Saturday, 6 July 2013
Green Lantern - was it really all that bad?
When director Martin Campbell, noted for his success with James Bond and Zorro, took his first step into superhero territory with his 2011 take on DC's 'Green Lantern,' the results did not exactly set the world on fire. While it did ultimately more than recoup its $200 million budget at the global box office, before long critics and fans were largely writing the film off as yet another example of DC's perceived inability to make any character work onscreen except Batman (alongside 'Superman Returns,' 'Catwoman,' and their axed attempts at 'Wonder Woman' and 'Justice League').
It's not hard to see why, as there's a great deal about 'Green Lantern' that doesn't work. The convoluted plot struggles to adequately convey the character's complex, quirky, space-hopping universe; the CGI costume is undeniably silly-looking; Peter Saarsgard's villain isn't particularly compelling; and, given the film was released the same summer as Marvel's 'Thor' and 'Captain America,' superhero origin stories were growing painfully overfamiliar.
But all that notwithstanding, this writer for one doesn't think 'Green Lantern' is truly a bad film. Certainly it's deeply flawed, but it does have its strengths.
The key thing that works is the casting of Ryan Reynolds. With his rare blend of classic good looks and witty self-deprecation, he's an actor who is hard to dislike; if anyone can help sell so outlandish a concept as the Green Lantern Corps, it's him (we might say the same of Bradley Cooper, who was also in the running for the role). When proceedings get too weird and/or potentially silly, he's on hand with a wisecrack to deflate the situation; take his early struggle to recite the Green Lantern oath: "I pledge allegiance to a lantern that I got from a dying purple alien in a swamp…" His interplay with co-stars Blake Lively and Taika Waititi helps in this regard, such as when Waititi berates him for creating a Formula One car from green energy, and Lively points out the futility of the mask: "you don't think I would recognise you because I can't see your cheekbones?"
Also effective is the main villain, Parallax. While Saarsgard's mutant human go-between gets tedious, Parallax itself is a nemesis worthy of an interstellar superhero: an immense force of nature eating its way through space, whose climactic assault on earth - sucking up fleeing innocents, consuming their fear, reducing them to skeletons - is epic, effective stuff. Particularly after 'Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer' copped out on fully realising Marvel's cosmic villain Galactus, it's nice to have at least one such gargantuan über-baddie on screen.
Reynolds himself has spoken openly of the film's problems, telling Empire, "I saw how difficult it is make that (superhero) concept palatable, and how confused it all can be when you don't really know exactly where you're going with it," before professing uncertainty as to whether he would be interested in reprising the role in the proposed 'Justice League.' Given that - again, not unlike 'Superman Returns' - 'Green Lantern' is widely regarded a failure, conventional wisdom would dictate that, should 'Justice League' be made, the role would be recast; some speculate Reynolds' character Hal Jordan would be discarded altogether, in favour of DC's more recent incarnation of the Green Lantern, John Stewart, as almost played by Common in George Miller's cancelled 'Justice League' in 2008. But while 2011's 'Green Lantern' seems certain to be confined to the rubbish dump of superhero movie history (and not without some justification), let's hope that whoever takes the character on in the future takes heed of their predecessor's successes, as well as well as its failings.
It's not hard to see why, as there's a great deal about 'Green Lantern' that doesn't work. The convoluted plot struggles to adequately convey the character's complex, quirky, space-hopping universe; the CGI costume is undeniably silly-looking; Peter Saarsgard's villain isn't particularly compelling; and, given the film was released the same summer as Marvel's 'Thor' and 'Captain America,' superhero origin stories were growing painfully overfamiliar.
But all that notwithstanding, this writer for one doesn't think 'Green Lantern' is truly a bad film. Certainly it's deeply flawed, but it does have its strengths.
The key thing that works is the casting of Ryan Reynolds. With his rare blend of classic good looks and witty self-deprecation, he's an actor who is hard to dislike; if anyone can help sell so outlandish a concept as the Green Lantern Corps, it's him (we might say the same of Bradley Cooper, who was also in the running for the role). When proceedings get too weird and/or potentially silly, he's on hand with a wisecrack to deflate the situation; take his early struggle to recite the Green Lantern oath: "I pledge allegiance to a lantern that I got from a dying purple alien in a swamp…" His interplay with co-stars Blake Lively and Taika Waititi helps in this regard, such as when Waititi berates him for creating a Formula One car from green energy, and Lively points out the futility of the mask: "you don't think I would recognise you because I can't see your cheekbones?"
