# Ghost Rider?



## Quasqueton (Feb 14, 2007)

Surely someone has seen Ghost Rider prior to its release date. Any reviews? I couldn't find any by searching the Web, but I'd trust reviews from folks here more than those I'd find elsewhere, anyway.

Quasqueton


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 14, 2007)

Ghost Rider is another movie following the recent trend of not having pre-screenings for reviewers... which usually indicates they suspect the reviews will be generally unfavorable.


----------



## horacethegrey (Feb 14, 2007)

Well I'm seeing it this Saturday with my mates, but I've not come across any reviews whatsoever (except for the ones posted on *Superherohype * and *Ain't it Cool News*, and we know how reliable they are in judging a film  ). But given Mark Steven Johnson's track record (did I mention loathe _Daredevil_?), I've not much faith in this flick being in the same league as _Hellboy_, _Spider-man 2_ or _Batman Begins_. Despite that, it'll be nice to see the Rider tearin' up the road onscreen.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 14, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Ghost Rider is another movie following the recent trend of not having pre-screenings for reviewers... which generally indicates they suspect the reviews will be generally unfavorable.




I can just see Roger Ebert wagging his finger at the camera for this one. Not submitting to early reviews is almost never a good sign. 
The trailers look good. And the character is sufficiently Marvel B-list that the creative people involved might have had a lot of freedom to do something interesting with the him. But if they won't submit to the early reviews, I think the movie must surely be hosed.


----------



## sniffles (Feb 14, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I can just see Roger Ebert wagging his finger at the camera for this one. Not submitting to early reviews is *almost* never a good sign.
> The trailers look good. And the character is sufficiently Marvel B-list that the creative people involved might have had a lot of freedom to do something interesting with the him. But if they won't submit to the early reviews, I think the movie must surely be hosed.



"Almost" is the operative word here. I think there's an assumption that the studios avoid pre-screenings because they know their movies are bad. But I think more studios these days are starting to avoid pre-screenings because they don't want to lose the element of surprise. 

I don't expect *Ghost Rider* to be as good as *X-Men* or *Batman Begins*, but it looks like it might be a fun romp. I read a review somewhere that actually seemed fairly unbiased and thoughtful. I wish I could remember where I read it. It basically said that the movie was pretty good, although they rushed the backstory of why Johnny Blaze would make a deal with the devil. Pretty much what I would have expected. These types of movies always give the character development short shrift.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 14, 2007)

I've not seen any reviews, but I'm also predicting most everyone will hate it. These boards are haves for haters. I will be pleased if it is just eye candy.


----------



## Glyfair (Feb 14, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Not submitting to early reviews is almost never a good sign.




The early word on this is mixed.  No previews implies it's bad.  The fact that it sat on the shelf for a 8 months before being released implies it's bad.  However, Sony has launched a heavy advertising campaign, which shows they have some faith in it (and recouping some of the $120 million it cost).

My guess is that it's a bad movie, but one that might be enjoyable if you go in without high expectations.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> (did I mention loathe _Daredevil_?)




So do most people who haven't seen the extended, director's cut.

Check it out if you can. It's orders of magnitude better than the theatrical release.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 15, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> So do most people who haven't seen the extended, director's cut.
> 
> Check it out if you can. It's orders of magnitude better than the theatrical release.



I have been on a similar crusade before.  The EE cut of DD was excellent and far superior to the theatrical release.  Amazing what a cut to the love story and a focus on Matt's life can do to the film.  Gotta love the editing room...


----------



## Berandor (Feb 15, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> The early word on this is mixed.  No previews implies it's bad.  The fact that it sat on the shelf for a 8 months before being released implies it's bad.  However, Sony has launched a heavy advertising campaign, which shows they have some faith in it (and recouping some of the $120 million it cost).



They dump the movie early in the year, and the marketing campaign lets them hope for a good weekend (or maybe two) before sales drop off, so they can put a "#1 movie" sticker on the DVD and recoup there. It's got some nice visuals, it's got not a slew bad reviews (no screening), and so the ads can lure people in who want their first premature lick of summer movies.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 15, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> So do most people who haven't seen the extended, director's cut.
> 
> Check it out if you can. It's orders of magnitude better than the theatrical release.




Really that much better? What kind of changes did they make to improve it so much?

Cheers


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 15, 2007)

I'm going to see it Saturday at a matinee. I love Cage and have fond memories of the comic from childhood...


----------



## jcfiala (Feb 15, 2007)

I'm expecting a lovely cheesefest.  Mmm... cheese.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 15, 2007)

I'll be going to see it the night it comes out.  I don't see how it can be all that bad, It's about Ghost Rider, for pet's sake.  Look at Blade and how well it did.  I didn't see anything there that's not going to be in GR.  I want to see GR fighting demons, avenging innocent blood, giving the Penance Stare to the guilty, and fighting Mephisto and Blackheart.  


