Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Review

BvS? No, more like just BS! But seriously, this movie blows.

Batman Forever - Review

The third entry of the Batman film series, known as Batman Forever, saw one of the strangest changes in tone in direction I've ever seen in a direct sequel. Lessening the darker and adult themes of the first two films, Batman Forever saw a return to the campy themes of the 60s TV series while only retaining an element or two of it's predecessors's darker vibes. The reason for that is pretty easy to understand. When Batman Returns was released in 1992, it struck a bad chord with concerned parents. For a series that had such a prominent child fan-base, many parents objected to the excessive violence and darker overtones of the film. While the film still struck box office gold, it made merchandising incredibly difficult. As a result, toy and other merchandise sales fell short of expectations. So for the new movie, Tim Burton was removed from the director's chair and replaced with Joel Schumacher in an effort to make a more child-friendly and marketable Batman film. The result was Batman Forever... a rather odd piece of cinema that tends to receive fairly mixed opinions from audiences. I have to admit that my feelings for this movie have continued to change over the years. I loved it as a kid, hated it as a teen, and as an adult... actually I hadn't seen it in years. Re-watching this one, to say the least, was an interesting experience. For the first time, I had the opportunity to truly experience this film as an adult. After removing the nostalgia goggles, here's what I thought of Batman Forever.

Taking place some time after Batman Returns (it's not explicitly state though), the Dark Knight (now played by Val Kilmer) continues to protect the streets of Gotham City from the criminal underworld, now taking on two new foes. The first of which is Harvey Dent aka Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), a former District Attorney for Gotham turned criminal madman after a mobster through acid onto the left side of his face, leaving him horribly scarred. Dent blamed Batman for failing to stop the mob attack, and as a result went insane, developing a split personality and deciding the fate of his victims by flipping his special coin. Batman's second enemy arrives in the form of the brilliant though completely insane Edward Nygma aka The Riddler (Jim Carrey). Nygma was once an employee of his idol, Bruce Wayne, but when Wayne himself rejected Nygma's invention, a brain manipulating entertainment device, he took it personally and vowed revenge on the billionaire philanthropist. Taking on the mantra of The Riddler, he leaves clues and puzzles for Wayne to solve all while causing havoc on the city streets with Two-Face. Meanwhile, Wayne romances Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), a psychiatrist who helps Wayne conquer his tragic past as well as his struggling identities. All while this is happening, Wayne takes in a young man named Dick Grayson (Chris O'Donnell), a circus acrobat whose family was murdered at the hands of Two-Face. Bent on revenge, Grayson soon discovers the secret of Batman and becomes determined to join him in his mission of protecting the city. 

Eeesh... it's easy to see why so many superhero films prefer to include only one villain. When you throw more than that into the mix, the plots feel so cluttered and messy that it becomes next to impossible to actually tell a coherent story... and this is no exception. It's really too bad, since this is honestly the closest a Batman movie has ever truly tried to explore the darker themes and psyche of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego. Dr. Meridian helps understand why he took on the mantra of Batman, why he feels the need to protect the city, and to deal with the fear and anger he has been facing since witnessing his parents' deaths. The interactions between Wayne and Grayson have their moments too. Wayne sees a lot of himself in the young Grayson, a young man determined to get revenge on the psycho that killed his family is all too familiar for Bruce. It is this, along with his previous status as a lone crime fighter, that he remains reluctant to take in a partner. By the time Grayson takes up the mantle of Robin, it's a pretty cool result. This is actually some pretty interesting stuff. When the movies decides to focus strictly on these aspects, it's actually pretty good. You really get a feel for the pain both Bruce and Dick face in their struggles and it makes for a decent movie. 

