Showing posts with label Martin Campbell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Campbell. Show all posts

Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Eskimo Nell



From Nell

Eskimo Nell
UK 1975
Directed by Martin Campbell
88 Films Blu Ray Zone B

From the director of Goldeneye, The Mask of Zorro and Casino Royale comes... oh dearie me. Another, quite atrocious, British sex comedy.

And, yes... it’s that Martin Campbell.

I was given Eskimo Nell for Christmas by the wife of a friend (who is also a friend, obviously). I don’t know why people take a look at a Blu Ray, see that it’s got Mary Millington’s name prominently displayed and then think of me but... well, I guess I just evoke ‘quality film’ when they bring me to mind. ;-)

To be fair, I’d been curious about this movie for a long time, mostly for the Millington connection but, in regard to Mary’s appearance in this, all I can is that for someone who gets prominent billing in the casting on the box when she’s in the film for, maybe, less than 10 seconds with her footage played at high speed as she does a strip as part of an ‘audition’ montage... is that it’s nice she’s still so well remembered. She appeared in this a couple of years before she made the first of her two breakout hits, Come Play With Me (reviewed here) and The Playbirds (reviewed here) and there really isn’t much to see here if you’re a fan of the actress. Although there is a more Mary-centric short movie included on the extras. The product description mentions her turn here as an “eye popping cameo” but its more of a “don’t blink or you’ll miss it” kind of affair, I have to say.

What’s more interesting is that, although it’s a bit of an ensemble piece, the lead actor who plays the main character, as I see it, isn’t even listed on the front of the box at all. So one has to wonder what that actor must have thought of appearing in this that he’s somehow managed to have his name ommitted from the main cast list on the packaging. Oh yes... I’m looking at you Christopher Timothy, aka James Herriot in the hit TV show All Creatures Great and Small.

The film starts off with a voice-over song giving singing narration about a young graduate fresh out of film school, who we see tripping around all the usual places in London, trying to get a job as a director. There are some nice visual and audio references to places like the Hammer film company on Wardour Street and the like and, as this song continues, said young man is kicked out of various studios until he starts looking at the rock bottom places working straight from Soho, landing a job from producer Benny U. Murdoch as played by Roy Kinnear. You can tell exactly the kinds of films Murdoch and his backers make from the posters adorning the walls of various offices... The Sexorcist, King Dong, Vampire Vomit and Motor Bike Orgy. There’s even a poster for the Doris Wishman directed movie, Deadly Weapons, starring Chesty Morgan in Murdoch’s office (which I reviewed here). It becomes clear that he specialises in making ‘sexy’ sequels to ‘real’ movies such as his sequel to Son Of Cochise... Keep It Up Hiawatha.

This is not the kind of role I would equate with Kinnear, the national treasure who was often on TV in the 1970s and 80s, not to mention his work in some prestige film roles such as The Three Musketeers (and its two sequels). Here he plays a ‘tits obsessed’ producer who measures anything of quality in terms of how it can be boiled down to sex (when he’s not getting undressed and trying to demonstrate his prowess in this particular area) and he clearly wants a porn film made by the new graduate. So the new guy says yes and enlists his friend, the penguin obsessed writer Harris Tweedle, as played by the aforementioned Christopher Timothy, to write a script.

The rest of the film comprises the exploits of the director, his agent and the writer as they accompany the producer securing backing money from various people and then find their script requests (not to mention leading lady requests) getting more contradictory and impossible as the quest for production goes on and they interact with a cast list for this movie that... yeah... you really wouldn’t associate with this kind of endeavour. There’s Christopher Biggins... as the son of a ‘Mary Whitehouse’ character... and his sister who is dating the director and who happens to be played by the great Katy Manning, who played my favourite Doctor Who companion Jo Grant in the early seventies. Her inclusion here alone makes the acquisition of this film a necessity in my book although, it has to be said, she’s totally wasted in this.

So, anyway, when Kinnear’s character absconds with all the money and our three heroes are left responsible for it, it’s up to them to write and direct four different versions of the movie for each of the backers, including Katy Manning’s character’s mum, who is all about purity and censorship in cinema. So, yeah, they have to do a Christian parable, an out and out porn version, a gay S&M version and, my favourite, the world's first Kung Fu musical... which in this case also involves a lot of nuns and is somewhat based on The Sound of Music... but with added kung fu action.

