My second take on a comic book movie involves perhaps one of the most critically- and commercially-disappointing films in the last two years; Warner Bros.’ Green Lantern. Directed by Martin Campbell, who previously helmed the box office smash Casino Royale (itself, a reboot of the James Bond 007 franchise) as well as the Zorro franchise, The Mask of Zorro and The Legend of Zorro, the film adaptation of the Emerald Crusader has left, to many, a bad taste in the mouth, so to speak.
In realm of comics, Green Lantern stands to be one of the most popular and powerful, if not the most powerful character created. His ring is a conduit of the green energy of will power, thus his powers are only limited by his will and imagination. The development into film of the character/s involved in the comic has been widely anticipated, yet when the movie came out, fans became disappointed.
It was said that the studio executives are banking on the success of the movie as their cornerstone to build the much awaited “Justice League” movie, but when the results came out, they quickly shelved the idea (it was only when its rival Marvel Studios released its blockbuster cinematic universe in “The Avengers” that they started to re-plan on the JL movie).But instead of Green Lantern, and with Christopher Nolan’s contention that his Batman trilogy will never be part of a shared universe, the execs are keeping their fingers crossed that the Zach Snyder-helmed Man of Steel will do extremely well at the box office and thus be their new building block. For synopsis of the film and a background on the character and the comic please refer to Wikipedia links.
Strengths and Weaknesses
When I first heard and read the displeasure of a lot of viewing public, particularly the hard-to-please fanboys, I could not believe it. I wanted to see in the theater this new comic book movie with which the review-aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, gave a very low 27% approval rating. Did the movie fail in its expectations? Was it all just hype? I searched and browsed at the other review sites and they speak the same language. The Green Lantern movie was a disappointment.
It took me quite time to have a copy of both the theatrical and blue ray versions of the film. The blue ray include extended version, giving us an insight of the relationship between Hal, Carol, and Hector, as well as the view of the use of fear by the villain Parallax. Still after watching both versions a few times over, despite the hate, I enjoyed the film, and I thought the hate was way over the edge.
Like all films, there are good and bad points in it. Let me first state the good ones.
1. CGI use. The graphics were neatly done, The emphasis on energy was established seamlessly. Constructs were done as though you are inside the comic itself. This is one aspect the film has achieved. The planet Oa was magnificently constructed.
2. Visual emphasis on Colors and the constructs. Green energy of willpower was visually emphasized, as opposed to the yellow energy of fear.
3. The origins of Hal Jordan, getting the ring from a dying Abin Sur, was true to the comic.
4. The sound theme was perfect. James Newton Howard created another masterpiece of a theme.
And now the disappointments:
1. The film relied on too heavy CGI that it overshadowed any attempt to create a broader, clearer picture of who Hal Jordan is and why he was given the ring of power in the first place. The special effects aren’t that “special” nor spectacular.
2. Where were the other colours? The rich history of the Green Lantern saga did not just stop with the two colours of will and fear, but rather contains other colours in the emotional spectrum (which was not also given a bit of information in the film.)
3. There were many questions left unanswered in the film and hinges on the viewers’ knowledge of the comic. What is overall theme of the story? The power of will or the will to overcome fear? The thin storyline moves back and forth to the concept of fear and will and thus confuses the general audience on the message it wants to impart. How do you overcome fear? By being brave, by imposing your will? And how do you impose your will? Do you use force? Do you overpower the other will? Do you negotiate? That was not clearly answered in the story.
4. Parallax. Was he the personification of the concept of fear? The villain was a former Guardian, not faithful to the comic. It became an inanimate being, nothing fearsome, more like a Galactus-type of being from the Fantastic Four movie. You wouldn’t fear something that you cannot visualize entirely, and thus cannot understand. If you are afraid, it is because you are going by your instincts alone. Parallax is not a threat; it never was and never will be. Its agenda was not to destroy the earth, only to eliminate the Lantern that it sees as a threat. The movie needed a villain that is real, fearful, or has the capacity to produce fear. Parallax feeds on the fear of the others, but it does not produce the feeling of fear and despair. The movie needed someone who is a real threat. I was thinking of the kind of threat the Man in the movie End of Days can make. Parallax could have used a person to help it instill fear on others so it can come and feed on them.
5. Characters and character development. Hal Jordan is described as both fearless and to a point, brash and arrogant as a test pilot. He became more subdued and responsible after getting the ring, and thus became a natural leader. Ryan Reynolds aptly fits the role to a T. Many argued that his acting chops were not up to par, but then again Reynolds was given a poorly done script and has to make do with the material he has. There was no connection between Reynolds and the character he portrayed, Jordan. It is not that Reynolds lack the talent, for he can move his way from comedy to drama to action with little effort. The problem was that Reynolds oftentimes appear less confident than the character, even though the storyline or script indicates a sort of transition in the works for him.
Carol Ferris is a strong willed woman and Blake Lively, appears to be a miscast, despite doing her best There was dryness in her acting and she was not able to be a more convincing Ferris to the troubled Jordan.
It was Mark Strong as Thaal Sinestro that stole the show. There was pure determination from the look in his eyes alone, and the way he gives his dialogue was perfect.
Peter Skaasgard as Hector Hammond was fine, given the role as the other main villain in the film, albeit unwilling.
What hurt the film is the development of these characters. You have to blame poor writing and the screenplay for these. The dialogues are neither poignant nor cheesy, it is simply bland. Reynolds could have emphasized that he fears failing more than any other reason that is why he was afraid, and that could have been the key to the story. Instead, he keeps holding his tongue, apparently afraid of what he might say. The interaction of the characters was rendered inappropriate and at times confusing. There was no emphasis on the strength of will in Lively’s dialogue for instance, and she is the source of encouragement for Reynolds. One minute she was bossy, the next minute she was overly subdued by Reynolds’ charm. (maybe the reason why they decided to get hitched for real). Hammond was supposed to represent the fearful, but the script did not give him that depth that he needed to make his role as convincing as possible.