Also effective is the main villain, Parallax. While Saarsgard's mutant human go-between gets tedious, Parallax itself is a nemesis worthy of an interstellar superhero: an immense force of nature eating its way through space, whose climactic assault on earth - sucking up fleeing innocents, consuming their fear, reducing them to skeletons - is epic, effective stuff. Particularly after 'Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer' copped out on fully realising Marvel's cosmic villain Galactus, it's nice to have at least one such gargantuan über-baddie on screen.
Reynolds himself has spoken openly of the film's problems, telling Empire, "I saw how difficult it is make that (superhero) concept palatable, and how confused it all can be when you don't really know exactly where you're going with it," before professing uncertainty as to whether he would be interested in reprising the role in the proposed 'Justice League.' Given that - again, not unlike 'Superman Returns' - 'Green Lantern' is widely regarded a failure, conventional wisdom would dictate that, should 'Justice League' be made, the role would be recast; some speculate Reynolds' character Hal Jordan would be discarded altogether, in favour of DC's more recent incarnation of the Green Lantern, John Stewart, as almost played by Common in George Miller's cancelled 'Justice League' in 2008. But while 2011's 'Green Lantern' seems certain to be confined to the rubbish dump of superhero movie history (and not without some justification), let's hope that whoever takes the character on in the future takes heed of their predecessor's successes, as well as well as its failings.
The Equalizer gets pushed back
The big screen adaptation of classic 80s show The Equalizer has been pushed back five months.
Originally due out on April 11, 2014, it will instead emerge from the shadows seeking vigilante vengeance on September 26, 2014.
Its being directed by Antoine Fuqua, the man who helmed recent Presidential calamity flick Olympus Has Fallen and the Oscar-winning Training Day.
And like training day, Fuqua has Denzel Washington in the lead.
Washington takes on the mantle from the late Edward Woodward, who immortalised the role of former spook Robert McCall, who became a force for justice in the perilous New York of the 1980s.
McCall, who drove a classic Jaguar XJ6, would advertise his services in an iconic newspaper ad, which read: “Got a problem? Odds against you? Call the Equalizer. 212 555 4200.”
Starring alongside Washington are Kick-Ass star Chloe Grace Moretz, Melissa Leo, Marton Csokas and Haley Bennett.
Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn was originally rumoured to be in the directors chair for the movie, as well as Rise of the Planet of the Apes helmsman Rupert Wyatt.
Originally due out on April 11, 2014, it will instead emerge from the shadows seeking vigilante vengeance on September 26, 2014.
Its being directed by Antoine Fuqua, the man who helmed recent Presidential calamity flick Olympus Has Fallen and the Oscar-winning Training Day.
And like training day, Fuqua has Denzel Washington in the lead.
Washington takes on the mantle from the late Edward Woodward, who immortalised the role of former spook Robert McCall, who became a force for justice in the perilous New York of the 1980s.
McCall, who drove a classic Jaguar XJ6, would advertise his services in an iconic newspaper ad, which read: “Got a problem? Odds against you? Call the Equalizer. 212 555 4200.”
Starring alongside Washington are Kick-Ass star Chloe Grace Moretz, Melissa Leo, Marton Csokas and Haley Bennett.
Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn was originally rumoured to be in the directors chair for the movie, as well as Rise of the Planet of the Apes helmsman Rupert Wyatt.
Kanye West takes to Twitter to praise Pacific Rim
Kanye West takes to Twitter to praise Pacific Rim
If Kanye says it, it seems, it must be true.
The notoriously egotistical rap star has used his immensely influential Twitter account (over 9 million followers) to break the Warner Bros. embargo on reviews of the new Guillermo del Toro movie, 'Pacific Rim.'
Pacific Rim (Credit: Rex Features)
Tweeting on Thursday night the partner of Kim Kardashian took a break from his new role as father to express his views on the robot vs monster flick. His verdict? “It’s easily one of my favorite movies of all time.”
He went on to dismiss all the rumours that del Toro's merely
following Michael Bay in the huge-robots-saving-the-world movie stakes, saying “This is not another ‘Robot’ movie, Guillermo del Toro is a master.”
In reply, del Toro regular, Ron Perlman, replied in character (as the film's dealer in black-market Kaiju organs) “Need Kaiju parts, u get the fam discount!”
Another of the film's stars, Rinko Kikuchi also retweeted West's comment.
Other responses to the maverick hip hop artist's outburst were varied and hilarious, with script writer @DayanBallweg commenting “If Kanye West saves Pacific Rim? I… just don’t… know where to go with that.”
