PeterDavid.net

Superman Returns had a plot??????

Also Ghost Rider doesn't come off as a creepy stalker like Superman did. Using his x-ray vision to spy on Lois and then breaking into her house to see the kid at the end of the movie was just disturbing.

After seeing that movie I think the X-Men franchise picked just the right time to dispose of Singer.

Maybe they meant "once every generation in demon years." Eh? EH?

Noooo, I can't save it. And everytime I see that commercial with Cage going "Feels like my skull's on fire," I feel like it's a personal challenge for me to kick his ass and Mark Steven Johnson's.

And yet I know I'll eventually see the movie willingly. ARGH!

I pretty much predicted what your thoughts on the movie would be, Peter, and I turned out to be right. And there's a very simple reason for this:

It's from the same director as Daredevil.

'Nuff said.

Probably a good thing you didn't write the movie novelization, PAD. Your brain might have exploded and gotten your sweater all messy.

"Probably a good thing you didn't write the movie novelization, PAD. Your brain might have exploded and gotten your sweater all messy."

If I'd done the movie novelization, I'd have come up with additional scenes to explain it all.

PAD

I liked superman returns. He wasn't stalking, he was voyeuring and we all do it and if we all had x ray vision we would be doing worse things than that. well I would be.

totally off topic...did any one read the psi man books?

>sadly--even with enough holes to drive a truck fleet through, the plot STILL makes more sense than "Superman Returns."

Sadder still are the number of people who thought RETURNS was a very good movie. Effects and spectacular scenes are more important than a coherent, intelligent story and solid acting. Pity.

Whats even more sad is to think that previous superhero movies had well written plots. Most of the superman movies, from the 80's were awful, and I think most of you confuse awesome for well written. Its like people who did not like the new star wars movies, the originals were lame, but awesome.

Should be very afraid for my favorite comic book character, Iron Man? They are making an Iron Man movie too.

[snip]It's an hour and forty five minutes of entertainment[snip]

Given that I watch movies to be entertained, I'll take this as an endorsement. Even though, no shock to anyone, I was already planning on seeing it.

But I liked Superman Returns.. I think I just heard enough negative about it that when I did see it, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.
Plus, Spacey as Luthor was perfect.
Plot? Okay, ya got me there... Special Effects weren't perfect... but there was something about it that I liked...

T

Am watching GR tonight not expecting a lot but ready to be entertained. If only, I want Nick Cage to enjoy a success with this one, after all his efforts to get into a superhero franchise, any superhero franchise. It seemed like if Snipes hadnt bought Black Panther, Cage whould have propositioned himself for the role.

Someone did a great photo-op about this in a spanish site, with Cage asking for the role of Wonder Woman. Ill try to find it and link it.

Posted by Luigi Novi at February 16, 2007 02:08 AM
"I pretty much predicted what your thoughts on the movie would be, Peter, and I turned out to be right. And there's a very simple reason for this:

It's from the same director as Daredevil."

Well, for fairness' sake, the Director's Cut of 'Daredevil' was a very different and - IMHO - much better movie that the one released to theatres, so maybe we shouldn't shoot the messenger too badly...

'Superman Returns' was just a train wreck from start to long overdue end. Terrible, terrible movie.

Speaking of movies; one to definitely watch out for is 'Hot Fuzz', from the same team as 'Shaun of the Dead'. Saw it yesterday, and I'm still chortling occasionally.

Cheers!

It's from the same director as Daredevil.

When we went to see Daredevil, I was expecting total crap. So, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the movie and thought that it wasn't total crap after all.

Still, Ghost Rider will be a DVD rental for me.

I suspect that I'm going to be holding out until the DVD release too.

Wow, Peter David giving an honest and critical opinion of a Marvel-related production? Did we travel back to 2002?

I think that I will reserve judgement until I come out of the theatre later today.

Although I will say Ghost Rider being compared to that CRAPTASTIC Superman Returns doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

Suffice to say that as fanboys we are living in exciting times. At least movies are being made about our Comic Action Stars.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

PAD,

My impression was that the inability to come onto consecrated ground only applied to the elemental “spirits” and not to either Mephistopheles or Blackheart. But come to think of it, they were in the church with Blackheart, weren’t they?

Except I think they were with him in a lobby area, so maybe it doesn’t count. I don’t know. I’d have had them wait outside to avoid any confusion.

Overall, I liked _Ghost Rider_, despite flaws like that. I thought it was respectful to the source material, even though they took a few liberties. In the comicbook, Johnny Blaze makes his deal with the Devil to save “Crash” Simpson, Roxanne’s father from cancer, not his own father, Barton Blaze, who’d already died some years previous. Also in the comicbook, Johnny willingly summons “Satan” (later revealed to be Mephisto. In the film, Mephistopheles comes to him. What’s more, he never actually agrees to the deal. He’s just _reading_ the contract when it cuts him and spills his blood on it.

Also, in the comicbook, Johnny becomes Ghost Rider the night he makes the deal, not decades later.

A bit more about the comicbook, before I return my attention to the movie: My first encounter with _Ghost Rider_ (in any incarnation) was issue 58 of the Johnny Blaze series, which I picked up off the spinner rack at a drug store. The cover shows a group of guys in a car fleeing from a motorcyclist with a flaming skull who’s visible in their rear-view mirror. I opened up to the first page and read the “Stan Lee presents...” caption and thought it was “cute” that this character was called Johnny _Blaze_.

Anyway, I bought the issue, and every one after that until the series ended with #81. I really liked how (especially as the series grew closer to the end) _Ghost Rider_ developed into a metaphor of a man dealing with his personal demons. The more Johnny Blaze became Ghost Rider, the more the demon within him, Zarathos, was able to gain independent control when he was Ghost Ridering. As a result, Ghost Rider went from being an extension of Johnny’s personality to someone Johnny had to fight to keep from getting too far out of control. Zarathos was both literally and metaphorically Johnny Blaze’s personal demon. Like the alcoholic tempted by “just one drink”, Johnny was often tempted to give in to the desire to become Ghost Rider because it was an “emergency.”

I eventually bought all the back issues, and I have to say what ended as a _great_ book had a less than great beginning. Or rather, certain elements of the early stories are... unfortunate. “Satan” comes to collect Johnny’s soul, but is prevented from doing so by Roxanne Simpson’s virginal purity (so he gives Johnny the Ghost Rider curse instead). puh-lease. The idea that sexual inexperience would make one so good and pure they could ward off “Satan” is laughable. There are evil, wicked people who’ve never had sex and good and “pure” people who have.

It’s also obvious in the early days that _Ghost Rider_ was just a way to cash in on the then-popularity of Evel Knievel and _The Exorcist_. In and of itself, that’s not a bad thing, but the later internal battle between Johnny and Zarathos made for better stories than those about a supernatural “superhero.”

Returning to the film, like I said, it respected the source material. It had Johnny Blaze and Roxanne Simpson; the deal with the Devil and subsequent double cross; and Johnny’s subsequent curse. The film also acknowledged the western Ghost Rider, Carter Slade (who used theatricality to give the _illusion_ of supernatural powers in the comics; he wasn’t a demon-possessed Ghost Rider, like Johnny), and threw in a few nods to Dan Ketch, the 1990s Ghost Rider. Those were the chain, the “penance stare” and a villain named Blackheart. I also understand “The Caretaker” is a Dan Ketch-era character, too. In the film, the Caretaker is an amalgam of two characters from the comics, but I’ll say no more to avoid spoilers.

By the way, what happened to the Stan Lee cameo? Did I miss it, or did he not do one this time?

It is puzzling that every generation has a Ghost Rider, yet the last one appeared 150 years ago. A minor change in the narration (or in the conversation between the Caretaker and Johnny) could have fixed that. All they had to do is let us know that the Carter Slade Ghost Rider defied Mephistopheles (apparently the first to do so), but that there had been others between him and Johnny.

But now we’ve got another puzzle (and here we _do_ have a SPOILER WARNING

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

W
A
R
N
I
N
G

When Mephistopheles offers to free Johnny from the Ghost Rider curse, stating that somebody else can bear that burden, it suggests that he can only have one Ghost Rider at a time. Or was he just mad when Johnny refuses to give up the power _because of_ Johnny’s refusal? If the former, how can Johnny have become a Ghost Rider when the Carter Slade Ghost Rider was still around? And if there’s no “rule” against having more than one Ghost Rider at the same time, why didn’t Mephistopheles just say, in essence, “fine. I’ll just make another Rider and send him after you.” Or, for that matter, “fine. I still own your soul. Drop dead.”?

