking apart all their grievances. Only in extreme cases, mostly those that involve large large profit margins, does a "next" film get picked up.
For a completely different argument, I humbly submit Green Lantern: First Flight (2009) as exhibit B-Q. Clocking in at a slim 77 minutes, the animated feature from DCAU (DC Animated Universe), comes an origin story of Hal Jordan, that is funnier, more action packed, with more heart, and a talented cast that rivals that of it's Big Screen brethren. Sure it feels crammed as well, but at 30 minutes less than the live-action venture, that's forgivable.
Green Lantern (2011) feels like it's trying to build a foundation for a bigger world without giving much reason to care. There are a few hints, and references to a possible DC Universe, but unlike the current MARVEL fiasco (seriously, enough with S.H.E.I.L.D.), it's a name dropped here,a background shot there, and a total waste of Angela Bassett*.
All these ideas again brings me back to the statement of being spoiled. Green Lantern is a perfectly solid film, if it were made between 1997 - 2001. Take out out a feel braking moments, and there is a film that the "Fantastic Four" audience would eat up. As film-goers we are getting to a point where we expect more from even the most basic of Superhero films. We want to quake in our boots at the galactic threat. We want to cheer as our hero lays the beat down on whomever gets in their way. We want to laugh as the side-kick hops in at the last minute, apologizing for their tardiness. More than anything, we want to be engaged by the events upon the screen. We want to feel a connection to the characters, because they are endearing, because they are assholes, but mostly because the people behind the picture took a few moments to establish characters over cliches. It can only be hoped that moving forward, Super Hero films try to grow with the audience that is watching them. Otherwise I assure you, we'll end up with an Aquaman film, and that's when I'll hang up my hat.
** out of *****
*- Wikipedia Amanda Waller to see how important a character she actually is in the DC Universe, as well as her portrayal in other media.
No comments:
Post a Comment