And he's going to be doing all of those things, while looking amazing in the process.  It's going to be a great movie to look at if nothing else.  I've been wearing my Ghost Rider t-shirts in rotation for a year now in anticipation of the movie.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 15, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Really that much better? What kind of changes did they make to improve it so much?
> 
> Cheers




Far more depths to the characters--not just heroes, but villains as well. Entire subplots that were cut from the theatrical release explain some character motivations, and also show us exactly how DD got some information that's never really explained in the theatrical release. The plot just flows a lot more smoothly.

Oh, and in the director's cut, Michael Clarke Duncan is actually playing the Kingpin, as opposed to a big guy in a suit. It's amazing what just a few added scenes can do for establishing character.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 15, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I've not seen any reviews, but I'm also predicting most everyone will hate it. These boards are haves for haters. I will be pleased if it is just eye candy.



 It has Eva Mendes. How much more eye candy you want, man?


----------



## Taelorn76 (Feb 15, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Far more depths to the characters--not just heroes, but villains as well. Entire subplots that were cut from the theatrical release explain some character motivations, and also show us exactly how DD got some information that's never really explained in the theatrical release. The plot just flows a lot more smoothly.
> 
> Oh, and in the director's cut, Michael Clarke Duncan is actually playing the Kingpin, as opposed to a big guy in a suit. It's amazing what just a few added scenes can do for establishing character.



Now I am going to have to watch this Directors Cut.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 15, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> It has Eva Mendes. How much more eye candy you want, man?



Eva Mendes as _She-Hulk_?


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 15, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Eva Mendes as _She-Hulk_?




Better yet, Eva Mendes as the Savage She-Hulk (you know, when she used to wear the torn dress?)


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 15, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Better yet, Eva Mendes as the Savage She-Hulk (you know, when she used to wear the torn dress?)



Or _She-Hulk_ in the _Fantastic Four._

(Yes, I like to see Jessica and Eva wrestle.   )


----------



## Klaus (Feb 16, 2007)

She-Hulk? Bah. I don't want to see Eva Mendez painted in green.

But Eva Mendes as Starfire? NOW we're talking!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 16, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> She-Hulk? Bah. I don't want to see Eva Mendez painted in green.



Mmm. Eva Mendes as an Orion Slave Girl. Mmm.  *drools*


----------



## Remus Lupin (Feb 16, 2007)

I actually didn't mind Daredevil that much. I saw it with friends and, though it's not the best marvel movie, it did what we expected it to do. Perhaps Ghostrider will be the same.

Here's my question about Daredevil, though. Two actually.

1) Where does an (relatively) poor storefront lawyer afford a giant loft in NYC with a secret room (and who built the secret room)?

2) What company did he hire to design the 10 or so Daredevil costumes that he keeps hidden in the secret room. Because if I were the cops, the first question I'd be asking after seeing the sketch artist's rendering is: Who makes costumes like that?


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 16, 2007)

Remus Lupin said:
			
		

> I actually didn't mind Daredevil that much. I saw it with friends and, though it's not the best marvel movie, it did what we expected it to do. Perhaps Ghostrider will be the same.



Actually, I'm kinda hoping it would be as good as _Blade_ ... without the obscenities.

(_Daredevil Director's Cut_ is only slightly more enjoyable than _Blade III: Trinity_.)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 16, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> (_Daredevil Director's Cut_ is only slightly more enjoyable than _Blade III: Trinity_.)




 

Okay, I'm calling the men in the white coats. Please don't be alarmed; they're for your own protection...


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 16, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Okay, I'm calling the men in the white coats. Please don't be alarmed; they're for your own protection...



Dude, if you think _Blade III_ is better than _Daredevil_ Diretor's Cut, you better check yourself in.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 16, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Dude, if you think _Blade III_ is better than _Daredevil_ Diretor's Cut, you better check yourself in.




No, you misunderstand. Your insanity is clearly indicated by the use of the words "only slightly."

DD director's cut is to Blade III as sirloin steak is to day-old McDonald's hamburger.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 16, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> No, you misunderstand. Your insanity is clearly indicated by the use of the words "only slightly."
> 
> DD director's cut is to Blade III as sirloin steak is to day-old McDonald's hamburger.




A day-old McDonald's hamburger is to Blade III as sirloin steak is to day-old McDonald's hamburger.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 16, 2007)

Blade III is absolute garbage, I'll completely agree with that.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 16, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Blade III is absolute garbage, I'll completely agree with that.



 I beg to differ.

Blade III has Jessica Biel in tight pants. There's GOT to be some redeeming qualities in that!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 16, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I beg to differ.
> 
> Blade III has Jessica Biel in tight pants. There's GOT to be some redeeming qualities in that!




Well her and the vampire pomeranian were OK but not enough to salvage the movie.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 17, 2007)

I wouldn't know, never watched Blade III (or II). I just saw her pictures in tight pants...