Unfortunately, when the movie breaks away from the Bruce/Dick/Chase storyline, it becomes damn near unbearable. While it had basically become a staple of the Batman movies by then to focus more on the villains than the title character, this time it's even worse. In the first movie, while it focused too much on the Joker, that movie at least had the benefit of Jack Nicholson's enjoyable (if flawed) performance to carry the movie. In Batman Returns, the Penguin's disturbing subplot may have seemed out of place for a Batman film, but it at least was an intriguing look at a tragic and disturbed character (in any other movie, it might have been pretty good). Here, the villains have the unfortunate quality of being both boring AND annoying, and believe me that's no easy feat. It's not like there wasn't material to work with here either. Two-Face was one of the comics' most interesting and tragic foes, a once passionate cruasder for good fallen by the hands of the criminal underwold. A character with a split personality has all kinds of interesting "Jekyll and Hyde" possiblities, but the movie never goes there. Instead, he's relegated to an over-the-top cackling villain with no depth or any real determinate personality. The Riddler isn't much better. Like Two-Face, he has also been resorted to more of a punch line, spitting out stupid one-liners and chewing the scenery. The riddles and puzzles he's constantly leaving make no sense and contribute little to the plot. Oh, and about those one-liners... THEY ARE PAINFUL!!! This movie has some of the lamest and dumbest dialogue I've ever heard, even by comic book standards, they're just embarrassing. The only thing positive I can say about it is that the lines aren't quite as painful as to what would come in the next film (but I'll save that for the next review). Eeesh... what a wasted opportunity. So much potential resorted to cheap jokes and dull characters. 

The cast kind of corresponds to what I had written in the above paragraphs. The actors are really only as good as the characters are written. Val Kilmer isn't half bad as the new Caped Crusader. While the script has a few interesting character beats, it doesn't have quite enough to truly let Kilmer sink himself in the role, but for what he was presented with, he does it well. Nicole Kidman isn't too bad either. While her primary job is as a love interest and (at one point anyway) damsel in distress, she makes the most of what she was given. At the very least, she makes some contributions to the plot here and there and wasn't there exclusively for sex appeal (though there's plenty of that too). Chris O'Donnell sells his role as Dick Grayson adequately, as you really do feel the pain he's going through coping with the loss of his family. He is a little older than the traditional Robin (in most interpretations, Grayson was around 10-12). Once he actually becomes Robin, he isn't really much of a superhero, but then again he was just starting out. Overall, these actors aren't too shabby.

Now, as for Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey... ugh. Jones is an excellent actor, and with an Oscar under his belt, he was a potentially great choice for Two-Face (not that this matters, but the role was originally contracted to Lando Calrisi-- I mean... Billy Dee Williams, who played Dent in the first movie). Unfortunately the script doesn't give him a damn thing to do except cackle hysterically and do, what is essentially, a lousy Joker impression. This is a major letdown, especially when you consider just how interesting of a villain Two-Face was in the comics and other adaptations. Jim Carrey as the Riddler... oh God! Jim Carrey was one of Hollywood's biggest stars at the time, so there's no wonder why Warner Bros wanted him to be in this film. Unfortunately, his portrayal of the Riddler is pretty much Ace Ventura if he were a villain. He brings his trademark comedic schtick to this role, and even for a character that's been portrayed as a bit over-the-top before, increases it to 11. He's neither funny nor is he threatening, instead he's just grating! He chews so much scenery that he completely steals the show... only in the worst possible way. It's like he felt the need to one-up everyone, resulting in a performance that's as annoying as it is infuriating. It's really a shame that these villains fail so miserably, especially considering the promising back-stories and actors.

In terms of technical execution... I'm kind of torn here. Like I mentioned, most of the Gothic elements from the previous two films have been replaced here in favor of a colorful campy style. Ultimately, that boils down to an aesthetic preference, but personally, I just found it to be an ugly and very questionable choice. The original went with a noir-themed aesthetic because the style was previously used in film to illustrate themes of corruption, crime, and gritty anti-heroes who teetered on the edge of darkness themselves (which is basically Batman in a nutshell). This colorful neon-heavy style was clearly an effort to give it more of a comic book come-to-life feel but that kind of aesthetic only works on the pages of a comic... as a live action film, it just looks weird and unpleasant. The action scenes have their moments, but I can't think of many truly stand-out stunts or money shots to separate this flick from the barrage of big budget blockbuster that swarm theaters every summer. That's not to say that the action scenes are bad, actually most of serve the movie just fine, they just either ring to similar to the previous Bat-flicks or other action movies. As for the costumes... this was the first movie to introduce the infamous appearance bat nipples on both the Batman and Robin costumes. It's something fans love to mock... and yeah, they are kind of strange. That's mainly since don't serve much of a purpose or function, and just add to the odd choices for this movie. So the technical execution is hit and miss... the production values are high, but the odd directorial choices are very distracting.

So that's Batman Forever... and it's not very good. I can't quite call it terrible, since the movie actually does have a few interesting moments. Still, they just don't make up for cheesy dialogue, annoying villains, and bizarre art direction. Watching it... there's just no denying that this film sold out too much of the comic's darker themes in favor of more a more kind friendly and marketable blockbuster. Though, if there's one compliment I can offer to this film, it's this... what would come next would make this one look like a masterpiece!

