This review is in two sections- the first part is entirely spoiler free, as there's nothing worse than hearing, or reading someones thoughts only for them to pointlessly yell "spoiler spoiler" afterwards. So, be sure to read part two only if you're happy for certain plot and dialogue points to be discussed in a bit more detail....
Part 1.
The Green Lantern is DC Comics', and more importantly to their daddy company Warner Brothers, attempt at establishing a hero to sit on the second tier below Superman and Batman. A long established character from comics history, he's also someone that hasn't been tainted by the baggage / relative failures of other characters at his level -
- Wonder Woman (where they managed to create a disasterpiece that damaged the character without anyone ever seeing it)
- The Flash (who they don't really care about too much, much to my enduring sadness, and has only ever been considered previously good enough for a not bad 90's tv series that no-one watched)
- Aquaman (he's a tough guy that can swim well....and they took the mickey out of him all the way through a series of Entourage)
etc etc.
So Green Lantern, compared to his peers, has a bit of mystique to the uninitiated, as he's been rarely utilised in media outside of comics, until this years multi million pound investment in his future. The central conceit, in a nutshell, is that a man is gifted a magic ring that can do whatever he wants if he wants it badly enough. That's basically it. There are some second tier caveats to this, but it's otherwise an extremely simple idea that, with most things, works well when executed well, and less so when not. The difficult sell that they have with this particular idea is arguably with the phrase "magic ring"....how do you sell this concept to the general public in a world where there's a level of pseudoscience to magic that we've come to expect - Harry Potter doesn't just fly, he uses a broomstick that has been charmed. Audiences have become a little bit more sophisticated nowadays, maybe not in terms of look or smell or actions, but at least in terms of what they expect of a film in terms of plot and how it's presented.
They seem to have decided that the concept of willpower was either too confusing or not "sexy" enough, and so something that is quite a central notion in the comics is sidelined - not that that's necessarily a new, or a bad thing for such adaptations, but I'd argue that their replacement idea isn't actually anything any better. Where the Hal Jordan of the comics is someone who is explicitly picked because he has an indomitable force of will, etc, etc, here the emphasis is more on the nature of fear, fearlessness and how it can be overcome. I can see why they went down this route - quite frankly, it's a much easier sell as an inspirational kids parable if you're encouraging kids to be fearless rather than being cocky, strong willed little tykes, after all.
Ryan Reynolds does a decent job as Hal Jordan, providing as much vulnerability to a character that seems has been written with very little in the actual plot. He should also get great kudos for keeping it as real as possible against a backdrop of a whole load of bluescreen. Mark Strong, as Sinestro, seems to have delivered an excellent performance, although large parts of it seem to have ended up being left on the cutting room floor....more on which in part 2. Blake Lively manages to defy her name by giving a limp performance that doesn't really register. Since part of the function of her character's role seems to be humanising Hal Jordan's character, this hurts the film. Peter Skarsgaard does as good a job as he can, although again he is hamstrung by some inconsistencies in the plot. Angela Basset is terrific as Amanda Waller and we can only hope that she pops up in other DC films, much like Samuel L Jackson has done for the Marvel films....
I watched the film in 2D (hopefully this 3D fad will disappear soon and they'll stop trying to add an extra dimension to a medium that doesn't need or successfully accomodate one?), and it looked pretty enough. The outer space elements of it were perhaps a little too dark, but there was plenty of detail in the digita imagery that made up for it.
On a final note, knowing that DC Comics may be gearing towards the same kind of ensemble "Justice League" film that their rivals Marvel will be producing in 2012 with "The Avengers" (no matter how much they deny it), it's very hard to imagine the Green Lantern from this film having anything to do with Christian Bale's Batman....it'd be a bit like Bugs Bunny and Rambo discussing their days at the office...
Verdict: This film only barely achieves pass marks because of the effort displayed by some of the cast, and the effects crew. Much of the film is sorely lacking, and the standard has been set much higher than this now with other recent comic book efforts .... 57%
OK - that's the spoiler free part of the review, what follows below is a little bit more detail, so only read if you're ready to know....
Part 2....
This is a film that suffers badly from not really knowing on what it wants to be - is it a space adventure featuring a guy with superpowers, is it a superhero film? A film about the nature of friendship? And how much prior knowledge are we expected to have? I have a vague working knowledge of the mythos of Green Lantern, so when the film refers to the various sectors that the Lanterns police, I have a slight clue what they're talking about. When they talk about how Hal's initial green constructs are weak because he isn't channelling his focus properly, I can follow along fine. I can't see this being anything other than outright bewildering to the average Joe who is just looking for some entertainment though.
The character of Hal Jordan, is, Ryan Reynolds charismatic portrayal aside, thoroughly unlikeable in this film. There is nothing to link the cocky, reckless arrogant test pilot to the audience, and he is written without any discernible vulnerability. His origin story is pretty faithfully rendered, which unfortunately only seems to hamper his development - here is yet another DC comics character who has parental loss issues (just like Superman, just like Batman), and so it only serves to make his character seem that bit more like a cypher. It seems that certain parts of the film that may have helped to warm the character up have been removed for the film for reasons we can only guess at - time? tone? Who knows.
The film seems to have been cut strangely in parts with pieces of the story taking jumps or being ignored further down the line. There's a cute scene with Hal Jordan and his nephew, which initially helps to humanise Hal's character (as the typical "young, cocky loner" type, he really needs a bit of familial presence to establish that he, you know, *does care* a little but) that leads to nothing further down the line. Bewilderingly enough, I know that there was an intended second part to this plot thread because it's used in one of the trailers for the film! It's not uncommon for filmmakers to cut out pieces of plot, but it's difficult to understand why they did so in this case as it seemed like a storyline that could have been helpful to the plot.
Another plot line that seems to have suffered from overeager cutting is that of the friendship between Hector Hammond, Hal Jordan and Carol Ferris - it's not mentioned until halfway through the film, at which point we're suddenly meant to care about the fact that Hector always felt like the odd one out in the triumvirate. Couldn't they have even kept a couple of lines in leading up to this? Again, it seems like the best parts of the film were the bits they actually removed, as I don't doubt that Peter Skarsgaard could have got his teeth into this plot line and given the whole thing a bit more resonance. Ah well.
The Sinestro character is pretty badly used in the film - starting out as someone that doubts Hal Jordans worthiness and seems to embody everything that a Green Lantern can be, his character takes a strange turn halfway through in one scene where he's obsessed with creating a weapon that can destroy Parralax, their nemesis. Which is then completely forgotten by the end of the film. There is actually a scene where he presents the ring to the Guardians, but Hal Jordan turns up, and the whole idea of this incredibly dangerous weapon that they have just created is simply forgotten. Did he put it in a drawer for safe keeping? Did the Guardians confiscate it from him? Ah well! by the end of the film, when he's decided that Hal Jordan is actually a good guy after all! But! After the credits, there's a gratuitous scene which shows that his obsession hasn't been forgotten after all....which begs the question, why not just show this in the film itself, as it would have given the character more depth and Mark Strong much more to work with? Again, it seems like there were some cuts made that meant that this storyline was eviscerated for hard to decipher reasons.
DC/Warners got a few things right though, lets give credit where it's due - Ryan Reynolds did a good job, Mark Strong seemed to do a good job, and there's potential in here. With the Batman franchise apparently to be rebooted after "The Dark Knight Rises" in 2012, it would seem that a "Justice League" film probably wouldn't happen until after that anyway - which would give Warners enough time to get rid of the chaff from this film and reboot it too....