Klaus "saves my sanity" Ooi


----------



## jcfiala (Feb 17, 2007)

Not to distract people arguing about Daredevil and Blade III, but I was very pleasantly surprised by GhostRider.  I expected it to be pretty bad - and so was very pleasantly surprised at how good it was.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Feb 17, 2007)

Just saw Ghost Rider.  Thin on plot development.  A little too much time spent on character deep background that didn't... do much or go anywhere.  The bad guys exist here only to be targets for the hero - no development.  A tendency to go for random, surprise shocks with sudden, loud, screaming, fanged skulls.  All events quite predictable.  That's how it struck me anyway.

Definitely not the strongest script but the performances are fine.  Eva Mendes wears blouses at least a size too small and bras smaller still which proves a welcome distraction in my book (even if it's not really needed - it's always the gratuitous stuff that works best here .  Sam Elliot - excellent as always.  Cage's performance didn't overly thrill me but as I say the script was not strong so I don't see it as much his fault the main character just kind of went through the motions.

It's an entertaining movie that never really takes itself too seriously.  7/10
Just don't expect GREATNESS going in and you'll have fun.


----------



## jcfiala (Feb 17, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> It's an entertaining movie that never really takes itself too seriously.  7/10
> Just don't expect GREATNESS going in and you'll have fun.




Yup.  I think I can agree with everything he said there.


----------



## Pants (Feb 17, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> It's an entertaining movie that never really takes itself too seriously.  7/10
> Just don't expect GREATNESS going in and you'll have fun.



I went in not really expecting much and it kinda... sucked for pretty much all the reasons you listed. The most annoying thing about the film was the absolutely shoddy camera work. Holy crap was it terrible. I cannot properly convey how absolutely lame the camera work made the movie feel. Any good 'eye candy potentiality' was ruined by it. Without the abysmal camera work, GR would be a mediocre to slightly above mediocre movie, but man, it was _bad_.

Did I mention the s***ty camera work?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 17, 2007)

I'm afraid I was disappointed as well. There were a few really fun scenes, and some really good performances, but otherwise... Meh. Plot was way thin and had way too many holes, even for a comic book movie. Many sub-par performances to go along with the good ones. Villains that, with the exception of Mephistopheles, were absolutely unimpressive. And honestly, I thought even the action scenes with GR were pretty lacking in, well, action.

I have to say that, of all the Marvel movies to come out in recent years, the only ones that I enjoyed _less_ than GR were Fantastic Four, Hulk, and Blade III.

Part of the problem was the campy tone of much of the movie. GR is a _dark_ character. Frankly, this movie should have been much closer in tone to the first Blade; instead, I found it closer to Fantastic Four.


----------



## Pyrex (Feb 17, 2007)

Meh. 

Coulda been worse.

Easily could have been better.

Nick Cage overacting was not going to make up for Eva Mendez inability to act.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 17, 2007)

from: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=40179

"The creators of Ghost Rider told SCI FI Wire that they once considered a more frightening R-rated version of film, but opted for a more teen-friendly PG-13 rating at the urging of star and producer Nicolas Cage. Cage, who is a big fan of the Marvel Comics series on which the film is based, said that he wanted the character to remain accessible to younger audiences."

Now THAT might have made for an interesting flick. 

"Johnson said not to expect a more explicit R-rated version of Ghost Rider to come out on DVD. "There's not an R-rated version," he said. "We didn't shoot that." "

Oh well.


----------



## horacethegrey (Feb 17, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> from: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=40179
> 
> "The creators of Ghost Rider told SCI FI Wire that they once considered a more frightening R-rated version of film, but opted for a more teen-friendly PG-13 rating at the urging of star and producer Nicolas Cage. Cage, who is a big fan of the Marvel Comics series on which the film is based, said that he wanted the character to remain accessible to younger audiences."
> 
> ...




See, this is why the movie sucked for me. _Ghost Rider_ I think, is better portrayed as a horror character rather than as a straight up superhero. When you get right to down to it, the character is a proverbial force of nature who doesn't give a **** on how he goes about dishing out his vengeance. It's a concept that I think the movie only hints at but never quite pulls off. No offense to Nic Cage, but an R rated flick would have been the right way to go. 

But, I'm afraid that if Mark Steven Johnson had directed that film as well, it would have been just as awful as this one. I'll say it again, the man is a *hack*. He clearly cannot convey the drama or tragedy that a story like this needs. Nor can he build up any amount of suspense to keep the film fresh and exciting. And actors such as Eva Mendes (I'll agree with *Man in the Funny Hat * here, she is a welcome distraction  ), and Sam Elliot (what is he doing in a Marvel flick again? Such a great talent deserves better material) are wasted when they should have been utilized better. Clearly, the man needs to stay away from other Marvel properties in the future. They deserve a better film treatment than this.

About the only thing Johnson gets right here is the _Rider _ himself, who, despite my misgivings, is awesome to look at onscreen. I just wish we saw more of him.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 17, 2007)

This movie was AWESOME!

