Culled from an old Livejournal post.
It's a movie about a skeleton on a motorcycle.
He's also on fire a lot of the time.
Battleship Potempkin it ain't.
Right, where do I start? Sometime in the 1970's perhaps? As a kid growing up I came into contact with a lot of comics. Some I loved (Spider-Man, Batman, Justice League, The Champions, The Avengers). Some I hated (Roy of the Rovers - I wasn't a footballing type...errr..that was about it really) and some I was pretty ambivalent about (Superman, Iron Man, The Flash and a few other 70's odds and ends). That's if I would have known what ambivalent meant back then. These were the "meh" comics and Ghost Rider sat firmly in the "meh" camp. Why? Well, I didn't dig the occult really as a 7 year old. I was more into the science as opposed the Mystical. Doctor Strange never did it for me either. He was like a great big hippy with a dodgy moustache but I digress. I was more into the science or the gadgets and Batman/Spidey supplied that for me in droves. Also the human drama, Peter Parker was *real* for me, girl friend trouble, work trouble, apartment trouble, super villain trouble. It was all trouble this and trouble that back in the day (I promise not to use trouble again in this post, you may hit me with a cattleprod if I do). There did come a time (pre-Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns when I outgrew the capes and costumes thing but Star Wars was there for me back then).
Now, back to Ghost Rider. I didn't like the character. Full stop. His comic incarnation was dull. There was hardly any conflict and the character felt 2 Dimensional. Coupled with the fact that he was a ginge didn't help. The odds were stacked against him really. He only ever really came to life for me when he "Teamed Up" or worked as part of an organised set of heroes (The Champions was an excellent example, but I guess I liked them more for a certain Ms Natasha Romanov).
He rode about on a bike.
*yawn*
He set fire to people. And he had chains which were either quite rock and roll or S&M depending on your view.
*okay, slightly less of a yawn*
And that was it really. A Fucking Skeleton. On a motorcycle. On fire.
Now, back to the ginge thing. (Edit 2019: This was 2007 where the "ginge" thing was at its apex. If I was writing this today, I would have edited that out).
Marvel has its fair share of beaten ginger step children but at least 2 of them transcended that curse. Daredevil (the non movie version) certainly broke this mould. And he was Catholic too. Man, those writers were harsh back in the day. And Ms Romanov (AKA Black Widow) certainly had her moments but I think she's more of a red head than a ginge so we'll let her off (apols to any of my ginge friends, this is all meant in jest, yo).
The character always has an always will be a "C Lister", kind of like the comic book equivalent to Jodie Marsh or Russell Brand.
So, enter Nic Cage (he of the son called Kal-El and mullet fame for the excellent movie Con Air). Says he's born to play the role and even has a tattoo of Johnny Blaze.
So, they rope Mark Steven Johnson in (or Daredevil movie fame - ok, I like it, sue me) to shoot it but like the comic it lacks something.
Well, it lacks several things:
A heart - it feels purely cynical. A comic book movie for the sake of a comic book movie. I keep hearing echoes of Batman and Robin but I am not that cruel. I wasn't that execrable either.
A motive - Johnny Blaze's motives just feel a bit wishy washy. Whereas you can understand Bruce Wayne's anguish and unquenchable thrist for revenge, Blaze comes across as a 99 cent store Faust with a bad hair cut.
An engaging central character - Blaze is thick as pig shit all in all.
For a moment, we will take point 4 as the rest are pretty self explanatory. The guy watches chimps doing karate for relaxation then eats jelly beans from a martini glass. A fucking martini glass. Jelly beans? Why????? Why???? Answer me that Mr Cage. Is that something you do in your spare time in between calling your children after comic book characters? Don't get me started on how he came to own rare copies of occult texts and long forgotten editions of Paradise Lost. Please don't.
And the plot. Let's just say there was no plot. That would be easier.
On a final point, the CGI wasn't bad. You will believe a Flaming Skeleton can Ride a Motorcycle. Not that you might want to anyway.
On a final note, there are a million more worthy comic book adaptations out there (ok, maybe I am exagerating - there's probably 10 or 15 at the most). One thing that stuck in my throat was the nature of the universe and the logistics of it. One reviewer has touched upon this but I will add my own brand of pretension (it is my journal afterall). In a universe where we see Skeletons on a Fucking Motorcycle who are ON FIRE (have I got that point across yet?), why do people react as if "jesus, fuck me, that was a Skeleton on a motorcycle who looked as if he was ON FIRE", they all react as if this is a new kind of thing.
Now, knowing that the logic in comic book movies is unique and has its own blend of rules and statutes, why for fuck's sake do they break the "digesis" (the internal world logic of the movie, I learned that word on my degree, aren't I clever?) and act all flakey, knowing that in the "movie" or comic book universe that kind of thing happens. Nods are made here and there to events happening, it is set afterall in the "Marvel-Verse" so why in god's name do the characters react so...stupidly. The only instances where I can think of where I was so immersed in the "digesis" (there, I used it again, go me!) of a movie was "Batman Begins". The characters in that accept the events and don't act all "gosh, wow". The internal logic wasn't broken once in that movie without it going all "Tim Burton-ian" on us. I felt myself pulled out of Ghost Rider many times due to the characters not reacting in a manner that befits a comic book movie. Although on one hand, any characterisation that was built up in this movie was so thinly sketched and faint that even the finest tracing paper would not be able to capture the magnitude of the writer's and producer's cock up who's action should have been to have terminated this script on first draft.
All in all. To sum up.
It wasn't bad. But it wasn't great either.
Certainly not Batman and Robin but it ain't Spider-Man 2 or Batman Begins either. I'd say X-Men 3 was better. But only just.
