to those who watched it, QUESTIONS,REACTIONS, ETC.(Discussion Thread. Heavy Spoilers)

It was just ok. I felt no passion or anything. I didn't smile not one time during the movie. It never ceases to amaze me how some of these same directors and writers keep getting work. No problem with the cast. The Blackheart character plan was lame, not menacing at all.

The ball was really dropped on this and sadly because the film made over 50 million this director will continue to getwork in this genre. The studios will go to him as some sort of expert on comic films. When are we ever going to get a great comic book film????
 
Nokio probably is unconciously happy with some of them.
 
When are we ever going to get a great comic book film????

There have been several. American Splendor, Batman Begins and History Of Violence immediately spring to mind.
 
THE BIG LET DOWN......

I want to start by saying I am a Fan of the MSJ Dare Devil movie and will defend both versions of it cus I feel had the effects been a little better people would have been happy with it. But Ghost Rider was Really Bad. Some of the effects were pretty cool but others were just out of wack. The fights were too short and not that intresting. For GR First transformation i thought that the cuts of just fire on the screen for about 3 seconds about 4 times in that one transformation were lame. And how are you going to show the "cowboy rider" and not have him kick some demon butt... And it was not written well at all my example would be GR yelling "YEEHAW" in GR form during probly one of the few cool effects shots. Not sure were to point the finger (Studio, MSJ, Writers, Iraq) But I dont see a GR2 happening at all. And in the event it does, unless it has an R rating or a different director and studio is involved I may wait for the dvd. And In the event MSJ happens to log on and Read this "Dude please dont screw up Preacher"

Please axcuse spelling.

Spawn187 Bklyn N.Y.
 
Regarding the unfunny humour, I cringed in my seat at this one particularly awful scene with a towel-clad Blaze in front of the mirror. It was intended to be funny, I'm sure, but it came out as not.

Other than that, I thought the overall humour content was okay.
 
[Fix'd Review]

Ok, so I saw it. I'll give a little rundown.

Pros:

- Digital Effects: They were mind-blowing. The first transformation along with the sudden quick tranformations from Ghost Rider to Johnny Blaze were very good.
- Some performances: Nicolas Cage, Peter Fonda and Sam Elliot in particular were great as their roles. I really liked Cage's portrayal. (Besides, I really like Nic Cage, so there is a bit of bias). Donal Logue was also good for what he was told to do. I believed his serious moments.
- Running Time: It wasn't too short and it wasn't too long.
- Transformation Scenes: I marked when Johnny Blaze transformed in the jail. I also had a geekasm when he first transformed. It was very well done.
- Caretaker: He was a great character. The scene with him and Ghost Rider on their way to the town was the best part of the movie. Redeemable to the very least. I loved his narration at the beginning and end of the movie.
- The Score: I really liked it. It fit Ghost Rider, especially the opening titles score.

Cons:

- Cheesiness/Corny: The movie was so cheesy/corny. I wanted a dark and gritty movie. Ghost Rider is one of Marvel's darker characters.
- Too much humor (Intended and Unintended): The humor was like Jack Sparrow in POTC: DMC. Too much!! Where do I begin?
Ghost Rider just trolling out of the jail was hilarious. When Ghost Rider said "Come here! You're pissing me off!", it was hilarious. Roxanne asking if she was pretty was pretty funny. Blackheart screaming like a biznatch was funny and saddening. Just about all of the intended humor was NOT funny.
- Poor Writing: The plot was decent, but was poorly executed.
- Blackheart: The henchmen were terrible and unintentionally hilarious. They were so bad, but the worst of them all was Blackheart. He was a god-awful villain. I wish that Mephistopheles and Blackheart's relationship was farther expanded on. It was definitely necessary. The emphasis on Blackheart being the ultimate baddie was push upon too much. Blackheart would've looked better in human form in the finale. He, at least, looked menacing at way.
- Love Story: Don't get me wrong, I like love stories, but this was not a good one.
- Lackluster fight scenes/finale: It was so stupid. Like many posters have said, Ghost Rider literally beats all of the villains in 10 minutes when put together. I wish I would've timed the villains getting beaten. The final fight was pretty booty.
- Terrible acting by Eva Mendes: I don't think it was her fault. She can decently act. It was her character and what she was told to do.