Ah well, it could have been better. But then, it could have been worse. Anyone remember the treatment Thor got in the _Return of the Incredible Hulk_ TV movie? Instead of Don Blake _becoming_ Thor, he summoned Thor _as a separate person_.

If I was still doing my movie review column from 1994-1995, I’d probably give _Ghost Rider_ a B- or C+.

Rick

Just out of curiosity: any acknowledgment of Roy Thimas, Mike Ploog or Gary Freidrich in the credits?

DVD: "Probably a good thing you didn't write the movie novelization, PAD. Your brain might have exploded and gotten your sweater all messy."

PAD: If I'd done the movie novelization, I'd have come up with additional scenes to explain it all.

Dave...he made Batman Forever into a respectable, logical story. I doubt this one would be much of a challenge.

By the way, what happened to the Stan Lee cameo?

As far as I've noticed, Stan's cameos have been limited to the films based on the characters he had a hand in creating.

Mike Stanczyk: Should be very afraid for my favorite comic book character, Iron Man? They are making an Iron Man movie too.
Luigi Novi: You don't like Jon Favreau?

Peter J Poole: Well, for fairness' sake, the Director's Cut of 'Daredevil' was a very different and - IMHO - much better movie that the one released to theatres, so maybe we shouldn't shoot the messenger too badly...
Luigi Novi: I didn't know there was a Director's Cut. What was different in it? Did they dispense with the stupid notion that DD's radar sense came from his sense of touch? Or the fact that he tried to kill Quesada in the beginning of the film? Or the fact that he was prosecuting Quesada despite being a defense attorney? Or the fact that his radar view of Elektra was totally different from his radar view of the Kingpin, and didn't look at all like a view created by soundwaves? Or the unmasked DD's ridiculous assertion to Kingpin as to why he didn't have to worry about Kingpin being revealed? Did they include or mention Stick, or some mention that Matt had martial arts training after losing his sight? Did they make Elektra a better fighter than she was in the movie, and make a better stand against Bullseye before he killed her? Or make the pool hall fight less silly?

Posted by: Luigi Novi at February 16, 2007 02:16 PM

I didn't know there was a Director's Cut. What was different in it? Did they dispense with the stupid notion that DD's radar sense came from his sense of touch? Or the fact that he tried to kill Quesada in the beginning of the film? Or the fact that he was prosecuting Quesada despite being a defense attorney? Or the fact that his radar view of Elektra was totally different from his radar view of the Kingpin, and didn't look at all like a view created by soundwaves? Or the unmasked DD's ridiculous assertion to Kingpin as to why he didn't have to worry about Kingpin being revealed? Did they include or mention Stick, or some mention that Matt had martial arts training after losing his sight? Did they make Elektra a better fighter than she was in the movie, and make a better stand against Bullseye before he killed her? Or make the pool hall fight less silly?

But aside from all that, how did you like the movie? ;)

Luigi -

Did it address every single nit-pick a comics fan might possibly have had? No.

Was it a better movie, much closer to the overall feel of the comic book? I definitely believe so.

There's a review at:

http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/559/559295p1.html

Cheers.

One more thought about _Ghost Rider_.

When the inevitable sequel appears, I hope Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider doesn’t just fight external foes. I’d like the filmmakers to take more pages from the comicbook series and develop an _internal_ conflict between Johnny and the demon Zarathos. As in the comicbook, that conflict creates a conundrum for Johnny. The more he uses his abilities to help others and/or fight evil, the control Zarathos gains over their shared form. And the more that happens, the greater the likelihood that Ghost Rider would _deliberately_ hurt innocents. And to add to the conundrum, Johnny _wants_ to use his powers to help people/fight evil. That’s pretty clear from what’s established by the end of the first film.

True, we don’t know if the Johnny Blaze of the film is possessed by a demon (Zarathos or otherwise), but I’d hope they’d go in that direction. It’d be a more interesting film than if he just fought bad guys.

Rick

Thanks, for the link, Peter, but I didn't consider most of the things I mentioned to be nits. I found them to be reasons why the film, the plot and the execution of the character was flawed on a fundamental level. Matt Murdock killing a guy isn't a nit. It's goes right to the heart of the character as he's portrayed in the book.

Luigi, I believe the Daredevil director's cut clocked in at about 133 minutes, as opposed to the theatrical cut, which was 102 or 103. I agree with those who found the director's cut more enjoyable, although frankly I could have done without the deleted scenes featuring Coolio as a defense witness. That said, I think the longer version offered a bit more to the fans than say, the upcoming special edition of Spider-Man 2 that adds about five minutes of material just so they can Lucas the fans one more time.

Funnily enough, I agree with most of your points about the Daredevil film, although I always believed that on a conceptual level, Daredevil was going to be a difficult character to capture on film, considering his key abilities are mostly internal and thus a bit more esoteric. I had a few fundamental problems of my own with the film, but I still felt that Johnson put his heart into the project and that it worked more than not. I just wished that they had stayed away from the CG stunt doubles, which the technology was not able to handle even a couple of years ago. Which was my major criticism of Blade 2, by the way.

As for Superman Returns, I'm so happy to hear that there are other people out there who didn't enjoy it. Personally, I found it an overblown, over-long, pretentious piece of work, with a miscast lead actor who seemed a bit too effeminate to me, directed by somebody who's been pulling the wool over the eyes of the fan community for too many years. But my biggest complaint is that Superman just didn't come across as, well, super. Other than one major set piece, we really don't see Superman doing much of anything for the first 45 minutes or so, by which time I had pretty much lost interest.

Finally, I'm not all that sure I'm going to rush out and see Ghost Rider either. With the window between theatrical and DVD releases shrinking all the time, I feel relatively sanguine about waiting until maybe June to see it on DVD.

I loved Superman Returns. I don't get the plot complaints from the rest of the geek set (of which I'm a part of). The flick received exceedingly positive reviews when it came out, just check out rottentomatoes.com. And I don't think Richard White ever really believed that Jason was his child. Lois was the one fooling herself on that front. And yeah, I guess there was a moment there where a tsunami could have hit Metropolis, but that's more an omission in extraneous action than a plot hole. Other than that I doubt you can find a better example of applied physics in a superhero movie (shuttle rescue).

There IS an Iron Man animated direct-to-video film out already. There may be a live-action, and if it's anything close to this, start weeping.

Besides the fact that it bears little resemblence to any Iron Man story line I've ever encountered, it's drained of any reason why we might admire Tony Stark as a man.

One visual factor steams me personally; the steam-filled scene where Stark takes a bath with a readheaded bimbo, with the steam precisely covering the "naughty bits." And the climactic scene has a posessed, beautiful woman whose flowing semi-transparent robes are transparent enough to show the shape of her body, but not the details of said body. If you're going to do semi-nudity to try to make this thing PG-13 and make it seem "adult," do it with a little more artistic style, folks.

I probably wouldn't have been irritated by all of the above if the film had an involving storyline.

Overall, with comic films, how does everybody feel? Do you guys want STRICT ADHERANCE TO THE WRITTEN/DRAWN TITLE or are you going in thinking, "Well, let's see what they do with this?" Personally, I don't see anything wrong with either view. Sam Raimi caught everything right with the two Spidey movies, although I have to admit being disappointed when I found out about the organic 2099-rip off web shooters.(That's literally what I thought at the time.) On the other hand, Brian Singer caught similarly everything right with the first two X-movies, he nailed the characters dead on with the exception of Rogue, but even that worked. But the X-movies were a little less comic-conforming than the Spidey ones, and I know a few people who despise them because Storm wasn't a first generation X-character the way the movie portrayed her. Now, just in case there's any question, I feel that if the movie, well, stinks close adherence to the source won't save it. Just wondering.

Sean, I can only speak personally, but I don't really mind if a comic-based project veers off in a different direction from the source material, provided there is an internal logic to it, which is one of the points that Peter brings up in his review above. Which is one of the reasons that I'm not a huge fan of the first two X-Men films. Why go through the trouble of introducing Storm with a faux African accent in the first film if you're just going to dispose of it in film two? I know the behind-the-scenes reason doubtless had something to do with the fact that Halle Berry decided she didn't want to do the stupid accent anymore, right around the time she didn't want to wear the long wig or contacts, but in terms of an internal logic, that sort of thing pisses me off. The same way as Peter Rasputin seems to lose his Russian accent along the way, or Rogue loses her Southern accent. Those are tiny details I admit, but when they start piling them up, they have a cumulative effect.

