REVIEW: Ryan Reynolds Glows Amid the 3-D Murk of Green Lantern
It's time to save Ryan Reynolds from the comic-book blockbuster or, more broadly, from the kinds of movies that are supposed to turn young men into stars, without really allowing them to be actors. Reynolds is almost good enough to stand up to the gargantuan tower of emptiness that is Green Lantern, but he's fighting a losing battle. Even though he's propped up by the most powerful force in the universe -- "the emerald energy of willpower," as the movie tells us, which sounds like something you can buy in a six-pack down at the Vitamin Shoppe -- there's no way Reynolds can carry the weight of this overblown 3D folly on his shoulders. It's not easy being green, not even for him.
Green Lantern, based on the DC comic-book series and directed by Martin Campbell (who, in the past, has made exemplary entertainments like Casino Royale and The Mask of Zorro), takes forever to get going and then goes nowhere. The obligatory opening voice-over explains who the Green Lantern Corps are: An elite, powerful force who protect peace and justice in the universe. There, aren't you glad you asked? But it turns out that a big, knobby-headed grouch force called Parallax is threatening the Corps -- it's already killed off a few of its members, much to the chagrin of Green Lantern Corps bigwig Sinestro (Mark Strong, looking rather sexy with his lightbulb-shaped head and Ronald Coleman mustache). What's more, the bravest Green Lantern warrior, Abin Sur (New Zealand actor Temuera Morrison), has crashed his spaceship on Earth and, in his dying moments, needs to find a successor. From the green ring he's wearing, he sends out a signal in the form of a flaming green Nerf ball. The ring will choose Hal Jordan (Reynolds), a scrappy test pilot, as the next Green Lantern. He will be the first human chosen for that honor, and Sinestro is none too happy about it -- you can tell by the flare of his nostrils.
Jordan is already having plenty of trouble on his home planet, with his lifelong love interest and fellow pilot Carol Ferris (a game but underused Blake Lively) -- the two just can't get it together. Later, there's more trouble when science nerd Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), who has also been in love with Carol Ferris all his life, develops a bulbous forehead that looks like a celery root and makes him do bad stuff. Meanwhile, Angela Bassett, as some random government science lady, skulks around looking miserable: This, apparently, is the best kind of role a terrific actress like Bassett can hope for these days.
The early moments of Green Lantern offered some hope that Campbell might be able to have some retro-fun with this material: The Green Lantern characters have been going strong since 1940, and in places, this Green Lantern flirts with a pleasingly fun, lo-fi Flash Gordon approach, particularly in the art deco touches that grace the picture's production design. But you can't make anything that's simply fun and lo-fi these days, especially in 3-D: Everything has to be big and overloaded, and Green Lantern is no exception. Shot by Dion Beebe -- a gifted cinematographer -- the movie suffers from that familiar cataract-veil murkiness of 3-D. The whole thing looks as if it were shot through a lens coated with a thin layer of mud.
The story, inasmuch as it exists, is cluttered and messy (it was written by Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim, and Michael Goldenberg) and basically involves Hal's shuttling back and forth between Earth and Sector 2814 (wherever that is). Even the Green Lantern itself, the totem that Hal uses to juice up his ring, is disappointing-looking: It's really sort of a Green Gewgaw, a souvenir of Murano circa 1968.
And yet in places, Green Lantern shows a yearning for the human touch. When Hal and Carol meet for a drink at a bar -- he's hoping to get back into her good graces after disappointing her one too many times -- the song that comes on the jukebox is the Fleetwoods' "Come Softly to Me." Reynolds' Hal sings along, a bit out of tune but nevertheless keyed in to Gary Troxel's aura of interplanetary longing.
In fact, almost everything Reynolds does is too good for the movie around him. When he sits down with that Green Lantern and tries to recite the all-important oath that will kickstart his emerald powers, he can't help botching it: "I pledge allegiance to a lantern," he begins, "that I got from a dying purple alien. In a swamp." He works at it until he gets it right, which isn't just the Hal way, but the Reynolds way. Time and again, I've been primed to dislike Reynolds: I know he's supposed to be exceedingly handsome, but he's always reminded me a little of Butthead -- maybe it's the fact that his eyes are a little too close together. Yet I always end up liking him: He's wonderful as the miraculously not-dull love interest in the Sandra Bullock romantic comedy The Proposal, and as the older-dude hotshot of Adventureland. He even gives his all in Rodrigo Cortés' manipulative novelty shocker Buried.
And in Green Lantern, he's always something to watch, even when the movie around him falters, stumbles or simply glows an insipid yellow. After he saves Carol from certain death while wearing his lambent green Green Lantern getup, he later reappears on the terrace outside her office to check up on her. At first, she doesn't recognize him as her lifelong friend, and she's temporarily taken aback by the sight of his chiseled Lego pecs encased in dazzling green Glo-Stick material. For kicks, he plays the old-time western hero with her: "Just doing my job. No thanks necessary, miss." There's something about the ridiculous suit, the semi-anonymity of the glued-on green mask, that bring out the cutup in Hal, and in Reynolds. He never takes himself too seriously in Green Lantern, and his "Who, me?" nonchalance makes him devilishly appealing. He's a hardworking actor who pulls off the illusion of never trying too hard. Against the 3-D murk of the movie around him, he's a luminous, multidimensional presence.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Trying to remember the last time that Movieline, or any critic for that matter, gave any movie a decent review that wasn't festival-lauded, artsy, or otherwise demanding of a good score because of some deep, sophisticated purpose at its core.
