Green Lantern

[cinemabon]

“Green Lantern” directed by Martin Campbell

In the early 1960’s, when my best friend and I were mostly into Marvel Comics, I crossed the line over into the DC world by reading comics about a new hero who would become my private hero, Green Lantern. I liked the idea he could use his ring in a creative way: making shapes that basically saved people’s lives. The people at DC soon discovered they had a large following behind Superman, Batman, and Flash. Still, I liked Green Lantern and collected many of the comics.

Hollywood of the 21st Century has entered the world of CGI and 3D and they are not looking backward. Green Lantern is all grown up and along with that, all the vulgarities which sell good box office appealing to the late teen and early twenties crowd. So nothing that resembled the lovable character from my childhood remotely exists in this latest version, and perhaps that a good thing. Green Lantern is more sophisticated, his love interest more sincere, his friendship is funnier and more open. The mask thing just doesn’t work any longer. The girlfriend sees right through it (a very funny scene), and the intensity of the drama has far more depth than a superhero usually requires.

The time is slightly in the future. The jet aircraft have technology that surpasses our current level. A test pilot proves man can still outsmart machine in a one on one war game that starts the film. At the same time, a parallel plot speaks of alien worlds under attack from a growing galactic menace in the form of a large rocky head with tentacles that spouts yellow light from its mouth. Parallax, once a guardian, now uses fear to gobble up worlds and gain power. He is our villain in this very two dimensional philosophical discourse. The lesson being: we can overcome our fears with determination to do better – simple rules for super hero films that require little or no logic in their execution. When a Green Lantern crashes on Earth, he tells his ring to find a worthy candidate. That leads to our pilot who is whisked away one night to the Green Lantern planet. He has the same “I’m new with this power so I’m comically clumsy” scenes we see in so many similar pictures. Add to the mix that our pilot, Hal Jordon (Ryan Reynolds) has a love interest, Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) that always seems too vulnerable and you have a story mix as old as comic books themselves. As is always the case in these movies, the villain uses the girl to get to the guy.

The film is not entirely predictable and Campbell uses the screen well with good camera placement making each scene enjoyable to watch. However, the film relies heavily on CGI to deliver the goods. The Green Lantern suit often appears like goo applied over the top of bodies, although in the multiple character scenes, Reynolds has his eyes lined up properly. While I’ve seen plenty of worse offerings, such as the miserable Green Hornet fiasco, Green Lantern is not completely unsatisfying and will no doubt please a younger crowd used to being hit over the head with special effects.

I saw it in 3D and found this version difficult to watch because the theater involved did not have the digital version. Therefore, the film did not always match up and the audience had the “right eye black frame” effect, which places a faint black edge around the image in the right eye and throws off the full screen effect. So this may have added to why I was annoyed with the presentation. Seems the theater is more interested in “Transformers” and “Harry Potter” which had previously booked the digital theaters. So goes distribution deals that can make or break a film. Still, I wish Green Lantern well. I liked the character as a kid and Ryan Reynolds does a good job emoting us into temporary suspended belief (better than most). Recommended for those who like lots of CGI and your happy ending scenario.

[Chris Knipp]

There have been so many comic book superhero movies by now it's hard to find a new angle. For a review, I mean. My version (seen this afternoon) was easier on the eyes than yours, because I deliberately avoided 3D for regular 2D format, which looked bright and had plenty of depth. I would agree it's not bad and Reynolds is fine (but I'd recommend him more in Buried). The big critics seem to have been quite hard on this, otherwise how could it have a Metacritic rating of 40?! I guess they are just burnt out. The NYTimes critic (the only review I've read so far) says that for a $150 million movie it looks "chintzy" (it didn't to me) and went on about how the little Guardians look like they need Metamucil and look like the early Israeli leader David Ben Gurion. I don't think that occurred to anybody else in the USA, and adds little to my understanding of the movie. It really looked mainly like a $150 million movie version of a comic book to me. Silly, perhaps, but it achieved what it set out to do.

[Johann]

Green Lantern does not live up to expectations I think.
I've seen the trailer a zillion times and I'm actually considering waiting for the DVD.

Ryan Reynolds just doesn't work for me in this role. I just can't believe in him enough.
I need to believe in Hal Jordan 100%.
If he's the weak link, then God help you.
The costume bothers the shit out of me too- I agree with cinemabon that the suit looks like goo.
WTF is up with that?
Every other Green Lantern in the film looks great. Why did they fuck around with the main character!?!?
You can tell it's CGI overload, but I forgive that sometimes, such as I do for the equally loved and hated Transformers series.
I never had Transformers toys as a kid, nor did I watch the cartoon. But bubba, these Transformers movies are real guilty pleasures for me.
I'm not even a Transformers fan! I just love the SCALE of the insane CGI.
Michael Bay is a scourge to some people, I totally get that.
I understand the hatred for "hack" Bay- he's got some serious turkeys in his canon. But when it comes to delivering the special effects goods, he does it. Does it awesome. You can't argue with the CGI, Mang.