And believe me, I really didn't have a problem with plot holes on Superman Returns. To me, the bigger problems were in casting, direction, editing and overall story structure.

Just got back from seeing Ghost Rider, and frankly, I didn't see it as having that many logic problems. The hallowed ground thing I'll grant (although, for all we know, the Caretaker just meant the Nephilim when he said "they can't enter hallowed ground," not Blackheart, who he didn't know was involved), but the "no Ghost Rider for 150 years" seems wrong. The caretaker gave the impression of having seen several Riders come and go (messily) in his day.

Mind you, I did find the plot pacing way too videogame-y. Boss fight, cut scene, mooks, boss fight, cut scene, etc.

Did they make Elektra a better fighter than she was in the movie, and make a better stand against Bullseye before he killed her?

As I recall the original Frank Miller story, Bullseye DID take her out without much problem. "You're good...but me...I'm magic" as he cuts her throat with a card. Elektra became a far more powerful fighter after her ressurection.

Overall, with comic films, how does everybody feel? Do you guys want STRICT ADHERANCE TO THE WRITTEN/DRAWN TITLE or are you going in thinking, "Well, let's see what they do with this?"

keep what works on the sccreen, change what must to make it work. I had no problem with the changes to the Fantastic 4 origin--who today would buy 4 people sneaking onto a rocketship? The changes to Doctor Doom were pointless and added nothing.

Oraganic web shooters? Yeah, I liked it--it is too much to swallow that it just so happens that Peter has invented the perfect weapon for a guiy named spiderman. One that could make him a fortune and get his aunt oout of poverty, I might add. (Yes, he tried to sell it to a glue company and they rejected it because it was temporary--my ass! Like the department of defense wouldn't give half their fingers and both of their thumbs for something like this!). Anyhoo...

Just came back from Ghostrider. Packed house. The crowd seemed to enjoy it. The movie is pure popcorn fluff but I wasn't expecting anything much more--Ghostrider was never more than a niche entry in the Marvel Universe to me. They got the visuals down well--the fire effects were excellent and I've had some experience trying to use CGI fire. It isn't fun or easy.

On the other hand, I think they should have done more with the skull. I know a skull can't change expressions but if you look at the comic the artists would cheat now and again to give him a slightly evil look or whatever was needed. The movie didn't do that. When he laughed they just made his jaw move up and down.

Aintitcoolnews really lowered my expectations for the film and I enjoyed it quite a bit more than I thought I would. Nicholas Cage has a lot of charisma.

I did feel bad for the iguana though.

I'm a Ghost Rider fan from back in the 1980's, and have been waiting eagerly for this film ever since it entered production. (Before that actually, because the movie had been attempted several times over the years, but never got made until now.) Routine visits to the Ghost Rider Movie Blog and the official web site helped get me through until the premiere, but I was so ready for the movie that when the Spider-Man 3 trailer came on I was wishing it would hurry up and finish so Ghost Rider could start. And I can say that I was impressed with it.

Johnny's origin is told in an efficient manner, and sets the story up nicely. The script keeps things moving at a smooth pace, with no area of the film really losing momentum. There was also quite a bit of humor in the film, and it worked surprisingly well.

As far as the special effects go, when Johnny transforms into Ghost Rider it looks amazingly cool. All the Ghost Rider powers I was hoping to see were present, like the Penance Stare and the ability of the Hellcycle to defy the laws of physics. I think Mark Steven Johnson did a great job of taking the comic and changing it just enough to work on the screen, but not so much that it loses the essence of the characters. He manages to blend the best parts of the various Ghost Rider incarnations into one, and even manages a nod to the western Ghost Rider.

Were there certain things that bothered me? Sure. The scene where he whistled for the bike threw me, and it took a couple minutes to get back into the movie after that. The hallowed ground thing I was able to explain to myself by figuring the Fallen were once angels, so churches shouldn't be off-limits to them. Strangely enough, the part that bothered me the most was the idea of moving and entire cemetery. I know you can't make things too easy for the hero or villain, but that seemed like a ridiculous obstacle. All of these oddities were still minor compared to the enjoyment I got from the film.

Overall, it was a very good movie, and I look forward to seeing it again.

By the way, I did stay all the way through the credits, and I want to let you know that this is not one of those movies that throws a little scene in at the end, like X-Men: The Last Stand. So it you want to head for home when the credits start rolling, you can do so with a clear conscience. (A credit that did catch my eye was one of the caterers: Hel's Kitchen. If ever a production chose a caterer because of the name, that was it.)

"Superman Returns had a plot??????"

Yes it did, however it was leaked to the public back in 1978 by Richard Donner.

Thanks for your comments, Joe. As to DD's power being mostly internal, well, I don't see how this would make him any more hard to capture on film than say, Professor X or Wolverine. DD, after all, has acrobatic/martial arts abilities that make for nice visuals.

Also, in what way do you feel has Singer pooled the wool over the fans' eyes over the years?

Luigi, in hindsight I might have been a bit too flip, but what I was trying to say is there seemed to be some kind of cult of personality that sprung up around Singer's work on the first two X-Men films. After he left the franchise to work on Superman Returns, there seemed to be a lot of gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, as though this was a disaster of biblical proportions. I never really felt that Singer was as emotionally invested in the material as say, Sam Raimi on Spider-Man who for my money is still the perfect director for the right superhero franchise. Mind you, I'm not saying the Spidey films are perfect either (I'm still not prepared to forgive Raimi for the bonehead move of getting rid of the Green Goblin's iconic mask in favor of a helmet that masked his features) but for me, they've always had a lot more resonance than the X-Men films. I think Singer did a perfectly acceptable job with them, but I never thought of them as the ultimate comic book films that some fans have made them out to be.

That said, I give Singer a huge amount of credit for putting anything decent on screen considering how little respect Fox has had for this property, rushing the X-Men films into release dates that made it all but impossible for even the most talented director to put together something really great. But that's a whole other discussion I think.

I thought both Raimi and Singer did good jobs, Singer moreso. While I thought that Spidey 2 was the best comic-based movie since the original Superman, I thought that the first one was merely good, but not great. I didn't care for the camp, which was toned way down for the second one. As for Singer, I thought both of his X-Men films were great. Perhaps resonance is more difficult to convey with a team property as opposed to a single-star property, but I thought Singer did it well. I admit that I myself was skeptical about the third film, even though I liked Brett Ratner's work on Red Dragon, but it turned out that X-Men 3 was great, whereas Superman Returns sucked ass.

As for the Green Goblin's mask, I thought that was a legitimate change in the adaptation, since the costume from the comics wouldn't work in a film.

Luigi, I'm not sure if the Green Goblin costume would have worked, but the mask certainly would have. If you've ever seen a photo of the original Goblin mask created by ADI for the film, I think you would agree, especially on Defoe's wonderfully Goblin-like facial features, but for whatever reasons, Raimi vetoed the idea in favor of the helmet.

Completely off topic, but this just seems like a natural fit for you, Peter!

Press Release

In the end, they couldn’t resist the glamour, the allure of multi-colored shoes, the subtle symphony of pins colliding, and, well, real heavy balls.

MegaCon guests Adam Kubert (penciler on Action Comics), Moose Bauman (colorist on Green Lantern), Barbara Kesel (Legends of the Dark Crystal) and anime voiceover artist Vic Mignogna (Full Metal Alchemist, Macross, Dragon Ball Z) have all added their names to the honored few who will bowl with the fans on Saturday night, February 17th, to benefit the Hero Initiative.

In honor of the additions, Hero Initiative has extended the Bowl-A-Thon ticket sales on eBay for three more days, rounding out a series of auctions all scheduled to coincide with the annual pilgrimage to Orlando for MegaCon.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300081210152

My wife and I saw half of "Ghost Rider" last night.

No -- we didn't walk out in disgust. As a matter of fact, we were pretty much enjoying it.

But I guess the film was such a "hot" commodity that the fire alarm strobes and sirens started going off, and we had to clear the AMC cineplex. Seriously, there was a fire somewhere in the mall, and thousands of people had to exit -- including the thousands of people who were in all the theaters. And, since it was, like, 10 degrees outside, and we could just imagine the administrative goat-rope that was going to take place at the cineplex once the "all clear" was sounded, we just left.

