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.
Showing posts with label self-exploration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-exploration. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
DRAMA TUESDAY: SOMEWHERE (2010)
Title: SOMEWHERE (2010)
Magic exists in movies, in variable forms. Even within a directors oeuvre. While she covers some of the same ground in "Lost in Translation", the magic of "Somewhere", swells differently. Long languid shots without much dialogue, much like it's character, the film is searching something, even for a moment of true clarity. We often think of all the glitz and glamor that come with celebrity. In recent years, and the blur of the internet, we've come to see their raw and exposed side for their darker moments. What gets left on the floor, is their life. Sometimes without answers, often without meaning, even to themselves, they exist, not for themselves, but some innate drive. Until the time comes, that they, or someone else, put them out to pasture.
Stephen Dorff excels at the thankless task of showing people that he can actually act. Restrained, soulful, and lost, Dorff takes one of the finer qualities of an actor and puts it on display. The ability to convey what one is thinking, without telling you, directly to your face. Things take an upturn of sorts, possibly for the better when his 11 year old daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning) spends sometime with him, after his ex-wife decides she needs to "take sometime" for herself.
The greatest thing a film can do, is make it seem as if nothing is happening. No lessons learned, no grand standing, no action beats, no promises of getting better. Not everything is fixed in the confines of a movie. Often you get a slice of life. Some insight to the goings on of a person, and just when you think you know where things or going, or you start to care, or wonder "what if?".....the screen fades to black. To me the films i enjoy, or more so respect, are the ones I find myself thinking of days latter. This shot. This look. This piece of music. This line. A director can be respected for giving it their all, even if they fall short. You can applaud them. Too many times, do people feel that everything they do has to have a huge monetary groundswell. Just because you made a lot of money, you did good. In a sense, just because it was successful, doesn't mean you succeed.
The movie itself is hard to fit into a traditional review. Certainly it can be said that it's "love it or hate it" kind of film. It's a film you have to see and experience what it does to you. Not everyone will feel something, lot's will simply find themselves annoyed or bored. It's a special kind of movie that, no matter what, you have some feeling towards it, good or bad, ambivalence doesn't enter into this equation. The synopsis? Short and simple. Dorff is an actor inbetween projects after his latest film. He spends his time in a well known Hollywood hotel, drinking, eating, falling asleep to twin pole-dancers in his room, sleeping with anyone who comes his way. He brakes his wrist foolishly. Spends time with his daughter before she goes, taking her to italy for the opening of his movie and an award ceremony. There may be growth, there may be acceptance.
Regardless of what you feel about the movie, no one can fault Sofia Coppola for her determination as a female director, to make the kind of film she wants,without compromising a thing. Certainly a trait she got from her father,propelling him to much success, and one can only hope she passes down, to the next generation.
****1/2 out of *****
Magic exists in movies, in variable forms. Even within a directors oeuvre. While she covers some of the same ground in "Lost in Translation", the magic of "Somewhere", swells differently. Long languid shots without much dialogue, much like it's character, the film is searching something, even for a moment of true clarity. We often think of all the glitz and glamor that come with celebrity. In recent years, and the blur of the internet, we've come to see their raw and exposed side for their darker moments. What gets left on the floor, is their life. Sometimes without answers, often without meaning, even to themselves, they exist, not for themselves, but some innate drive. Until the time comes, that they, or someone else, put them out to pasture.
Stephen Dorff excels at the thankless task of showing people that he can actually act. Restrained, soulful, and lost, Dorff takes one of the finer qualities of an actor and puts it on display. The ability to convey what one is thinking, without telling you, directly to your face. Things take an upturn of sorts, possibly for the better when his 11 year old daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning) spends sometime with him, after his ex-wife decides she needs to "take sometime" for herself.
The greatest thing a film can do, is make it seem as if nothing is happening. No lessons learned, no grand standing, no action beats, no promises of getting better. Not everything is fixed in the confines of a movie. Often you get a slice of life. Some insight to the goings on of a person, and just when you think you know where things or going, or you start to care, or wonder "what if?".....the screen fades to black. To me the films i enjoy, or more so respect, are the ones I find myself thinking of days latter. This shot. This look. This piece of music. This line. A director can be respected for giving it their all, even if they fall short. You can applaud them. Too many times, do people feel that everything they do has to have a huge monetary groundswell. Just because you made a lot of money, you did good. In a sense, just because it was successful, doesn't mean you succeed.
The movie itself is hard to fit into a traditional review. Certainly it can be said that it's "love it or hate it" kind of film. It's a film you have to see and experience what it does to you. Not everyone will feel something, lot's will simply find themselves annoyed or bored. It's a special kind of movie that, no matter what, you have some feeling towards it, good or bad, ambivalence doesn't enter into this equation. The synopsis? Short and simple. Dorff is an actor inbetween projects after his latest film. He spends his time in a well known Hollywood hotel, drinking, eating, falling asleep to twin pole-dancers in his room, sleeping with anyone who comes his way. He brakes his wrist foolishly. Spends time with his daughter before she goes, taking her to italy for the opening of his movie and an award ceremony. There may be growth, there may be acceptance.
Regardless of what you feel about the movie, no one can fault Sofia Coppola for her determination as a female director, to make the kind of film she wants,without compromising a thing. Certainly a trait she got from her father,propelling him to much success, and one can only hope she passes down, to the next generation.
****1/2 out of *****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)