| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 06/21/2011 : 16:29:53
Funny thing happened as I was watching this. So I'm sitting there in an empty cinema. Funny in itself, since I thought something like this would have attraced some paying punters.
And as I'm watching some Hubble-like front credits, there are little messages at the bottom of the screen. Stuff like (groan) and (whirr). So I'm thinking - oh, I get it, this is a comic book hero so they're playing with a comic book-ish presentation. In fact, some of it was really funny. I thought. I chuckled.
Then the dialogue started. And that was down there at the bottom of the screen as well.
And - super quick, me - I suddenly realized I was attending a screening of the version for the deaf. But once I did twig the truth - the film's flaws flew straight for my face. And I wasn't wearing a skin-tight green mask to protect me.
Hey, I like Ryan Reynolds. I've got a soft spot for director Martin Campbell, who's got a terrific sense of humour. And, yeah, I do like comic books. But not ALL comic books. And I guess one of the reasons I'm not a Lantern fan is the geezer's just not unique enough and the stories are so derivative.
Now Mr Action-guy Campbell sure has carved out a speedy, swirly, ka-POW themepark ride of camera-shot assemblage to make you go oh, to make you go ah, to make you almost puke with excitement. But, bless him, Martin's never been that interested in narrative, though he's really into visual storytelling. But it's all sub-George Lucas, and the characters are truly pathetic, even for pumped up cartoon drawings made flesh.
Tim Robbins! Please, did Sarandon really clean you out so badly you need to do this crap. Or are you scoring brownine points for your kids.
This is not good, people. I've never drunk alcohol or taken drugs, but I guess the way to see this and not care is to be high. I'm guessing. The cold turkey version sure needs some sauce.
|
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 21:24:15
Oh, geez, what a turkey. I agree with both Baffy and guy. I'm also a DC aficionado, but those were comic-book characters. Marvel did a wonderful existential thing and gave its superheroes [itself a term fought over by the two companies, and one that a legal settlement decided they could share] some real-world angst.
That bit of Marvel tabasco translates much better to the screen b/c it gives the screenwriters a sub-story to play with. DC fans in single-or-early-double-digit ages, like me, just went with the flow: Guardians, etc., cool. But when you're trying to "show this as actual fact," the ridiculousness overwhelms. In this flick, the best example is the mask. We kids always wondered *how* it stayed on, but here the luscious chick wonders *why*, so GL just *wishes it off*. His backstory [you need maybe two pages in the comics] is just too cosmic to grasp. Some kinetic fx, sure, but you don't need anything like HELLBOY to see them any more -- just pick any exploding-cars action pic. Ryan Reynolds acts like he knows how silly he looks. That's death, d00dz. |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 06/21/2011 : 21:13:19
Among old time generation comic book readers, such as yours truly, there exists a demarcation line between the heros of the house of DC, and those of the house of Marvel. At least I say such a line exists; and since the comic book universe is a multiverse where myriad alternate realities exists and at times interconnect, I'm right on some iteration of Earth. (In the comic book world, there's always a way to be right.  )
DC heroes Superman and Batman dominated popular comic book conscienceness for a good long time, given the early serializations in live action and in animation. But, really, Superman is a one-trick pony (he's imperious to stuff), and I think that's why the Superman franchise has fallen flat in the post-post-modern world of really neat technology; his schtick doesn't schtick anymore. Though Batman has proved to be rife with a delicious psychological complexity and near schizophrenically simbiotic interelation of his senses of doing what's right and doing someone in (and the Joker is possibly the most insidiously genius foil a superhero could have). But aside from that, the DC universe tends to get very two-dimentional, lacking some of the verve of the Marvel superheroes.
Therein lies the problem of The Green Lantern. It's not that the movie or the character or the storyline are unimaginative: it's that they are kind of underimaginative, and generally unengaging. I watched this film with my daughter, and it was passably enjoyable. I wasn't expecting much, and I got pretty much what I wasn't expecting -- not much.
The special effects are fun, but like the Babe has pointed out, there's a lack of dimension that a fantasy film like Star Wars had (and thou shalt remember that Star Wars was really a fluke -- not that it wasn't great [it was] -- but that its inherent brilliance lit up the movie-going audience like hotcakes, er, wildfire and launched an Empire, so to speak).
But there's little mystery to the Green Lantern, and basically nothing invested in developing characters. Ryan's Hall Jordan is Captain Kirkesque, but we've seen Captain Kirk. By the time Tim Robbins addresses fate in the film, you're probably happy to have been put out of that misery. Angela Basset was in this movie? Couldn't recognize her (which is probably a good thing).
The Green Lantern feels both obligatory and hurried. But, then again, it's a DC product, so it is what it is, eh? |
|
|