It was the first time in all my years of going to the movies that I had to exit in the middle of a picture because of a fire alarm. How ironic is it that it occurred while watching a film about a blazing biker from Hell?

We'll take our ticket stubs back later and see if we can see the rest of it, courtesy of AMC. It's times like that I'll bet being a theater manager is a bloody nightmare.

Luigi, I'm not sure if the Green Goblin costume would have worked, but the mask certainly would have. If you've ever seen a photo of the original Goblin mask created by ADI for the film, I think you would agree, especially on Defoe's wonderfully Goblin-like facial features, but for whatever reasons, Raimi vetoed the idea in favor of the helmet.

Which puts me in mind of one of the priceless lines from Weird Al Yankovic's Ode To a Superhero (to the tune of Billy Joel's Piano Man):

"Now he's ridin' around on that glider-thing
And he's throwin' that weird pumpkin bomb
Yeah, he's wearin' that dumb Power Rangers mask
But he's scarier without it on..."

Posted by Luigi Novi at February 16, 2007 05:36 PM
"Thanks, for the link, Peter, but I didn't consider most of the things I mentioned to be nits. I found them to be reasons why the film, the plot and the execution of the character was flawed on a fundamental level. Matt Murdock killing a guy isn't a nit. It's goes right to the heart of the character as he's portrayed in the book."

Fair comment. We're into personal tastes country here, so I'm not going to argue that mine are better than yours. For the record, I'd say that most of your questions I personally would file under nit-picking, but if they matter enough to you to spoil the movie you probably shouldn't bother with the Director's Cut, even though it is a very different movie. (If you count the additional material as well as the footage taken out, there's probably about 40 minutes of new material in the DC) It's still no Osacr winner, but it's a better movie than the one released, which goes back to my original point that having the same director may not instantly be grounds for consigning 'Ghost Rider' to purgatory...

Though if I were being puckishly argumentative I might mention that DD's origin has him chasing a man through a subway until he dies of a heart attack... >-)

Bottom line, on the Sean scale, I'm a 'let's see what they do with this' guy.

Cheers.

About "being true to the source material," it shouldn't matter in little details like organic web shooters, or blending Gwen Stacy's death with Mary Jane's peculiar romance with Peter. What should matter is whether Peter Parker feels like the character we read in comics, whether he did the specific things we read in comics or not. The little speech at the end of "Spider-Man" nailed the precise feel of the life Peter Parker lived in the comics, whether he said it or not. It also took an audience expecting the traditional clinch and implied sex with the heroine, and threw that assumption in their faces.

I haven't seen "Ghost Rider" yet. It's not a priority for me. But recalling how the character bounced all over as a concept after its first two years, I don't believe it has to be "true" to very much to be a valid film. Heck, I even enjoyed the H&R Block commercials using the character (one of the smartest things that company could have done to make its commercial interesting).

Ghost Rider was pretty damn terrible. Way too much time spent on the Johnny Blaze back story, holes galore in the plot and complete throwaway supporting characters. But the worst part was the unbelievably bad action sequences. Can Ghost Rider possibly move any slower? Ooooh, beware his plodding chain attack!

I was also disappointed in the demons. They were way too weak and inexplicably dispatched with ease. Making them incorporeal was a bad move. GR flames on in the water and water wraith disintegrates? Come on. Ghost Rider is a physical character who needs to punch crap in the face and beat dudes silly with his chain. After the movie I had to Wii up GR in Ultimate Alliance just to remind myself how kick ass he actually is.

Every time I see Mark Steven Johnson talk about his work or I read an interview with him, he seems like a smart, energetic guy who knows comics. But all his final products have been amazingly lackluster. I am very concerned for Preacher.

-Markisan

Sean Scullion said:
"although I have to admit being disappointed when I found out about the organic 2099-rip off web shooters."
-----
Yeah, wonder who thought up something like that?

"I am very concerned for Preacher." My understanding is that Garth Ennis is very involved in the series, so hopefully he'll be able to keep it from getting too watered down.

Why do I get the feeling those words will come back to haunt me someday?

Yeah, I thought it was a decent popcorn movie. I'm not particularly invested in the Ghost Rider character, so I'm sure that helped my opinion. Go with some friends to a matinee and kick back and have fun.

Curse you, Jonathan, I just got that song OUT of my head, and you go and put it back IN. Of course, now at least there's SOMETHING there.

And now, thankfully, the Sean scale on the internet has nothing to do with a skin condition. Owe ya one, Peter.

You know what REALLY worried me about the Ghost Rider movie? I had a horrifying vision of the marketing department coming up with the Official Ghost Rider junior-size dirt bike, and on seeing that, my head would explode. So far, haven't seen that, and my cranium is intact.

Thomas E (Any relation to Jonathan E?) - The IRON MAN animated film suffered from other problems. The Board members were made out to be idiots. Stark hands them BILLIONS in government contracts, yet they practically throw him out? How does a company stay in business with such fools running it? And IM is a technological character. He tends to fight technological bad guys. Yet, here, he's up against mainly magical threats. Terrible fit. Same sort of problem with the first RESIDENT EVIL film where the zombies and high tech [the Red Queen AI] just don't mix.

I wonder if they'll make a movie of the Human Fly next. He was the wildest Super-Hero ever -- because he's real!

(To my great shame I actually have all of the Human Fly issues, a sad reminder of the days when I bought everything--everything--that Marvel published.

Just got back, and I enjoyed it; I've been reading the 'Essential Ghost Rider', and I thought they did a pretty good job shaking the various comics incarnations down to find the good stuff. It was, at times, a bit over-goofy, and not tons of sense (although I'll defend the "elemental demons" bit. He sent them all at once the first time, and one died. He used the second one as cannon fodder to find out GR's weaknesses, and then the third one couldn't attack "en masse", because he was the only one left.) But it was entertaining. "Why helicopters?" "My dad thought it would be cool." "...he was right."

The most unintentionally funny bit, though, was where Roxy is waiting in the restaurant...and with no explanation, pulls out a Magic 8-Ball, shakes it, looks into it, and then puts it away, never to be seen again. All we could think of was that she did that in a gag take, and it wound up in the finished film.

Oh, I in no way intended to imply that my curiosity about the Director's Cut wasn't piqued by the posts and links you and others made, Peter. I may just go and rent it at the next opportunity. :-)

And Bill, thanks for pointing that out about Elektra's abilties.

For my two cents, Ghost Rider gave me exactly what I was expecting. Of course, given that I was expecting at best a B-Movie, that's maybe not saying much. To break it down...
What I liked:
-The tone was pretty consistent. Go in with tongue planted firmly in cheek and you're probably gonna have a pretty good time. For that matter, Nic Cage's performance is consistent with that as well. I can't recall him mugging for the camera quite this much since... well, ever, actually. Along the same line, I've read a review or two that accuses the film of being unintentionally funny at times. I don't agree with that; I don't think it was unintentional at all.
-The effects (barring some of the earlier shots in the film) were pretty decent. They even occasionally bordered on the beautiful (the scene of the two Ghost Riders riding side by side just plain rocked, in my humble opinion.)
-The fact that they payed homage to the original Wild West Ghost Rider was really nice (even though he wasn't actually a supernatural character in the comics.)

What I didn't like:
-You really did have to turn your brain off at the door to really enjoy this movie. It didn't make a ton of sense unless you're willing to accept that all of the characters are morons. I'm not gonna list all of my nit pick because everyone above has pretty much nailed them all, but, like I said, if you can ignore the basic principles of good storytelling (and, evidentially, I'm able to do this :P), you'll be able to enjoy the film.
-Eva Mendes can't act her way out of a community college, and Nic Cage doesn't do much better. One of the better actors in the film, Sam Elliot, is essentially wasted. He has maybe fifteen minutes of screentime, most of which is spent giving exposition, and then literally fades from the film without proper explanation.
-The (almost) ending speech given by Cage may have looked good typed out in a word balloon, but when it's spoken by a human being, it just sounds bad. I mean, really bad. You'll know it when you hear it.

To sum up, the film's worth seeing in that guilty pleasure sort of way (especially if caught as a matinee.) You know it's bad while you're watching it, but, if you can let yourself run with it, you're probably gonna have too good of a time to really care.

