|
 Comic
books turned to movies are subject to a crushing double standard not just from
general audiences but from fans. On the one hand, comic book stories themselves
often offer up flights of fancy bordering on whimsy with little connection to
the real world. On the other hand, film adaptations of those stories are
required to explain all of that through a lens of realism in order to sell
itself and the power fantasy it is offering as something which could actually
happen. It's a problem thrown into stark contrast as the prologue of "Green
Lantern" begins explaining about the cadre of space police and their weapon of
willpower which is somehow naturally colored green. A weapon and a force whose
worst enemy is fear, which is somehow naturally colored yellow and signified by
an octopus-like vampiric space cloud called Parallax.
With all the goodwill in the world, it's going to be difficult to take that
seriously once people start saying it out loud and repeatedly. The reality is
comic book storytelling works on a different set of rules than films do and
knowing how far to go in one direction versus another is a minefield for any
director. How true to remain to the original to satisfy the purists versus how
far to actually adapt to make it all work. It's a minefield director Martin
Campbell ("Casino
Royale") navigates unsuccessfully as often as he does successfully. The
result is an extremely uneven film.
The good, it should be said, is very good. It looks spectacular, particularly
during the frequent trips to space. After discovering a strange green ring from
a dying alien, test pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is quickly whisked off to
the planet of Oa to be trained as one the elite Green Lantern Corps. Sony
Pictures Imageworks have produced a living, breathing universe full of visual
grandeur. Not to be outdone, cinematographer Dione Beebe ("Miami Vice") and
production designer Grant Major ("The Lord of the Rings") have put together an
exciting package whether it's a small apartment or planes flying above the
desert.
Campbell has chosen to go the verisimilitude route--from the group of alien
explorers uncovering Parallax's prison to xenobiologist Hector Hammond's (Peter
Sarsgaard) dissection of Hal's dead alien--trying to compliment the visual
aesthetic. It's a choice which should work much better than it does, but it
consistently runs into the fanciful side of "Green Lantern" in the shape of
green Gatling guns and jet fighters and various other will-powered constructs
which are Green Lantern's traditional hook.
To be fair, his actors do a very good job of selling it and outside of its look,
"Green Lantern's" casting is its strongest element. Mark Strong ("Sherlock
Holmes") is pitch perfect as Sinestro and Reynolds' natural screen charisma is
perfect match for the conception of Hal as fearless to the point of
recklessness. The supporting roles benefit from similar casting choices, from
Angela Bassett's firm government scientist to Sarsgaard's quiet loathing for
himself and his smarmy senator father (Tim Robbins).
Campbell and his actors have made it work as well as it can, giving up whimsy
for practicality as much as possible when it comes time to actually make the
various objects. But it takes the film too long to get really comfortable with
Green Lantern and actually let lose in full-on special effects fisticuffs once
Parallax actually arrives on Earth to eat all of the people on it. Which is
strange when you consider how the short film is: less than two hours including a
very long credits sequence. For a film with as many moving parts as "Green
Lantern"--from the politics of the Green Lanterns to the web of
interrelationships between Hector, Hal and long-time friend/employer/potential
romantic interest Carol Ferris (Blake Lively)--that is far too short a running
time, and it shows. "Green Lantern" moves along at brisk clip, getting Hal
quickly to Oa and back to Earth, then throwing some Green Lantern crises in his
way. So brisk in fact that you could get whiplash from how fast the third act
comes together as Hal goes from questioning his role as a Green Lantern to
breaking in on old acquaintance (and rival for Carol's affection) Hector's
secret government laboratory.
What's that you say? Old acquaintance and rival for Carol's affection? Where did
that come from? All good questions which are raised and never answered as "Green
Lantern" runs head long into the hurdle of bad pacing and editing choices, a
problem it never overcomes. "Green Lantern" ultimately decides to ditch
character and plot in favor of splendor and action scenes, which is damaging
enough when it's chosen from the outset. It's even worse when it seems to have
been a choice in post-production. Campbell is a smart enough filmmaker to
realize that it's the character relationships which draw audiences into these
cosmic goings-on and he seems to have tried hard to deal with that. There are
hints that Hal has not ever really gotten over the death of his test pilot
father. There are very strong hints that Hal, Hector and Carol grew up together;
that Hector's bookish nature made him feel inadequate next to Hal and his
father. As "Green Lantern" races to its conclusion these hints become intrinsic
to the final confrontation between Hal and Hector, but it's hard to tell because
so much of it is missing. Missing not in such a way that it was never thought
about, but missing somewhere on the editing floor to keep the film action heavy
rather than character focused. The holes become so evident, with character's
referring to things it feels like we were supposed to see; it robs all tension
from the climax. "Green Lantern" ends up becoming a patchwork, a mix of good
ideas and bad editing choices. These problems obviously come from the lack of a
singular directorial vision. It's clear that “Green Lantern” is a film made by
committee instead of allowing the director to do his job. The sense here, is
that the studio was involved in plot, and editing decisions. The summers other
comic adaptations, “Thor” and “X-Men:
First Class” display the unique qualities of their allotted directors. Here,
it's the old notion of too many chefs.
There's a good movie in there somewhere and enough of it shines through that
"Green Lantern" is not an out-and-out failure. But that realization also makes
it a bit of a disappointment, because it's easy to see the promise that hasn't
been lived up to. Better luck next time. If there is a next time. |