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Batman Returns - Review

Tim Burton's Batman was a cultural phenomenon. Not only was it the second highest grossing film of 1989 (falling just a bit short of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade), but it also started a renewed interest in superheroes as lucrative film properties, kicked off the career of Tim Burton, and paved the way for better and more serious adaptations of the Batman property (namely the excellent animated series that could premier a few years later). Tim Burton, however, had mixed feelings about the movie. His animosity toward the final product plus the rather difficult production made him reluctant to return for a sequel. He was eventually persuaded by Warner Bros. to return, this time with the promise of total creative control. While the original blended elements of gothic fantasy and film noir, Batman Returns dropped most of the noir references in favor of bizarre and surreal imagery. In other words, Batman Returns is basically the first Batman movie crossed with the 1931 horror classic, Freaks. The movie succeeded at the box office, but the dark imagery made the merchandising element increasingly difficult. Parents group protested against the film's violent nature, limited the number of marketable action figures and cancelling a proposed Happy Meal tie-in with McDonalds. Even today, reception to this film is pretty divided, with some praising the darker style and others stating it became too weird too fast. I have to admit, this was the one I was most curious about revisiting. Does it hold up or are the naysayers on to something?

Batman Returns takes place shortly after the previous film (though the exact time in undisclosed). After killing the Joker, Batman (once again played by Michael Keaton) continues to clean up the streets of Gotham. He soon takes on two new foes, the Penguin (Danny DeVito) and Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). The Penguin was born with sever birth defects. His ghastly appearance terrified his aristocratic parents and as an infant, was abandoned to the sewers of Gotham, where he spent most of his living life. In the sewers, the Penguin stumbles onto some highly illegal schemes of corrupt business moguel, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken). The Penguin, intent on returning to the surface, blackmails Shreck into helping him make his return and be embraced by Gotham's citizens before hatching an evil plan.. After returning, he allies with Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, a once shy woman pushed to her limit (literally) after nearly being killed by Shreck (her boss). Reborn as the sensual feline-style vigilante, she and Penguin plot to stopping the Caped Crusader. With two supervillains and a league of psychotic henchmen taking the street, Batman hurries to discover the Penguin's evil plot and expose his evil intentions. 

Batman Returns is an oddity. This is, no doubt, one of the strangest and most bizarre sequels I've seen, not just because of it's strangely absurd art direction, but mainly because of the vast differences from the original. While the first Batman was more or less a traditional action movie with a stylistic edge, Batman Returns is an oddly structured ugly duckling story with elements of surreal fantasy. Throw in some gang members dressed like circus clowns, some amazingly grotesque make up effects, all clashing with blatant sexual overtones whenever Catwoman is involved, it's pretty freaking bizarre. I might have been able to accept all of that, but what really puts it over-the-top is the inclusion of Christopher Walken... lets be honest here folks, nothing out-weirds Christopher Walken (though I don't mean that in a bad way, Walken is one of my favorite actors). I'm not necessarily saying that any of this is inherently a bad thing. Weird can be good... hell, weird can be great. Tim Burton has made a career specializing in the bizarre and most of his movies turned out pretty awesome. Some of my favorite films of all time are very out there too, namely A Clockwork Orange, Videodrome, Pi, and many others. A film being weird is neither inherently bad or good, but there has to be more to it than just that.

What's frustrating about this movie is that parts of it are great while others are abysmal. As a matter of fact, it basically has all the same pros and cons of the first movie, only in greater scale. The style is something to behold, giving us an interesting introspective into the twisted mind of the director. Oh, it's insanely over-the-top, but the sheer artistic vision along with the undoubtedly daunting execution is hard not to admire. It also portrays a very sympathetic depiction of it's villain. The Penguin is an interesting character too, beneath the rage and hatred that's been building up his whole life, there exists a subconscious longing to be loved and accepted. It's an interesting depiction, as the movie doesn't force you to sympathize with the character right away, but nonetheless portrays him as a tragic victim of circumstance that is, at times, somewhat heart-wrenching. Danny De Vito really sells this role too. It's hard to think of another actor that could have been as well cast for this part (well, maybe Bob Hoskins). A short, stout, gritty man with a heart full of rage and anger... yeah that's De Vito for you. 