Sometimes, movies are just meant to be fun. I love Movieline's staff - amazing writers and humor unlike most other sites. But with an average score of 6 or lower, I often wonder why you all choose to continue watching movies as a profession. Given your previous article about its positive reception at the pre-screening, you'll have to forgive me if I place my bet on praise from the comic-loving crowd.
Here we go again - a critic expresses his or her negative opinion of a comic book movie and some fanboy nerd gives himself a wedgie bitchin' 'bout the mean, ol' critic not liking it. They must have these defensive e-mails ready to send when the review is posted.
Oh, please.
See also X-Men: First Class, Fast Five, and the other summer tentpoles high on our critical anticipation list. So we love you, too, but be fair.
Ok, fair enough - I overlooked your feedback on Thor, and you do often give credit where credit is due. Perhaps I'm easy to please, but critical appraisal of most blockbusters seems to be unfairly, resoundingly negative these days (not specifically from Movieline). Though, I suppose that could be a product of the inevitable overhype that comes with a marketing budget three times the cost of actually making the film.
Apologies for the rash response, I think I'm a bit too hopeful for the success of this movie. To qualify my response, though, I think I've read about 6 pages of a comic book in my life. I'm looking at you, Kram.
Totally understood. Personally, I always go in hoping (if not quite expecting) to enjoy or at least find something interesting in everything I see, if only because there's _no way_ I could emotionally survive this gig otherwise. It's too many hours and days and weeks of my life to waste on stuff I have no faith in, you know?
Still, the odds are the odds. Marketing and hype don't help, that is for sure.
Here we go again indeed, bringing attention to the obvious while providing nothing insightful....well done.
I can't say I disagree when you say "be fair", but to indeed "be fair" while assessing the work of this particular critic and her opinion on ambitious blockbusters, I feel compelled to bring up the patently ridiculous "3" score she gave Inception (http://www.movieline.com/2010/07/review-is-inception-this-years-masterpiece-dream-on.php) while all along praising the likes of Salt and Jonah Hex.
Believe me, I was no fan of Inception, but to say it is a 3 out of 10 is to have no clue about filmmaking as a craft or to simply be a hater to get noticed - and hey, congrats you cynics, it worked! Nearly 300 comments in that article.
Stephanie's choices lead me to infer that she likes her blockbuster entertainment to be as mindless as possible. The active resentment against any blockbuster that dares to be anything other than mindless popcorn entertainment is palpable.
She is, of course, entitled to her opinion, just like I'm entitled to take her atrocious taste in movies into consideration whenever I read one of her reviews. But would it kill Movieline to give some of these assignments to a critic that is actually thoughtful like Michelle Orange?
Are you a nerdy fanboy who got insulted here? Because there WAS insight in that comment and you obviously just didn't want to see it. Isn't it dumb that a movie isn't even out yet and somebody is already online whining about the review? THAT should be pointed out EVERY time.
U MAD?
A generous 6 is pretty much what I expected for this movie. Of course, high 3D ticket sales will make it look more popular than it is on its opening weekend.
The "it's only popcorn entertainment" excuse is getting old for giving a pass to movies with poor stories and scripts. Expectations have just lowered considerably.
What the hell,, that review seemed like it was written by a 12 year old who has major a crush on Ryan Reynolds!!
There is no doubt that this movie is awful but to anyone you'd like to read professional reviews of the film check out the links below
[LINKS REDACTED BY EDITOR]
I expected better from movieline,, you need to hire some new staff
"It’s time to save Ryan Reynolds from the comic-book blockbuster,,"
Are you serious??,,,, it's time to save the movie going public from
Ryan Reynolds in general,,, this guy's a terrible actor who's as wooden
as they come!!
I can't really stop you from trolling, I guess, but linking out to alternative, "better" coverage crosses a line. Please don't do it again.
Agreed. What's worse is that these 'popcorn entertainment' films have proven that they can be both popcorn still have decent production. Like the two released Marvel movies this summer - popcorn fare, sure, but they don't get a pass because of that alone. They get a pass because the actors got into their roles as much as the well-written but limited script allow for. That, and they don't rely nearly as much on CG as Green Lantern seems to.
I won't be seeing this. In my comic days, I was a Marvel fan, so going into this, I won't even have the eye and knowledge of the original material I have when it comes to Marvel movies.
If Ryan Reynolds is what keeps this movie from being terrible, then... well, I'd have to conclude that it is still terrible. He's a vapid actor with only slight signs of potential, and that 'charm' seems pretty out of place for what is supposed to be a pretty straight-laced (read: boring) character. He should stick to comedy, which is where his potential could be better explored. If he wants to do a superhero film, then I'm for Deadpool - I could see him being great in that, given the right script and freedom to really let loose.
Your elegant response really takes the wind out of my, "StephieZ says, "Green Lantern" twice as good as "Inception"!" post that I was going to make. Thanks a lot, Jimbo.
In brightest day, in blackest night, StephieZ's review of "Inception" will never leave our sight. It serves to remind us why we love to hate this site. She's earned all the potshots that we take with delight, so remember reviewers, respect your readers' might.
There's nothing patently ridiculous about giving Inception, one of the industry's most artistically bankrupt and asinine movies in recent years, a 3. And it wouldn't exactly be fair to judge Steph on her number choices instead of what was actually written, which clearly showed at least a basic knowledge of filmcraft. Sure, Salt and Jonah Hex were less artistically ambitious, but were artistically successful on those terms. Chris Nolan shot high, and missed.
Anyways, Green Lantern...it's a very simple-minded and dumb movie, but it's acceptable. I don't really have anything worthwhile to add to it.