The Mystery of the Green Lantern

There are moments in the movie business when you look at a movie and think what on earth were they thinking?! Look back through history and we dredge up Greed, Heaven's Gate, The Last Movie, Ishtar, The Postman and anything starring Dane Cook. We can forgive the seventies and eighties as studios were run by enthusiastic 'artists' and then clueless businessmen but in the current era where money is at a premium and studios are so horrendously careful that many movies become unrecognisable from one another it is hard to accept a multi million dollar bomb. Sure there are disappointments like Watchmen, The Spirit and unmitigated disasters like Mars Need Moms (one of the most embarrassing concepts ever committed to film) but there is one movie that fascinates me just for the fact that I cannot comprehend how it even got optioned. That movie is Green Lantern.

Now Green is a bad colour in comic book movies - both adaptations of the Incredible Hulk flopped and were poor films whilst The Green Hornet scraped its money back only because of Michel Gondry and Jay Chou's involvement. The Green Lantern is whole different kettle of fish however.

Alongside Batman and Superman in the DC Comics cannon Green Lantern is a popular character with the comic book fraternity but one that inhabits a very different world to the famous Man in Tights and Caped Crusader. Set on the Planet Oa in outer space the Green Lantern Core act as guardians for the various sectors in the galaxy with the green power of will against the evil yellow power of fear that is portrayed through Parallax in the movie. I can understand a Warner Bros exec walking into a boardroom with this under his arm thinking we are onto something, lets plunder the DC cannon again before next years Man Of Steel and Dark Knight Rises. What I find hard to understand is how they committed $200m to it. That is a gargantuan amount for a new comic book movie. Hornet cost Sony $120m and had Seth Rogen as the lead so clearly Warner weren't alone in their idiocy. There is so much to look at here so before I get onto the movie itself lets have a look at the carnage:

- $200m budget means the movie needs to make minimum $400m worldwide to break even with promotion costs and over $500 to permit a sequel.

- Green Hornet was released six months earlier and led to confusion about what film was what.

- Green Lantern?? The fanboys don't fill up the multiplexes, the mass public are unlikely to think of a lantern as a superhero. And he's green...

- It's set in space. Which is fine if you have a director like James Cameron or Ridley Scott. Martin Campbell has a good track record of rebooting franchises but this project is too big for him.

- Due to mounting pressure and reports that the production was a disaster in the making Campbell botched together a terrible trailer of early scenes and non existent CGI that fuelled negative press and meant the film was burdened with a pessimistic outlook before release.

- The four minutes of footage unveiled at Comic Con briefly resurrected the film but the following trailer dissipated any anticipation as it spent half the two minutes explaining the Green Lantern Core. Warner Bros proved that they had no idea what to do with the movie in their marketing throwing money at it in desperate hope of explaining the concept instead of just bravely going for it. You don't want a trailer to be talky, you want action and signs that a story exists. The trailer tries so hard to simplify the film that in the end your left with nothing of interest.

- The movie is in 3-D, very little in the trailer suggested any need for seeing it in 3-D and the building resentment towards soaring ticket prices for 3-D left Lantern in the lurch.

Now the movie was lambasted by critics but is it really that bad? Lets take a look at what went right first of all:

Ryan Reynolds is perfectly cast in the titular role imbuing Hal Jordan with wit, swagger and humanity. It is a shame that his character fells so underdeveloped. I really enjoyed Hugh Jackman's performance in Real Steel, a deeply flawed guy but one who grows without losing his edge. He's believable. Reynolds' Jordan has some Daddy issues that mean he can't commit to love interest Carol Ferris (Blake Lively). A promising anti hero is submerged in platitudes and cliches as if Greg Berlitan and co (screenplay) were ordered to cram in every comic book convention going. More positives...hmm...well the CGI is cool when Jordan creates physical objects with his mind such as walls, weapons and a cool scene in which he conjures a race car and track in fluorescent green - although it looks like Tron Legacy and not as good. The first 45 minutes are fine, ok set up that builds a promising relationship between Lively and Reynolds. Sarsgaard is adequate as the scorned son of Tim Robbins senator. Reynolds has fine comic chops and delivers a few laughs. Only a few though.