Meanwhile Robert Kazinsky who stars in the film has said in a video interview, “No big deal, it’s just Kanye… Questionable decisions in most of his life, but in this case, I think I’ll go with he’s got excellent taste when it comes to films.”
Kanye's praise has been retweeted over 7,000 times and seems to be doing Warner's job of building anticipation for a film that many were worried could be del Toro's first turkey.
The $180 million movie starring starring Charlie Hunman and Idris Elba opens July 12th.
If Kanye says it, it seems, it must be true.
The notoriously egotistical rap star has used his immensely influential Twitter account (over 9 million followers) to break the Warner Bros. embargo on reviews of the new Guillermo del Toro movie, 'Pacific Rim.'
Pacific Rim (Credit: Rex Features)
Tweeting on Thursday night the partner of Kim Kardashian took a break from his new role as father to express his views on the robot vs monster flick. His verdict? “It’s easily one of my favorite movies of all time.”
He went on to dismiss all the rumours that del Toro's merely
following Michael Bay in the huge-robots-saving-the-world movie stakes, saying “This is not another ‘Robot’ movie, Guillermo del Toro is a master.”
In reply, del Toro regular, Ron Perlman, replied in character (as the film's dealer in black-market Kaiju organs) “Need Kaiju parts, u get the fam discount!”
Another of the film's stars, Rinko Kikuchi also retweeted West's comment.
Other responses to the maverick hip hop artist's outburst were varied and hilarious, with script writer @DayanBallweg commenting “If Kanye West saves Pacific Rim? I… just don’t… know where to go with that.”
Meanwhile Robert Kazinsky who stars in the film has said in a video interview, “No big deal, it’s just Kanye… Questionable decisions in most of his life, but in this case, I think I’ll go with he’s got excellent taste when it comes to films.”
Kanye's praise has been retweeted over 7,000 times and seems to be doing Warner's job of building anticipation for a film that many were worried could be del Toro's first turkey.
The $180 million movie starring starring Charlie Hunman and Idris Elba opens July 12th.
Steve Carrell on making Anchorman 2 - We laughed until we cried every day
Steve Carrell, co-star of the forthcoming sequel to 'Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,' has been talking about how good it felt to be back with the original cast of Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd and David Koechner.
Anchorman: The Legend Continues (Credit: Rex Features)
In a video interview with Reuters the star, who plays weatherman Brick Tamland, talked how making the new movie has felt as good as the first but also about how no one was really sure that the first movie would even be a hit.
"It felt the same. The first time around, none of us knew what we were doing or whether it would be funny,"
"We thought it would be funny, but you never know... if it's going to work or why it works necessarily, but that one we all felt like it could be really funny, and this, we have the same feeling about.
The sequel, 'Anchorman: The Legend Continues' sees the original crew coping with a move to cable TV and also stars Jim Carrey, Liam Neeson and Kirsten Dunst as well as cameos from Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Nicole Kidman, Harrison Ford, Kristen Wiig and Vince Vaughn.
Carrell continued: "It was just fun to do, it was ridiculous, we laughed until we cried every day."
"I think if you like the first one, you'll like this one as much," he said. "I don't want to oversell it, I don't want to hype it too much - I haven't seen it, I've just shot it.
But despite Steve's heartening words it'll be a while before fans can judge for themselves. The sequel doesn't open until late December.
Katie Hopkins: from Apprentice candidate to rent-a-gob
The former reality-show contestant has enraged all and sundry by announcing that she doesn't like her kids playing with children who have the wrong sort of name
Age: 38
Appearance: Pearls, highlights, infinitely loathable face – basically one standard measure of privately schooled posh blonde.
I think I know the one – she was in The Apprentice in 2007, n'est-ce pas? She was.
Ah, yes – she said she wanted to be "the CEO of a large global brand by the time I'm 40". That's right.
I presume she's in the news because she has achieved this noble ambition. Not quite. Instead, she has become a rent-a-gob.
Oh. One of those pretending an expertise it does not have or one that simply courts controversy and seems to grow ever happier and more powerful as every row successfully generated seems to feed the sickness in its blackly narcissistic soul? The latter. Her Twitter biog reads "Katie Hopkins. Telling it like it is."
So why are we talking about her now? Hopkins has just incurred the wrath of Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield on This Morning.
