Have you seen… Happiness?

In the first instalment of a new series of articles highlighting films that have you might have missed, Charles Rivington tackles Todd Solondz’s controversial 1998 ensemble piece, Happiness.

 I want to start by stating quite simply that Todd Solondz’s Happiness is not for everyone. It seems odd to say this given that I am meant to be encouraging you to watch it but I feel compelled to tell you that there is a good chance that you will hate Happiness. I have shown Happiness to a large number of friends and while half of them

       

Philip Seymour Hoffman and Lara Flynn Boyle form an unlikely bond in Happiness

have loved it and raved about it (never the ones you expect), the other half have branded it ‘tasteless’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘immoral’.  These people aren’t bible-bashers or Daily Mail readers either, they are well rounded and open-minded and yet they still take moral umbrage with this film. To be honest it’s not hard to see where they are coming from. Happiness presents us with a veritable smorgasbord of deviant and disturbing behaviour: sexual abuse, suicide, murder, masturbation, dismemberment and, most prominently and most upsettingly, child rape. And yet it if you can cope with these issues being discussed and alluded to in a film (for the most part they occur mercifully off-screen), Happiness is a brutally funny, unexpectedly moving and thoroughly rewarding experience.

 

The structure of Happiness is clearly inspired by Chekhov’s Three Sisters (also the inspiration for  Woody Allen’s brilliant, Hannah and Sisters which may well be the subject of a future ‘Have you seen…’). Happiness centres around three adult sisters, their families and neighbours who all live in a nightmarish version of New Jersey that would  even make a ‘real housewife’ rather uncomfortable. Trish (Cynthia Stevenson), the eldest sister is a smug suburban housewife and mother whose psychiatrist husband, Bill (a spellbinding turn from Dylan Baker) has developed a secret obsession with his eleven-year-old son’s classmate. Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle) is a famous poet who has become disillusioned with her success, leading her to fantasise about being raped. The youngest daughter, the ironically named Joy (a charmingly pathetic Jane Adams) is a meek, dormouse of a woman whose love life and singing career are equally as dead in the water, eliciting the smug sympathy of her more successful siblings. Rounding out the cast are Louise Lasser and Ben Gazarra as the sisters’ divorcing parents, Camryn Manheim as an overweight woman who ‘hates sex’ and a pre-fame Philip Seymour Hoffman delivering a hilariously repugnant performance as Helen’s lonely and sexually deviant neighbour.

 

While outlining the film’s plot above in such a perfunctory manner suggests that Solondz is merely attempting to provoke shock for the sake of shock (and there is clearly an element of this), Happiness’s success lies in its handling of these controversial issues and horrifically flawed characters, not only with blistering humour, but also with alarming sensitivity, compassion even . The is most striking in Dylan Baker’s masterful performance as Bill, a child rapist and the centre of the film’s most controversial and disturbing plot strand. While Bill’s actions in the film are despicable and calculated and I’d be loathe to go as far as to describe him as sympathetic, Solondz’s writing and Baker’s performance at the very least present Bill as being unquestionably human. His humanity is most apparent in a quiet yet pivotal scene  in which Bill confesses his crimes to his young son, Billy (Rufus Reed). The conversation between father and son is both deeply unpleasant and very moving; despite his heinous acts it is clear that Bill loves Billy and can’t bring himself to lie to him. It’s an unbearably painful moment that will sear itself onto your memory and stay with you long after the film is over.

 

Despite it’s disturbing themes, Solondz also manages to mine a large amount of pitch black humour from the material (Happiness is essentially a comedy, albeit a very dark one) and much of the film is laugh-out-loud hilarious and irresistibly quotable; a personal favourite being the sophisticated Helen insisting to her younger sister that “I’m not laughing at you, I’m laughing with you” to which Jane Adam’s Joy, her eyes wide and watery, meekly replies, “but I’m not laughing”.  Solondz’s cruel sense of humour is apparent right

Jane Adams looking pensive in Happiness

from the off in the film’s fantastic opening scene which depicts a horribly uncomfortable dinner date between the pathetic Joy and her even more pathetic, soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend Andy (Jon Lovitz in a hilarious cameo). This remarkable scene is pretty much self-contained (it feels like a short play) and serves to lull the audience into a false sense of security, deliberately wrong-footing us so that we are ill-prepared for the horrors that await. Even if you don’t feel compelled to watch the film, I would recommend tracking down this one scene as it is very funny.