The problems arise when assessing the whole. The second half of the movie is abject. The movie is far too short, under two hours for a new world and character is completely inadequate and if the screenwriters weren't trying to fit in all the usual plot conventions like the annoying friend, heroic speech (which is insipid) and back story to the villain (I say villain but Sarsgaard is nothing more than an Elephant Mn reject. The story is pitiful, why the ring chose Jordan is mystifying just as his character's transformation to hero is baffling. We never believe that his irritating scientific genius friend is anything other than an accessory and Blake Lively is so embarrassingly underused I am surprised she didn't sue. Lively claimed in interviews before ethe release that hr character was a feisty heroine in the Lois Lane mould, well she obviously saw a different movie because Carol Ferris is a damsel in distress throughout and fulfils little more than saying empty lines like 'You have the ability to overcome fear' whilst looking mildly bemused. Lively clearly thought this was a no-brainer but she must have detected her characters pointlessness in the script - sure they make her into the vice chairman of the Airforce but it all seems hollow and unbelievable. Nothing feels substantial, every character is flimsy and impossible to root for. Neither Earth or Oa matters because both are shoved so far back into the background that they look like a screensaver. Oa in particular is a perfect example of lazy use of CG: no movement, no change in colour and very little detail. People have a go at Michael Bay but at least he cares about his effects, peer into every corner of Dark of the Moon on Imax and there is wondrous attention to detail even if it is Skyscream's testicles...

It would have been so refreshing if Wanrer Bros had been brave and put a touch more faith in their audience to work things out for themselves instead of patronising and desecrating the source material. This isn't a safe project so why be so conservative and low key with it. The final action sequence is pitiful and over before you know it. Where's the bombast? Exploit the fact you have 3-D and $200m - don't just settle for mediocrity. And where did the money go?? Parallax looks fine but there isn't enough of 'him' and the action is limited. At least a Transformers film drips with dollars it looks every inch the high roller, Lantern resembles a drunken gambler on his last legs.

So what hould have happened?

I'd love to have seen Cameron or Scott take this on and create Oa using state of the art technology (with $200m you would have thought this was a prerequisite). I wanted to explore the planet, it felt so miniscule - we are introduced to the 'Elders', Sinestro (an obvious villain for the sequel with that name!), fish-head Tomar-Re and the aptly named Kilowog but barely get a glimpse of any other species on the planet. What do they think of a human wearing the ring? How do they live? Essentially Reynolds gets the powers, does a little training before leaving in a huff and then decides to save Earth for no ther reason than the movie needs a conclusion and he kinda wants to band Blake Lively in his green suit.

I was thinking of Guillermo Del Toro and his incredible set creation and use of make up and prosthetics that keeps the budget down. It would have benefitted the creatures on Oa greatly as they all look like holograms. I enjoy the irony that most of Lantern looks like Green screen.

What should have happened:

- Cut the needless backstory of Sarsgaard's Hector Hammond. Cut him altogether. Lets have a real villain and a genuine threat to Earth and Oa. Parallax is too abstract to be remotely bothered by so instead of dredging out a substandard Mars Attacks reject why not show some guts and create a nemesis that can stand against Hal Jordan. Keep Blake Lively bu give her some juice, some action so she isn't superfluous. Explore Jordan's commitment phobia and its links to his Dad, don't just mention it and move on. Leave the conclusion open to set the sequel on Oa and not just the Fantastic Four lite post credits 'Oh he's a bad guy in the next one'. Scrap the 3-D and make a real space epic.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Sadly Green Lantern will be remember as one of those comic book adaptation mistakes alongside Daredevil, Elektra and those other Green dude who gets unreasonably angry...

Fall - A Time For Cinema

It may be that time of year where the leaves fall and the mornings are frosty but it also signals a bright and illuminating time ahead in the enchanting landscape of cinema. September and October are the best months for film: there is the post summer blockbuster hangover so smaller pictures get more of a chance to succeed and although many hope to be considered for award season they do not force it like so many of the buzz films released around Oscar season. Award certs are most often a letdown due to them being talked up endlessly before finally landing with a whimper in auditoriums across the world. Lets look at last years nominations for Best Picture:

Black Swan - Terrific film with standout performances from Portman, Kunis and Cassel. Aronofsky on the top of his game and belated recognition was well earned. I idolise Aronofsky, Requiem For A Dream remains my favourite film but The Wrestler and The Fountain follow closely behind.