In fact only two characters provide the stability to an otherwise unstable story, and only one is human. While Strong’s Sinestro provides the movie with that sense of urgency, his misconception of fighting “fear with fear” brings further dilemma and heightens the drama. On the other hand, Tomar Re (voiced by Geoffrey Rush) provides us with a background of what the Green Lantern Corps, the Guardians of the Universe, and the concept of will and fear should be.
Hal Jordan on the other hand, should have used the fear of failing if the concept of overcoming fear with strength of will is to be emphasized. The dialogues are quite inept that Reynolds always seemed lost in the conversation. The whole will versus fear concept should have started with the friendship of the three children, and an analogy of this storyline could have been used to indicate the position the Guardians of the Universe could have taken in imprisoning one of their own.
6. Film editing and overall direction. As with poor script writing, so does poor film editing. Many times you find scenes where relationship are slowly being established (in the case of Jordan and Ferris, re-ignited), suddenly you find the cameras zoomed in on another scene, in other words they cut the said scene abruptly. The continuity simply vanished. For the audience, it is quite a dreadful, dragging experience watching scenes from a supposedly spectacular comic book movie sway in and out, creating further confusion. What they should have done is to either establish firmly one scene before moving to the next, or chunks were flashed so audience still has a chance to follow.
It all comes down to direction. Campbell was indecisive on these aspects, whereas he could have fixed the problem outright. Was he pressured by the studio execs? As always, the constant changing of direction spoils the broth. Wikipedia reports that during the initial development of the movie, actor and screen writer Corey Reynolds suggested and even wrote a script, using John Stewart as the First Green Lantern chosen. He even suggested a series, with the story of Jordan, the Corps, and finally the Justice League, with which WB approves. Then suddenly, the studio abandoned Reynolds' concept, and in October 2007, Greg Berlanti signed to direct the film and co-write it with comic-book writers Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim (the same writers of the hit series Arrow) but then Berlanti left and Campbell came on board. The indecisiveness of the studio itself has taken its toll on the quality of the film. With no clear direction, confusing theme and concept, and mishandling, the film suffered as a whole. The script was a big letdown; editing borders from the mediocre to the terrible, themes became too noisy, etc. As to why Campbell did not assert himself in the making of this film remains a mystery, though they were feedback that he was uncomfortable with a CGI-based film about a hero who owns the most powerful ring in the Universe.
In Blackest Night or in Brightest Day?
With the disappointing results of the box office, WB has shelved any prospect of a sequel and its hope to jumpstart the Justice League movie through the film was abandoned. There were earlier reports that even after the dismal performance of the filn at the box office, the studio initially intended to pursue its objective of moving forward with a sequel. It never came to fruition despite announcement by chief creative officer Geoff Johns at the October 2011 New York Comic Con.
Many fans and moviegoers alike are calling for a reboot of the film, suggesting as though the film never happened. It was poorly executed, and the Green Lantern mythos deserved a better treatment. While I agree with most of the arguments, a sequel, not a reboot should be done in order to change the blackest night into the brightest day. Hints of a possible sequel were shown when Sinestro wore the yellow ring of fear, and thus the will versus fear concept could be further expanded with the possible conflict between him and Hal Jordan. All the film needs is a good director with vision and a liking for CGI-treated flicks. Directors like J.J. Abrams, James Cameron or even Brad Bird are possible choices.
But then, what could have been done to correct the film? Below are some of my suggestions on the way the film could have been handled:
a) Emphasis on only one main theme. Arguably, will versus fear remains the conflict in the film. Therefore, there should have been scenes of conflict in this regard. For example, there could be a scene depicting a heated argument among the Guardians on the why they have to use the yellow energy in the first place. With this, the Guardian who becomes Parallax will be given time to establish itself as the true force of evil, who was good before until the conflict overpowers him. The contrasting characters of Jordan and Hammond could also be included as a scene, how each one develops the will or the fear. And there may be flashes of the two when they were children, showing bravery and cowardice.
b) There should only be one protagonist and one antagonist. Hal Jordan versus Hector Hammond. This is what the audience wants, the film’s version of the never-ending battle between good and evil. They do not want to see a mutated Hammond, but rather, a twisted genius whose motivation to do evil was influenced by the forces around him, not knowing until the end that Parallax was involved. He may have developed a mastery of fear manipulation with the psionic abilities he got during his inspection of Abin Sur’s body. Jordan confronting Hammond would be classic.
c) Hal Jordan should be an example of will overcoming fear. He could be the inspiration to others. A short battle with Hammond and his abilities without using his ring could send the message of inspiration for others, particularly the Lanterns who doubt him. Further, Hal Jordan should be more creative with his constructs, and knows how to improvise things. A scene where he creates model airplanes or make believe pilot cockpit should do the trick.
d) More involvement of the Lanterns. The fight between Green Lantern and Parallax was too weak and thinly treated in the film. How about if Parallax forms an army in outer space? Kilowog, Tomar Re, Sinestro, Boodika and the rest will have battle outside the earth, while Jordan battles Hammond on earth. Epic!
e) Most important of all, have an open-minded director with a ready creative team at his disposal and Warner Bros. studio executives giving the director the confidence and support he needs, much like what they now do with Zach Snyder.
As with my previous review, I shall be posting my own storyline for the possible sequel. Thank you for reading. More power!
Many thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lantern_(film)