Now, even though this is a truly terrible film and might test the film stamina of a certain type of audience, there are some nice ideas in the mix, to be sure. Although I found most of it to be pretty unfunny, there were a few things that made me chuckle. Such as a line from one of the backers explaining what he wants in the movie. “Hardcore, plenty of flagellation, rubber appliances, throw in some bestiality as well... then in the second scene...” and so on.

There’s also a long montage sequence showing the lads on set as each of the four versions of the movie are directed which is where, for me, the most laughs come from. The sequence where one of the Eskimo Nells and her leading, Asian actor are singing a line of verse before kung fu-ing one of a series of nuns in repeat mode did make me smile somewhat. However, all that being said, it’s generally a bit dull and less than witty, for the most part. Like a downmarket version of a Carry On film but with added anatomical detail.

It’s funny... back in Germany in 1962 some young directors got together at a film festival and drafted a document called the Oberhausen Manifesto because they were worried about the direction of German cinema, much of which had devolved into soft core sex comedies as their chief product. Ten years later many of these directors were pushing at these boundaries and producing interesting movies and are now more well known as starting the New German Cinema... or what was the New German Cinema. Meanwhile, in the UK, despite all our kitchen sink and cinéma-vérité stuff which was getting critical acclaim at the time, there were still a lot of sex comedies being produced and one wonders whether a similar protest to the backdrop of this kind of product was going on behind the scenes, so to speak, in Great Britain at the time. It seems to me we were somewhat lagging in these kinds of areas (and no, I don’t hate sex films, just making a comparison to the creative climate in different countries, is all).

And that’s about it in terms of my take away from Eskimo Nell except for... just one more thing. I’ve mentioned on this blog before that I was a professional child model in the very late sixties to mid 1970s and it’s always good to see various London locations like Wardour Street, Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square and the surrounding areas used in a movie like this. It’s a London which can only exist on film now and it is always nice to see and remember various landscapes which are still there, mostly, but populated with different shops etc. Seeing things like the old Athena shop on Leicester Square (a regular haunt) with a Wimpy Bar right next to it brings back a fond rush of nostalgia for days gone by. So, you know, even if Eskimo Nell isn’t your kind of thing... if you’re as old as me, you might want to take a look just for the unexpected trip down memory lane, as our intrepid film school heroes run through the streets of London trying to put right the consequences of their actions. It was kinda fun, I guess.

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

Casino Royale




Card Bored

Casino Royale
2006 UK/Czech Republic/USA/Germany/Bahamas
Directed by Martin Campbell
EON Blu Ray Region A/B/C

Well I always feel a little bit conflicted whenever I watch this film.

It is, of course, the third time that Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale has been adapted - once on TV in 1954 and then again for a big screen spoof version in 1967. This 2006 version, the first to be produced by EON, is the one that troubles me the most because, while it’s certainly a very good film, for me it just doesn’t quite live up to being “a James Bond film” and, given that it’s got a truly delightful script, I find myself even more disappointed by it.

So let’s put the positives up there first... all the actors are great in it, even Daniel Craig (yeah, I’ll get to him in a minute) and the dialogue is pretty good. As are the sets, costumes, lighting, editing... frankly, this movie works really well in a lot of ways. But there are also a lot of things which drag it down to an un-Bondian level too.

Okay, so my biggest disappointment is Daniel Craig and that’s a really unfair thing to say, to be honest, because he’s a fantastic actor and he does really well with the script he’s given. In fact, he couldn’t have done any better... it’s a brilliant performance. However, some roles require the actors to look the part too and Craig doesn’t look like James Bond in any way shape of form. His hair colour is way too light for Bond, for starters. Why the heck didn’t the producers just insist he dye it for the role? I know it’s just a colour but, you know, every little helps. Secondly, I know he pumped up for the part but, honestly, this guy looks like he’s built like a rugby player... and that just seems wrong. I mean, yeah, he absolutely looks like he could handle the situations thrown at him... just not as Bond. He looks too much like a thug and, yes, while I can freely admit, and have argued the point in the past, that Bond is really just a government employed thug... he’s never really looked like one. To be fair to the writers, this is kinda addressed in the script when Judy Dench calls him a blunt instrument and that’s exactly what Bond is... but visually maybe he shouldn’t be.

