Eye Candy #541 - "Green Lantern" (2011)

Green Lantern:  The 3rd of the summer superhero movies of 2011, “Green Lantern” isn‘t all it‘s cracked up to be.  Just like “Thor”, this film, as the beginning of an expected franchise, has to spend a chunk of time dealing out exposition so that you understand the heroes, villains, pertinent players, everything you need to know to keep the franchise rolling along.  Some movies are great at this.  Some movies are crippled by it, because it‘s a balance between what you do and do not include.  This is more the latter than the former.  Ryan Reynolds is Hal Jordan, ace test pilot and womanizer.  After a disastrous demonstration exercise, he is summoned to a crashed alien ship where he receives a green ring, making him part of the Green Lantern Corps, a force of galactic peacekeepers from around the universe, wielding rings powered by willpower.  Those familiar with the comic book will see many familiar faces like Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), Kilowog, Tomar-Re, and Sinestro.  Jordan has to come to terms with his new role as a Green Lantern, saving the universe and his planet in the process.  Director Martin Campbell gives us a film full of pretty things to look at, but as we all know, that doesn’t automatically mean the story is up to snuff.  The film does have some problems:  1.) it fails to engage the audience.  At the end of the picture, you care just as little as you did at the beginning, as Hal Jordan isn’t made relatable at all.  He‘s a bit of a glib, selfish brat living a charmed life, ignorant of what he has.  Not a sympathetic character; 2.) superhero movies should only have one villain.  GL has two (Hammond, Parallax) and in these situations, one or the other suffers from a lack of development.  In this case, it’s Parallax (whereas the development of Hammond is great; if this film doesn’t win an oscar for Sarsgaard’s make-up, it will be a crime). 3.) a disconnect with its shared universe.  GL exists in a world with Batman, Superman, etc., all of which are owned by Warner Bros.  Would it kill them to mention other properties?  Why include the character of Amanda Waller (played by Angela Bassett), who has no connection whatsoever to GL, if you’re not?  It’s not all doom and gloom.  There are some bright notes - Sarsgaard’s Hector Hammond is easily the most interesting character in the picture.  Lively is not nearly as bad as other reviews would have you believe (she is, however, not given much of anything to do onscreen).  And some of the visuals sure are pretty to look at.  However, it is overall a lackluster, boring film.  Woodchuck sez, “Should have been better."