The Fighter - An average picture with very little punch or bite. The boxing scenes are tame and dull as the unconvincing Wahlberg desperately tries to keep up with method man Bale. Adams and Leo are fine but Oscar nominees???? Come on! Raging Bull this is not. Nor is it as exciting or affecting as Rocky. Aronofsky was originally tied to the project but thought it to similar to The Wrestler. Brad Pitt was in the lead role...the mind boggles at how great that could have been...

The Kings Speech - Don't get me wrong I loved this movie. Firth is well deserving of his Oscar but Best Picture? It is a wonderful family film but certainly not life affirming.

The Social Network - Fantastic film. Should have won Best Picture. A movie of our times from a great director.

Inception - A magnificent blockbuster.

Toy Story 3 - A perfect conclusion to the beloved Pixar trilogy.

The Kids Are All Right - Layered, character driven movie that moves and entertains in equal measure.

True Grit - The Coen's on form once more.

Winters Bone - Excellent indie effort with breakout performance from Jennifer Lawrence.

127 Hours - Awe-inspiring, frenetic and addictive.

Only four of the ten films listed were released around awards season and only two merited their place. Ok maybe I am being harsh on TKS but would I see it again? I really doubt it. Anyway moving on, in general the majority of films released to get recognition are most often disappointments. Fall is the time for iconic cinema. The only proof that is needed is right here...

Drive - Nicolas Winding Refn's stupendously stylish and exhilarating picture starring Ryan Gosling. Electrifying car chases, bone crunching violence and the best score of all time. Hyperbole? I had to pinch myself in the cinema, everything clicked. It was immensely satisfying and totally absorbing yet also fresh, heavily stylised and open ended. With such remarkable forward momentum in Refn's direction contrasting with the laconic mysterious Driver played by Gosling the film contains many contradictions - the plot is cliche (Driver has to save girl he loves by taking a heist) but it is done with such panache and unexpected flourishes of claret and humanity that you are hooked. All this to a sombre score from Cliff Martinez that throbs and ebbs as Driver traverses the neon streets of LA. What separates Drive from so many other 'cult' pictures (Blade Runner I am talking to you) is the depth of character portrayed. Carey Mulligan and Gosling's relationship is so subtle it is barely detectable, they share small glances, tentative smiles and gentle brushes of the hand whilst Driver drives her wordlessly around the faceless blocks of Los Angeles. An affecting and exhilarating masterpiece.