Now I’m really not having a go at Craig. I even think he may be able to play, not just a brilliant action hero as he does here... but also a good James Bond. But the approach is wrong in this, I think. Not necessarily his fault. For all I know it’s the producers’ doing. And, yeah, I know I’m very much in a minority on this one. I think Craig is absolutely great in this movie... but he’s not inhabiting Bond, just playing a part. And to me that makes Craig as much of an inappropriate choice for the role of Ian Fleming’s well loved character as, oh, I don’t know, right off the top of my head...? Roger Moore. Well, okay, maybe not quite as silly a choice as Roger Moore but, certainly, in the same ball park. He’s definitely my second least favourite of the EON actors in the role... and I really like this guy. So that’s really annoying.

The other big problem I’ve got is that it’s purporting to be an adaptation of the original novel but it misses on so many levels. Now it gets a couple of things right, to be sure. The torture scene, albeit minus the tennis racket, is the most accurate version (although the fifties TV version of a different torture scene seemed somehow more horrific) and there is at least some kind of card game in it. And Bond falls in love. So there you go... that’s three things they got right.

However, they added loads of action scenes, which I don’t blame them for, and it isn’t the first time, but it makes for an adaptation which hits the wrong tone for the book (actually, it’s a weak novel compared to the next couple of novels in the series but, even so, if you state your intention to put Casino Royale up on the screen, then you should maybe make it as sedate as the novel, surely?).

A really big knock, for me, is that they replace Bond’s regular card game, Baccarat Chemin De Fer, with bloody Texas Hold ‘Em Poker. Honestly? How insulting to the character and spirit of Bond can you get? Really stupid. They even run action scenes between the card games. Casino Royale was all about the card game. That was the whole intrigue of the thing.

So for all this, although a blonde American Bond played by Barry Nelson opposite a British “Clarence” Leiter (not Felix Leiter as in the book and in this adaptation here) is way off base, the 1954 version scores big time over this one as being, so far, the straightest adaptation of Casino Royale around. It’s a target this production couldn’t beat and, frankly, it didn’t even look like they were trying to.

One almost Bondian thing, and equally irritating in its “close but no cigar” prowess, is the wonderful composer David Arnold’s score for the movie. The title song really isn’t good but at least it’s on the right track and it has a strong melody line to pilfer, which Arnold enthusiastically utilises in the score. It’s really got some big Barry Bond statements in there but, unbelievably, it’s sadly lacking the full statement of Monty Norman’s original Bond theme until right as the end credits are rolling. Now I know this movie was being seen as a reboot and the theory was that the character earns the theme throughout the movie (there are a couple of small instances where the baseline, at least, is referred to for a short time) but what this actually means is that you have a non-Bond score on something that is already failing to convince me it’s a James Bond film... so this really doesn’t help matters. The gun barrel prelude doesn’t, for the first time since the series started, make it’s traditional appearance before the opening sequence, and this is just another nail in the coffin as far as I’m concerned (one which has been repeated in the series recently and with similar failure).

So there you have it. Great sequences of suspense, intrigue and action. Great actors and actresses (Eve Green’s turn as Vesper is astonishingly good) too. But, for all this, a truly un-Bondian non-event. I wasn’t too impressed by this effort, to be sure but... worse was to come...



EON James Bond Movie Reviews on NUTS4R2

Sunday, 6 October 2013

GoldenEye




Pierce Creatures

GoldenEye
1995 UK/USA
Directed by Martin Campbell
EON Blu Ray Region A/B/C

Okay then. This one’s a corker.