As for Green Lantern, was it really $150 million to make?
Just based on the trailer I think Martin Campbell could've done much better with this.
I'm getting a Starman/Rocketeer vibe from this and it shouldn't be that way.
THE DARK KNIGHT set the bar for DC comics characters and how they should be treated on the big screen.
If you can't meet that level of craft then maybe you shouldn't be making the movie.

[Chris Knipp]

You are lucky to have watched only the trailer. Stop there. Your displeasure with Ryan Reynolds was expressed earlier, and his baby face indeed makes him a dubious superhero, though his hunky physique and high energy level go the other way. Anyway your earlier suggestion of Cilive Owen was pretty far off for the story content. Someone young and malleable was needed, and for a movie, a cute hunk to please the ladies. Reynolds is great in the early scenes and in any moment that is meant to be humorous. Manohla Dargis began with expressing like you incredulity that this is what you get for $150 million. But she and you don't seem to realize what fancy CGI costs nowadays. Comic books and comic book effects are cheesy, but to achieve them on the screen is a big challenge because these are things and people moving around, not just drawings.

David Denby reviews (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2011/06/27/110627crci_cinema_denby) Super 8, X-Men First Class and Green Lantern together ("Anything Goes: How Summer Went Digital") and it's a thoughtful statement about the way CGI undermines story content in film. He's right that the kids' movie "The Case" in Super 8 is better than the movie itself.

My feeling is also that Green Lantern hasn't enough of a story. Not enough dragons to slay, and it's hard to care about the dragons.

I can see how CGI and comic book stories are a marriage made in heaven for a ruthlessly bottom-line oriented film industry and a dumb and dumber mainstream audience. But I cannot understand grown men delighting in comic book movies. I loved comic books, and I used to pour over them so long I'd get nauseous. I even acquired a knowledge of some literary pop hits by reading all the Classics Illustrated comics series. I loved "Crime Does Not Pay" with its thinly veiled glorification of violence, and delighted in oddball series like "The Spirit" and "Plastic Man," which have apparently nevre made it onto the screen. But all that ended when I was twelve because there were too many good real books to read at home and at the library, and I never went back. As Denby says, the content of animated films is another story.

I have not seen X-Men, the new one, but there are positive reports. However that series has left me cold from the get-go. Super 8 ruins what it has, but it's still surely the best of the three for it's few moments of nostalgia.

[cinemabon]

The whole super hero thing is the money wagon to which Hollywood profiteers have hitched their wagon. Of the twenty or so films made from comic book super heroes, about sixteen have made some serious money, enough to attrack investors from India and China with big bucks to roll. Nearly half of the "blockbuster" fare being offered in the next two years receives most of its funding from Delhi and Hong Kong.

Dragons or not, they intend to cram as much noise and CGI down our throats as we can stomach. I can only say I am supremely disappointed. This will be my last review of any super hero movie this year, X-men, Transformers, and Thor included. I'm sorry I wasted my time on this one. My childhood love for Green Lantern is as vanquished as my hope Santa Claus won't forget me in six months.

So much for childhood and lumps of coal in my movie stocking.

[Chris Knipp]

To be honest I never heard of Green Lantern. These superheros are all so similar. They were already back in the Forties. Thor might be amusing. I've thought of seeing it. It's still showing.

[Johann]

A friend told me to watch Green Lantern on the big screen. He said it was fantastic and that it's worth it for Killawog and Sinestro alone.
So I think I might have to trek to a theatre.

[Chris Knipp]

The critics may mean nothing to you but here are the ratings from Metacritic:

Green Lantern 39
Thor 58
X-Men: First Class 65

I have seen all three and that is exactly how I would rate them in relation to each other. I saw Green Lantern but was so bored I didn't write a review. Thor had good stuff in it and the three principals are fine, Chris, Nathalie, and Anthony. X-Men: First Class was really enjoyable and well-written, with a fine cast. Green Lantern is way below the others. But by all means go and see it. Just don't come complaining to me -- or cinembon -- if you're not so delighted by it. Remember how much you disapproved of the choice of Ryan Reynolds.

[Johann]

Hmm.

very low rating there.
What to do?
Should I save my 13 bucks?
Transformers a better choice?

I'll see if X-Men: FIRST CLASS is screening somewhere in town

[Chris Knipp]

Transformers: Dark of the Moon 42

Just a little up from Green Lantern. The other two are better. Unless you have a personal reason or want to thumb your nose at the critics, best to avoid anything below the fifties on Metacritic. Fifties can be okay. Unless you're doing research for a "worst movies of 2011" list.

[Johann]

:)

Will consider it. Not sure what to see...