Nicolas Cage as a Demonic Elvis Ghost Rider. Peter Fonda as Mephistopheles. Sam Elliott doing what Sam Elliott does best. And Eva Mendes. How could you NOT love this movie?

Everything I wanted and more...


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> It has Eva Mendes. How much more eye candy you want, man?




Eva Mendes.... ghuuhuhuhuhu....(Drooling like Homer Simpson). 

Hopefully I will see it sometime this weekend.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 17, 2007)

I liked it well enough; I give it a solid B+. It was enjoyable and interesting. Yeah, maybe a darker horror-themed movie might have been better, but I've had my fill of dark.


----------



## Pants (Feb 18, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> It has Eva Mendes. How much more eye candy you want, man?



Eva Mendes = nice to look at... just turn off the volume.


----------



## Quasqueton (Feb 18, 2007)

Just got back from this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I have a couple old (70s) Ghost Rider comics, and I read them again a few weeks ago in "preparation" for this movie. The comics are bad. Very bad. Aweful, really.

This movie is a good comic book movie. You can taste the comic book flavor in the writing and story. But this movie is good. Accept it as a comic book movie, and you can enjoy it.

Quasqueton


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 18, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Just got back from this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
> 
> I have a couple old (70s) Ghost Rider comics, and I read them again a few weeks ago in "preparation" for this movie. The comics are bad. Very bad. Aweful, really.
> 
> This movie is a good comic book movie. You can taste the comic book flavor in the writing and story. But this movie is good. Accept it as a comic book movie, and you can enjoy it.




Problem is, I accepted is a comic book movie, and I still felt it was mediocre to bad. 

And while they used Johnny Blaze rather than Dan Ketch, the Rider himself was clearly based off the more recent/modern version, which is not nearly as cheesy as the 70s GR was.


----------



## Torm (Feb 18, 2007)

I just saw it earlier today. Feh. But then, I've never really been a Ghost Rider fan. It was well-acted, and the effects were good, but without being a fan, it really didn't move me. Eva Mendes' cleavage, which seemed to be on display at every point possible, was the best part of the movie for me. And that certainly won't warrant a repeat viewing at any point by itself.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 18, 2007)

Torm said:
			
		

> Eva Mendes' cleavage, which seemed to be on display at every point possible, was the best part of the movie for me. And that certainly won't warrant a repeat viewing at any point by itself.



Ah, so it's like telenovelas.


----------



## Quasqueton (Feb 18, 2007)

> But then, I've never really been a Ghost Rider fan. It was well-acted, and the effects were good, but without being a fan, it really didn't move me.



For the record, I've never been a fan of GR, either. The two comics of him that I have were not purchased by me -- I don't even know how they got into my collection. What I knew about GR before the movie was from just the general stuff you learn through osmosis with comic fans.

Quasqueton


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Feb 19, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Accept it as a comic book movie, and you can enjoy it.
> on




What does that mean? Does that mean that we aren't supposed to expect comic book movies to have a decent plot, to be well shot, and to have great performances? I don't buy that at all. We've had some really good comic book movies (X-Men 1 and 2, Spidey 1 and 2, Batman Begins, etc) that had a good plot with fairly deep characters that you cared about, that were well done, and had some really good performances. In short, we had good movies that happened to be based upon comics. No matter where the story comes from, the movie just has to be good standing on its own merits. Movies shouldn't get a pass because they come from a comic book. If the comic doesn't give enough of a story or a good enough story to make a movie then the movie shouldn't be made.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 20, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> What does that mean? Does that mean that we aren't supposed to expect comic book movies to have a decent plot, to be well shot, and to have great performances? I don't buy that at all. We've had some really good comic book movies (X-Men 1 and 2, Spidey 1 and 2, Batman Begins, etc) that had a good plot with fairly deep characters that you cared about, that were well done, and had some really good performances. In short, we had good movies that happened to be based upon comics. No matter where the story comes from, the movie just has to be good standing on its own merits. Movies shouldn't get a pass because they come from a comic book. If the comic doesn't give enough of a story or a good enough story to make a movie then the movie shouldn't be made.



He meant don't expect the film to be good enough win an Oscar nomination (except for technical categories).


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Feb 20, 2007)

There's a large difference between expecting a movie to win an oscar and expecting it to be of high quality. Spidey and Batman Begins weren't Oscar worthy but were still great movies. I don't see why comic book movies can't live up to those standards. They certainly should be expected to since it has been shown it can be done.


----------



## horacethegrey (Feb 20, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> There's a large difference between expecting a movie to win an oscar and expecting it to be of high quality. Spidey and Batman Begins weren't Oscar worthy but were still great movies. I don't see why comic book movies can't live up to those standards. They certainly should be expected to since it has been shown it can be done.



Agreed. While I thought _Spider-Man 2_ was awesome I'd be a fool to think it ever had a chance at an Oscar nomination. Same with _Batman Begins_, but despite that, the filmmakers went out of their way to create the finest film that they could while still being true to the characters. And that for me is all anybody can really ask for.