After the disappointment of the previous film, Licence To Kill, which had Timothy Dalton playing Bond very well in what was essentially a rubbish movie... I found myself in kind of a state of disenchantment with the Bond franchise once again. The gap between the last film and this one was nearly six years and somehow I’d just assumed that everyone involved with the mess of that last movie were just hanging their heads in shame and that it had been the franchise killer. Seriously, I’d just thought that everyone had realised how terrible Licence To Kill was and just finally decided to stop making any more Bond films for fear of accidentally doing the same thing. I’d written it off, just as I’d written off any post McCoy Doctor Who stories way back then too.

Truth be told... although the box office on Licence To Kill was quite poor, there were also various legal issues which were getting in the way of continuing the series. By the time all the wrangling had been sorted out, Timothy Dalton had decided he’d had enough, which was a great loss to the franchise but also helped the series gain legs when the new bit of casting proved equally suitable for the role.

Pierce Brosnan was the guy I had pegged to play Bond in The Living Daylights without even knowing he’d come that close (holds up finger and thumb with small gap between them) to going ahead in the role in that film. This time, at least, when I told people they should have got Pierce Brosnan in on it, they mostly knew who I was talking about. And low and behold, they actually gave the role to Brosnan... who I still, at the time, didn’t even know had been up for the role even.

So this was it then. I’d have to go and see the new Bond movie and just keep my fingers crossed that they’d learnt a few lessons since Licence To Kill.

As it turns out... they had. GoldenEye is one of the top five Bond movies ever committed to celluloid. They get everything just right in this one and it’s truly a film which ushered in a new golden age of Bond... for a little while, at least. If you want to know what my top 5 Bond films are in ascending order it would be as follows: 5. GoldenEye, 4. The Living Daylights, 3. Dr. No, 2. From Russia With Love and 1. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. If you want to get in to Bond then those are the five to get you “into the groove”, so to speak.

This film brought a lot of cast changes with it. The Bill Tanner character, who actually appears in 6 of the Bond movies to date, was played this time around by Michael Kitchen. Judy Dench makes an amazing M and Samantha Bond was an equally well written Miss Moneypenny. There were also a couple of new characters with Jack Wade (a kind of stand in for the Felix Leiter character since Licence To Kill, as the films didn’t have the guts of bringing the character back with his disabilities like Fleming did in the books after Live And Let Die), played by previous Bond villain Joe Don Baker and Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky as played by the lovable Robbie Coltrane. Both reappear again later in the series.

And just in case there were any doubts this was still a Bond movie... we have the return of Desmond Llewellyn carrying on with his usual Q personae... which is all very entertaining.

As if this wasnt enough, we have the likes of Izabella Scorupco as the leading lady, a small part for Tchéky Karyo (who many will know from his role in Luc Besson’s Nikita), the inimitable Alan Cumming, Sean Bean as the bad guy and Famke Janssen as one of the sexiest Bond girls ever to grace a Bond movie... and Bond doesn’t even sleep with this character.

So the point I’m pushing here is you’ve got a cast of absolute professionals doing their thing and, for once, they’ve got a script which, while just a tad creaky now, is still bloody well written and in the hands of these acting geniuses the lines sing off the page.

GoldenEye starts out with an absolute powerhouse of a pre-credits sequence involving extreme bungee jumping, a stealth mission gone wrong, a shootout, a chase and an airplane catch up stunt which takes the biscuit and plays with the bounds of credibility... until you realise that a) it’s physically possible and b) this is proven because the stunt in question seems to have been done for real in the movie. You also have a character in this sequence who is left for dead and returns as the villain for the main body of the movie, which is set nine years after this pre-credits sequence. I think this is the first time that kind of long dead character follow through from the opening has been done in a Bond film.

After this we go straight into an absolutely brilliant Bonder than Bond opening title sequence which, in my opinion, has never been bettered in the movies since this one and it’s backed up by a pretty good ballad too, sung by Tina Turner.

Furthermore, after these two fabulous things, we then go into a post-credit sequence car chase/race between Famke Janssen and Brosnan which is a completely, jaw droppingly, beautiful partnership between some brilliantly designed and well thought out footage which is lovingly married by the editor, who cuts it perfectly. I think this sequence alone is something which should be used as a text book for any budding action directors. It’s a fast sequence which is beautifully crafted and which doesn’t lose the audience... a perfect example of speed, power and wit, presented intelligently.