I was expecting the worst and was pleasantly suprised (I love it when I'm wrong about movies and wind up liking something I thought I'd hate via poor reviews). Very entertaining, cool FX, great Cage, goofy at times but not breaking "character" with the movie's tone and subject matter.

Marc Bialek

No, Superman was stalking. Bryan Singer took Superman and turned him into a creepy deadbeat dad who will break into your house at night.

I might add that my wife LOVED the movie, though over dinner last night we managed to find a dozen plot points that made no sense (I wonder what the other people at Outback Steakhouse talked about).

One obvious one--Ghost Rider gets stabbed by some punk and the wound is still there later when he becomes Nic Cage again. BUT...later he is shot about 12,000 times by the cops and when he turns back into Cage he doesn't immediately drop dead or, alternatively, drink a glass of water and have multiple streams of fluid leak out of his body like Yosemite Sam.

The (almost) ending speech given by Cage may have looked good typed out in a word balloon, but when it's spoken by a human being, it just sounds bad. I mean, really bad. You'll know it when you hear it.

You mean the Grapes of Wrath speech--"Wherever there is evil, I'll be there. Wherever the innocent suffer, I'll be there. Wherever an interior decorator has painted a room in an unflattering color, there too shall I be." Yeah, that came off pretty goofy.

Also, not only do the bad guys use the 100 ninjas strategy-"We outnumber him 100 to 1--let's all attack one at a time!" they are just not very good at it. It takes more time to read this post than it takes the Ghost Rider to defeat them. Bad enough that they look like the world's oldest Hot Topic customers, they're also about as effective as clam sauce.

But for all that I had a good time. Look, Ghost Rider has always been 3rd tier Marvel at best. ANY Ghost Rider movie has a low bar to jump over. They did fine by me. Maybe Dino De Laurentis was on to something when he told Stan Lee he wanted to buy the rights to Werewolf By Night. (As Stan tells the story, his conscience forced him to point out that Marvel did not exactly hold the copyright to the idea of a guy turning into a werewolf at night.)

I thought it was okay. It's a guilty pleasure. I'm not a big fan of Cage, I think the only movies of his I've really liked were Raising Arizona and Adaptation (anyone catch the little reference to Raising Arizona in there? It cracked me up.). But I thought he did a good job. And Eva Mendes has got absolutely beautiful, um, eyes. Did she talk? I don't remember.

My biggest problem was the dialogue. At times it was actually pretty funny and clever, but then other times it was absolutely horrendous. The villians in particular were pulling out every cliche in and out of the book.

My friend and I were pretty amused at what pushovers the elemental demons were, too. Though I guess it makes sense that he'd be able to take them out easily, given that it's sort of what he was created to do.

"No, Superman was stalking. Bryan Singer took Superman and turned him into a creepy deadbeat dad who will break into your house at night."

I found the basic idea of Superman Returns interesting, but was less happy with the execution. I had mixed feelings about the idea of Superman having a child. But the scenario of Superman returning to find he has a son and that the love of his life has moved on is very interesting, very contemporary. For him to react the way he did -- stalking and all -- seems natural, human, even for the great Superman.

Part of the problem of Superman Returns to me was that all of the characters, including Superman himself, seemed to lack some focus, some development, some depth. When I look back on X1-X2, I think there was a similar problem with many of the characters except Wolverine and Magneto. Except for these two, all the others seemed very intteresting in potential, but somehow underdeveloped and underused.

As I was thinking back on Superman Returns it made me wonder about the whole idea of superheroes having and bringing up chiildren, and I don't mean the kind that magically turn into adults, or come from parallel timelines only to vanish later, or hypothetical future children. I mean real children, now, that you have to take care of. Should superheroes have children? Would superheroes taking care of children make good stories? Which Superheroes are more suitable to bring up children? I, for example, find it hard to imagine superman having a child, and have a feeling that stories involving such a child will be pretty bad. But the idea of Spiderman having a child seems as natural as Spiderman being married. I find it difficult to imagine Batman taking care of chiildren, even on the weekend. But I can imagine the green Lantern taking a child to soccer practice.

About Ghost Rider, I haven't seen it yet. I think I'll wait for the DVD. Reading people's reviews here, it seems to me that having sufficiently low expectations and watching the movie in the comfort of your own sofa makes watching movies of this caliber more enjoyable. I enjoyed Daredevil and Fantastic Four, and to a lesser degree Constantine and the Hulk, under similar circumstances, despite obvious flaws.

The van is waiting for next Thursday (Kate's payday) for a new radiator, i couldn't drive myself if it was running (spent a night in jail last week over an expired driver's license that my sister is going to deliver $50 to North Carolina to clear up for me)..., so i haven't seen it, despite having originally pledged to be there opening day. Oh well.

However:

Satan's bounty hunter has looted the wallets of movie-goers. "Ghost Rider," Sony's comic-book adaptation starring Nicolas Cage as a motorcycle stunt driver moonlighting as a collector of evil souls for the devil, debuted as the top weekend movie with $44.5 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.

Debuting in second place with $22.1 million was Disney's "Bridge to Terabithia," based on the children's novel about a boy and girl who create an elaborate fantasy land to escape from the troubles of the real world.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 17, 2007 10:17 PM

I wonder if they'll make a movie of the Human Fly next. He was the wildest Super-Hero ever -- because he's real!

(To my great shame I actually have all of the Human Fly issues, a sad reminder of the days when I bought everything--everything--that Marvel published.

Hey, I have every issue of the original Nova series. Except I make no apologies for it -- I actually liked it. Still do. Wasn't a bad book.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at February 18, 2007 10:44 AM

(I wonder what the other people at Outback Steakhouse talked about).

"Say... isn't that... Bill Mulligan?"

"My God, it is!"

"Do you really think he killed all those people?"

"Well, just look at him! What do YOU think?"

"Check, please!!!"

I wish they'd left when they saw us waiting at the door--would have saved me an hour of waiting while the scent of beef and garlic mashed potatoes made me salivate like Pavlov's dogs.

"Let's have our Valentine's dinner on Saturday," I said, "There won't as much of a crowd." I said. Obviously she didn't marry me for the brains.

I saw "Ghost Rider" opening night and thoroughly enjoyed it, which thoroughly surprised me. Since Johnson was responible to some extent for the Terrible Two of "Daredevil" and "Elektra", I admittedly did have low expectations. But the effects were cool, the story was decent, although the beginning felt especially rushed - I think it is one of those movies that would have benefitted from more time. I like that the effects were cool and not cheesy. I like that he defeated the villains convincingly. And I LIKED the melodramatic dialogue. I mean, it's a MOVIE! I ESPECIALLY liked Eva mendes and her ever-more-revealing-cleavage per scene. I think I am truly in love:)
I am glad the movie had a successful opening weekend and am looking forward to a sequel, because this film was fun!

Ahh the joy of lowered expectations. I went into Ghost Rider hoping for the best and fearing the worst. It turned out to be somewhere in the middle. A good movie but not a great movie.

Let me state my opinion on some other recent films.

Spiderman: Overall I liked it. It had its cheesy moments like the scene on the bridge. But I could forgive that since it was not that long after 9/11.

Spiderman 2: The reason I'm not looking forward to Spiderman 3 even though the trailers look good. I couldn't wait to see this movie and I went to a midnite showing cause I didn't want to wait to see it. Man I wish I would have waited. I liked the first half of the movie. Then it went right in the toilet. It went beyond redemption when Spidey took off his mask and tried to stop the subway train. Everybody on the train sees who he is and says: "we won't tell anybody Spiderman". You expect me to believe nobody on that train would take a picture and send it to the Daily Bugle. Horrible movie.

The Hulk: I actually liked this movie. Even though one of the Hulk dogs was a poodle (ridiculous), they were a little excessive with the Hulk's height after escaping the army, and they lacked a big Hulk supervillain. But overall I liked the story.

The Punisher: Needed to be a lot more violent. The Punisher isn't the Count of Monte Cristo he doesn't need to set up some elaborate scheme for revenge. What he does isn't about revenge. Its about punishment. Point gun, aim, shoot very simple. Plus it needed to be much darker.

Dardevil: When I first saw it I didn't hate it but I didn't love it either. It seemed like it just started and then it ended. The more I thought about it the less I liked it. I didn't think that the directors cut added anything that significantly improved the story. In the end it still sucked.

X-Men,X2,X3: I actually liked all of these movies. Although they might have had one storyline too many in X3. The story of the cure and Dark Phoenix could have been two separate movies. I could complain that Juggernaut's not a mutant and shouldn't lose his powers around the kid that drains mutant powers but that's minor.