Which reinforces my stance on Mark Steven Johnson. The guy should not be allowed to direct another comic flick. He's had two tries now, and both films have left a lot to be desired.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 20, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> There's a large difference between expecting a movie to win an oscar and expecting it to be of high quality. Spidey and Batman Begins weren't Oscar worthy but were still great movies. I don't see why comic book movies can't live up to those standards. They certainly should be expected to since it has been shown it can be done.



Spidey and Batman are A-list superheroes. We're talking about Ghost Rider, one of the B-list. If anything it should be as good as the first _Blade_ film.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 20, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Spidey and Batman are A-list superheroes. We're talking about Ghost Rider, one of the B-list. If anything it should be as good as the first _Blade_ film.




I'd have been _delighted_ if it'd been as good as the first _Blade_.

It was nowhere even close.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd have been _delighted_ if it'd been as good as the first _Blade_.
> 
> It was nowhere even close.



Then it must be a SLOW movie weekend ... which is good for Sony, Columbia, and Marvel.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Part of the problem was the campy tone of much of the movie.



It's too bad you must have not seen any of the trailers, then - they showed a heckuva lot of camp.


And campy is what we got. I just saw it last night, and didn't really enjoy myself. It wasn't terrible or anything, but I spent much of the movie yawning and shifting in my seat. And what was up with those lame-ass 'demons'? Goofy goth boys have never made good villains. For me, the best part of the movie (and it was cool) was the ride with Carter Slade and Ghost Rider. That was damn cool. (Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the source material.)

I give it a 5/10, for flaming skulls, Carter Slade, and Eva Mendes' rack.


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 20, 2007)

I went with my girlfriend. She loved it, so I found myself forgiving its failings, and actually liking it too. I liked it better than Dare Devil (theatrical; I've never seen the Director's Cut). Anyway, the best line was Eva Mendez's.

"So last night you didn't come because you were working . . . for the _Devil_."

It really was a weak movie, but as I was watching the opening credits, I told myself I should just enjoy it as I would a rollercoaster ride.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 20, 2007)

Ghost Rider was horrible. Laughable villains, painful dialogue, an almost total lack of anything resembling acting, paint-by-numbers plot complete with gaping holes, "action" sequences that are yawn-worthy. It ranks right down there with Catwoman, although without having the benefit of Halle Berry and Sharon Stone beating on each other. Ghost Rider is easily the worst movie I've seen this year, and I watch a lot of bad movies.


----------



## Larcen (Feb 20, 2007)

Just saw it last night.  I came away thinking it was worth watching for the visuals alone.  I can see lots of stills from this movie making great desktops.  Plus what's not to like about the "I'm the Devil's bounty hunter" theme? This character would be great to roleplay...


----------



## Welverin (Feb 20, 2007)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> What does that mean? Does that mean that we aren't supposed to expect comic book movies to have a decent plot, to be well shot, and to have great performances?




What gets me is the use of the term comic book movie, as if it means anything. There's more to comics than super heroes people!



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Spidey and Batman are A-list superheroes. We're talking about Ghost Rider, one of the B-list. If anything it should be as good as the first _Blade_ film.




irrelevant, the fact Ghost Rider is a _C_-list character doesn't mean a movie about him must be inherently inferior.

That's not to say I don't understand why it happens.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 20, 2007)

I'm suddenly inspired to list a few of the very many stupid things about Ghost Rider:

1. Voice over intro with words to the effect of, "They say the West was built on legends...." Who says this? Why does it merit repeating at the end of the film?

2. Cowboy Ghost Rider outraces the devil, who remains perfectly still while Cowboy Ghost Rider gallops off toward the horizon. Some race....

3. Blackheart (easily one of the stupidest villain names EVAR) can't enter holy ground to snatch the contract from the caretaker, but he can enter holy ground to torture a priest to find out where the contract is.

4. No one in the entire history of the universe has ever said, "You!?" and then struck a pose to point at the surprising person, let alone done so twice.

5. Cowboy Ghost Rider wastes his last transformation to gallop across the desert just because it'd look kewl d00d!


----------



## Quasqueton (Feb 20, 2007)

What I meant by “comic book movie” is that the story/plot, dialogue, and most poses/scenes feel “comic booky”. (My comic book knowledge is 10+ years out of date.) Comic books do have a feel that is very different from a movie – different media, different methods of story telling. (Note how none of the X-Men wore tight, colorful costumes in their movie. “Would you rather wear yellow spandex?”) Dialogue is given in a different way in comics -- the illustrations are not moving, so standing still to deliver the dialogue feels more like a comic book scene.

For instance:







> 1. Voice over intro with words to the effect of, "They say the West was built on legends...." Who says this? Why does it merit repeating at the end of the film?



I imagined this statement on the first splash page of a comic issue, in a yellow box. I can again imagine it as the last yellow box of the issue.



