Ghost Rider?

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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. :p
 

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
 

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. :p

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.
 

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...
 


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.
 
Last edited:

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/ )?
 

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.
 
Last edited:

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...
 

Remove ads

Top