 

So there you have it: Happiness, a disturbing, disgusting and hilarious portrait of the dark side of human nature. Whether you immediately add it to your Lovefilm queue or you roll your eyes and close this browser window in disgust is entirely up to you. Happiness is not for everyone and maybe it’s not for you but even if its not can we please all take a minute and appreciate what a good thing that is. In a world where big studios spend all their time and energy chasing the broadest demographics and dumbing movies down in the process, I think we should all be grateful when a film comes along that isn’t ‘fun for all the family’, isn’t patronising, doesn’t talk down to us, is aimed solely at adults and, most importantly, doesn’t have ‘something for everyone’. Thank you Todd Solondz. Thank you Happiness.

Watch the (somewhat misleading) trailer for Happiness here:

Happiness Trailer

And the opening scene:

Happiness Opening

Prose & Cons: A Melancholic Comedy

After the success of Bridesmaids, a new wave of films with strong female characters are hitting cinema screens. Prose & Cons is a black, melancholic comedy set in the world of artistic frustration and writers block.

Sarah [Played by Catherine Balavage] is one of the new waves of poets. Her book sold millions of copies, but now she hasn’t written anything for over 160 days, and her publisher is getting restless. After an ultimatum from her publisher, and a horrendous poetry reading that went viral on twitter and YouTube, Sarah becomes increasingly desperate for new material. Her actions have far-reaching consequences that will change the lives of all of those around her.

Directed by Richard Wright and produced and written by Richard and Catherine; Prose & Cons is a film about writer’s block, consequences, friends and the resilience of typewriters.

Follow the film on Twitter here: @undersadtears

Here is the directors production diary: http://undersadtears.wordpress.com/

You can keep up to date on Prose & Cons IMDB Page

And more info on Catherine here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2952107/

Released 28th November 2011.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

*WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!*

After ten years, the end of the Harry Potter saga has finally come to an end. It is one of the most anticipated summer blockbuster movies of 2011 and it is just as insanely popular when the book was released at our local bookstores. The result is just as exciting as you’d expect a movie finale.

The story continues as Harry, Ron, and Hermione continue to destroy Voldemort’s last remaining Horcruxes (each individual item Voldemort has put his soul to make himself immortal). Meanwhile, Hogwarts is under the control of Death-Eaters and Dementors. The story is just continues straight from Part 1 and you can really feel Harry’s struggle to destroy the last remaining Horcruxes. Even showing Voldemort slowly, and eventually, growing more vulnerable as the story progresses. For those who have read the books, it won’t come to any surprise with the few twists here and there (i.e. Ciarán Hinds as Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth Dumbledore). A lot is at stake and director David Yates really dwells on that very well! The only problem I have is the time duration; Part 1 was 2 hours and 26 minutes, this film is only 2 hours 10 minutes long. It feels a lot shorter than it says, when it honestly should have been a lot longer to really show the epic story and scale of the production.

The performances from the three main leads are nothing to write about but they have improved over the years during the film series run. The film features an amazing British ensemble cast; Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Julie Walters and even David Yates collaborator Kelly Macdonald (State of Play mini-series and The Girl in the Café) gets an appearance as Helena Ravenclaw. As much it is fantastic to see such huge names in a film like Harry Potter, the time duration comes to affect and limits their screen-time. Fiennes, however, does show he is having a lot of fun playing Voldemort but also shows a twisted charismatic presence you don’t get a lot from villains nowadays.

The production value is top-notch, you can see a lot of effort and care has been put on this epic finale. The sets look fantastic, the visual effects look dazzling and the orchestral score (by Alexandre Desplat) really brings the emotional core to the story and overall film. The final battle between Harry and Voldemort is rather intense but it all feels rushed and quite lacking compared to other epics (The Lord of the Rings). Though Warner Bros. doesn’t pull any stops and really does deliver quite an event.

Overall; it is the film Harry Potter fans want from a finale and it is the best in the series. Not quite as the big bang it was anticipating but still has enough to keep you satisfied through-out. You can’t deny the Harry Potter film series will have Hollywood keep its eye on British filmmaking and finding talent overseas. An immensely well made production, strongly recommended.

4 out of 5

New Film 'Bubbles' Paves Way For Women In Film

Following on from Bridesmaids, a new film written and directed by women, lead role is a women and a high proportion of women on the crew. The shape of things to come? Let’s hope.