Superman Returns: I thought this movie was going somewhere and then it didn't. Pretty sad when you set through a movie that's over 2hours long and you've got to wait for a sequel just to see Superman throw a punch. But this movie could have been a lot worse than it was. All of the director changes before they decided on Singer. All of the script changes. Remember when Nicholas Cage was attached? Good actor but looks nothing like Superman should. Better than Spiderman 2 but not by much.

Fantastic Four: I went in with lowered expectations and this film exceeded them. Pointless changes to Doom aside I thought this movie was ok.

Well, I finally saw the other half of Ghost Rider today (after my first fire-alarm abbreviated attempt on Friday), and overall, I liked it. Yeah there were a couple of plot holes, but that's par for the course for most action films from Hollywood these days. The special effects were great, the Ghost Rider looked cool, and Nick Cage did a decent job as a hero with a split personality.

I give it a thumbs up.

Luigi Novi,
loved all your points about why you thought "Daredevil" was a terrible movie. To me, the worst was the playground scene. But I knew we were in trouble when they changed the origin unnecessarily. Having Matt Murdock get his powers by pure accident took away from the nobility of the character. That, in the comic, he loses his sight trying to save a man immediately shows the character has the inner strength that would make him a hero. Even if they still decided to make him a murderer due to his "sense" of justice and Ben Affleck deciding that it was a 'cool story arc" to see the character change his ways "because of the love he feels for this woman", they should have left the origin alone

Bill Mulligan,
Have to disagree with your opinion or maybe your recollection. Elektra became popular very quickly in "Daredevil" because she was one of the most dangerous people on the planet - definitely among those without super-powers. She just exuded danger (and sexiness). By the time she faced Bullseye, she was the kingpin's #1 assassin. It was that fact that drove Bullseye to want to kill her to show HE was #1. And, if you look back at that fight in #181, at the beginning she is totally kicking his ass. Although he ultimately prevails, it is still one of the more brutal, emotional fights in comics history. Personally, I don't think either character has been as interesting since. Which is a HUGE reason why I felt the fight, like almost everything else in "Daredevil", was a letdown. In the comics, both were portrayed as deadly, almost forces-of-nature, and SKILLED. In the movie, Elektra..hits a few sandbags and dies. Bullseye came off more goofy than menacing.
Well, that's my two cents anyway.

Luigi Novi,
loved all your points about why you thought "Daredevil" was a terrible movie. To me, the worst was the playground scene. But I knew we were in trouble when they changed the origin unnecessarily. Having Matt Murdock get his powers by pure accident took away from the nobility of the character. That, in the comic, he loses his sight trying to save a man immediately shows the character has the inner strength that would make him a hero. Even if they still decided to make him a murderer due to his "sense" of justice and Ben Affleck deciding that it was a 'cool story arc" to see the character change his ways "because of the love he feels for this woman", they should have left the origin alone

Bill Mulligan,
Have to disagree with your opinion or maybe your recollection. Elektra became popular very quickly in "Daredevil" because she was one of the most dangerous people on the planet - definitely among those without super-powers. She just exuded danger (and sexiness). By the time she faced Bullseye, she was the kingpin's #1 assassin. It was that fact that drove Bullseye to want to kill her to show HE was #1. And, if you look back at that fight in #181, at the beginning she is totally kicking his ass. Although he ultimately prevails, it is still one of the more brutal, emotional fights in comics history. Personally, I don't think either character has been as interesting since. Which is a HUGE reason why I felt the fight, like almost everything else in "Daredevil", was a letdown. In the comics, both were portrayed as deadly, almost forces-of-nature, and SKILLED. In the movie, Elektra..hits a few sandbags and dies. Bullseye came off more goofy than menacing.
Well, that's my two cents anyway.

FIRE + SKELETON = FUN
*** out of *****
3 out of 5

Since all of the mainstream Marvel properties like X-Men, Spider-Man and Hulk have been snagged up, film studios are really reaching into the dregs of Marvel’s back catalogue of superheroes to make new films. Hence, Ghost Rider starring Nicholas Cage. As a bona-fide comic book geek, and even a card-carrying Marvel Zombie to boot, I really have no freakin clue about who or what Ghost Rider is. And, after viewing this film, I really still have no idea who he is. However, the movie is enjoyable in a campy way, the FX are good, and the actors seem to be having a good time of it. It helps a lot that the film recognizes how silly the whole thing is, so you can have fun. It is a movie about a flaming skeleton ridding a motorcycle, after all.

It doesn’t start out as flaming skeleton on motorcycle, though, because it takes a good, long while to get to that point. Ghost Rider definitely has pacing problems, the movie just shy of 2 hours and it’s a lonnnngggg just shy of 2 hours. Heck, you don’t even see the cool transformation from human to flaming skeleton until about 40 minutes into it. A lot of the before stuff feels like preamble the movie didn’t need, but it manages to somehow be watchable.

The film starts with Young Johnny Blaze (Matt Long), a member of the father/son daredevil motorcycle stunt team. When Young Blaze finds out that dear old dad is going to be dead by cancer soon, he enters into a deal with the Devil (played by a detectably evil Peter Fonda). In exchange for dad’s life, Blaze has to become the Ghost Rider, Satan’s bounty-hunter. Soon Blaze is all grown up as a weirdly, scenery-chewing Nicolas Cage.

Cage’s performance is totally unrestrained. Comparing this to other strange Nicolas Cage performances, this’ll rank up there as one of the weirder ones. The guy eats jellybeans out of a martini glass and listens to the Carpenters before his death-defying jumps. His ticks are intentionally quirky, but somehow not annoyingly so. When Cage first transforms into Ghost Rider, check out his insane laughing/ crying / screaming jag that he does. This is a performance without a roadmap, but still fun to watch.

The beautiful Eva Mendes is in the movie as a news reporter and Ghost Rider’s love interest. While her character is sadly underwritten, Mendes manages to wring out some sympathy and be a pretty likable comedic heroine due to an abundance of pouting. Any chick that understands her love periodically turns into a flaming skeleton on fire is definitely a keeper.

Ghost Rider’s job is to track down Blackheart (Wes Bentley, in a somewhat rote performance), an escaped demon. Blackheart has several baddies who assist him in his evil doings over the course of the film. These hench-demons are all based on elements like earth, water and wind. Despite the cool production design and the particularly nasty way that they are introduced, the demons unfortunately go out like punks after a short amount of sceentime. Ghost Rider defeats these evil spirits by either moving his chain around really, really fast, or, in one case, by simply just yelling at them.

What makes all these somewhat awkward plot turns acceptable is that the movie is definitely having some fun, and its infectious spirit eventually rubs off on the audience. Probably the coolest and most enjoyable moment comes from when Ghost Rider first makes his escape and the cops start chasing him down. So Ghost Rider, being the X-treme spirit of vengeance he is, flips them off and then drives his motorcycle straight up the side of a building. When Ghost Rider ends up on a rooftop and a police helicopter ends up beside him, Ghost Rider throws his chain around the helicopter, pulls it up close to his flaming skull, and then growls “Stop. Pissing. Me. Off.” Shades of Batman Begins permeate the cops-chasing-the-good-guy scene, but its passable because Rider isn’t the most original movie ever.

Speaking of “not all that original” there are numerous moments in here that I could sense were ripped out of Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The aforementioned helicopter scene is like the “Get Out” scene with the T-1000. When Ghost Rider steals a piece of leather clothing from an antagonist that scene is also a similar to a moment from the beginning of Terminator. There’s even the T-1000 style “finger wagging” joke after the monster gets beat up, and even a climatic sequence where the bad guy gets blown away with a shotgun and slowly reforms! Yes, it sounds like I’m harping, I know, but if you know Terminator 2, as evidently writer/ director Mark Steven Johnson does, you can see the same scenes ripped off.

But even with the taint of been there, done that, Ghost Rider manages to elevate itself into something more. Not much more, sure, but it comes together in a zany, wacky way. It shouldn’t work, and as a drama it really doesn’t work, but as a strange, cheeseball action movie, it does. If you want to see a flick about a skeleton on fire that rides a motorcycle, and you walk into Ghost Rider, you’re gonna get what you want. If that sounds appealing to you, then see this movie.

Oh God, another 10 cents worth, which probably means I'm overcharging you...