> 2. Cowboy Ghost Rider outraces the devil, who remains perfectly still while Cowboy Ghost Rider gallops off toward the horizon. Some race....



I can picture this image as the last panel and text of the introduction (maybe 3 pages of the comic).



> 3. Blackheart (easily one of the stupidest villain names EVAR) can't enter holy ground to snatch the contract from the caretaker, but he can enter holy ground to torture a priest to find out where the contract is.



Blackheart is a comic book name – Like “Blade”, because he wields a sword? “Hulk” because he is big? "Doctor Doom"? Come on, cheesy names are the norm for comic books. 

I was confused a bit over him being able to enter a church, also. I expected to learn that something had happened at the location that unhallowed it. <shrug>



> 4. No one in the entire history of the universe has ever said, "You!?" and then struck a pose to point at the surprising person, let alone done so twice.



Characters in comic books do it all the time. It’s a standard image.



> 5. Cowboy Ghost Rider wastes his last transformation to gallop across the desert just because it'd look kewl d00d!



I thought he changed his last time to show Johnny Blaze where the village was located – to take him to it. (A true ghost town wouldn’t be marked on a map). And it did look cool.

And even Spider-Man had some comic booky feel – a genetically altered spider cannot transfer it’s genetics through a bite. Why did Peter develop web shooters in his wrist (that’s not were spiders have “web shooters”)?

Interesting how some people can accept comic book story/plot, dialogue, and scenes in some movies, but they can’t enjoy it in another movie. So, anyway, I, personally, don’t care if you (general “you”) didn’t enjoy the movie. I enjoyed it, and I think it is because I was more willing to accept the comic book feel.

Quasqueton


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (Feb 20, 2007)

I saw the late showing on Friday night (to take off from studying vocabulary for the GRE), so I was basically just looking for a movie to shut my brain off and have fun.

In my opinion, GR was not good, but it wasn't horrible.  Some people left the theatre muttering "Worst movie ever" (I would reserve that for Blair Witch Project 2 or Manos:  Hands of Fate), and while I enjoyed the film for what it was (very good visually, and I have never been a Ghost Rider fan), I did leave thinking "I hope they don't make a sequel."

It was a fun movie (despite the fact that I can't stand Nick Cage -- another reason why I neither liked nor hated the film), but would probably not buy it on DVD, not w/out some great extras.

Plot - thin and weak
Actors (and remember I HATE Nick Cage as an actor) - were ok
Visuals - great

Overall - medicore to eh, worth a matinee


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 20, 2007)

Taking just one example:



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Characters in comic books do it all the time. It’s a standard image.




Admittedly. And in a comic book, which is not a live action, moving picture, it might work. But movies are a different medium, and require different "standard images" in order to avoid looking stupid.

I got no problem with either comic books or comic book movies. I think Adam West in Batman is one of the all-time greats. Ghost Rider might be a good comic book, but it was a horrible movie on so many levels it could've been made by George Lucas.

And, from me, that's about as horrible as things can get.


----------



## Quasqueton (Feb 20, 2007)

> Ghost Rider might be a good comic book, but it was a horrible movie on so many levels. . .



Judging from the few GR issues I’ve read, it was a horrible comic book  The movie was better than the books. Maybe I had lowered my expectations enough?

Quasqueton


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 20, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Judging from the few GR issues I’ve read, it was a horrible comic book  The movie was better than the books. Maybe I had lowered my expectations enough?




Damn my relentless optimism! 

Seriously, I don't mind a movie being bad as long as it also entertaining, but Ghost Rider commits the cardinal sin of movies: It is both bad and boring. This puts Ghost Rider on my must never watch again list along with such drek as every Star Wars prequel and all of the Harry Potter movies. (Heck, the last Hary Potter movie bored me so much that I actually fell asleep, and this is from someone who reads Soren Kierkegaard for fun.)


----------



## Quasqueton (Feb 20, 2007)

Interesting. I’d see GR again; free or very cheap – but not $8.50 again.



> Damn my relentless optimism!



In one of the comics I read, the villain was Devil Woman (you see, she got her powers from the Devil! . She had captured GR and was telling her back story – she was “tricked” into attending an all-chick Satanic ceremony, and she was sacrificed to the Devil. GR used her mental distraction to escape. She killed herself at Satan’s demand because she failed to hold GR.

In another comic, the villains was a death cult – their battle cry was, “We serve death!” They, of course, all rode motorcycles.

Totally lame, in my opinion. The movie was head and shoulders above this kind of story. (Both of these were from the 70s -- the first was 1973.)

Quasqueton


----------



## Templetroll (Feb 20, 2007)

My wife, daughter and I saw "Ghost Rider" at a matinee.  We enjoyed it, the visuals and music were good.  It was oddly entertaining watching Cage channel Elvis and Evel.  We felt sorry for the guy who was the watery demon; just being made up like that seemed uncomfortable.   the air guy was kinda cool. 

My wife was pleased with the casting of Sam Elliot; that was enough eye/voice candy for her the same way I enjoyed Eva Mendes.  