As for what doesn't work in this movie... actually, pretty much everything else. Once again, Batman plays second fiddle to the villains, only this time it's even worse. Batman has been relegated to basically a mindless vigilante now, going around and actually killing most of his enemies (if you've read Batman comics, you know that in most interpretations, the Dark Knight has a very strict "no killing" rule). Most of his severely limited character development, like before, is triggered by an out-of-nowhere epiphany at the start of the third act. The only really interesting thing happening with Bruce Wayne is the romance between him and Selina Kyle. The two, both borderline-psychotic outsiders, have an interesting relationship as out-of-costume lovers and in-costume enemies. As standalone characters, however, there's just not much there. While Pfeiffer is incredibly sexy in that catsuit and definitely has fun with the role, there's just not much to her character. Catwoman has never represented much more than sexuality in the first place, and clearly they didn't feel the need to mess with that. Plus, once again the story just barely functions as a coherent narrative. Scenes barely connect while certain story elements are left oddly unexplored. For instance, there are some bizarre supernatural undertones to Catwoman's character, but they are barely explained. Wayne himself is barely explored, once again leaving his compulsory development for the third act. Out of all the things you would hope they would have address from the first movie, that was it... but no luck. It's one of those odd narratives that has some great elements but sloppy execution.

I've heard some people describe Batman Returns as a pretty good fantasy movie but a terrible Batman movie. That is actually a pretty fair assessment. It almost seems like Tim Burton was invested in telling the ugly duckling story of the Penguin but could have cared less about Batman himself. Hell, with a few minor re-writes, they could have easily make the Penguin a hero and Batman a villain. The whole thing actually rings quite similar to Edward Scissorhands, which Burton had ironically just finished directing before this. The plot just doesn't find a balance and, like the first film, the movie suffers for it. At the very least, the film benefits from the presence of the awesomely strange, Christopher Walken. Taking what was essentially a by-the-numbers corporate jerk, Walken brings his trademark eccentricities to the role and makes him very entertaining. How can anyone not love Christopher Walken... he's just plain awesome. 

Summing up... Batman Returns works in parts, but just becomes too freaking weird and off-beat to work as an entire movie. Its dark, strange, and incredibly creative, and for those with a sick mind (like me), it's enjoyable in a "what the hell am I watching" kind of way. Don't get me wrong, it never crosses the boundaries of a PG-13 rating, but it does push it to the limits. That said, Batman Returns is just too messy and uneven to truly work. In the end, it's just pretty average. 

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Batman - Review

Lately, I've been itching to review a movie that isn't fresh on everyone's mind. Not to mention, it's been a while since I've done a franchise/series review. Seeing as how the third and final instalment of Christopher Nolan's seminal Batman trilogy is two weeks away (CAN'T WAIT!!!), I thought it might be a good idea to look back at the two movies that came before it. After making that decision, however, I came across Tim Burton's take on the Dark Knight from 1989. It had been years since I had seen that one, as well as the three films that followed. So then I thought... how about reviews of the previous live action Batman movies starting with 1989's Batman and ending with The Dark Knight Rises (with apologies to the animated movies, film serials, and Adam West movie... most of which are actually quite good, but I just don't have time to review them all). That said, does the 1989 version hold up or is it just an outdated summer blockbuster? Let's take a look! Without further ado... here's my review of Batman.

Let's start with a little intro for this one. This particular adaptation of the long-running DC comic is actually quite interesting, though more for it's history and impact on the pop culture and less for the movie itself. The character had gone through many revisions, interpretations, and changes since it's conception in 1939. The comic, plus it's various other media adaptations, had been everything from dark and gritty to campy and goofy. In fact, around the time of this movie's release, the most resonant version of Batman on the public's mind was still the campy Adam West series from the 60s, despite the comics receiving a far darker overhaul shortly after the series' cancellation. Even in pre-production, there was mass speculation on whether this movie would take a comedic or more serious direction. When the movie finally made it into production, with Burton (then a barely known up-and-comer) directing, it was decided that the darker re-imaginings of the character would make their way to the big screen. The hype was substantial, with Michael Keaton cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman who, oddly enough, was known for comedic roles (a highly controversial casting choice prior to the film's release), Jack Nicholson as the Dark Knight's arch-nemesis The Joker, and Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale, Batman's love interest. Batman would go onto receive generally positive reviews from critics and audiences, making it one of the biggest blockbusters of the summer. So yeah... Batman was kind of a big deal.