Melancholia - The return of Lars Von Trier. Forget the Hitler nonsense that was taken way out of proportion. Lars is a genius who does not care what people think, he likes to shock but there is genuine talent behind the bluster. Melancholia is a case in point, casting Kirsten Dunst as the newlywed battling crippling depression was a masterstroke. In typical Lars fashion we open with a five minute Prologue of extraordinary images that foreshadow later events set to Wagner. It doesn't quite reach the pomposity of Antichrist's Prologue but it runs a close second. It is startling cinema nonetheless. Part One follows Dunst painfully trying to stave off the pressing despair that engulfs her through her wedding reception. Here Von Trier manoeuvres the hand held camera wonderfully as he captures the familial tensions between Dunst and her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and their mother and father played with abandon by an acerbic Charlotte Rampling and a playful John Hurt. There are subplots aplenty but Dunst is the star: the camera assaults her face picking up every inflection as she tormentedly moves around the glorious grounds of the manor house and its unique 18 hole golf course - something Claire's husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) is only too keen to remind her of. Sutherland injects real humour into proceedings and loosens the film somewhat from taking itself too seriously. Part Two does little in that regard as the looming planet Melancholia approaches Earth and the impending apocalypse nears. Melancholia itself if beautifully rendered through superb CG effects, a gigantic glowing ball of glorious light and danger. Part Two is titled 'Claire' and Gainsbourg once again goes under the Von Trier treatment. Whilst Dunst becomes stronger through her despair as she accepts death, Claire struggles to cope with her fear and fretfully looks for support from her science obsessed husband, bewildered young son and the cold accepting sister. Just as he did with Dunst Von Trier doesn't let the characters breathe - they are stuck in a hellish claustrophobia that envelops the audience with them. No cutaways to news reports or events in other areas of the world, just four people in a remote country manor. By keeping it small we feel trapped with them, we sense the foreboding Melancholia and are overwhelmed by the hopelessness of it all. Dunst speaks of Earth being evil and 'No one will miss it' - I found this shattering, such pessimism is so against the usual Hollywood apocalypse fare that sees faith in God or humanity strengthened. Dunst may be suffering from severe depression but is completely calm in the midst of death. As Claire crumbles she takes on the mantle of reassuring Claire's son. The finale is staggering: Wagner raised to 11 the screen practically forces you back like a tornado leaving you stunned and shattered. The exhaustion I felt after this movie was unreal, Von Trier zaps every sense in the human body and does so without any 3-D in sight illustrating the pointlessness of the technology - I have never felt a movie so close, so suffocating that I have felt visibly shaken and drenched in every last drop of the image. A triumph.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Tomas Alfredson (Let The Right One In) directs the finest British ensemble cast outside of HP in this mood piece set in the offices of MI6 (The Circus) during the Cold War. Based on John Le Carre's novel it will inevitably gather comparisons with Alec Guiness's version for the BBC and although the confusing and sometimes dour plot to uncover the traitor amongst The Circus's ranks was better served by the BBC series, Alfredson succeeds on a whole other level. An almost monochrome palette sets the backdrop for the death of Britain and her power as the old guard of Gary Oldman, John Hurt and Colin Firth realise the world is changing and will never be the same. A fascinating watch, Oldman is a revelation as Smiley deceiving all in his wake with his largely silent exterior that hides an ice cold interior.

The Guard - John Michael McDonagh's film has clear links to his brother Martin's In Bruges; acerbic tongues, borderline humour, small town randomness and a deceptively hidden heart. Now, it never reaches the heights of Colin Farrell's career rebirth but it stands out on its own merit. This is largely down to a towering show from Brendan Gleeson as the police chief of Barna (tiny village in Galway) investigating a massive drug smuggling ring. Gleeson infuses warmth, wit and unpredictability into Sergeant Gerry Boyle: he is a character defined by Don Cheadle's FBI detective's assertion 'I can't figure out if you're really clever or just really stupid'. Cheadle and Gleeson bounce off each other brilliantly as racial jibes ping around. This is an immensely satisfying film and that is the greatest commendation you can give a movie.

Kill List - Ben Wheatley's sophomore effort is a headfuck, plain and simple. Initially appearing to be a simple kitchen sink Brit drama that then meshes into a hitmen for hire with some buddy comedy thrown in. And then. Well then it goes weird. As Jay (Neil Maskell) becomes more and more unpredictable the film drifts in and out of consciousness sucking us into a hallucinogenic state of terror. Unsettling characters flit in and out whilst strong bloody violence erupts as Jay loses control. The final twenty minutes scared the life out of me as we enter a world of Pagan rituals. An extremely effective score that whistles and moans never lets up the foreboding. Certainly the best Brit film of the year....

Of course Tyrannosaur and We Need To Talk About Kevin are released in the next fortnight so this could change but for pure ambition Kill List comes up trumps.

Cinema - The Massive Con

I recently questioned why theatre was so expensive, this was before I saw Billy Elliot on Broadway and witnessed the spectacle of a three hour show encompassing dozens of performers intricately dancing in perfectly choreographed routines whilst singing and acting. The stage design and the lighting, the orchestra, the upkeep of the glorious theatre that glowers with history and a proud sense of individuality. As many as twelve performances a week live on Broadway, in Toronto and London all year round. It is phenomenal, suddenly the steep ticket price seems rather fair, how many times can you visit the cinema and watch a three hour motion picture? And I am talking about a proper three hour picture, not Michael Bay's ludicrously long Transformers films.

I can think of a few examples; Magnolia, Once Upon A Time In The West or America for that matter and for sheer spectacle Avatar in 3D. Some may say Titanic. I would not. After frequenting the marvellous multiplexes in Sofia, Bulgaria this summer for no more than £6 I have begun to wonder how cinemas in London can charge such ludicrous prices.

