Sunday 19 June 2011

Green Lantern

I think we’ve all been waiting for a “Green Lantern” movie for friggin’ yonks, haven’t we? I mean, we’ve watched together as all the other comic book superheroes received the summer blockbuster treatment over the past few years, and “Green Lantern” will have been top of the list for everyone, yes? Because everyone knows about “Green Lantern,” don’t they? And everyone loves “Green Lantern.” Oh yes, everyone knows about the Green Lantern Corps and their power rings and their big planet thingy and their, uhh, their green lanterns. And they’re obviously very iconic pieces of American culture, recognised by everyone on the face of the Earth. So, surely every moviegoer on the globe has been dying to see a “Green Lantern” film on the big silver screen, to see everyone’s favourite character in the flesh and bone, and here it finally is, allowing for us all to relieve our universal anticipation once and for all. Well, phew! Fi-na-lly. I was beginning to worry for a moment there.

Okay, I’ll stop all the sarcasm. So maybe the “Green Lantern” name or concept is not as particularly well-known to Mr. and Mrs. Tax-Payer as, say, “Batman” or “Superman” (though maybe it’s more of a familiarity in the realms of the super-nerd), but surely you wouldn’t think lack of existing awareness of the concept would falter the quality of the mega-budget big-screen adaptation in any way. And you’d be right, it doesn’t, just like it didn‘t with Jon Favreau‘s “Iron Man” in 2008; the problem is that this Martin Campbell-directed summer blockbuster will do nothing but taint and bruise the name and property that is DC’s “Green Lantern,” what with how badly handled the subject material is.


Now, as you may have assumed, I have never glanced at a single page of a “Green Lantern” comic book in my life. I have never looked into the story or the characters. I have never previously read up on anything about the comic book’s history whatsoever. Heck, the only memory of the source material I have is once hearing the name at one point when I was a small boy. So I went into this film completely fresh, putting the footage from trailers and TV spots aside, and I found the concept of “Green Lantern” to be interesting. Its talk of intergalactic beings, the powers of will and fear, and power rings charged by lanterns is silly, but it’s undoubtedly interesting. However, as a narrative and as a story in general, this concept is squandered rather badly, barely anything about the film carrying the slightest impact that would make it a satisfying watch. I’m sure it works fine in 30-or-so pages of panels and speech bubbles, but in a live-action film it seemingly does not.

But what is this story that is wasted so spectacularly? Well, our protagonist is Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds, “Buried”), an irresponsible loose cannon of a test pilot who has just accidentally blown up a very expensive aircraft during a test program. That night, Hal is very unexpectedly transported via a flying green sphere to the site of  a UFO crash. Inside this mysterious craft lies a fatally wounded purple-skinned alien called Abin-Sur (Temuera Morrison, “Once Were Warriors“). The dying extraterrestrial hands Hal a ring and tells the baffled human that it chose him specifically out of all the inhabitants of planet Earth. Abin-Sur dies, and Hal speeds off with the ring and a lantern-shaped object sitting within the spacecraft.


Later, Hal is transported again, but this time to a planet called Oa. There, a walking, talking fish dude named Tomar-Re (Geoffrey Rush, “The King’s Speech”) informs Hal that he is now part of the Green Lantern Corps, a group of thousands of alien species who are essentially a police force in the vastness of space, each member assigned to their own corner of the universe to protect. They are peacekeepers, protecting the cosmos from evil using an assortment of powers, which include flying through the air and being able to construct any object they can picture in their head. It’s a pity the filmmakers couldn’t construct a decent script.

Hal seems to take this quite well, up until he decides it’s too much for him and essentially quits while training. However, he is called into battle when human scientist Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard, “An Education”) becomes infected with the DNA of the monster that killed Abin-Sur, turning him into a deformed nutcase who can control objects with his head and read the minds of others (though the filmmakers seem to forget he has this ability once it is introduced).


Oh, and the monster that killed Abin-Sur, the DNA of which is running through Hector’s veins? This is Parallax, a diabolical creature of evil that feasts on the “yellow” fear of his trembling victims (which is handy, because Parallax would scare the pants off even Darth Vader). As he munches on the terror of his prey, he becomes bigger and badder, eventually growing into a massive bulb head with a gazillion dirty, smoky tentacles dangling from his snarling skull, and Hal must face up to this dreaded beast all by himself. It’s like a greenfly going up against Bob Marley.

With this premise, the film is inevitably reliant on a ton of CGI to be mixed in with reality, as Hal hops through space and fabricates items from his imagination. And in terms of special effects, “Green Lantern” is stunning, the flying, fighting and the sights of Oa quite breathtaking; the no-doubt millions of dollars spent on the SFX have certainly been well-spent. And the post-converted 3D, while perhaps unnecessary, is fine and not particularly distracting or headache-inducing. On a visual level, “Green Lantern” is unquestionably a hit; it’s in every other area that trouble begins to brew.


The main problem is how disposable the film is as a whole. You see, “Green Lantern” suffers from the fact that it doesn’t have the slightest impact as a cinematic experience whatsoever. While you may find yourself enjoying the fight scenes and the hideous transformation of Hector Hammond, they will be long forgotten as soon as you step outside the movie theatre. I know that the initial thrills of the punching, kicking and object constructing that the movie presented meant nothing as I approached the exit of the multiplex; I began to dislike the film mere seconds after it ended. Basically, if you want to like “Green Lantern,” don’t think about the film at all when the end credits roll, or you’ll begin to feel unsatisfied and displeased, much as I was.

It’s not the absurdity of the plot itself that’s the problem; the story is convincing enough for the most part. It’s that the narrative is far too generic and unimpressive, and the villains don’t feel like they do too much. Not to spoil the movie for you, but Hector Hammond’s screen-time is cut a little too short, and we also don’t see the colossal Parallax doing anything of interest until the underwhelming climax. The character of Hal also isn’t interesting enough to sustain every other scene, in spite of Reynolds’ charming performance. And his hackneyed romance with co-worker and old flame Carol Ferris (Blake Lively, “Gossip Girl”) is one of the most insipid things I’ve seen in a film for quite some time.


I would say “Green Lantern” is more suitable for children, but on second thought it sort of isn’t. There are some rather naughty words scattered throughout, and the opening scene is pretty darn terrifying (we watch as a group of aliens get the fear literally sucked out of their bodies). So who exactly would I say “Green Lantern” is for? The truth is, I’m not really sure. Teenagers, maybe? But “Transformers” is for teenagers, and I walked out of that movie knowing I had a good time. But no matter whom its intended audience may be, “Green Lantern” is still a lacklustre piece of superhero entertainment, a shortcoming which is worsened by the presence of  Kenneth Branagh‘s “Thor” and Matthew Vaughn‘s “X-Men: First Class” earlier this year.

5/10

No comments:

Post a Comment