The movie takes place in the dark and gritty metropolitan Gotham City. With sky-rocketing crime rates, Gotham's only protection is a mostly corrupt police force. Despite valiant efforts from the good-intentioned District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Billy Dee Williams), and well-meaning police commissioner, Jim Gordon, the city becomes increasingly unsafe. That is until a masked vigilante who dresses as a bat arrives to clean up the streets. Photographer Vicki Vale and Reporter Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) enter the scene, determined to find this mysterious "Batman." While Vale romances Batman's alter-ego, billionaire Bruce Wayne, the criminal element rises as a new homicidal maniac takes to the streets. Jack Napier, once a violent mobster, falls into a vat of chemicals and turns into anarchy embodied, the clownish psychopath known as The Joker. Can Batman stop the Joker and eliminate the criminal element of Gotham or will the Joker's crazy murderous antics get the best of him?

A little disclaimer before I start actually reviewing the movie... as challenging as it may, I aim to give this movie a strictly neutral review as it's own film and to limit comparisons to the sequels, reboots, comic, or TV series connections. And now, on with the review.

I think the last time I actually watched this film from start to finish was something like four years ago (though I did grow up watching this one on VHS back in the day). With a new perspective, it's kind of interesting to see how much of it works and how much of it fails pretty miserably. I could say that it's strictly style over substance, but personally, I don't like that saying. On top of it being a total cliché, it also totally undermines the importance of style in a film (don't get me wrong, substance matters way more, but style can't be ignored either). A stylishly creative film lacking in any real sense of depth may not be a "good" movie, but it can at least be entertaining... which is more or less what Batman is. This is one of those films that meets the bare minimum standards for a passable plot... one that's thoroughly formulaic and has a few noticeable holes, but the characters are interesting enough and the basic setup has enough meat to keep you invested. A borderline psychopath who fights crime dressed as a bat takes on a homicidal clown with a permanent smile... yeah, I can get into that. 

Unfortunately, the story fails in many of the dos-and-don'ts of basic screenwriting. The first issue... for a movie called Batman, you might be surprised to know that he really isn't the focus of the story. Instead, the film spends waaaaay too much time focusing on the Joker, going so far to giving him more screen-time and a far more detailed backstory. 
While Nicholson is fun as the Joker (more on the performances later), this really becomes a problem. Aside from a brief flashback scene of the young Bruce Wayne witnessing his parents' murder, there's barely a hint of backstory given to Bruce Wayne himself. Some might say this makes Batman more mysterious and dangerous, but that's not really enough. We rarely get a true sense of the dread, rage, and raw emotional energy that drives him to become the Caped Crusader. He has some odd character beats that give him a bit of an edge as almost even a borderline psychopath himself, but they come off as more odd and out of place than anything. When he is asked why he took up the cape, his only reply is simply, "I don't even know why I do this." Another example is one of the most off-beat scenes, Bruce Wayne (not as Batman) confronts the Joker and has this out-of-nowhere flip out, despite little provocation or logical backing. Granted it leads to one of the few true moments of character development, but with so little character building before hand, it just leads you to think, "What the hell was that?" I know this is nitpicking, but there's just something fundamentally missing when a movie fails to provide any competent character development to it's main character.

As for the rest of the story... it's just kind of a mess. The plot has a few noticeable holes and inconsistencies that become pretty distracting. For instance... there is a scene where Batman is flying the Batwing, locks his weapons onto the Joker (who just stands there btw), fires approximately 15 shots, and doesn't even scratch the guy. Another question I always had was why did it take so long for Batman (a "Master Detective") to figure out that the Joker's hideout was at Axis Chemicals (the place where Batman knocked Jack into the chemicals in the first place)??? Even when your not nitpicking the plotholes, there's just not much to this story. The Joker's master plan of poisoning Gotham's cosmetic supplies is kind of boring. The fact that the Joker killed Wayne's parents... also kind of lame. I suppose that makes for a decent rivalry between Batman and Joker, but it's introduced very late into the film and again comes kind of out of nowhere. Plus, comic books are known for having large and sprawling worlds... the fact that Joker is the murderer of Wayne's parents just makes that said world seem smaller and way too coincidental. There's more I can nitpick here, but honestly... I think I've complained enough.