Now I know London is obviously going to cost more than Bulgaria but to be almost double the ticket prices in Hong Kong, Auckland, New York and Stockholm? I could go on but my main question is: Why should we accept such poor standard screens and service when we pay more?

Lets start off with Odeon. I went to see Friends With Benefits on Sunday at Odeon Tottenham Court Road (central London) and stood for twenty minutes as the cinema failed to open until 1pm for the 1.15pm showing. I accept that cinemas earn most of their revenues from concessions such as popcorn, snacks and soft drinks but at least have a separate counter for it, instead all multiplexes cut staff and sell tickets jointly with food and drink thus a long hold up in the queues. It's a recession so cuts are necessary I hear you say. Ok. I would argue that better management would mean two members of staff dealing with tickets and one member with snacks. That was how many staff there were at Odeon on the Sunday anyway. The prices are as following.

Adult ticket - £9.15 (Monday to Thursday before 5pm) otherwise £12.30.

Child (12 or Under) - £7.50 (Monday to Thursday before 5pm) otherwise £9.60

Family (1 adult and 3 children or 2 adults 2 children) - £30 (M to Th before 5pm) otherwise £38.

I'm going to be brutally honest here; Tottenham Crt Road Odeon is average. It is not an attractive building neither is it in the vicinity of the West End. It has four screens, one large, one medium and two small. If there is someone in front of you then you are going to have problems seeing the screen but perhaps worst of all is the soundproofing; in all the screens you can hear the movie next door! Unacceptable. So during FWB (a very cool comedy) I could hear The Inbetweeners next door - Jay was busy getting bullied by a kid.

Lets move onto pricing, in particular the issue of child pricing. Apparently you stop being a kid at 12 at Odeon. Consequently they have brought in the Teen Ticket for 13 to 17 year olds. My sister who is 15 came to see FWB and was refused a Teen ticket because she had no ID (in England you do not have ID before you're 15 unless you bring your passport). After some haggling and a look at the queue the manager gave in, she would have been fine giving her an adult ticket but not a Teen. In the end things worked out but why not increase the child ticket to 14 and put teen 15 to 17 then you save the problem of under 15's seeing 15 cert pictures. Money of course. But it makes no sense, if you are 13 or 14 you can't by law see a 15 film so why should you have to pay extra to see 12 cert or under movies? But then that is nonsense too as the Teen ticket is only 20p more! To save all the hassle just let kids be kids until they are fifteen. Like they do at Cineworld Cinemas.

Ah Cineworld. The worst chain in Britain. Cineworld take self advertising to another level, buy a Coke, get the membership card (between each trailer) and then an advert on Cineworld itself talking of the experience. Wow. I want to draw attention to Shaftesbury Avenue branch of Cineworld. What is cool about Cineworld are their Earlybird prices. These used to be £6.00, sadly they have risen to £8.

Adult - £8.00 (before 5pm Monday to Friday) otherwise £12.00

Child (up to 14 years of age) - £6.90

This appears fair. The absence of a family ticket is odd as is the assertion that a 15 year old is an adult. No Teen ticket at Cineworld. So apparently my brother is an adult as he has no ID to show he is a student (£6.90 before 5pm Monday to Friday...no student tickets on weekends...). So what is he? Twice I have haggled with the obnoxious staff there eventually asking for the manager ( a weak man befitting of his pathetic staff) and managed to get my brother a child ticket. The film in question was Arrietty the Studio Ghibli animation rated U. Yes, they were trying to charge a 15 year old an adult ticket for a U cert picture! The most prominent issue with Cineworld Shaftesbury Avenue is there scheduling and pricing. They play movies before 12pm, some as early 11.15am to empty auditoriums (Arrietty for example was just us, if we had not gone the movie would have played to no-one) which raises the question, do cinemas care about film? A couple of years ago Cineworld used to charge as little as £5.50 for a film before 12pm and numbers were healthy, since the price increase to £8 this has dramatically changed. If the cinema was any good I could understand it but it makes Odeon look like the plush Empire West End. Finding a member of staff as you climb the escalator to the three floors above the ticket office is nigh on impossible making it completely possible to go and see another film for free, I know plenty who do it. And the mishaps! Oh yes lets list 'em -

Definitely Maybe - Upside down credits and out of focus picture, projectionist clearly has fallen asleep.