All in all, the movie went downhill after the flashback, then got good again when Johnny transformed for the first time. The movie is getting more negative buzz then it should be getting. It wasn't THAT bad, and whoever says that this is the worst superhero movie is pretty dumb and loses all credibility as a movie critic.

My Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

MSJ will do better next time with the sequel.
I have faith. Since Marvel sequels are better, here's to hoping that Ghost Rider 2 is X2 or Spider-Man 2 quality. I wasn't too fond of the first Spider-Man, either, so go GR2.


:cool:
 
Regarding the unfunny humour, I cringed in my seat at this one particularly awful scene with a towel-clad Blaze in front of the mirror. It was intended to be funny, I'm sure, but it came out as not.

Other than that, I thought the overall humour content was okay.

That's ghost rider's go web go scene. :oldrazz:
 
the thing that made me mad was that the film made texans look like a bunch of hill billie drunken morones who have nothing better to do then watch a guy jump over stuff on a motorcycle. oh what the hell was with the caretaker just vanishing away into nothing?
 
No you did not. I expected Ghost Rider to be not as good as Spider-Man just for the fact that it involves more complex cgi effects than the previous 2 Spidey movies. I'm expecting more on Spider-Man 3 coz it requires more complex cgi just for Sand Man and the black costume. Another is that I'm more of a fan of Spider-Man than Ghost Rider. So in short, your assumptions are way off base.

AH HA! YOUR OWN WORDS did you in...In your opinion Special effects make a movie. Not the story, not the acting, not the directing. The SFX. You expected less from ghost Rider than the first 2 Spidey movies based solely on the additional SFX...Why?? Do the brief scenes of CGI somehow compromise a script or acting ability? Please explain to all of us how the addition of CGI to a movie somehow makes the director do a worse job...Thos are YOUR WORDS...The movie wont be as good because it has more effects...like that has ANYTHINg to do with the script, directing or acting.

Now since Spidey has more complex SFX you have a higher standard...why? If the effects scenes arent there will it not be a weel directed, well scripted, well acted movie??? In your mins it wont be. You laid it on the line yourself, pal...and all you had to offer about what makes a movie for you are the effects...which explains why you completely missed the fact that ghost Rider is one of the worst acted, worst scripted and worst directed movies in the history of the comic genre.
 
the thing that made me mad was that the film made texans look like a bunch of hill billie drunken morones who have nothing better to do then watch a guy jump over stuff on a motorcycle. oh what the hell was with the caretaker just vanishing away into nothing?

He died.

The thing about this movie is that it's done in a very old school way and you have to be smart to figure out the meaning behind some scenes and dialogue because some of it's ambiguous, other times clever. It's a well written film, that's for sure. Its the kind of film that needs to be seen more than once to truly get all the little connections between lines and visuals in the film.

Like ghost rider pointing. It's what he did even before he became the ghost rider. The gesture of course as far as body language is concerned can be compared to the pointing of a gun, showing fearless determination to defeat an opponent or obstacle. Throughout the film ghostrider uses the pointing to intimidate his foes and as a sign that he's deciding their fate similar to Caesar's thumbs up or down in the Gladiator arena...

damn good stuff.
 
Regarding the unfunny humour, I cringed in my seat at this one particularly awful scene with a towel-clad Blaze in front of the mirror. It was intended to be funny, I'm sure, but it came out as not.

That's funny; the crowd I was in got a real kick out of that one.
 
AH HA! YOUR OWN WORDS did you in...In your opinion Special effects make a movie. Not the story, not the acting, not the directing. The SFX. You expected less from ghost Rider than the first 2 Spidey movies based solely on the additional SFX...Why?? Do the brief scenes of CGI somehow compromise a script or acting ability? Please explain to all of us how the addition of CGI to a movie somehow makes the director do a worse job...Thos are YOUR WORDS...The movie wont be as good because it has more effects...like that has ANYTHINg to do with the script, directing or acting.