Here is all you need to know about Bubbles.

The Director

Leyla Pope comes from a professional background in communications working for Medecins Sans Frontiers, but her passion for filmmaking led her to the decision to make a career shift and follow her dream to work as a writer/director. Her short film Bubbles is a huge milestone for a female (also juggling the roles of wife and mother) in an industry which is still very much a male-dominated work environment.

The Film

The film’s central character, Lily, is a strong, intelligent woman struggling with suppressed desires and tense family dynamics. Following the death of her mother, Lily steels herself to organise her father’s move out of the family home. She has little support from her husband who is deeply absorbed in his latest composition and unable to relate to Lily’s tense presence. In the midst of this turmoil, a former lover appears and Lily finds her ordered life thrown out of balance. Buried feelings emerge and Lily begins to question her life’s choices. Will she live life as her mother did, putting expectation above desire? Or will she confront her feelings at the risk of unravelling the life she has built for herself? As Lily’s inner turmoil surfaces her young teenage daughter begins her own journey of sexual awakening.

Bubbles is an intelligent and evocative drama. Just as the novels of Jane Austen dissected and explored the choices for women in marriage and love, so Bubbles throws light on how these same choices are played out within a contemporary, upper class family. With a visually rich, Merchant-Ivory feel, Bubbles is a potent blend of classic storytelling and contemporary British drama.

The locations

From the outset it was clear that no ordinary location would do justice to the themes of Bubbles, so we secured the use of the stunning, rambling Grade II listed manor house “Plas Dinam” in Mid Wales as the setting for the majority of the shoot. This afforded not only the authentic interior of an historic family home, but also panoramic external shots.

The crew

The crew needed to be extremely skilled and experienced. Key to the final result were Bafta-winning cinematographer Huw Walters and top industry professional John Richards (Little Black Book, Girls’ Night, Band of Brothers) as Executive Producer.

The cast

With castings taking place individually in both Wales and London, it is testament to Leyla’s instinct and her rigorous casting process that she brought together a talented and balanced cast, including Welsh acting legend Howell Evans, to bring reality and depth to the characters in the script. Across the cast there is a vast amount of experience in TV and film.

The music

Music is not just a finishing touch for Bubbles, it is an integral part in the story. In the early stages of the film we see the building tension within Lily’s relationship to her husband Robin, a once-successful classical composer. Robin is no longer able to connect with Lily. His mounting frustrations with his wife’s attitude towards him are reflected in his struggles to express himself through his compositions.

Bubbles needed an original score that would help the audience to feel the changing emotional dynamics of each character, particularly in the final montage section of the film which has no dialogue.

Composer Jack Westmore was the perfect choice for this crucial element of the film. He possesses an incredible sensitivity to story dynamic and emotion. Jack wrote a score integrating solo cello into themes which are haunting and lyrical and perfectly express the contained but shifting restlessness of the film.

Soloist Rosie Biss is lead cellist with The Welsh National Opera. We were absolutely delighted when she agreed to play the solo cello parts. Her masterful interpretation of Jack’s score fully brings to life the complex emotions which are written into the music.

The continuing journey

Bubbles has finished post production but is only just beginning the journey to reach a national and international audience. We are now actively pursuing development of the short into a full-length feature or episodic TV series, including the American market.
There is an upcoming private London screening in late September for anyone interested in investing in or sponsoring the future development of Bubbles.

With a combination of visual beauty and strong plot and an emphasis on celebrating “Britishness” we see Bubbles very much as a showcase for the very best in British creativity. Opportunities to collaborate with British fashion designers, songwriters and musicians, perfumiers, luxury car brands, interior design etc abound. We see Bubbles as a canvas on which to paint a highly marketable picture of the best of British creativity on many levels.

For more information on investing in, supporting or sponsoring Bubbles, or for any other information you may require about the film or Bottlegreen Productions please email FAO Sophie Walcott at: bottlegreenproductions@gmail.com

Website: www.shortfilmbubbles.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Bubbles-Short-Film/173451646048497

Twitter: @bubblesfilm
Tumblr: http://bubblesshortfilm.tumblr?.com/

Transformers: Dark of the Moon {Film Review}

*WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Back in 2007, Michael Bay admitted he originally did not want to make the first Transformers movie, calling it a “stupid toys movie”, until Steven Spielberg changed the premise to “a kid and his car”.