27 Dresses (it's not that bad...honest!) - Film stops, then continues without sound for a couple of minutes. I don't know how this is possible...

The A-Team - Movie doesn't start. Wait for ten minutes until projectionist is called, movie starts 30 minutes late. Add that to the bloated running time of the frankly dreadful movie and you really are taking the proverbial...

I can truthfully say that I have never gone to Cineworld and not had some problem. Watchdog (BBC investigative consumer programme) recently found that Cineworld charge the most for popcorn and other concessions in a survey carried out on all multiplexes. Popcorn is nearly £5. A kid of six made her own popcorn to take in but got it confiscated before going into the cinema! I always take food and drink in, ever since paying £3.50 for a medium sized Fanta at Cineworld I have steered clear of the eye watering prices.

The system in which cinemas work of course is to pay the distributor for the film for a set amount of time whilst the majority of receipts go directly to the studios thus meaning the film itself is simply a product to get people to spend money on concessions at the cinema. Managers and staff at the multiplexes are not interested in the movies they show, just the amount of popcorn they sell. None more so than Vue cinemas.

Vue is a mixed bag. Great screens, sound and picture on the one hand. Understaffed, expensive and unfriendly on the other. Vue do offer a Teen ticket for 13 -18 year olds and at the Islington Vue (North London) prices are fair with Adults paying a maximum of £11.25 and with Saver tickets throughout the week a family can go for under £20. Finchley Road in North-West London thinks it is acceptable to charge the same price as well as charging more for the family ticket despite its location and inept management.

But lets move to the West End and the hilarious Vue situated within metres of Leicester Square tube station.

Adult £13.25

Child £8.10

Student £10.70

I don't have a problem with Empire West End or Odeon Leicester Square charging similar prices as they boast the two best screens in London. What irks me with Vue is there dark and dingy cinema that boasts average screens with hard seats and budget sound. Of course tourists pay it as do many others who enjoy being fleeced.

During the recession cinema has boomed. In 2010 an MPAA report showed that in the States a family day out to the cinema was the cheapest option at $30. Compared to a NFL match that costs in the region of $300 or an NBA game at $180 it does appear to be good value. In my opinion there is no comparison to a sporting event and the thrill of seeing your team but cinema can be truly awe inspiring and for the relatively cheap price very good value.

Cinema around the rest of the UK is fairly priced, Odeon cinemas in Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff ticket prices do not exceed £9 even at peak times. The same is true for multiplexes on the outskirts of London which are generally higher quality screens and sound.

I expect to pay more if I am in central London but is it too much to ask for proper service and quality? The Curzon and Phoenix chains that are directed to the art house market show that it is possible to care for the customer and film itself, something most definitely lacking in multiplexes such as Cineworld and Vue. Curzon Soho and Mayfair boast superior sound, picture and service yet remain cheaper than Cineworld Haymarket and Shaftesbury Avenue at off-peak times, make sense of that one.

A complete overhaul is needed. For those who have spare time around midday and early afternoon prices must be dropped otherwise you lose the potential customer to enjoy another activity instead such as the gym, shopping or an extra long lunch. The industry complains of losses, piracy and dwindling box office (2011 has been a bit of a downer at the US box office) yet if they continue to rip customers off with average product and service from the exhibitors then what do they expect? We all know 3-D was simply a ploy to stop piracy and I really don't mind if the quality of the third dimension is like Avatar but to blatantly laugh in peoples faces with the pitiful excuse for 3-D that is 95% of movies out this year (Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern, Pirates 4 etc) then you really have gone too far. The current system will only make piracy worse, what needs to happen is more power has to be given to each manager of each cinema within the chain. Those managers must have enthusiasm for film as must the staff (Oxford Odeon's benefit greatly from employing students) and each manager should be able to have some freedom to change the scheduling, pricing and the general running of the cinema thereby making each branch within the large multiplex tree feel personal and dedicated to that area. Wishful thinking....?