DVD Review: Green Lantern (2011)

So I finally got around to seeing the 2011 film version of Green Lantern. The movie was generally panned by critics and audiences alike, but I felt that I owed it to myself to see if it was really that bad.

First, the stuff I liked.

Taika Waititi as Tom Kalmaku was great. I was wondering how or if the film was going to include Hal's best friend "Pieface." OK, Tom was introduced in 1960 when (white) people didn't consider it racist to call the Inuit people "Eskimos" or to refer to an Inuit native as "Pieface." Pie, uh...Tom was originally Hal's aircraft mechanic at Ferris Aircraft and Hal's best friend (on earth) but he got an upgrade to best friend and engineer. In the silver age GL comics, Tom actually chronicled Hal's adventures (that book would be worth a lot of money) not unlike Dr. Watson's role relative to the adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Sometimes, the reader is treated to a GL adventure from Tom's POV.

In the film, Tom is a fun and smart engineer who can readily out think Hal but who still makes for a good "wingman" and reminder of just what an irresponsible jerk Hal can be sometimes.

Peter Sarsgaard in the role of Hector Hammond pre-transformation. He was brilliant, quirky, but likable and approachable. In spite of his intelligence, he was vulnerable and always living in the shadow of his powerful Senator father. If "Daddy Dearest" had just left him alone and kept him out of the investigation into Abin Sur and his spaceship, Hector would have gotten along just fine. It kind of ruinned it when the Parallax fear energy started infecting him, resulting in him murdering his own father (the guy was a douche, but not worth an execution by fire douche) and committing other heinous crimes including turning the earth over to a superpowerful alien (the aforementioned Parallex) for destruction.

Blake Lively as Carol Ferris. I thought she struck the right balance between corporate responsibility and human vulnerability, the heir apparent of the Ferris Aircraft "empire." She could be a little too "dippy" at times, especially for a woman who knows how to handle all of that responsibility, but in the end, she managed to keep her head long enough to save Hal from Parallex's clutches so he could retrieve his ring and save the day.

I was a little disappointed that the writers made her a test pilot and a corporate executive, not because I have anything against women being test pilots, but Carol was always the yang to Hal's yin, the level headed responsible person to Hal's irresponsible adventurer. Putting them both in high performance aircraft and literally making her Hal's wingman crossed the line and disrupted the balance between their characters. Carol and Hal shouldn't be on the same playing field.

I'm glad the movie maintained Hal's family including his brothers and nephew. The silver age GL comics always made a point to show Hal and his brothers together, each one having their own skill sets and all of them being highly competitive as brothers. It humanized Hal for the readers in a way the "only children" heroes of the 1960s (Superman, Batman, Flash, and so on) never did. In real life, most of us have some sort of family.

The scene between Hal and his young nephew Jason was one of the better ones in the film. Hal, the fun, favorite uncle, who screwed up and almost got himself killed, freaking out young Jason, not unlike how Hal felt the day he watched his father die as a test pilot in an experimental jet.

The portrayals of Sinestro (Mark Strong), Tomar-Re (Geoffrey Rush), and Kilowog (Michael Clarke Duncan) were great. Although the dedication and heroism of Sinestro was an especially strong presence in the film (foreshadowing Sinestro's fall from grace later on), Rush's Tomar-Re was my favorite among the "alien" GL's. As a kid, Tomar-Re was my favorite GL after Hal. He was Hal's best friend in the Corps in the silver age comics. Although the DC writers may not have intended it, the friendship between Hal Jordan and Tomar-Re showed that no matter how different, how alien two intelligent, compassionate beings can be, it's the desire to do good and to uphold justice that beings us together. Fitting that their relationship should have started during the early civil rights era.

In the film, Rush lends a calmness and warmth to Tomar-Re's voice. You can trust him. He's a little bemused at Hal pretty much all the time, but it's like a father relating to a young child who knows one day that child will grow to far surpass him. Tomar-Re is the kind of friend (and father figure) who would give a son just the right amount of encouragement and the time it takes for Hal to grow up.

What didn't I like. 

Everything else.

From the first few moments of the film and the opening narration, I could tell I was going to be disappointed. It was like reading a comic book and not a particularly well written one. The opening just screamed at me: "Don't take this film seriously." In relation to the Dark Knight Trilogy and the soon to be released film Man of Steel (the trailers look fabulous), Green Lantern was nothing to write home about.