It suggests that Bay was unsuitable to take the reins of a live-action Transformers movie. Despite this, the first film was a huge hit, considering it was during the year of threequels (Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End and The Bourne Ultimatum). The follow-up, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, was plagued with a script that was barely finished, thanks to the writer’s strike, and although resulting in a complete mess, still made $800 million worldwide. So now the inevitable conclusion to the trilogy has come around and, as much it is a slight improvement to Transformers 2, it’s still no good.

The plot starts off with Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) making a monologue (you know, like he did with the last two movies) about the war of Cybertron (which could’ve been a potentially better movie if explored further). It’s revealed a ship managed to escape, but lands on the moon, heavily damaged. John F. Kennedy (worst rotoscoping effects I’ve ever seen) authorises Apollo 11 to land on the moon and document footage of the crash site.

Flash-forward to the modern day, Optimus Prime learns about the ship and finds his mentor, Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy). Sentinel mentions his mission was to take the pillars away from Cybertron, so it’d be out of the Decepticon’s reach. Though we eventually find out the Decepticons raided the ship long before, while also revealing Sentinel made a truce with the Decepticons, betraying the Autobots for the survival of Cybertron.

The problem with these movies (a flaw since the first film), is the Transformers feel more like supporting characters, but shouldn’t they be the ones leading the movie? They barely get any screen-time whatsoever. Instead, Bay focusses on the human characters; Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), Lennox (Josh Duhamel), Simmons (John Tuturro), Epps (Tyrese Gibson) and Ron and Judy Witwicky (Kevin Dunn and Julie White). We’re also introduced to a whole new bunch; Carly Spencer (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), Mearing (Frances McDormand), Bruce Brazos (John Malkovich), Dutch (Alan Tudyk) and Dylan (Patrick Dempsey).

The problem with 11 characters vying for screen time is that they too get very little development. So, in essence, we have a film where we don’t have anything or anyone to relate to. We just don’t care about anyone. Live, die, I’ve dropped my popcorn – emotionally,  it all feels the same.

Anyway, it starts off with Sam having a hard time finding a job, but also bothered that he’s been awarded a medal by Barack Obama for saving the world twice (though technically once, since he did squat in the second film). The man clearly has angst, yet still barely makes any contribution to the narrative.

Meanwhile, the character of Carly feels it was originally written for Megan Fox’s Mikaela, but with the name changed at the last minute. Rosie’s previous “acting” experience was being a Victoria’s Secret model (also being in a VS commercial, directed by Michael Bay). It’s no surprise then, that her purpose in the film seems to be none other than to exploit her looks in the most juvenile way possible. Her performance in this film is terrible. She really brings down the film and she’s just as bad as Megan Fox (early contender for Worst Actress, put my money on it!).

The scenes involving Sam working for Malkovich could’ve easily been cut out, as could The NEST team (led by Lennox). Their sole purpose is to allow Bay to exploit his fetish for everything military. All of these characters act like cardboard cut-outs and deliver lame attempts of humour. Especially Ken Jeong’s character, Jerry Wang, who at one point locks Sam in a toilet stall and says to him “Deep Wang” (just to really force it down your throats, he says it three times and then says: “Get it? Deep Throat”). One for the kids, that.

In fairness, the action sequences in this film have been improved – no longer shaky-cam or close-up, but wide enough to see. The climactic battle at the end of the movie is very well done, but is literally the only thing worth watching. However, 90% of the battle is focused on the humans and barely on the Transformers. As much as it features Autobots and Decepticons beating the living daylights out of each other, Bay wants to have his fix by having soldiers parachuting out of a plane in flying squirrel suits and gliding down in Chicago (which was such a good plan that only one plane out of six made it).

The other problem is, as mentioned before, you just don’t care if any of the characters die in this big, winner-take-all, devil-take-the-hindmost shoot out. Plus, the tone in the film is all over the place. For example, Carly gets kidnapped and Sam is forced to spy for the Decepticons. It’s a scene where Sam grapples with the decision to betray his friends, only to go straight into pure slapstick humour. If you looked up the words ‘killing a scene’, it’d have a link to this film next to it.

A live-action Transformers movie could’ve gone any other way, but Bay decided to take this route and we’re supposed to accept what we have in front of us. The phrase people say when going to go see this movie is ‘leave your brain at the door’. Well, I honestly think it comes across as having too low standards and being easily amused. Don’t get me wrong, I like blockbusters as much as the next person, but I DO have a brain (we all do!).