And the best part of all of this is... the film does not go down hill after this heady series of “opening events”.

GoldenEye is also one of the perfect Bond films because, unlike the next movie in the series, which suffers from this a little, it doesn’t just string big action sequences together without giving the characters and plot time to breathe. It’s a proper Bond film and not just an action fest and this is important, I feel, on a Bond film. It’s a spy movie genre... not a Hollywood hit and run.

And then there’s the music.

Okay, I’ll tell you up front that I really love the GoldenEye score but that it has very many detractors/haters in “film music fan” circles. For some reason a lot of people really disliked it. Personally I was thrilled at the time that Eric Serra, the guy who breathed musical life into such Besson films as Subway, The Big Blue and Nikita, was scoring this movie and he didn’t let me down.

Even from the pre-credits sequence, the music hooks you. It starts very early on by pumping the classic Monty Norman Bond theme, orchestrated as a kind of bass percussion underneath the music... a slow, pounding, relentlessness that “brings the Bond” with every note. This is a device re-used throughout the film but, if this wasn’t enough, you also have the famous three note trumpet motif from Goldfinger (you know the one) reorchestrated for synthesisers and punctuating this opening with a kind of audio echo of Bonds past. It’s truly fantastic and it really angers me when people on various film music message boards say this score has no tune in it... um, people, it has both the Bond theme and quotes from Goldfinger in it right from the outset... get a life.

I loved David Arnold's scores for the next two movies in the series but I think Serra’s score holds it’s own with a lot of the better Bond scores. Put it this way... when this film came out I’d been kinda having a break from listening to movie scores for a year or two. I was more into avant-garde contemporary composers or atonal/serial modernists at the time. GoldenEye reminded me why I’d spent years listening to movie scores and reignited my passion for the art form, which I’d been interested in since about the age of four, but which really took hold of me when I was nine. Similarly, my cousin, who really likes movies but isn’t really into soundtracks all that much, went out and bought this score at the time too because he loved it in the movie so much and I know he really liked the album presentation. So I find negative comments about the score a bit annoying when I think it fits the film like a glove, to be honest. There’s a tank chase sequence which is really ace in the film and I think the score sounds out of kilter with the rest of the movie... but that’s because that sequence was scored by another composer when the producers etc lost faith with Serra’s score. The irony of that is, Serra’s original tank chase music made its way onto the soundtrack album and... well... they were crazy to rescore it. It’s perfect!

Overall, the film is a well rounded action adventure yarn within the spy genre it rises from. It’s a brilliant package which doesn’t forget to appeal to what’s in your heart before it gets back to coaxing up your adrenalin levels.

Alas, the UK blu-ray of this version retains the same BBFC cuts that I thought were going to be reinstated this time around. I’ve bought three DVD prints of this film over the years and they’re all different. The only way to see some quite edgy stuff which reminds you how the writers had tried to put the toughness back into the Bond character (albeit in a slightly misogynistic but not inappropriate way) is to buy the US edition of the movie... which I will be doing again for the stand alone Blue Ray version at some point... which will bring my total count on DVD and Blu Ray (I’m not even going to bring up VHS) to 5 prints. Not good but, hey, what can one do when faced with an overly censorious government.

And that’s that. Brosnan was a great version of Bond and I was deliriously happy that the franchise was back on course again. 1995 was a pretty good year for Bond fans.



EON James Bond Movie Reviews on NUTS4R2

Sunday, 19 June 2011

Green Lantern 3D




Greening From Ear to Ear!

Green Lantern 3D US 2011
Directed by Martin Campbell
Playing at cinemas now.

Not a spoiler warning: I don’t think I can really, legitimately put a spoiler warning on this one. This is a big, dumb summer blockbuster movie which has no real twists or turns in the narrative. There’s never any doubt that Green Lantern won’t win the day and, as such, there's nothing I could possibly give away that might be considered as spoiler material. So consider yourself un-warned!

“In brightest day, in blackest night,
No evil shall escape my sight
Let those who worship evil's might,
Beware my power... Green Lantern's light!”
Revised Green Lantern Oath from the mid-forties to present day.