I took the scene with Carter Slade being the old GR turning over the reins to the new GR and then riding off into the sunrise.    He did give him what he needed to be able to defeat the evil, both the gun and information.  That was cool.  The whole Carter Slade bit was cool, including the hellride.

Now, I had read there was an R rated horror GR script.  I think that would have been a _better _ movie, but I'm satisfied with what I got.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 20, 2007)

Sound like I'll wait for the dollar show.


----------



## Henry (Feb 20, 2007)

I saw it Saturday, and I enjoyed it; it was a fun movie. About the only part I didn't like was the Carter Slade bit: "Well, here's the gun, stick to the shadows, I can't help you, by bye." Why the hell did he ride with him, then?" For me, the tension would have been better if Slade had said, "you take the back, I'll take the front," and then Blackheart ambushed him and destroyed him. It would have set up a bit more drama to the situation, IMO, and made the threat a little better. It would have been believable, too -- after all, Blaze wouldn't have had a chance in Hell (pun intended) if not for the loophole in the end.

Still, a fun movie, and the SFX were well worth it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 21, 2007)

Welverin said:
			
		

> irrelevant, the fact Ghost Rider is a _C_-list character doesn't mean a movie about him must be inherently inferior.
> 
> That's not to say I don't understand why it happens.



Yes, it is. It's big difference when you can get the budget needed to make a trilogy of fantasy live-action films, as opposed to having enough money to make an animated one that is _Dragonlance._


----------



## Silver Moon (Feb 21, 2007)

Dude, a PG-13 is Ghost Rider, it was based upon a comic book that every issue of was approved by the Comics Code Authority!   

I'm looking forward to it, but then again I have most of the issues of the comic book*


*Ghost Rider Volume 1 (1973) 81 issues; 
Ghose Rider Volume II (1990) 95 issues;
Ghost Rider/Blaze (1992) 23 issues;
Ghost Rider Volume III (2002) 6 issue miniseries
Ghost Rider Volume IV (2005) 6 issue miniseries


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 21, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Yes, it is. It's big difference when you can get the budget needed to make a trilogy of fantasy live-action films, as opposed to having enough money to make an animated one that is _Dragonlance._




The budget for this movie was not small: in excess, in fact, of $100 million. Maybe not Spider-man Huge, but definitely big enough for better script and acting than was delivered.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The budget for this movie was not small: in excess, in fact, of $100 million. Maybe not Spider-man Huge, but definitely big enough for better script and acting than was delivered.




Better acting in a movie starring Nicholas Cage, Sam Elliot, and the hot chick of the month? No amount of budget could do that.  And scripts are tricky.  The more you rewrite, often the worse the script gets.  And considering this guy's other movies, it's about what you can expect...


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2007)

So, when's the Brother Voodoo movie?


----------



## Felon (Feb 21, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I saw it Saturday, and I enjoyed it; it was a fun movie. About the only part I didn't like was the Carter Slade bit: "Well, here's the gun, stick to the shadows, I can't help you, by bye." Why the hell did he ride with him, then?




I think the ostensible reason was that Blaze didn't know how to get there. But personally, I found that the whole thing just rushed through the motions of being a comic book movie. There are just so many ways it was lacking. 

Scenes occur and characters somehow stumble across other characters just because they're supposed to. Johnny just happened to go to his father's grave, where Slade just happened to be the caretaker? Reminds me of those last scenes in Daredevil with Electra and Bullseye both managing to track him down while he's aimlessly rooftop-hopping. 

I've listened to my share of DVD director commentaries, including the deleted scenes, and I can tell you this movie suffers badly from this nasty imperative that directors often visit upon themselves to keep everything moving along. It's not important to do this scene right, it's important to bring the next scene online as quickly as possible. I can envision how many events were played for greater effect in the script, but the director just decided to go for something perfunctory instead. That is why, for instance, Carter Slade rides all the way to the swamp then just leaves. 

Notice also how weak those battles with the elemental demons were. In each encounter, the respective demon gets one slam in on GR, after which GR revves up his fire and promptly annihlates them without much spectacle. Very tame action scenes, really.

It's funny, Roger Ebert mentioned in his review of Blade 3 how in these sort of movies the super-unbeatable-all-powerful bad guy invariably starts tossing the hero around the set, which winds up giving the hero the breathing space he needs to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Sure enough, guess what happens here?

We also get that Schuemacheresque rationale that because this is a comic-book movie, it's cool for everyone to behave like over-the-top charicatures. The cops show up in massive force to arrest Blaze just because they find his license plate lying somewhere in the miles-long swath of destruction, and based on this mountain of evidence we get treated to a silly good-cop/bad-cop routine on him as they try to get him to confess. Now, they have absolutely no motive and the circumstances they're dealing with--flaming troughs in the road, death by instant popciclization--should leave them totally stumped, and they are dealing with a national celebrity, but forget all that, right? Let's basically overreact and arrest him with nothing to go on so we can have a scene with him thrown in lockup where his fellow cellmates, being cartoony mooks, attack him almost immediately for entirely spurious reasons. Dumb-de-dum. 