Okay... so I just spent the last few paragraphs pretty much ripping this story to shreds. Despite all that... I actually do enjoy the film. Flawed plot aside, the sheer sense of style actually does make this movie quite entertaining. The re-imagined Gotham City is essentially a combination of Gothic fantasy and 40s film noir. It looks great, and gives the setting a darker and somewhat more dangerous edge. Then you have the costumes, which for the most part are pretty awesome. While Batman's thick rubber costume severely limits Keaton's mobility (a problem that continues to this day with the Dark Knight's live action costumes), it has a neat look to it. The design for the Batmobile is arguably the best of the series and the Batwing is pure awesomeness (even if it's weapons can't target for shit). Throw in a couple of cool action scenes, some fun gadgets for Batman (or as the Joker says, "Those Wonderful Toys"), and some enjoyably over-the-top henchmen, you get your money's worth. Oh... one more thing. Danny Elfman's musical score is hands-down the best soundtrack Batman has ever received. The orchestral music compliments the film's artistic style almost perfectly. The main theme for the character quite frankly has yet to have been outdone (yes, even in the Nolan films). Though in case you were wondering what I thought of the Prince songs randomly added into the film... yeah, I could have done without those.

Finally, we come to the cast. As I mentioned, the decision to cast Michael Keaton as the Caped Crusader was met with near-unanimous derision from fans prior to the film's release. An actor known primarily for comedies was definitely an odd choice. That said, the decision to cast against type worked to it's advantage. Despite all the script flaws with the character, Keaton is what makes the character. As Bruce Wayne, he is unassuming, bringing an arrogance and eccentricity to the character whenever he's around other people. He acts like a goof but not to a point where it's too over-the-top. When's he's not putting on a show, Keaton brings that darker edge to Wayne that makes you want to learn more about this guy (which I will again reiterate pissed me off when it doesn't happen). As Batman, he does the whole silent guardian of the night surprisingly well. I don't quite buy him as a master of hand-to-hand fighting, but he definitely has that same darker edge that makes it work. I don't think Keaton is the best Batman, but I did enjoy this interpretation.

As for Jack Nicholson as the Joker... it's Jack being Jack. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of Nicholson, and seeing him bounce around as the iconic villain is certainly fun. It was certainly a darker interpretation when compared to Caesar Romero's campy depiction of the 60s TV show, but there is an undeniable lack of real suspense with the character. Maybe it was Burton, maybe it was the unnecessary back-story, or maybe it was Nicholson, but aside from a few stand out scenes, I really think this version of the Joker is a tad bit overrated. That said, it's not a bad performance (I don't think Nicholson is capable of giving a bad performance), just nothing special. As for the rest, no real complaints there. Kim Basinger makes an enjoyable Vicki Vale, the romantic interest and occasional damsel in distress. Michael Gough is a suitable Alfred, as the butler/father figure to the orphaned Bruce Wayne. The rest are pretty insignificant, but they do they're job well.

So... that was a very long review. Thanks for reading it all! Summing up, this version of Batman has some very noticeable problems, but it works well enough to warrant a viewing (for the 5 people in the world who haven't seen it). You might be a bit disappointed if you were a fan back in the day to see that it doesn't hold up as well as you might expect, but overall it's pretty enjoyable. If nothing else, I'm glad the movie exists. If it hadn't, I doubt we would have seen the explosion of quality comic book movies that would come a decade later. Check it out!

My Score: 3 out of 5

Green Lantern - Review

One thing that I found a bit interesting about the Green Lantern movie is that it represents something of a minor turning point for Warner Bros. Since 2001, the studio has had the luxury of distributing the Harry Potter movies, a stream of popular, well-made, and lucrative blockbusters that were all but guaranteed to be mega-hits. Now with Potter series on it's final legs, Warner Bros has been on the lookout for a new blockbuster franchise to take it's Place. So the first up to bat is Green Lantern, a movie based on the long running DC comic book. As the first live action feature based on the series, expectations were high. Is this Warner's newest multi-million dollar franchise or is it back to the drawing board.

Green Lantern stars Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan, a cocky test pilot facing some personal demons from his past. One night, he comes across an alien named Abin Sur who crash landed on Earth. Abin Sur is a member of an intergalactic peace keeping alliance known as the Green Lantern Corp, who came to Earth in search of someone to take his place on the Lantern Corp before he dies. He bestows Jordan with his power ring, an item that bestows the wearer with the power to turn thought into reality. Jordan learns to master his new found powers right as a near-unstoppable force called Parrallax makes it's way to Earth with it's sights set on planetary destruction.