No! Not Holly and Philly, gentlest of all the morning TV hosts! Yep. Hopkins said "there are certain names that I hear and I think 'urgh'. It's the Tylers, the Charmaines. A name for me is an efficient way of finding out what class that child is from and do I want my children to play with them."
Oh no she didn't. What did Holly say? "Stop. Stop right there."
A sentiment echoed by the general public, perhaps? Quite.
They have got away with far too much for far too long, those defenceless children. Quite. Obese people are another favourite target. She wouldn't employ anyone overweight. "Big is not beautiful … it's inefficient."
I remember her not liking the commoners on The Apprentice much either. The fake tans particularly used to upset her. Her blog reveals her outrage at the "culture of entitlement" that pervades those on benefits, and a list of Ten Things to Love About Lady Thatcher.
She must be so proud. Alas, yes, she probably is.
Do say: "Stop. Stop right there. And don't start again, ever."
Don't say: "Hey, you could be the next Margaret Thatcher!" She has already stood (unsuccessfully) as an MEP candidate.
Age: 38
Appearance: Pearls, highlights, infinitely loathable face – basically one standard measure of privately schooled posh blonde.
I think I know the one – she was in The Apprentice in 2007, n'est-ce pas? She was.
Ah, yes – she said she wanted to be "the CEO of a large global brand by the time I'm 40". That's right.
I presume she's in the news because she has achieved this noble ambition. Not quite. Instead, she has become a rent-a-gob.
Oh. One of those pretending an expertise it does not have or one that simply courts controversy and seems to grow ever happier and more powerful as every row successfully generated seems to feed the sickness in its blackly narcissistic soul? The latter. Her Twitter biog reads "Katie Hopkins. Telling it like it is."
So why are we talking about her now? Hopkins has just incurred the wrath of Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield on This Morning.
No! Not Holly and Philly, gentlest of all the morning TV hosts! Yep. Hopkins said "there are certain names that I hear and I think 'urgh'. It's the Tylers, the Charmaines. A name for me is an efficient way of finding out what class that child is from and do I want my children to play with them."
Oh no she didn't. What did Holly say? "Stop. Stop right there."
A sentiment echoed by the general public, perhaps? Quite.
They have got away with far too much for far too long, those defenceless children. Quite. Obese people are another favourite target. She wouldn't employ anyone overweight. "Big is not beautiful … it's inefficient."
I remember her not liking the commoners on The Apprentice much either. The fake tans particularly used to upset her. Her blog reveals her outrage at the "culture of entitlement" that pervades those on benefits, and a list of Ten Things to Love About Lady Thatcher.
She must be so proud. Alas, yes, she probably is.
Do say: "Stop. Stop right there. And don't start again, ever."
Don't say: "Hey, you could be the next Margaret Thatcher!" She has already stood (unsuccessfully) as an MEP candidate.
Andy Murray beats Jerzy Janowicz in Wimbledon semi-final
Andy Murray reached the Wimbledon final for the second year running with a dramatic win over Poland's Jerzy Janowicz under the Centre Court roof.
The Briton, 26, was furious when play was stopped after the third set because of fading light, but he returned to complete a 6-7 (2-7) 6-4 6-4 6-3 victory.
The Briton, 26, was furious when play was stopped after the third set because of fading light, but he returned to complete a 6-7 (2-7) 6-4 6-4 6-3 victory.
Murray will play Novak Djokovic for the title on Sunday, when he will hope to make up for last year's final defeat by Roger Federer and end Britain's 77-year wait for a men's singles champion.
Djokovic took nearly five hours to beat Juan Martin del Potro in the first semi-final, meaning Murray had to wait until 18:19 BST to fire down the first serve of his match.
With the time now past 20:30, tournament referee Andrew Jarrett arrived on court to announce the roof would be brought across because of fading light.
"It's unfair, it's an outdoor tournament," Murray complained. "You're only doing it because he's been complaining about it for 45 minutes."
He would return to finish the job in impressive style, but the Briton had struggled to contain 22-year-old Janowicz in the early stages.
"It was a very tough match and completely different to any other match I've had here this year," Murray told BBC Sport.
"He's talented and unpredictable, he has huge serves, which give you very little rhythm to come back at him.
"It's a tough situation, there was about 45 minutes of daylight left [when the decision to close the roof was made].
"It's an outdoor event and we should play as much outdoors as we can. And I'd won five games in a row. But I took a shower, spoke to the guys and got to back work."
The 6ft 8in Pole was playing in his first Grand Slam semi-final, but showed no sign of nerves early on as he saved one break point and two set points with huge second serves.