Bill Mulligan: your points about Elektra are valid, but it would have been damn near impossible to show her back story and 'real' skills in a 100 minute movie that's supposed to be about Daredevil. I think we all need to remember that the audience for these posts have a background knowledge of the comics that the other movie goers probably just don't have and that is screwing with our expectations. The movies need a 'bums-on-seats' figure up in the millions and these days it's a rare comic that shifts 100,000 issues a month, so big companies will very, very rarely cater for the pure comics audience.

BTW, one of the things I did like about DD, and also about Hellboy, was that they didn't spend the whole movie doing 'The Origin'. Just "here's the origin, here's a fast forward to the current state of play, here's our story". For my money (I have change from 10 cents?) Fantastic Four and Hulk would have both been much better taking a similar aproach. Though the first Spider-man movie was fine with the approach that took.

Cheers.

Ghost Rider had many fun moments, but with so many glaring moments of bad acting and horrific dialogue, I walked away with memories of some cool images, my curiosity satisfied and not much more. Has Peter Fonda's acting actually gotten worse? ;)

My brother made the best comment, though, when referring to the guy from Jack and Bobby:

"Man I would be insulted if they said I was going to be Nicholas Cage when I got older"

The other day I asked my mom if she wanted to go see the Ghost Rider movie. "The reviews say that if you want to see a good B-movie, it'll be right up your alley." I then asked her "What if I want to see a Ghost Rider movie?", to which she said, "Then you may be disappointed."

While we're on the subject of superhero movie plot holes I'd like to bring up what I find to be the largest plot hole in recent memory. This can be found in X-Men 3:The Last Stand. For folks who read the X-Men comics we know that the Phoenix Force is more than just a mutant power. It is something of truly cosmic proportions. In the film neither of these points are carried through. Yes, Jean as The Phoenix is dangerous, but not on a cosmic scale. Here she may almost be as dangerous as Xavier in Cerebro II from X-2, but probably not (without hooking her up to a Cerebro, at least). The Phoenix power is just a very strong form of mutant telepathy and telekinesis. Now consider the main thrust of the film, it's inciting circumstance: there is a mutant cure. My gripe is that not for one second did Wolverine or anyone else even consider possibly injecting Jean with the Cure. If he managed to run her through with his claws he could have found a way to stick her with a needle.

I'm disappointed that Wolvie felt he only had one option available to him. He was at Cure Central, fer cryin' out loud! This is a real failure of creative problem solving on his part. There was also potential for an awesome, scope-widening reveal here. Wolverine sticks her with the cure but it doesn't work, confirming a dark fear of Xavier's: Jean isn't a mutant. This could have set up the Dark Phoenix saga for part four, if it ever got that far.

Some may say that it was deeply emotional and dramatic to have Wolverine choose to perpetrate an assisted suicide. Since the social message completely fell by the wayside in the third film I would feel bad weakening the obvious pro assisted suicide message, but I didn't feel any tension or drama because there was no other choice involved. If the only option you give a killer is to kill, what do you expect him to do? Not kill, resulting in everyone else that he cares for be killed?

So, yeah, X-Men 3 left me less than impressed. I'm sure Ghost Rider will be a more enjoyable experience.

One quibble, I think the 150 years was how long it had been since a GR had defied Mephisto.

I bought the Iron Man dvd but have not watched it yet. I wasn't expecting anything but good graphics. Yes, a live-action Iron Man is coming but I know nothing about the director. But the IMDB page doesn't inspire confidence: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/ Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. I just don't know...

Fred Chamberlain,
"With so many glaring of bad acting and horrific dialogue"

Please cite. I mean, "horrific"? If you really want to get technical about it, it was a movie based on a horror character, so that might actually be a compliment.
In all seriousness, though, what jumped out at you as being so "bad" and "horrific" acting/dialogue-wise.

"my curiousity satisfied and not much more"
What were you looking to satisfy?

"Has Peter Fonda's acting actually gotten worse:)"
I don't generally defend people with the surname Fonda, but again, why do you feel this way? I thought he did fine

Not to nitpick your post, but yours was the most recent one that could be interpreted as bashing and I just can't see why. I could have stood for a more horror-centric film, but I just don't see the need to belittle people's efforts. Yes, it is your opinion. You're entitled to it. But mine is that I go see a movie like "Ghost Rider" to be entertained. It succeeded for me in that regard. I thought Cage and mendes were game, and fun, leads. I thought the plot/script/direction could have all ben improved. But i thought the cast, for the most part, did quite well with what they had to work with.

"I then asked her "What if I want to see a Ghost Rider movie?", to which she said, "Then you may be disappointed."

What exactly would make a "Ghost Rider" movie? I mean, it's freakin' Ghost Rider....he's a demoniacally possessed stunt bike rider. There's not much more to him.

It's not like Frank Miller wrote an industry changing story about him.

I saw it...It was entertaining. Yes, plot discrepancies (I'm pretty sure the fight with the water angel fight at the end was because they forgot about him and needed him dead before the end.)But entertaining.

Also, I figure Peter Fonda was cast more cuz it's a bike movie than because of his acting credentials.

I saw Ghost Rider on Saturday afternoon. I noticed a lot of young children under 10 seeing this movie with their parents. I was really enjoying the movie and suspending my disbelief. *Spoiler notice here* When the police find the licence plate of motorcycle belonging to Johhny Blaze who is a famous celebrity by the way. Do they ask him to come down to the police station to answer questions? No! they surround the guy and draw their weapons! Huh? What do they do? Question him then throw him into lockup? The guy has no crimminal record and they toss him with some bad folks? I was so angry from that point on, I didnt give a care about the movie.It lost me and never got me back.

Hey, it was Texas. He's lucky he didn't get the chair.

But yeah, I thought the same thing. They said something to the effect of "These murders began when you got here!" which might be logical if we were talking about Mayberry but I'm pretty sure lots of folks enter Texas each and every day. If Barbara Steisand holds a concert in New York City and some people get killed that same day I don't think they would throw Babs in the slammer, though the thought does amuse.

Fred Chamberlain,
"With so many glaring of bad acting and horrific dialogue"

>Please cite. I mean, "horrific"? If you really want to get technical about it, it was a movie based on a horror character, so that might actually be a compliment.
In all seriousness, though, what jumped out at you as being so "bad" and "horrific" acting/dialogue-wise.

I always expect a bit of a nudge and a wink when I see Sam Elliot on screen, but he seemed almost a parody of himself from the opening narration on. I mentioned Fonda already and will get back to him in a moment, but there were several scenes that the dialogue seemed clumsy and amateurish to me. The final confrontation between Mephisto and Ghost Rider was offputting to me to the point of pulling out of the story. Not sure if it was just the script or some bad editing on top of it, because even the timing between the two as they spoke stood out to me.

"my curiousity satisfied and not much more"
What were you looking to satisfy?

My curiosity was satisfied. I hadn't even planned on seeing it and was going to wait to rent the dvd, but was invited by the guys. Like I said in my opening statement in the post, I found it to be a fun film and no doubt would have enjoyed it much more if I were a part of its target audience. The most important factor for me when watching a film is to feel somewhat invested in the characters, whether I'm invested in them because I like them, feel for them in either a positive or a negative way. This was lacking for me in this film, so I left thinking that it was fun, but not satisfied by it.

"Has Peter Fonda's acting actually gotten worse:)"
I don't generally defend people with the surname Fonda, but again, why do you feel this way? I thought he did fine

It seemed to me that his timing was off and, for the most part, his lines sounded like they were being read with no commitment behind the words. To be fair, I had made the statement with a little wink smiley guy thingy and he was not the only actor in the film that turned in a lackluster performance, though his was the most glaring to me. (I did find myself half hoping that he would use his powers to summon the Captain America bike in the film>)

>Not to nitpick your post, but yours was the most recent one that could be interpreted as bashing and I just can't see why.

I didn't feel nitpicked, though my intention wasn't to bash and I actually began my post with a positive point.

>I could have stood for a more horror-centric film, but I just don't see the need to belittle people's efforts.

I was providing feedback on the film as were others in the thread. I was not belittling their efforts, since I have no idea how much effort that they put into it.

>Yes, it is your opinion. You're entitled to it. But mine is that I go see a movie like "Ghost Rider" to be entertained.

That is your motivation in going, not your opinion on the film. That was my motivation in going as well.

>It succeeded for me in that regard. I thought Cage and mendes were game, and fun, leads.