It's a movie about a skeleton on a motorcycle.
He's also on fire a lot of the time.
Battleship Potempkin it ain't.
Right, where do I start? Sometime in the 1970's perhaps? As a kid growing up I came into contact with a lot of comics. Some I loved (Spider-Man, Batman, Justice League, The Champions, The Avengers). Some I hated (Roy of the Rovers - I wasn't a footballing type...errr..that was about it really) and some I was pretty ambivalent about (Superman, Iron Man, The Flash and a few other 70's odds and ends). That's if I would have known what ambivalent meant back then. These were the "meh" comics and Ghost Rider sat firmly in the "meh" camp. Why? Well, I didn't dig the occult really as a 7 year old. I was more into the science as opposed the Mystical. Doctor Strange never did it for me either. He was like a great big hippy with a dodgy moustache but I digress. I was more into the science or the gadgets and Batman/Spidey supplied that for me in droves. Also the human drama, Peter Parker was *real* for me, girl friend trouble, work trouble, apartment trouble, super villain trouble. It was all trouble this and trouble that back in the day (I promise not to use trouble again in this post, you may hit me with a cattleprod if I do). There did come a time (pre-Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns when I outgrew the capes and costumes thing but Star Wars was there for me back then).
Now, back to Ghost Rider. I didn't like the character. Full stop. His comic incarnation was dull. There was hardly any conflict and the character felt 2 Dimensional. Coupled with the fact that he was a ginge didn't help. The odds were stacked against him really. He only ever really came to life for me when he "Teamed Up" or worked as part of an organised set of heroes (The Champions was an excellent example, but I guess I liked them more for a certain Ms Natasha Romanov).
He rode about on a bike.
*yawn*
He set fire to people. And he had chains which were either quite rock and roll or S&M depending on your view.
*okay, slightly less of a yawn*
And that was it really. A Fucking Skeleton. On a motorcycle. On fire.
Now, back to the ginge thing. (Edit 2019: This was 2007 where the "ginge" thing was at its apex. If I was writing this today, I would have edited that out).
Marvel has its fair share of beaten ginger step children but at least 2 of them transcended that curse. Daredevil (the non movie version) certainly broke this mould. And he was Catholic too. Man, those writers were harsh back in the day. And Ms Romanov (AKA Black Widow) certainly had her moments but I think she's more of a red head than a ginge so we'll let her off (apols to any of my ginge friends, this is all meant in jest, yo).
The character always has an always will be a "C Lister", kind of like the comic book equivalent to Jodie Marsh or Russell Brand.
So, enter Nic Cage (he of the son called Kal-El and mullet fame for the excellent movie Con Air). Says he's born to play the role and even has a tattoo of Johnny Blaze.
So, they rope Mark Steven Johnson in (or Daredevil movie fame - ok, I like it, sue me) to shoot it but like the comic it lacks something.
Well, it lacks several things:
A heart - it feels purely cynical. A comic book movie for the sake of a comic book movie. I keep hearing echoes of Batman and Robin but I am not that cruel. I wasn't that execrable either.
A motive - Johnny Blaze's motives just feel a bit wishy washy. Whereas you can understand Bruce Wayne's anguish and unquenchable thrist for revenge, Blaze comes across as a 99 cent store Faust with a bad hair cut.
An engaging central character - Blaze is thick as pig shit all in all.
For a moment, we will take point 4 as the rest are pretty self explanatory. The guy watches chimps doing karate for relaxation then eats jelly beans from a martini glass. A fucking martini glass. Jelly beans? Why????? Why???? Answer me that Mr Cage. Is that something you do in your spare time in between calling your children after comic book characters? Don't get me started on how he came to own rare copies of occult texts and long forgotten editions of Paradise Lost. Please don't.
And the plot. Let's just say there was no plot. That would be easier.
On a final point, the CGI wasn't bad. You will believe a Flaming Skeleton can Ride a Motorcycle. Not that you might want to anyway.
On a final note, there are a million more worthy comic book adaptations out there (ok, maybe I am exagerating - there's probably 10 or 15 at the most). One thing that stuck in my throat was the nature of the universe and the logistics of it. One reviewer has touched upon this but I will add my own brand of pretension (it is my journal afterall). In a universe where we see Skeletons on a Fucking Motorcycle who are ON FIRE (have I got that point across yet?), why do people react as if "jesus, fuck me, that was a Skeleton on a motorcycle who looked as if he was ON FIRE", they all react as if this is a new kind of thing.
Now, knowing that the logic in comic book movies is unique and has its own blend of rules and statutes, why for fuck's sake do they break the "digesis" (the internal world logic of the movie, I learned that word on my degree, aren't I clever?) and act all flakey, knowing that in the "movie" or comic book universe that kind of thing happens. Nods are made here and there to events happening, it is set afterall in the "Marvel-Verse" so why in god's name do the characters react so...stupidly. The only instances where I can think of where I was so immersed in the "digesis" (there, I used it again, go me!) of a movie was "Batman Begins". The characters in that accept the events and don't act all "gosh, wow". The internal logic wasn't broken once in that movie without it going all "Tim Burton-ian" on us. I felt myself pulled out of Ghost Rider many times due to the characters not reacting in a manner that befits a comic book movie. Although on one hand, any characterisation that was built up in this movie was so thinly sketched and faint that even the finest tracing paper would not be able to capture the magnitude of the writer's and producer's cock up who's action should have been to have terminated this script on first draft.
All in all. To sum up.
It wasn't bad. But it wasn't great either.
Certainly not Batman and Robin but it ain't Spider-Man 2 or Batman Begins either. I'd say X-Men 3 was better. But only just.
No comments:
Post a Comment