Eh.
It didn’t suck like other comic book adaptations like Batman & Robin, but it isn’t good like any of the Spider-Man, X-Men and of course Superman movies. I’m sure it deviates from the accepted mythology but I never really read Ghost Rider so I don’t know what’s missing, though I’m sure it wasn’t much. I do wonder how Ghost Rider got greenlighted when you consider that Marvel has such a big stable of characters and they haven’t been given a modern shot (Captain America, for instance, or even the freaking Power Pack). The movie is, at best, at the Blade tier of comic/action films (and not Blade 2 and 3 which were both horrible). Also: If you’re going to have someone like Eva Mendes in your movie because she’s amazingly beautiful — why would you cover her up so much? I’ve produced a remedy to this horrible oversight below the break. RATING: 2 out of 4.
Now imagine the devil comes up to and says “You have to roam at night as a flaming skeleton, in exchange for THIS Eva Mendes”:
Of course you do it.
You’re welcome, Hollywood moguls.
I saw it this weekend, and I had followed the comic for a couple of years when it first came out. Yes, I’m that old!
The visuals are stunning. They took the comic and made it move, big time. Yea, they deviated from the mythology of the Ghost Rider and the language was stilted. It’s another effects driven movie.
The art of storytelling is ancient, but Hollywood just can’t seem to grasp the basics anymore. Whizbang is great, but you have to tell a good story. If it ain’t a good story, the effects alone won’t put enough butts in the seats.
Having said all that, I’m going to see it again. It’s a big screen movie. And the effects are that damn good.
Plus you got Nicholas Cage to work around. I like him and all as a serious actor, but come on, this and Gone in 60 Seconds ain’t serious acting.
And I’m waiting for Thor.
Oh wowsersnizzle! You have gone like OHOWA and stuff. Next you’ll be moving to Ft Myers.
LB