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...
0 comments:
Post a Comment