I think Ryan Reynolds was well cast to play the version of Hal Jordan the writers created, but he wasn't the Hal Jordan. In the original comic books, Hal already had the heart of a warrior and a hero. He had the personality of a policeman, albeit a somewhat rigid one. Right and wrong were polar opposites and in his heart, he always knew the difference, a fact that writer Dennis O'Neal used to good advantage when he and artist Neal Adams created the now legendary story No Evil Shall Escape My Sight (Green Lantern #76 - 1970).

Of course "perfect" heroes, such as DC tended to create in the 1950s and 60s don't make good movie characters because they have no room to grow. But having grown up loving the Hal Jordan Green Lantern and wishing for a really good film version of my favorite DC hero, I just didn't "feel it" watching Reynolds play Hal on the screen.

Frankly, I think the film's approach was all wrong. I'd never have introduced the "outer space" aspects of what it is to be a Green Lantern and certainly wouldn't have introduced the Corps and the Guardians so early in the game.

Hal had virtually no time to come to terms with the ring and the lantern before being whisked away to Oa, and even then, his training was about fifteen minutes long before Hal "quit," took the power ring, and with his tail tucked between his legs, scurried back to earth.

In the early silver age comics, Hal didn't know anything about the Corps. He periodically got "orders" from the lantern about specific "assignments" but he didn't know where they came from or what they meant beyond the immediate mission. I would have liked to have seen Hal trying to deal with the ring and the lantern more on his own first, discovering himself as a hero but only beginning to get a glimpse at the true implications of wielding that kind of power.

The writers could have even introduced a sort of "symbiotic" relationship between Hal and the ring, as if they both had something to give each other, the ring giving Hal power and Hal giving the ring the means to use it for good.

In spite of the fact that Hal was given a virtually overwhelming villain to defeat and the task of protecting the planet earth, I just didn't get any sort of personal angst or anguish...something to really overcome. Sure, Hector Hammond captured Carol and threatened to infect her with the Parallax energy, but I was really hoping Hal would have been able to face something even more personal (or maybe it was just the writing and the performances that didn't convey what I was looking for).

I recall in the issue 34 (1966) Green Lantern story "End of a Gladiator," Hal learned about the ring's "mortality fail safe." An emergency store of energy that's available, even when the ring's energy charge is exhausted, that can save a Green Lantern's life, even when the ring wielder is unconscious. During a battle between GL and one of his foes, Tom is mortally wounded. The villain tricked Green Lantern into thinking he had recently charged his ring, but in fact, it was an illusion and at the height of the battle, Hal's ring runs out of power. On the one hand, Hal is about to be shot. If he does nothing, the ring's emergency reserve will save his life. On the other hand, Tom is seconds from death. Hal does the impossible and orders the ring to use the emergency reserve to save Tom's life. Tom lives, but Hal is shot and presumed dead (a highly unusual set of circumstances results in his being revived).

It's that kind of conflict that would have made the climax of the film. The stakes didn't have to be a world, just the struggle for discovery of how heroic, how courageous, how honest Green Lantern member Hal Jordan could be.

In spite of all the special effects, the best efforts of the actors involved, and the decades of source material to be drawn from, Green Lantern the legendary hero of my childhood never materialized on the screen in 2011. It was just another movie.

With the potential for a DC Universe set of films culminating in one or more JLA movies in the future, I'm hoping for a Green Lantern reboot. Let's do it better next time.

Batman: Year One (2011) A DVD Review

Two men come to Gotham City: Bruce Wayne after years abroad feeding his lifelong obsession for justice and Jim Gordon after being too honest a cop with the wrong people elsewhere. After learning painful lessons about the city's corruption on its streets and police department respectively, this pair learn how to fight back their own way. With that, Gotham's evildoers from top to bottom are terrorized by the mysterious Batman and the equally heroic Gordon is assigned to catch him by comrades who both hate and fear him themselves. In the ensuing manhunt, both find much in common as the seeds of an unexpected friendship are laid with additional friends and rivals helping to start the legend.

-Written by Kenneth Chisholm

That a summary of the video Batman: Year One (2011) which I saw on DVD a couple of weeks ago. I saw and subsequently reviewed the 1989 Keaton/Nicholson Batman film on the same weekend, but I couldn't summon whatever I needed to write my "Year One" review at the same time.

