Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012)

Oh Nicolas Cage. You put me in such a good mood. Every time I see a movie with your ridiculous toupee of the moment, a little flutter in my soul lifts up to spread a smile on my face. With only a moment's hesitation, I reach out to pick up the case, imagining with glee the wonders that await me in this next magical adventure with the world's foremost authority on "uber-acting." The spasms of his face, the high-pitched, off-kilter delivery of his lines, the sudden explosions of yelling incoherently, his oddly maniac giggle...entertainment awaits us.

I was one of the few people who didn't hate the first "Ghost Rider." It wasn't a fantastic film, but I found it reasonably entertaining. And despite whether or not Nicolas Cage was necessarily right for the role of Johnny Blaze, I found his performance genuine and, let's face it, even-keeled as far as his performances usually get. For anyone rolling their eyes at that statement, just think back to "Face/Off."

Yeah. Now remember that in "Ghost Rider," Nicolas Cage is playing a man whose skull is on fire half the movie. And Caster Troy was the more over-the-top performance. Don't tell me the man only has one setting! He's got at least 4!

He's either acting or attempting to implode a man's skull using only the power of his mind.

For that reason, I was actually looking forward to "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance." In particular I dug the artistic design and vision they were going with, which seemed more realistic and less cartoony than the first one. What I was unaware of was the fact that this film was directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the same team who did "Crank." And while that may have been an odd choice, had I known that before, I would have made more effort to see it in theaters, which I didn't get an opportunity to do.

Man, is it obvious that this was by Neveldine/Taylor. "Ghost Rider: SoV" contains much of the same kind of frenetic, super charged action that could be found in "Crank," although to a much less, PG-13 level extent. And while a hard-R version of this movie would have been awesome, let's face it, Marvel don't roll that way what with tickets sales and all, even though I'm pretty sure the hit to their pockets would be minimal. It's not like anyone saw this movie to begin with.

Also very present is the same style of fourth-wall obliterating humor that was so prevalent in the "Crank" series. There are several "wink at the camera" moments that, to be honest, are pretty jarring. For example, for those who saw the trailer, the much-maligned exchange of dialogue: "What if you have to pee when you're on fire?" followed by Nicolas Cage's response of "It's awesome. It's like a flamethrower" is actually in the film, complete with a cutaway to the Rider standing in some kind of void where he is floating in blackness, back to the audience as a jet of flame shoots from his groin. He then turns his head and nods in an "Oh yeah" moment. Then *BANG* back to the movie. They also do the exact same extreme close ups as the main character flies down the road on a motorcycle in a state of near maniac rage/rapture that "Crank" did. I guess that will be in every Neveldine/Taylor movie.

 Seth McFarlane wishes he could write a cutaway this awesome.

What it all boils down to really is a matter of personal taste of whether or not it will work for you. Me personally? It didn't really bother me. It seemed to fit the tone of the film, which was essentially a big(ger) budget B-movie. And that's fine. I dig that stuff, especially when Mr. Cage is involved. But I can imagine that if you'd never seen "Crank," or weren't familiar with the kind of movie Neveldine/Taylor make, these kind of scenes might seem horribly distracting. Just know that "Crank" got way, WAY sillier than this one.

The story concerns Johnny Blaze hiding in Europe because he doesn't want to be working as the Devil's errand boy. Now, right from the beginning I found it difficult to discern whether or not this movie was a sequel or a retcon. It seems that events from the first film still...could have happened? They aren't ever mentioned, but I suppose they are possible. The real confusing part is right in the introductory storybook-style flashback of how Johnny Blaze made his deal with the Devil. The story is still the same, but the scene where he signs the contract is presented in a totally different way, with no real reason I can see to change it. That along with no mention of anything from the first film makes me think that "Ghost Rider: SoV" is meant to be its own thing, and the first one might as well have never happened.

 This will make people who hated the first "Ghost Rider" happy, but the real question is "Does the second movie do a better job?" I would have to say "yes" for two reasons. The first concerns art design, and the second concerns how Nicolas Cage portrayed the Rider.

The first "Ghost Rider" had a Rider whose skull was a clean white, with a shiny leather jacket and elaborately boned-themed bike. It worked okay, but when Neveldine/Taylor's version of the Rider is on screen, it's clear that there is a much better way to portray Hell's Collection Boy.

Like this.