Inception proved that you don’t need to dumb down your movie to attract mainstream audiences and become a box-office hit. You can bring good story-telling with some amazing set-pieces, instead, we just get a movie that’s all style and no substance. I don’t expect everything to be a Terrence Malick movie, but I at least expect a blockbuster that entertains and doesn’t insult our intelligence. If only Bay had watched X-Men: First Class.

Overall, a typical Michael Bay movie. Loud, incredibly dumb and exploitative as hell (in the worst sense)! The characters are bland and pointless, the Transformers are treated with no respect (especially Optimus Prime) and the plot is nonsensical. The worst summer movie of 2011 and one of the worst movie series ever made!

2 out of 5

 

The Tree of Life {Film Review}

Terrence Malick has been a unique filmmaker, always distancing himself from conventions to bring his own artistic license. From his 38 years of being in the industry, he has only made five films. It took him a full 20 years from Days of Heaven (1978) to The Thin Red Line (1998). He is infamous for shooting footage the length of a football field and also not being part of the publicity spot-light. The Tree of Life is his new movie since 2005’s The New World, barely any details were released for the film. Only two posters and a trailer were only shown to various multiplexes. It finally got screened at 2011 Cannes Film Festival, and it was received mixed reactions of boos and applause. I, however, thought it was worth the wait.

The Tree of Life is quite simply a breathtaking experience, a beautifully crafted film that doesn’t really give you straight answers but really makes you think. The film will be, inevitably, be compared to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey but it also reminded me of Koyaanisqatsi. The film deals with questions that the characters imply through-out; what is the meaning of our existance? What is our purpose in life? The story revolves around Jack (Sean Penn), who works as an architect in modern day America. He starts to think back during his childhood during the 50s, with his parents and going through different phases in his life. His parents are played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, who resemble two things that runs the theme during the duration; nature and grace. Nature is unpredictable and harsh, which Pitt tries at one point make his sons strong and confident. Grace is the complete opposite, it is elegant and calm as Chastain becomes supportive to her sons. Young Jack (Hunter McCracken) is very conflicted from the two, he leans towards nature but as an adult, he starts to feel more empathetic (shown through his sub-conscious walking through a desert and eventually ends up in a beach)

The performances from the entire cast is superb. They are barely given any dialogue, but their natural reactions and expressions are subtle. It is the meaning of the phrase; show, don’t tell. McCracken impresses as the Young Jack, showing the childhood curiosity and frustration everyone deals with. Such as a scene where he walks with his mother in town and notices police officers taking convicts away in their patrol cars. Looks up to his mother and asks in a worried tone if he’ll ever be like them? Sean Penn doesn’t get as much screen-time but he makes a presence when he’s thinking about his childhood experiences.

The film has a non-linear narrative, often cutting away from Jack’s story to shots of the formation of the universe and how the planets are created. Then it views when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, continuing Malick’s trademark on showing nature as a major element. All of these sequences are shot beautifully. Legendary special photographic effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull (who was responsible for the effects in 2001 and Blade Runner), was a consultant on the effects of this film. The effects in this film look organic and believable, a film to be big in scale requires believability (especially when dealing with a theme about creation and existence) The scenes with Jack’s family comes across as a family home movie, a sense of nostalgic memorabilia.

There is not much I want to say to reveal too much of the film, it really is something to see to believe. To put simply; if you are fan of Terrence Malick or want a film that has a deep message that is subtle, there is no excuse not to miss this film.

Overall; The film may divide opinions; some may find it pretentious, others may find it as a work of art. I, however, find it to be a meditating and philosophical film that is just as beautiful to watch. A huge change from the summer blockbuster season and strongly recommended.

5 out of 5

Our Family Wedding Review & Competition.

Frost is doing a competition to win one of three copies of wedding comedy Our Family Wedding, starring America Ferrara and Forest Whittaker. All you have to do is go to the homepage and subscribe.

Our Family Wedding is very funny, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the cover and didn’t know anything about it. However, I am a huge fan of Forest Whittaker and America Ferrara. I wasn’t disappointed in the film. It is a well scripted, well acted movie built around a funny premise. I laughed all the way through the not PC at all film. With all of the weddings happening at the moment (Kate’s Moss and Middleton to name just two) makes it also timely.

Check out the trailer below.

