Green Lantern May Not Shine, But It Definitely Glows

After a full decade of the comic book movie wave coming out of Hollywood, it appears, at least to this reviewer, that the honeymoon with audiences is over. After X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, Batman, Superman, Fantastic Four, DareDevil, Ironman, Thor, etc, etc, etc., people are starting to get bored. How do I know? I went to go see Green Lantern and was shocked.... shocked that is wasn't nearly as bad as the swath of reviews would have you believe. Admittedly, Green Lantern (henceforth GL) has its share of flaws and areas that could have been stronger, but the majority of reviews out there would have you believe this movie carries the plague. It doesn't. It's very run-of-the-mill, formulaic and isn't as easily accessible to those unfamiliar with its mythology as say Spiderman or Batman, thus slowing it down with explanations. However, if those are its sins, then I think a lot of people giving it bad press have overreacted.

Admittedly, as a fan and reader of the comics, I've been looking forward to GL for months now, albeit with great trepidation and concern. Then as we got close to release and the reviews started coming in, I got really disheartened. RottenTomatoes has it hovering between 22% and 25%, but I told myself I would see it and so I did.

First let me talk about the movie itself. Having read plenty of reviews beforehand, I lowered my expectations. It's an origin story and it stayed pretty faithful to the source material. Ryan Reynolds did a fine job as Hal Jordan and while he didn't always have the strongest script to work with, his charismatic charms went a long way. There was also a lot going on for a movie on the shorter end of the run-time spectrum. They had to explain a lot of back story quickly to set up Hal's being chosen by Abin Sur's ring to join the GL Corps. (If you are getting lost just reading this synopsis, then we're hitting one of the major hurdles facing GL as a movie.)

Aside from the back story, the movie crammed in Sinestro and his role, the Guardians of the Universe and two separate villains – Hector Hammond and Parallax. To put it into perspective, that is like cramming Joker, Catwoman and the Penguin all into one Batman movie. (They came close, but never got that crowded).

The quality of the CG effects were one thing that really had me concerned going in, but they actually turned out pretty good and I never found myself distracted. The script was weak at times, but for a writing committee that included three novices, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting either. Interestingly enough, the action was less than I was expecting, but again, there was much to explain and the movie was fairly short.

Lower expectations aside, GL is nowhere near 25% territory. It simply isn't. I've been to movies in the last couple of years that made me wince (Sucker Punch), groan (Transformers 2) and keep checking my watch (Harry Potter 7, Pt. 1) and I did none of those things with GL. The movie has it's problem, but not all of them are the movie's fault. As an origin story it is derivative, and that is the term that many reviews are invoking as they pan the movie.

Guilty.

Here is one of the problems – many superhero stories have the same basic formula. Take Spiderman for instance. You have a normal kid and one day he gets bitten by a radioactive spider. The next thing he knows BANG he has super spider powers. At first he is overwhelmed and doesn't know what to make of it. Then he begins to harness and control the abilities and starts “strutting” and showing off. Finally, he must decide if he will act using those powers. Now take away “Spiderman” and the radioactive spider and you have a template for a sequence of events that is used, more or less, by Ironman, DareDevil, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and, yes, GL. Hell, even Hulk to a certain extent! That is the nature of a lot of superhero stories, folks. Now, once you get past the origin phase, then each character's adventures go off in their own unique direction. It is because of this that I would argue that this movie would have had a much better reception, say, five years ago when comic book movies were still relatively new. People complain that it is derivative because it is.

Another problem is that GL isn't as well known to general audiences as say Spiderman, Superman or Batman, thus making it a bit harder to just sit down and immediately understand the premise if you haven't read the source material. GL spends a bit of time explaining and for those unfamiliar it really needs to. The story isn't primarily set on Earth, the powers aren't “physical” in nature and there is a lot of back story. GL packed a lot of stuff into a movie that doesn't even run two hours; I would say a little too much. People are saying that they had a hard time following the story and I don't doubt it or fault them for that. Again, it goes back to the accessibility problem.

I've also read reviews that criticize elements that are innately part of the story, things like Hal's “daddy issues”. Look, if that bothers you or seems contrived, then GL probably isn't for you because Hal Jordan has “daddy issues” and family issues to boot. It's actually a big part of who he is and why he is special as a lantern. Remember, even Spiderman has “uncle issues” and Batman has “parents issues”.

Some are blasting the child-like sense of wonder the movie plays up, saying it will play better to kids. I won't take issue with that observation, but I will tell you that there were elements that conjured up memories of Spiderman's rooftop sequence for me. Again, derivative.

One comment I've read that I think is fair compared GL to the 1980's The Last Starfighter (one of my childhood faves and now a sentimental favorite). The similarities abound and that doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie.

Ultimately my initial reaction is that I was entertained, but I think the fact that I am a GL fan helped for reasons already stated. As a comic book movie it didn't bring anything revolutionary to the table which seems to be trying the patience of many reviewers. Yes, it could have been better and stronger in some areas, but as a whole it isn't terrible, just generic. Again, five years ago, this wouldn't have been as much an issue as it is in 2011.

I don't think it is fair to call GL a disaster. It could have been stronger, but its not a failure. It's is admittedly harder to get into than other superhero flicks and probably better suited to the readers and fans than for general audiences. While it didn't blow me away, I was entertained and not disappointed. For its problems, Green Lantern may not shine, but it definitely glows. 6/10