In "Ghost Rider: SoV," the Rider's skull is charred black, which gives it an air of desiccation and wear. His bike is a cobbled together husk of blackened pipes and gears, much more utilitarian than flashy, and it looks like it's driven a million miles instead of right off the showroom floor. And finally, in a touch I thought was borderline brilliant, when the Rider is out, and flames are licking all around him, his jacket is in a constant state of melting. During any of the long, slow closeups of the Rider, bubbles can be seen slowly rising to the surface of the leather, popping and running down as they melt. It make total sense, makes him look scary, and it's a really cool effect I dug the hell out of. Between the two movies, I'll take the grungy, scary looking one any day.

Secondly, Nicolas Cage plays Johnny Blaze in a much different way than he did before. In this film he's playing it really really tortured. He's in a constant struggle to keep the Rider inside him because he can't stop it from coming out, especially when evil is near. The problem is that he has no control when he becomes the Rider, and basically everyone around him is going to die, something he'd like to avoid. So it makes total sense why a big part of the movie is Johnny Blaze trying to find a way to exorcize himself and get rid of the curse.

And of course this is all played in a deliciously hammy way by one of my favorite hams. Watching Nicolas Cage deliver in a sweaty, face-twitching, barrage of rising falsetto shrieks such awesomely corny lines as "He's scratching at the door! He's scratching at THE DOOOOR-AH!!!!" is exactly why I watch these movies. Magnifique.

I had the same reaction when they cancelled "Arrested Development."

You know, between this, "Drive Angry" and "Season of The Witch," two movies which I really liked a lot, Cage seems to be drawn to this kind of enjoyable schlock. I say more power to him if the entertainment factor keeps up. Now, I would say "Ghost Rider: SoV" is the weakest of those three films, but it's hardly the worst of his filmography.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I can't say with a straight face that "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" was a good movie. It was a cheesy, dark, zany, over-the-top Nicolas Cage ham-fest with motorcycles, lots of nicely shot action and a Christopher Lambert cameo. If that sounds like a good time to you, bon anniversaire. Cautiously recommended.

John Carter (2012)

Am I the only person who found it impossible to not say John Carter's name like Arnold Schwarzenegger? You know, cause it's really close to "John Conner?" Didn't you ever look at the poster and think "John Conna! Cum wit me if you vant to live!" Or maybe you actually saw the movie and when John Carter gets transported you maybe thought to yourself "Nygaah! Git you ass to Mah's!"

Nobody? Ok then. Disregard that last paragraph.

"John Carter" is of course famous for failing. Along with "Battleship," this film was the first of two huge financial disasters for Disney in 2012. Both of these films had budgets that could have fed a small country for a few months, and both of them tanked like a horse in Skyrim. (/nerdjoke) It's pretty clear why "Battleship" went under, even though I thought it wasn't that bad. I think the main problem was that people couldn't get past the fact that the genesis of it was a board game. It wasn't great, but it wasn't as awful as people made it out to be.

With "John Carter" it was the advertising. This has been a note of record, and I'm pretty sure plenty of people in that department got fired. And rightly so. The trailer for "John Carter" was a big, jumbled mess that didn't tell us anything about the movie we were supposed to be excited about. I thought it looked like it was trying to tackle too many ideas, and I had no idea what anything was or what was going on at all. It was a terrible trailer and advertising campaign. And it was so quietly shuffled out of theaters, head hung low, that I never got a chance to see it.

So I finally got to see "John Carter" and I have to say, I'm really glad I didn't blow $9.50 on it. Had I seen this in theaters I would have been ticked off. Or maybe not ticked off but tired and bored. I didn't give two craps about this movie. And it's not because it was overly bad, which it wasn't, but because it just was so bland and unmemorable. That's a weird thing to say about a movie as admittedly visually stunning as "John Carter" is, but it's true. "Bland" is the only word to describe it, not because there is any notable lack of tradecraft, but because it's just so unbelievably stock.

It's really sad when you can see stuff like this in a movie and say "It's been done."

The story concerns an American Civil War soldier who, through some technology never really explained, is transported to Mars (Oh, I'm sorry. Barsoom. More on THAT later, because THAT didn't get old). Thrust into the middle of a conflict between two countries on the planet, he leads an uprising to stop the war. Or something like that. I know it involves these 4-armed bug type creatures for some reason, and there are these pale dudes who are kind of like gods but not. Oh, and there's a princess.

See, this is what I'm talking about. I saw this movie yesterday and I've already forgotten nearly everything about it. I can't even remember a single character's name besides John Carter, and I only remember him because his name is on the freaking box art. I had no clue what was going on, but at the same time, I knew everything that was about to happen, because the story is so paint-by-numbers.

