Friday, January 6, 2012

Green Lantern- No, not a good film. But you already knew that. Which is probably why you didn't watch it. I, on the other hand, feel the need to watch all superhero films (even Electra! *Gasp) which is why I took the time to watch this one. Overall, 'Green Lantern' is nothing special. But it is edible in that way like when you try to cook something new. It could use work, but if given time and respect, who knows? Plus, it's always entertaining watching Peter Sarsgaard, but especially so if he has a giant forehead that pulsates. Yummy. I never enjoyed first parts to superhero films (with a few exceptions, duh, i.e. 'Iron Man', 'Spider-man', etc.) since it's all about backstory and each has the same structure as any normal hero myth with "Departure, Initiation, and Return". So predictable and cliche at this point, that 'Thor' was actually kind of a relief in all its oddness. Despite complaints of the film being overlong, I think the biggest problem was that the film actually wasn't long enough. There's a whole lot of ground to cover in the mythos of the "Green Lantern Corps." and it really doesn't leave the film with a whole lot of time to build a good villain (Sarsgaard was only good for show (oh that forehead!)) and because of it, the final battle at the end of the film was fairly rushed and slightly mundane. I didn't feel any stake in the characters because there was no time to build on them with so much backstory. Maybe if it were three hours, it could have better developed some characters and actually done the actors some justice (especially Blake Lively, who I actually think is quite good… just not in this). Honestly, that kind of seems amusing. A 'Lord of the Rings' length superhero film, with tons of backstory, plenty of time for character development (which means lengthy convos in Critic Talk), and brilliant special effect (it actually was quite dazzling, even if the imposed suit on Ryan Reynolds (Hal Jordan) was a little wonky, at best.



- Jeff Bassin