Maybe that's because the video reminded me so much of the Batman: Year One graphic novel (2007 -- originally published February through May 1987 in the regular Batman comic book series) by Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli. The graphic novel gained rave reviews if you can believe Amazon (and most people do), and I remember the work favorably as well. Why do I feel so "cold" about the video based off the graphic novel?

Maybe because it was so similar to its 136 page source. I mean, having read the graphic novel, why did I need to see the 64 minute video?

Don't we want films made from books to be true to their source? Well, yes and no. If I were talking about a text-only novel, there'd be no visual component except what was generated in my head as I was reading. With a graphic novel, you get words and pictures. With an animated video you get spoken words and moving pictures, but it (in this case) looks pretty much the same.

It was as if the makers of the animated film said, "Let's make the graphic novel story again but make it move." In other words, I didn't learn anything new or have much of a different experience than when I read the graphic novel a few years ago. Any film should be more than just a moving, talking version of its source. I want to have a different experience, related enough to the original to recognize it, but different enough to be worth my while.

If I had a choice, I'd probably just read the comic book version again because print typically includes more story detail that's cut for time in a film presentation.

This isn't to say that I didn't enjoy the animated film. It was watchable and entertaining. I could certainly see the portions that linked into Batman Begins (2005), such as Batman "calling for backup."

You see the less than honorable side of a relatively young Jim Gordon, cheating on his pregnant wife, struggling to rise above his failures, fighting criminals with almost the same darkness as Batman. You see a young Bruce Wayne donning the mantle of the Bat for the first time, making rookie mistakes that almost get him killed, nearly killing the legend along with him. You see a different "Catwoman" with a (apparently) lesbian twist (it's only hinted at, but you get that vibe).

If you've never read the graphic novel or the original series of comic books, you'll enjoy the film. If you've read the graphic novel, seeing the film will be like deja vu. It's that simple.

If I watch Batman animated films, I'll try to pick those that don't follow the print material so closely. I want to be surprised as the story unfolds in front of my eyes.

Young Clark Kent

No, not really, but when I saw this guy's photo online (I have no idea who he is or where this is), the first thing that popped into my head was "young Clark Kent." With the U.S. release of the Man of Steel film just a little over two weeks away, I figured I'd share what I think a young Clark Kent in his late teens or early twenties might look like as he spends his last days in Kansas.

DVD Review: Batman (1989)

Sometimes I revisit older movies even though I know they aren't as good as what replaced them. I saw the DVD of the 1989 version of Batman starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson at my local library and figured "what the heck". At the time, it was the only live action film made about the Dark Knight (the 1943 Batman movie serial doesn't count). Just because Heath Ledger totally owned the role of the Joker in The Dark Knight (2008) doesn't mean I can't appreciate Nicholson's interpretation.

It wasn't bad. It wasn't great. I remembered all of the controversy about Keaton being cast at Bruce Wayne/Batman (and my own confusion about why Burton would go with Keaton). At the time, Nicholson's Joker was just menacing enough without being truly frightening for younger audiences. Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) was a Lois Lane copy, both in the comic books and in the film. Michael Gough competently played the faithful Alfred, always there to pick up after Bruce, but I missed the chemistry between Christian Bale's Bruce and Michael Caine's Alfred.

I'm trying not to compare this Batman against the Dark Knight Trilogy, but it's tough.

In the 1989 film, we come across Batman who is already well into his career. The origin story, the death of Bruce's parents, are shown in flashbacks, but we don't get the full treatment of how Bruce "develops" Batman as we see in Batman Begins (2005). Keaton's Bruce is absent-minded and distracted most of the time, like a child with an attentional disorder. I suppose this was to "disguise" him so he wouldn't be suspected of being Batman, but one wonders who is making money at Wayne Enterprises if Bruce isn't in that game (not that Wayne Enterprises is ever mentioned in the film).

Much more attention was paid to the origin of the Joker and his original relationship to crime syndicate head "Boss" Carl Grissom (Jack Palance). Feeling the heat from the new D.A. in Gotham, Harvey Dent (played by Billy Dee Williams in a role that was a waste of his time and talent), Grissom orders Jack Napier (the Joker's "real name") to break into a chemical company and destroy records that implicate their gang in some sort of crime (just exactly what the threat is to Grissom isn't made clear).