Green Lantern {Film Review}

*WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!*

Marvel has been long releasing their most cherished superheroes – X-Men, Spider-Man, Blade, Punisher, Fantastic Four, Iron Man and recently, Thor. Most have been successful and spawned many sequels (unlike Daredevil, which wasn’t well-received by critics and audiences, but led to the Elektra spin-off,  which did worse). So it was about time Warner Bros./DC Comics finally brought a superhero of theirs to the big screen who wasn’t Batman or Superman. Enter Green Lantern.

Created by Bill Finger and Martin Nodell in 1940, there have been many Green Lanterns, most notably the first, Alan Scott (1940) and John Stewart (1972). But it’s 1959’s fan-favourite Hal Jordan who makes the Emerald Crusader’s live-action movie debut.

The movie begins with an expositional monologue by Tomar-Re (voiced by Geoffrey Rush), explaining about the planet Oa, the Green Lantern Corps, the ring they wear that harnesses the power of will and how they are spread out among 3,600 sectors in the universe.

He explains that one of their warriors, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison) fought against Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown) – an enemy who absorbs and uses the power of fear from living beings – and defeated him. Parallax is imprisoned in the Lost Sector (Sector 666. . . . foreshadowing much?), but it all goes downhill when an alien spacecraft crash-lands where Parallax is kept and he escapes (shouldn’t they have made that sector a no fly zone if they had the most dangerous being in the universe?).

Six months later, Parrallax attacks Abin Sur and mortally wounds him. Abin Sur luckily escapes, crashes on Earth and commands his ring to find a successor. Enter Ryan Reynolds playing our main protagonist, Hal Jordan.

Jordan is a cocky fighter pilot who just happens to have daddy issues (father died in a fighter jet accident) and thus causes his fear. Unfortunately, since Reynolds is known for comedy roles, it’s hard to take him seriously when he tries to bring dramatic weight in a scene. It’s not terrible by any means, but it doesn’t feel convincing enough. Most of the time he’s smiling at the camera and joking around (which really makes the tone of this film go off at times).

Blake Lively plays Jordan’s childhood friend/love interest, Carol Ferris. She works for her father’s company and is also a fighter pilot. Despite apparently having the chops to fly aircraft, she is still shamefully used as the damsel in distress at times. But it is amusing when she quickly realises Hal Jordan is Green Lantern (thereby trashing the ridiculous notions of heroes using a small mask to conceal their identity).

In the blue corner, Peter Sarsgaard plays our antagonist, Dr. Hector Hammond. You can see he is having fun playing the role, but comes across as hammy and chewing the scenery. Instead, the most impressive performance in the film is from Mark Strong as Sinestro (it was the 50s, having unimaginative evil names made it straight-forward). He gives much more emotion and conviction but unfortunately, doesn’t get enough development or screen-time.

What about the rest of the cast, you say? Tim Robbins? Angela Bassett? Michael Clark Duncan as Kilowog? Barely get enough screen-time to make them memorable or worth caring about. The problem with this film is that it goes at such a quick pace, there’s not enough time to take it all in. Bassett’s character vanishes near the end of the second act never to be mentioned again! Even the main characters are barely developed, so new information springs out of nowhere, such as Hal, Carol and Hector all apparently knowing each other as kids.

Ah, now. The visual effects. I have never seen a comic book movie that looked so fake and artificial since Fantastic Four in 2005. I was desperately optimistic about the CGI Green Lantern suit, but whenever Hal Jordan’s touring Oa, I couldn’t help but see Ryan Reynolds’ head just floating in a sea of digital imagery, which became really distracting. Even the sets on Earth looked cheap, especially the scenes between Hal and Carol.

The climactic battle was severely lacking entertainment. Yeah, the sequences where Hal springs a fuel truck in the air and then forms an AA gun to blow it up in front of Parallax was creative, but there was no excitement, jeopardy and no feeling about the possibility of Hal dying.

Overall; hugely disappointing! Martin Campbell has done some seriously good films in the past (GoldenEye, The Mask of Zorro and Casino Royale) but here, it seems he has absolutely no idea what to do with the character. It is upsetting that Warner Bros./DC Comics only have this film this year, when Marvel has Thor, X-Men: First Class (both really good films, worth watching) and still have Captain America: The First Avenger waiting in the wings. I guess DC fans will have to wait for their old favourites in The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel next year.

Worst comic book hero film in 2011 summer blockbuster season.

2 out of 5