Let's see what else? Oh, preppyesque Wes Bentley is about as menacing as Corey Haim. 

A friend who went to the movie with me also pointed the formulaic resemblance to Spawn. Demon-cursed hero, grimy old buzzard mentor, the spikes, the chains, the fire. Of course, unbeknownst to him, GR came first in the comics, so it was kind of an amusing observation.

AFIC, I spent $8.50 to watch a preview of Grindhouse, and a buck for GR. That's the only way to reconcile the expense.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 21, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Better acting in a movie starring Nicholas Cage, Sam Elliot, and the hot chick of the month? No amount of budget could do that.  And scripts are tricky.  The more you rewrite, often the worse the script gets.  And considering this guy's other movies, it's about what you can expect...



 Whu-? You mean Academy Award nominee Nicholas Cage, veteran Sam Elliot and the co-star of Denzel Washington's fine mistery flick "Out of Time" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313443/ )?


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 21, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Let's see what else? Oh, preppyesque Wes Bentley is about as menacing as Corey Haim.




I find Corey Haim scarier. Bentley reminded me of a Vampire LARPer trying to feign being scary and elegant, but ending up just silly and effete.

Henry earlier hit on another key weakness of the movie (one which I've already touched on): Carter Slade's last ride was a waste of time and energy. A much better use of the character would've been for a GR I and GR II tag-team against Blackheart (there's that giggle-inducing name again) and various demonic flunkies in a battle royale instead of the rather dull final battle that made it onto the screen.

Regarding better acting: Cage wasn't acting. He was just being Cage. Likewise with Sam Eliot. I kept wondering how the mentor bouncer from Roadhouse ended up with a comic book movie.


----------



## James Heard (Feb 21, 2007)

Well, it wasn't Uwe Boll bad, but it wasn't good either. I'd keep a bargain $2 copy on my shelf for mockery with friends and my daughter, but I certainly regret spending money on it. The things I get talked into doing...


----------



## Nifft (Feb 21, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> AFIC, I spent $8.50 to watch a preview of Grindhouse, and a buck for GR. That's the only way to reconcile the expense.




Huh. I'll give this one a miss. Thanks! -- N


----------



## IronWolf (Feb 25, 2007)

I went to see it last night (caught a matinee showing, so it was cheap).  My expectations were relatively low, but I just couldn't resist.

I enjoyed it.  Sure it wasn't the world's greatest movie, but it wasn't all that bad - I was pleasantly surprised.  There are several plot points people can disect if they want and criticize, but I can say that of just about any movie out there.  I had a good time.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 26, 2007)

Saw it today. My wife, 3 kids, and I loved it. Much better than the comic, with a much beter origin than the comic. One of the best "Marvel Movies" yet.

Were talking about going to go see it again.


----------



## Thurbane (Mar 7, 2007)

I saw GR last night, and I say without exaggeration that it the worst movie I have seen in years.

The acting, plot and dialogue were just plain awful. Nicholas Cage makes absolutely no effort at all to effectively portray his character. The story is just plain stupid, and the dialogue sounds like it was written by an 8 year old.

Even allowing for the fact it is a comic book adaptation, this one stinks on ice. I used to be quite a fan of the GR comics, too...

This is the proverbial film that should be shown at filmmakers college as an example of how not to make a movie.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 10, 2007)

I went to see this movie with two friends as one of them had passes.  From the commercials, I expected it to be bad. Yet,  I had no idea just how bad it would be. The script was poorly written. The dialogue was painful to listen to. The fight scenes against the elemental demons were not very dramatic and felt rushed. And, then there was Cage himself- his acting was atrocious.  Neither Eva Mendez's looks, Sam Elliot's likeable presence could save this piece of drek.  
It is the worst movie I have seen in at least a decade. I cannot compare this movie to Fantastic 4 or  the Hulk as I have not seen either, but as far as movies based on comics, it  worse than Blade 1 and Blade II both of which I disliked. However, it was probably better than the Batman movie with Arnold if memory serves.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 11, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> 5. Cowboy Ghost Rider wastes his last transformation to gallop across the desert just because it'd look kewl d00d!




While I enjoyed the movie, I chuckled at the stupidity of that part.

Carter Slade: "Alright, let's go get Blackheart.  I can't actually help you any, but I can keep you company during the ride."

Johnny Blaze: "Oookay!?"


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Mar 19, 2007)

Saw the movie today (A little late, I know), I felt the movie was good.  I just don't agree with all the criticisms I've seen so far.  I mean, all I wanted was Johnny Blaze, the Ghost Rider, the Devil, some GR/Demon fights, and a story I could follow.  I got all of that, who cares if it's not Casablanca?


----------



## Thurbane (Mar 20, 2007)

Not Casablanca? It's barely Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!


----------