[cinemabon]

Chris, I'm shocked! I'm on vacation and check in on my favorite website: filmleaf.net - when I see the most respected critic in our group going to see such trash as Green Lantern and Transformers? What's next? Direct to DVD releases? Please Chris, you must not lower your standards. Leave such formula plots to those of us with no moral standing in the critical community. I have nothing to lose reviewing Harry Potter or James Bond. Whereas, your street cred may come into question!

[Chris Knipp]

Cinemabon,

You're probably kidding, but anyway thanks for your concern about my moral standing in the critic community. Reviewing summer blockbusters is all in a day's work -- when it's summer. There is other stuff. I recently reviewed The Trip, Beginners, Buck, Terri, Mr. Nice, and shortly I'll be writing about that French Holocaust film Sarah's Key. Those six aren't blockbusters. If you scroll through the Forums here you'll find my reviews of them.

You'll perhaps be disappointed to know that the NYTimes' chief critic A.O. Scott reviewed Transformers: Dark of the Moon this week, and so does Anthony Lane of The New Yorker. Manohla Dargis, the Times' co-chief reviewer, took on The Green Lantern for the Times, and David Denby did the job for The New Yorker. I don't have anybody to spell me like that, I passed on writing about The Green Lantern, though I did watch it. I wrote something about both Thor and X-Men: First Class and can't say it killed me. This isn't a hard job. I quite liked this X-Men, and Thor had moments. The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation, but not me.

Direct to DVD releases sounds like a great idea. Actually I watched one just the other day. They don't necessarily receive that fate because of lack of merit. it's tough to get distribution. On one or two websites you can watch indie films that don't even get into solid form at all, and that may be the cutting edge. But I need to get out of the house.

[Johann]

Word.

(To both).
LOL

Ebert reviews everything under the sun. What's his level of street cred?
Perp?
or just your run-of-the-mill deliquent?

[Chris Knipp]

Everybody doesn't review as many movies as Ebert but they all review everything. It's not an elitist thing. The big movies have to be reviewed by the big guys regardless of merit or artiness level.

[tabuno]

Unlike Tom Cruise in Top Gun (1986), Ryan Reynolds' character is presented as a genuine human being that isn't scripted over the top, melodramatic two-dimensional character. Even though Hal Jordan (Reynolds) is the masculine over the top narcissist, this character maintains a delicate much more complex and even somewhat underplayed character making the star attraction even more acceptable and believable. Unlike Batman movies, unlike almost every other superhero, Hal is authentic in his nature. Even Peter Skarsgaard as Hector Hammond is the movie's nemesis is given a believable character development unlike those found in Spiderman (2002) and Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborn. The fantastic otherworldly set designs are superior in their innovative vision that sets it apart from Avatar (2009), Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (1999). What is accomplished is that Ryan Reynold's humor originates from not comedic nature, but just from the more difficult nature of events and circumstances and retaining the character that he is making this movie even more balanced and mature. There are great emotive subplots going on here that aren't exploited and there is an immediate harshness unlike Spiderman that aren't unwieldy or saccharin. Only three technical, but small weaknesses earlier in the movie became apparent, the unnecessary Star Gate (1994) motiff, the reverse alien leg design from The Arrival (1996), and the incongruity of Reynold's character receiving universal knowledge but still having to ask questions. Overall, this is a great fusion of less known superhero but as such it brings with it a potent and serious punch to this genre.

[Chris Knipp]

As I've pointed out earlier citing, and agreeing with, the Metacritic relative ratings, Green Lantern (39) ranks well below Thor (58) in quality, and Thor well below X-Men: First Class (65). Super 8 (72) was rated far above them all, for a human quality which, however, in my view fails to be sustained throughout the film, which gives in to the familiar CGI overkill when it degenerates (for all its many borrowings, some of which you cite) into an alien-monster-wrecks-the-town finale much like Thor's, but Thor's is clearer and more satisfying. In that sense Super 8 is the greatest disappointment of all, and X-Men provides more unalloyed fun, though it is surely flawed, feeding its franchise as a prequel/reboot and marked by some tasty acting turns and mutant coming of age sequences. Compare these to Iron Man (79), though Iron Man 2 (57) was much less well received. Or consider The Dark Knight (82) and Inception (74) and you'll see that critically speaking, the summer hasn't given us a comic book blockbuster to write home about. I'm determined to catch all the blockbusters this summer so I'm looking forward with hope to Captain America.

Meanwhile, tonight Harry Potter, whose fan base wipes away all the others, blew all these away with a complicated, grand piece of popular moviemaking (Harry Pottter the Last: Metacritic 87). And I was there, in the Loews Metreon iMax theater in San Francisco, with a packed house applauding the more epic sequences. Truly, an audience can make a show. You should listen to a live Umm Kalsoum performance.

[tabuno]

While I am in a position to comment on Harry Potter having seen it Wednesday at a special preview, I'm going to allow that honor to one of the respectable members of this site. Nevertheless, I shall be one of those in the minority that wasn't as impressed with all the hype and film critics and record-breaking numbers out there. I miss the original magical charm of the series.