You know it’s kinda ironic that, after my initial reaction to seeing this movie last night, I really hadn’t been looking forward to seeing this one at all. All the signs that it would be a bad one were there right from the start... before they’d even started writing the movie. I like to see my superhero movies done right... and it's a rare occurrence when they are not screwed up by the movie studios “adapting” them.

Not setting the original X-Men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four and Hulk movies in the early sixties, for example, made me really mad. As did DC’s decision not to set their Superman and Batman movies in the late thirties. Not to put Daredevil in his proper yellow costume instead of the red one they elected to use, which he didn’t use in the comics until a few issues into his run (if memory serves) got me really angry. The decision to give the Hulk green skin in the movies instead of the grey skin he had in his first issue... what the f***? They take too many liberties with these properties! And look, in the new Captain America movie they have him with a circular shield! He didn’t have a shield that shape until his second issue! And where are The Original Human Torch and Namor, The Sub Mariner if you’re going to do a Captain America set in his proper time period... seriously people... where are The Invaders?

All the things that have really annoyed me over the years about superheroes on film looked set to be happening again, as expected, with the new Green Lantern movie... but by this time my response has pretty much been numbed down to... whatever.

My first disappointment when the Green Lantern movie was first announced was the fact that they weren’t doing the “proper” Green Lantern... aka the Golden Age Green Lantern Alan Scott who made his comics debut in 1940. He wore a red costume (don’t even ask) and his “magical” power ring, powered from the Green Lantern, affected everything except things made of wood. But no... in their wisdom, the movie studios decided that they were doing the 1959 Silver Age Green Lantern Hal Jordan, who did wear a green costume and who had a power ring that would be useful against everything unless it was coloured yellow. Okay... so not such a big deal I guess. I always quite liked the silver age incarnation of Green Lantern, even though he was a member of the more modern Justice League of America (JLA) and not the forties super group Justice Society of America (JSA) as his earlier counterpart had been. After the mid-seventies I kinda lost interest in Green Lantern... so I don’t know about any of Hal Jordan’s replacements or the story arc where Hal Jordan became the prime villain of the DC universe Parallax and destroyed the Green Lantern Corp before somehow redeeming himself later on. I’m in my early forties now (old man alert) so it’s been a long time since I really caught up with these characters.

My first and only real hope was that Martin Campbell had signed on to direct the movie. Now I wasn’t overstruck on that third version of Casino Royale he directed back in 2006 but he’s done some good, well crafted work over the years and I was particularly impressed with his first, resurrection of the Bond franchise on Goldeneye. In fact, I’d probably put Goldeneye at the tail end of my top 5 Bond movies, up there with the excellent Lazenby movie and a few of the Connery films.

Even this though, couldn’t really get me in any way fired up to see the new Green Lantern movie... but I’d liked the character as a kid (especially when he used to team up with Green Arrow) and I’d already seen a rubbishy movie with Green as part of the title earlier in the year (yeah, you all know what that was, right) and I figured... “what are the odds?” Well actually, the odds were pretty bad because, from what I‘d gathered on Twitter, the reviews and comments about the new Green Lantern movie were not at all good... so that was kind of a dampener too. And, of course, the final insult to my potential of the enjoyment of this movie was also locked firmly into place... they’d shot it in 3D. Oh, good grief!

But I went along anyway because I don’t get to the cinema as often as I'd like these days (mainly because the movies they show are mostly dire) and this one was at least something I could relate to.

Colour me surprised. I loved it.

Green Lantern is not a tricky film to get to grips with. The direction is solid and it’s fairly fast moving and does pretty much everything you’d want a Green Lantern movie to do, to be honest. I’ve heard some disappointed people talking about this on Twitter and they’ve been let down by it and said it was boring. Now I don’t know if that’s a reaction to the wall-to-wall action in this movie... I personally, usually get very bored with action flicks because action without context is very dull. However, there was enough talking and other spectacle on show in this that I was never once bored in this movie.