I do enjoy comic books and superhero movies, but I was never that big of a fan of Green Lantern. I've never had anything against the series or the character, it was just never my cup of tea. It seemed like a cool idea though, and if nothing else I admired it from afar... enough at least to look forward to seeing this movie. I only mention this so you know that when I say the movie is disappointing, I'm not coming at this as an upset fanboy. All I know of the character is the basic format, the general mythos, and most of the main characters. As far as the nit-picky details as for how well it follows it's source material... I'm not the one to ask about that. It's just a very mediocre sci-fi action film with more than it's share of flaws.

One thing that got me excited for this flick was that it was being directed by Martin Campbell. This was the filmmaker behind some solid and fun action films including Vertical Limit and The Mask of Zorro. For me though, his work on the 007 movies are his great accomplishment, directing two of the franchise's best entries, Casino Royale and Goldeneye. Unfortunately, Campbell's direction is ultimately what killed this movie. It seemed like he had no interest on set in what he was directing. What we ultimately get is a string of scenes featuring lost actors, sub par special effects, uninspired action, and weak humor. Granted the finale had it's moments, but the rest was about as bland as it gets. It's basically like he was directing on autopilot the whole time. What a disappointment...

One could theorize that the direction was so poor due in part for Campbell not being satisfied with the script... and I really wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, because the writing is awful! The worst part about it that it includes bits and pieces of a quality flick, but cops out on almost every bit of promise it had. The mythos behind the character is very cool... a plot about legion of super powered aliens who protect the universe has all kinds of potential. First problem though, they neglect many aspects of the Green Lantern Corps to focus almost exclusively on the personality-drained Hal Jordan. On top of his character having more in common with Tom Cruise in Top Gun, there's just nothing that hasn't been done before. He receives a great power, nearly budges from the responsibility,and then overcomes it to save the day in the end... haven't seen that a million times before. Meanwhile the far more interesting characters like the other Green Lanterns or the villainous Hector Hammond (played by Peter Sarsgaard) are left underutilized and underdeveloped. As for the rest of the movie... be prepared for lots of exposition, massive plot holes, unfunny jokes, and cliche after cliche.

Now, let's focus on the casting... oh the casting. Ryan Reynolds stars in the title role as Hal Jordan aka Green Lantern. Let's make one thing clear... I like Ryan Reynolds. He's a talented actor with good range, solid comic timing, and the ability to take on different roles. If you don't believe me on that, go watch Buried and see for yourself. His depiction of Hal Jordan, however, is just all wrong. It's partly due to the weak script and direction, but I can't totally let Reynolds off the hook. For the most part, he looks like he's in a daze or just lost. Blake Lively plays Jordan's love interest Carol Ferris. I don't have much to say about her other than that she has absolutely no range whatever in this. Peter Saarsgard as Hector Hammond was actually the only one who comes close to salvaging this movie. His character is largely irrelevant the plot and totally underdeveloped, but his character arc almost works and even though his acting at times borders on campy, he was the only one who actually showed some personality. Not much else to say about the casting other than that it usually doesn't work.

I might have been willing to forgive some of Green Lantern's many problems if the film's technical aspects were better, but sadly they're not. Let's start with the effects... in short, they're not that good. First off is the The Green Lantern costume. It is created not through fabrics or linens, but through cgi. The logic was that the outfit is created by energy, and that a traditional costume wouldn't give it the animated or alien look that was desired. In theory that makes sense, but the costume's cgi looked totally unfinished and unconvincing. Many times, it looked like Reynolds head was just floating around, especially in the scenes set in space. The rest of the action was for the most part just meh. The finale had it's moments, but the rest are ridiculously stupid. The introductory scene for Jordan is a generic dogfight between Jordan and a military drone in a scene that is all to reminiscent of Top Gun. Hell, I expected to start hearing Highway To The Danger Zone while watching it. If that's not bad enough, halfway through there's a scene where Jordan saves a failing helicopter by creating a giant toy car ramp with his ring... even for comic book standards, that is corny. That could actually be said for pretty much every scene in the flick. It's too campy to take seriously but not nearly fun enough to enjoy on an ironic level.

The worst part about Green Lantern is that between the decades of comic storylines and mythos, a previously successful director, and a promising cast, this could have been something really good. It's not the worst comic book movie ever, and I wouldn't go as far to call it the disaster it's being made out to be, but it just made too many mistakes for me to give it a recommendation. If you haven't seen it yet, don't bother.

My Score: 2 out of 5!