Cage was fine, though Mendes came off as pretty hallow to me.

>I thought the plot/script/direction could have all ben improved. But i thought the cast, for the most part, did quite well with what they had to work with.

ugh.... "hallow" should be hollow", though looking at her may lead one to believe the former..

I thoght Mendes was fine - not to mention she is now officially a New Goddess in my eyes - but, hey, to each his own.

I thought Mendes was terrible in her first scene but got better as the film went on--the "dinner date" scene was quite amusing.

I rather enjoyed Fonda's take on the Devil. Certainly it was way better than his son, Gothy McEmoboy and his stooges.

Maybe a Blade/Ghost Rider team-up for the sequel?

Bill,
I do agree with you that her acting got better as the movie progressed. Did you also notice that in each scene it seemed like she was showing a bit more cleavage than the last? Could there be a connection? Because if there is, then there is one sure way to make sure she puts in and Oscar-worthy performance next time:)

Posted by hellbunny

*Spoiler notice here* When the police find the licence plate of motorcycle belonging to Johhny Blaze who is a famous celebrity by the way. Do they ask him to come down to the police station to answer questions? No! they surround the guy and draw their weapons! Huh? What do they do? Question him then throw him into lockup? The guy has no crimminal record and they toss him with some bad folks? I was so angry from that point on, I didnt give a care about the movie.It lost me and never got me back.

I spent almost twenty-four hours in the Hall County Jail a week ago Monday because i had an expired driver's licens.

I know for a fact that some of the guys in the dorm i was in were there for child-molesting, assault, theft of various flavours and general mayhem.

(And when they asked me what i was there for, and i said "Driving without a license", they all moved away from me on the Group W bench. But when i said "...and drivin' without a seat belt.", they all came back and...)

Let's just say that it sounds as if the cops have more reason to be suspicious of Blaze than they did of me... (I should get my license back this week and then i can go see the movie, after we get the van fixed...)

Posted by Jerome Maida

Bill,
I do agree with you that her acting got better as the movie progressed.

Watch the original Time Machine - it's Yvette Mimieux's first film (in fact, she was not of legal age to work the full shooting schedule that she did when the film began. She got better and better during the shooting, and they would up going back and re-shooting some of her earliest scenes because she was so much better. (Remember that films are shot out of order so that you won't see a smooth progression of improvement, but it's there.

Same with Uma Thurman (to a lesser extent, and they didn't do much if any reshooting) on The Adventures of Baron Munchausen - she was 17. (According the IMDB trivia database, there was a betting pool on the set as to who was going to hustle her off to bed first).

And Betty ("Lauren") Bacall got so much better over the course of her second film with Bogart - The Big Sleep - that they essentially remade the whole film before releasing it.

(According the IMDB trivia database, there was a betting pool on the set as to who was going to hustle her off to bed first).

So, did nayone win the bet? (And please don't say Oliver Reed.)

"(According the IMDB trivia database, there was a betting pool on the set as to who was going to hustle her off to bed first).

So, did nayone win the bet? (And please don't say Oliver Reed.)"

I don't believe anyone did, no, although Reed was definitely in the hunt. I know the source of that bit of trivia, actually: It's from the brilliant book about the filming of "Munchausen" entitled "Losing the Light." Gilliam did, however, take props for getting her naked. It was during the scene when she makes her entrance as Venus on the Half Shell and Gilliam said, "I finally got you naked, Uma."

PAD

And a grateful world thanks him still.

I appreciate the tip on the book, PAD, Munchausen is one of those movies I loved when it came out and I was amazed to find so few people shared the feeling (the all time puzzler though was Blade Runner. I walked out of that one thinking I'd just seen the future of science fiction films and before I could say a word every single one of my friends agreed that it sucked beyond the boundaries of suckage. Damn near broke my heart, it did.)

Bill,
"And a grateful world thanks him still"
Indeed. Oh, and have you herad that Cage is reportedly picthing a "She-Hulk" movie to star Mendes? So far, reaction to the idea has been positive. Yeah, a bunch of fanboys are in favor of a role that would have Mendes in green body paint and either a bikini or a ripped blouse throughout the film.
Go figure.

Nic Cage=Marketing Genius

Bill,
Oh, yeah! heavens, I hope that comes together. Wait, that didn't sound right. Oh, never mind:)

Okay, i finally saw it.

Much of what people have pointed out in here is at least partly true.

I Don't Care.

It passes the duck test.

It looks like a Ghost Rider comic.

And it rides like a Ghost Rider comic.

And it talks like a Ghost Rider comic.

I am a bit annoyed that they de-ironised Blaze's death; "Well, I promised you he wouldn't die of cancer" is much more devilish a response than, basically, "Oh, I just sort of felt like it." (of course, it was Crash Simpson's death in the comic, but what the hey; you have to let the writer/director pee in the soup a little so that he likes the flavour better...)

Yeah, some of the dialog got a little, dare i say it, comic-bookish.

Ooo how terrible - a film adapting a comic book talked like a comic book!

And, let's face it, the "long ride" shot was almost good enough by itself to offset 90% of anything else negative that was going on.

Actually, the thing in that theatre that really got me stewing over Something Bad done in a comic adaptation wasn't Ghost Rider - it was the Big Reveal in the first line or two of dialog in the Spider-Man 3 trailer.

Almost as bad as what Andrew Vachss did to Batman's origin when they let him write a book about the Batman...

Oh, and one thing - Roxanne "puts Johnny in his place" by saying "...you're just a carny."

Most of the real carnys i've known would probably feel complimented to be told they weren't marks...

(One of Barry Longyear's novels about the circus world of Baraboo, which was settled by the survivors of a crashed circus ship, ends with the rediscovery of Baraboo, a couple hundred or so years later. An officer from the ship is brought to the High Priest, a long-lived alien known as Warts, the sole surviving member of the original show. [On Baraboo, priests keep the Route Book - the official history.]

(When the officer leaves, Warts hauls a battered deck of cards out and begins practicing dealing three-card on his desk, humming to himself.

(A junior priest says, "You understand, Great Warts, that i heve never seen one in my life. But was that a...?"

("Yes, my son - that was a mark.")

From what I understood the elemental evil spirits couldn't enter churches or consecrated ground but Blackheart was able to break those rules.

There is one scene where the priest? tells him, "you can't be here" and Blackheart says, "that's what everyone's been telling me". I took that to mean he's been breaking a lot of rules.

And as for the 150 years, every generation did have one, but after the last one betrayed him, he wasn't too keen on getting another one until he ran into Blaze.

I don't think they were plotholes at all. The only thing I don't understand is why Ghost Rider became such a goof--trying to crack one liners and saying things like, "you're pissing me off". It just didn't work. They should have made him either silent and bad-ass, or came up with something better then what he was spouting.

That along with the corny driving up buildings and growing spikes and all the other on the spot weird happenings ruined it for me. Awful.

And Carter's last ride just to hand him a gun and fade away was just pointless.

Well I enjoyed Ghost Rider, it was indeed a big montage and definantely had a video game feel but for all that you could see alot of fan based stuff in the backround and I think the folks who made it were doing the best to put alot of contradictory material together. I've been a fan of the books for years and I think they can do more with it if they do a sequal. My biggest complaint was the diabolically shite version of Ghost Riders in the sky done by some pathetic techno whiny boy band. They should have left well enough alone and kept it instrumental or gone with the Outlaws version. Also while I liked Eva Mendez I think her breats should have recieved their own billing considering the prominance they recieved in the film. That said I would nominate them for at least a best supported actress role. As for Nic Cage I think it was a decent performance considering some of the other things he's done. I still think of him in Raising Arizona so anything he's made since colors that. All in all I enjoyed it plotholes and all.

Now that the dust has settled a bit it's safe to say that GHOST RIDER is a hit. It is about to become the first movie of 2007 to pass the 100 million dollar mark.

What's even more encouraging for comics fans is that it appears that 300 will be the second movie to do so, and possibly with a record MArch opening box office to boot. 300 may make back it's cost in 3 days!

Why does this fill me with glee, other than the fact that I really loved the movie? Because director Zack Snyder is trying to get an R rated WATCHMEN movie going as his next project and the success of 300 will grease the skids for that very nicely.had 300 tanked I think they would have killed WATCHMEN but now they will be falling all over themselves to see it through. Happy days indeed.

With FF2 and especially Spidey 3 almost guaranteed to make money this should be an excellent year for comics to film projects.