I know that "A Princess of Mars" by Edgar Rice Burroughs is a classic sci-fi story that has been the inspiration for a lot of films. I've never read it, and nobody I know has ever read it, true, but I'm aware that it exists. The fact that it is a story that other films have lifted heavily from does give it a pass on being derivative. After all, we can't blame an old story for being influential. But that doesn't mean that it will be fresh and exciting when we've seen this story a hundred times before. It will be boring. Like "John Carter" was.

It's a shame, but when a story has been mined so much that nearly everything about it has become a trope or cliche, that's going to be boring as hell and annoying to sit through despite how pretty you make it look. It's not the story's fault, but that's the way it is. Fortunately, Hollywood doesn't do that too much.

OH WAIT.

There were two other things that irked me about "John Carter." Or at least, these were the things in the movie that were memorable enough for me to remember that I didn't like.

The first was the cast. Taylor Kitsch as John Carter was...how to put this nicely...bad. He was bad. Between this and "Battleship" (Headlining two earth-shattering bombs in a row. Ouch.) I'm not sure he's going to have much of a career. And based on his performance as John Carter, which essentially consisted of him squinting and grunting while seeming like he was distracted by the football game on the TV in the next room, I can't say that I'll be too sad to see him go. It's not a good thing when Channing Tatum has more charisma than you do, I'm just saying.

Lynn Collins as the token Princess was also quite irritating. It's not that she did a bad job necessarily (she was better than Taylor Kitsch, anyway) but I can't stand her character. It's that same "I'm a Princess who is tough and strong and totally a strong role model but ugggh I have to run away from everything and get somebody else to fight my battles for me" crap that you always see. Also, she's another one of those chicks with a "kind of" accent. It's kind of there. Enough to where she can't pronounce "John Carter" properly. It's "Jawn Cah-tah." I hate that accent. Oh, and she whispers a lot. Why does every Princess do that? She's like Liv Tyler in "Lord of The Rings." You just want to chapter skip through her scenes.

On the plus side Willem Dafoe is in this movie. That's cool.

Oh wait. You don't see him? That's crap.

The second thing was that the culture of Mars, oh sorry, BARSOOM, is shoved in our faces pretty hardcore. That's not a problem by itself necessarily, after all it lends credibility, but geez give us some time to adjust. You want to know why I don't remember anybody's name? It's because they are all these crazy alien names that are impossible to remember, and many of them sound the same. I swear there was one word that was used to address like 4 different people. It sounded like "Rejjick" or something, and it was really confusing for me because I was thinking that was the name of Willem Dafoe's character, and then all of a sudden that's what they're calling Ciarán Hinds! About halfway though the movie I realized that it must mean "king" or "leader" or "Your Majesty" or something. Could have used that info earlier, guys. Or here's a thought: "Don't do that."

I think that maybe if "John Carter" was a TV series this alien culture could have been more gracefully introduced as to not be so jarring and disorientating, but we are thrown on Mars (oh sorry, BARSOOM) at about the 15 minute mark, and are there until about the last 10 minutes. That's about an hour and a forty five minutes that we are dunked headfirst into this culture with all the subtlety of a freight train. That's not nearly enough time to adjust to the amount of stuff they throw at us.

 For reference, as the credits roll on "John Carter," Gandalf hadn't even fought the Balrog yet in the Director's Cut. And there's two movies left. #doingitright

You know, I just realized something. I can perfectly sum up how confusing "John Carter" is: I don't even know if the people on Mars were originally from Earth. I don't even know if the aliens are aliens. That's pretty bad.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "John Carter" isn't a bad film, but I just didn't care. It was a stupendously boring and confusing cluster of stuff being thrown at me in front of a bunch of pretty CGI. Don't waste your time. Skip it.

The Woman In Black (2012)

I have always been of the opinion that Daniel Radcliffe was going to have the hardest time having a career post-"Harry Potter" than the rest of the cast. It's not that he was the worst actor of the bunch, it's just that he has such a distinctive look that it's difficult to picture him as anything but Harry Potter. He can't do intimidating, he's not good looking enough to pull of "dashing," and he just doesn't have that presence that makes people radiate off the screen. Perhaps it's that he's never really had much energy in his performances, he's always kind of slummed it if you ask me. The dude needs a cup of coffee or something.

You know what I'm saying with that? It's not that he's a bad actor, I just can't see him taking on a role that required him to raise his voice or be even mildly animated. He always has to be gloomy and dour. Imagine if they remade "Interview With The Vampire" and cast Daniel Radcliffe in it. There's no way he'd be cast as LeStat. He'd be Louis. You can't imagine him being a character that was "fun." Just try and picture a Daniel Radcliffe character possessing even a dark sense of humor. Try and see him spouting off a one-liner. I just don't think he could do it.