I was thinking about this a lot last night and I’ve come to the conclusion that one of the reasons people may be inclined to dismiss this movie is that, depending on their age, the storyline just may be way to simplistic for an audience that demands more sophisticated, or at least more convoluted, plotting in this day and age. As I more than intimated in my opening to this post, there aren’t really any twisty turny plot points to be found in this movie or anything that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of sixties Green Lantern could consider unexpected or spoiler worthy. As my modicum of research for this article (and I rarely ever bother to do research, just fact checking from my unreliable old man’s memories... but shhh, don’t tell anyone) I reread the first three silver age Green Lantern stories which debuted in DC Showcase Issue 22 and I have to say that, while the movie has tarted up the background of Hal Jordan’s character (well you had to really), it’s pretty much left all the basic anchor points of the story as they originally were... and I think that with a character who is, basically, as cut and dry as Green Lantern was back in the sixties, this was probably the right call to make for his big screen debut.

There isn’t anything amazing or new on show in this film, to be honest, but it does have a very strong supporting element to it in the shape of an actor called Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. Now I don’t really know this actor, I don’t remember him from the one film I’ve seen him in - Smokin’ Aces - and so I can’t really pass too much comment as to whether he’s a good actor or not. But what I can say is that he looks the dead spit of the Hal Jordan character as he was drawn in that debut issue back in 1959 and that he does brilliantly in the role, giving it the seriousness and respect that a role like this deserves. I’ll say it again... colour me surprised.

There are also a couple of nice touches in the movie. For instance, and I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this but, after Green Lantern's big entrance in the “helicopter rescue” scene, when he flies off, I’m pretty sure that the four notes played in James Newton Howards barely noticeable score as he does this (it’s mostly lost in the action mix of big explosions and effects sounds, which is a shame) are a version of Johnny Williams Superman the Movie theme (apparently a cameo appearance by Clark Kent was originally scheduled into the movie but got dropped later on).

The other great thing is when they pull the rug out of an unbelieving audience when it comes to Green Lantern protecting his secret identity. Pretty much all his friends figure out who he is and when one particular person seems like she isn’t, I was all ready to leap down the films throat because it’s really only a little mask with not much practical use in real life, there’s no way it would hide someone’s identity (this has always been a flaw with DC’s heroes... Mr. Kent’s glasses and very slight hairstyle change, for instance). But the director is definitely in on the joke and that character also realises, within less than a minute, that Green Lantern is, in fact, Hal Jordan... so that’s a nice little twist the movie makes... perhaps as a nod to the recent success of the Iron Man franchise which makes no bones about everyone knowing that the titular character is Tony Stark.

True, there’s a few little clunkers in the movie... like the ring giving Hal Jordan a background knowledge of The Guardians and the Green Lantern Corp but then still having to have stupid plot points explained to him for the benefit of the audience. What they really needed to give him was an exposition ring!

And the fact that the ring gives him the power of hearing everything translated into his own language but when a scene showing a sizeable gathering of aliens is shown, they’re all speaking alien languages. But these flaws are minor considering some of the clunkers made in other recent superhero movies (I loved the new X-Men: First Class but there were some amazing continuity errors made in it) and the entertainment factor kinda outweighs the little details on this one.

Even Sinistro, as played by Mark Strong who is probably best known for being the lead villain in Guy Ritchie’s first Sherlock Holmes movie, is a pretty likeable guy. Now before all you Lantern lovers scream at me about Sinistro... yeah, I know he’s a bad guy and so will most of the audience. After all, Sinistro is to Green Lantern what The Joker is to Batman, right? Well, they’ve really done a good job with Sinistro here as this film also serves as background detail to his character in light of a possible sequel. Most people in the audience are going to be waiting for the penny to drop and for Sinistro to turn into the bad guy, Green Lantern’s arch nemesis... well, all I’m saying is that, if you wait until a little of the way into the end credits, Sinistro fans will be rewarded!

And, really, there’s not much else to say about this film. Simple but effective big budget effects movie with a touch of heart that I really was not expecting to have a good thing to say about.

Colour me surprised.

Colour me green!

NUTS4R2’s Astonishing Trivia Treats: Although the Green Lantern oath used in the film will be familiar to fans of the character, this version of the oath was a revised one running from the mid-forties onwards. The original Green Lantern oath went something like this... “...and I shall shed my light over dark evil. For the dark things cannot stand the light, The light of the Green Lantern!”