There was little Murray could do to avoid the lottery of a tie-break, and Janowicz hammered his way to four set points with his forehand before the under-pressure Briton conceded the first with a double fault.
If Janowicz had looked remarkably composed in the opening 50 minutes, the occasion appeared to finally take some toll at the start of the second when two double faults helped give Murray the perfect start.
It was far from plain sailing for the Scot as he teetered on the brink of handing back his advantage several times, but he held on to level after one hour and 33 minutes.
With the time approaching 20:00 BST and the prospect of the light becoming an issue, Janowicz demanded umpire Jake Garner "tell me exactly the time" of when the roof might be closed.
Despite his annoyance, it was the Pole who pressed hard early in the third set and, after Murray saved two break points with aces, Janowicz finally converted at the seventh time of asking with a deadly drop shot.
Murray needed help from somewhere at 4-1 down in the third, and it came via a net cord that offered up a break point he grabbed with a flashing winner.
Belief coursed through the player and the crowd of 15,000 on Centre Court, along with thousands watching the nearby big screen, and Murray reeled off five games to take a two sets to one lead.
It was at that point the players headed for the locker room as the roof came across, and both must have been well aware that Janowicz won their last meeting at the Paris Masters in November, where the indoor conditions made the Pole's serve even more dangerous.
If Murray was also spooked by memories of last year's final, when his fortunes faded under the roof, there was no sign of it on the resumption.
Far from it, the Scot played superbly on the restart, curling a forehand winner down the line on his way to break in game three and backing it up with some dominant serving.
Janowicz was a beaten man by the time two double faults in a row brought up match point for Murray, and the world number two cracked a forehand return winner to keep his Wimbledon title hopes alive.
Djokovic took nearly five hours to beat Juan Martin del Potro in the first semi-final, meaning Murray had to wait until 18:19 BST to fire down the first serve of his match.
With the time now past 20:30, tournament referee Andrew Jarrett arrived on court to announce the roof would be brought across because of fading light.
"It's unfair, it's an outdoor tournament," Murray complained. "You're only doing it because he's been complaining about it for 45 minutes."
He would return to finish the job in impressive style, but the Briton had struggled to contain 22-year-old Janowicz in the early stages.
"It was a very tough match and completely different to any other match I've had here this year," Murray told BBC Sport.
"He's talented and unpredictable, he has huge serves, which give you very little rhythm to come back at him.
"It's a tough situation, there was about 45 minutes of daylight left [when the decision to close the roof was made].
"It's an outdoor event and we should play as much outdoors as we can. And I'd won five games in a row. But I took a shower, spoke to the guys and got to back work."
The 6ft 8in Pole was playing in his first Grand Slam semi-final, but showed no sign of nerves early on as he saved one break point and two set points with huge second serves.
There was little Murray could do to avoid the lottery of a tie-break, and Janowicz hammered his way to four set points with his forehand before the under-pressure Briton conceded the first with a double fault.
If Janowicz had looked remarkably composed in the opening 50 minutes, the occasion appeared to finally take some toll at the start of the second when two double faults helped give Murray the perfect start.
It was far from plain sailing for the Scot as he teetered on the brink of handing back his advantage several times, but he held on to level after one hour and 33 minutes.
With the time approaching 20:00 BST and the prospect of the light becoming an issue, Janowicz demanded umpire Jake Garner "tell me exactly the time" of when the roof might be closed.
Despite his annoyance, it was the Pole who pressed hard early in the third set and, after Murray saved two break points with aces, Janowicz finally converted at the seventh time of asking with a deadly drop shot.
Murray needed help from somewhere at 4-1 down in the third, and it came via a net cord that offered up a break point he grabbed with a flashing winner.
Belief coursed through the player and the crowd of 15,000 on Centre Court, along with thousands watching the nearby big screen, and Murray reeled off five games to take a two sets to one lead.
It was at that point the players headed for the locker room as the roof came across, and both must have been well aware that Janowicz won their last meeting at the Paris Masters in November, where the indoor conditions made the Pole's serve even more dangerous.
If Murray was also spooked by memories of last year's final, when his fortunes faded under the roof, there was no sign of it on the resumption.
Far from it, the Scot played superbly on the restart, curling a forehand winner down the line on his way to break in game three and backing it up with some dominant serving.
Janowicz was a beaten man by the time two double faults in a row brought up match point for Murray, and the world number two cracked a forehand return winner to keep his Wimbledon title hopes alive.