Jack and the boys find out that there are no records. It's a set up. Grissom has used his connections to corrupt cop Eckhart (William Hootens) to arrange a police raid of the plant with orders to shoot to kill. All this is over Grissom's girlfriend Alicia (Jerry Hall) who is two-timing him with Jack. The old man doesn't like his "sugarplums" being "sugarplummed" by another man, especially his "right-hand man".

Batman gets wind of the raid (Commissioner Gordon was at a party at Bruce's mansion earlier and had to "leave suddenly" because he finds out about Eckhart's raid) and shows up to help out. Batman and Napier tangle and one slip later, Jack falls into a vat of toxic chemicals and is flushed out to a nearby river (Gotham must have a horrible environmental safety record).

The Joker kills Grissom, takes over the mobs, invents Smilex, a chemical that kills through inducing laughing seizures, and competes with Bruce over the attentions of Vicki Vale.

I used to watch this movie a lot, so I can't tell if it feels predictable because it was written that way or because I remember it so well. The movie was a "so-what" at the theater (really, that's all there is?) but plays better on the small screen. Maybe it reminds me more of a made-for-TV movie than a major motion picture release. That doesn't say much for director Tim Burton, but then he was early in his career, and even Jack Palance became irritated with the young and inexperienced Burton on the set.

Batman was made in an era when Hollywood still hadn't figured out how to take costumed heroes seriously. It wasn't exactly "campy" but it didn't feel "real" either. The film tries to be dark and gritty and styles mimic the 1930s and 40s to some degree (Batman's natural habitat apparently) but in the end, the costumes and sets still look like a comic book come to life.

I have to remember though, that if it wasn't for this film, the Batman animated series of the 1990s probably wouldn't have happened. Up until Christian Bale's performance of Batman, I considered the animated series the best presentation of Batman not in a comic book or graphic novel. A fact I was reminded of in the first few minutes of Burton's Batman film when Danny Elfman's opening theme plays and I recognized it from the animated series. If that was the only legacy of Burton's Batman, then it did it's job.

I'm probably being too hard on Burton's film. It has the benefit of being the first serious film on Batman and it sailed uncharted waters. There's even this:

In an interview with About.com, Christopher Nolan (director of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) described this film as "...a brilliant film, visionary and extraordinarily idiosyncratic...".

 I think it was for its time, though it was certainly flawed as I've already described.

Tim Burton's Batman has a well deserved place of honor in the history of the Dark Knight in film, but it was somewhat "damaged goods" when it was new. Now that nearly a quarter of a century has passed since its original theatrical release, it has aged, much like "Boss" Grissom. Another Batman has come to Gotham and it is his time to reign.

And should Warner Bros. decide to pursue a Justice League film, they'll need yet another Batman. Who will inherit the mantle of the Bat and how will be wear it in comparison to Keaton and Bale?

Superman Reborn

Couldn't resist posting this. Awesome Superman image.

Iconic Supermen

The cover of People Magazine for January 1979 gave the world the now iconic photograph of Superman as played by Christopher Reeve. For the general public, this was perhaps the first time they believed that a man could fly and this image will live on in their memories and in all our memories as the one and only Superman for generations.

This month's cover of Entertainment Weekly attempts to paint, for the current generation, the portrait of Reeve's heir apparent, Henry Cavill as the Man of Steel. I am posting both covers side-by-side in an effort to illustrate the passing of the torch. Reeve first appeared on the big screen as Superman in 1978 when he was 26 years old. Sadly, he passed away on October 10, 2004 at the age of 52. For many people, Christopher Reeve was their Last Son of Krypton, and for them, that was the day their Superman died.

Cavill, who turns 30 next month, picks up the mantle and the cape that Reeve in death had allowed to fall to the ground. Can Henry Cavill fill the red boots and wear the red and yellow shield in honor of the Superman who came before him? Can he inspire this generation and those who come after as the Superman of the 21st century? Will his image on the cover of Entertainment Weekly replace that of Reeve's, and will be he the hero we need to inspire us as we rush headlong into the future?

Superman: Man of Steel premieres in the United States on June 14, 2013. That's when we'll get our answers.