The GR film is a film based on a marvel comic. SFX is the emphasis in this kind of movie. If I wanted to watch a film to appreciate the script, the chemistry and the drama in it then I would watch something like "Before Sunset" or "Titanic". But no. I watch Ghost Rider, Spider Man, HULK, X-Men and the other comic based films just to see how those characters are being presented in a film as they are presented in the comics. Don't tell me your main reason for watching Spiderman was the drama and lines and conversations and the chemistry?

Now since Spidey has more complex SFX you have a higher standard...why? If the effects scenes arent there will it not be a weel directed, well scripted, well acted movie??? In your mins it wont be. You laid it on the line yourself, pal...and all you had to offer about what makes a movie for you are the effects...which explains why you completely missed the fact that ghost Rider is one of the worst acted, worst scripted and worst directed movies in the history of the comic genre.

Again. The Spider-Man film is based on a marvel comic depicting a superhero who could swing through Manhattan via web. First I saw it on drawings and it amazed me. Now it is going to be shown in a movie screen. Yes. No panel-to-panel movement presentation but actual animated motion that gives a very realistic effect. That is what I really wanted and paid to see in a Spider-Man movie, not the drama, not the kissing, not the chemistry and not the script. And now they have Sand Man and the Black Costume. I really want to see how good the cgi for those two. added to the swinging and fight scenes which includes Spidey. PERIOD
 
^But that was not what I paid for to see. It was valentines day when we watched it you know. ;)
 
i heartily agree weyseed

That's rare... :word:

What is it people usually say on the hype about first films? "now that the world is set up, and the origin finished, there can be more action and stuff in the sequel"

And that's usually how it happens, so I'm definitely on board for Ghost Rider 2.

I'm just really baffled by the over-reaction from critics to this innocent first attempt at a ghost rider film. If this were Ghost Rider 2, I'd be more critical myself, but it's not. It's of course ghost rider 1... and what first time comic book movie ever made has gotten everything absolutely right? Name it and you'll get a chocolate bar.

Exactly...

Its even more surprising that I liked this film because normally I think ghost rider sucks. He's got a cool look, badass story, but his rouges never really did it for me. Suck suck suck, but now I'm actually interested in his whole mythology because the film made this hero cooler than he's ever been to me.

That's a difficult position to make a film from since Ghost Rider's not up there with spidey, batman, wonder woman, green lantern, superman. Actually most people don't give a damn about ghost rider beyond his cool look. I'm just being honest. He's not like unknowns like iron fist, Speedball, Quick friggin Silver, Union mother****ng Jack, ****ing Puma, Captain bloody Marvel, but he's not Wolverine either. So it's harder to convince audiences this guy has an interesting story.

It was the same with Blade. Who's this blade guy, razor salesman? Then the movie made him much much much more interesting to me. :wow:
 
That's rare... :word:

what first time comic book movie ever made has gotten everything absolutely right? Name it and you'll get a chocolate bar.

sin city

gimme my chocolate bar

:woot:
 
Toby...so you go to a comic book film not caring if it has good acting, directing or an even remotely decent script? As long as you see good FX then youre happy?

No offense, but youre the reason we got Batman And Robin
 
... and what first time comic book movie ever made has gotten everything absolutely right? Name it and you'll get a chocolate bar.

American Splendor, History Of Violence and Ghost World...In addition to Sin City.

I'll take Snickers, please.
 
Toby...so you go to a comic book film not caring if it has good acting, directing or an even remotely decent script? As long as you see good FX then youre happy?

No offense, but youre the reason we got Batman And Robin

Actually it was complaining soccer moms and a production crew who's only knowledge of Batman came from the 1960s television series.
 
sin city

gimme my chocolate bar

:woot:

I guess... though I'm not really compelled to see it ever again myself. The editing was weird and the story too sparse for me. However it was mostly faithful to the comic I guess... here you go:

choc.jpg
 
Actually it was complaining soccer moms and a production crew who's only knowledge of Batman came from the 1960s television series.


Let me rephrase that then...if we as fans are willing to accept flash over substance then we deserve nothing but flash

(um..not The Flash)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"