You know, they'd probably cast Johnny Depp as LeStat nowadays, wouldn't they? And he'd still be playing Jack Sparrow.

Anyways, with Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, it's a little easier to see them having a successful career. Rupert has a sense of comedic timing that Daniel never seemed to possess, plus he looks goofy so *bam* put him in an English comedy.

Which he's already done, and was quite good in.

And of course, Emma Watson is hot now, so there you go. Instant career, although out of all the main cast I'd say she may have been the weakest link (especially in the earlier films). But hey, she got better as the series went on, and she's certainly better fare than most other teenage actresses. When people like Kristan Stewart and Miley Cyrus are running around in far too many films, at least we have people like Emma who can emote. True, she's no Chloë Grace Moretz, but nobody else is.

"The Woman In Black" is the first post-Potter outing for Radcliffe on the big screen, and you can tell that they really wanted to announce his christening as A REAL ACTOR (tm) with this one. As dark as the Potter series got, they never got "horror movie" dark, and aside from a gritty drama with a lot of swearing and nudity, a horror film is a pretty safe way to distance oneself from a prolific childhood role. Why do you think Radcliffe appeared naked on stage? He's A REAL ACTOR (tm) now.

So needless to say, I approached "The Woman In Black" from the standpoint of "Ok, Radcliffe, let's see what you've got." While I wasn't expecting an instant classic, the generally positive buzz I had heard lead me to believe I was going to get a fairly enjoyable film, and the fact that it was a Hammer Film lead some pedigree as well.

Then again, it was a horror movie released in the post-Oscar contender dumping ground that is the beginning of the year. The first three months of the year are always rife with lousy horror flicks because they have no competition since most of the big movies have already gone through most of the ticket sales they're going to have. Horror films seldom do gangbusters in the box office, so it's best to release when there isn't anything else to see. "The Woman In Black" was released on February 3rd. Oh my.

Yeah, this was no different than the others. It wasn't very good.

Nice scenery, though. True story - this is the English version of New York's Central Park.

Maybe if you're not really into horror movies it might fool you into thinking that it's scary, but it's not. And there are really two big things holding it back. The first is a mishandling of a very simple but almost always overlooked concept in horror, and the second thing is the fact that the villain didn't really DO anything.

First Thing. "The Woman In Black" isn't scary. It's startling. There is a HUGE difference that seems to be an almost alien concept now. Listen to me very closely, because I'm about to drop some science on you.

It's time for "LESSONS WITH PROFESSOR PAT"

Pictured above - Not Pat.

LESSON #47 - "Loud =/= scary"

Fear comes from our natural "fight or flight" instincts. It's the reason people freak out when they see a big-ass spider or get punched in the face. You don't want this to happen, so your body goes into overdrive to help you get away from the offending big-ass spider or fist embedding itself in your nasal cavity. It's a big shot of adrenaline, and yes, it can be quite the jolt. That's why something flying out of the darkness out you going "HWWAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!" is going to put you on edge.

This is all well and good, but using loud sounds to replicate this fear in something that by itself is not scary doesn't work. You can't make a kitten jumping out of a closet scary, no matter how loud you make that stupid orchestra sting. It's still a kitten. All that's going to happen is that my heart is going to momentarily beat faster, my adrenaline will kick in despite the lie, and I'm going to be pissed off because I saw the jump coming a mile away anyways.

That's not scary. That's lying very loudly.

/science drop.

This is "The Woman In Black." A far too big percentage of the scares are false ones, and all but two scares feature the orchestra sting. What that is telling me, movie, is that you don't think too highly of me or yourself. You don't think you're scary, do you, movie? You don't think the scary images can stand on their own, so you have to add that 147 decibel jump scare to try and make nasty water coming out of a pipe scary, am I right? Because that's what you're doing. You're trying to make me afraid of a nasty, clogged up sink.

You don't hold me in a high regard, do you? Trying to make me scared of kitchen appliances? What is this, a Stephen King story?

"My god, I'm wistful."

Speaking of which, The Second Thing. It would be one thing if the orchestra stings were for something that was actually terrifying. I'm not talking about the sink now, I'm talking about the villain, the Woman In Black herself. True enough, she's a ghost that haunts the house that Daniel Radcliffe goes to, but there is a rather annoying issue that starts to make itself evident the further along the movie goes: She doesn't DO anything!

Oh, to be fair, she does make children kill themselves, which is truly horrifying, but that's after someone sees her. Then, at some short time later, after that person leaves the house, she makes a kid do something suicidal that ends in their death. Why she waits until the person she saw leaves is unknown to me, but that's besides the point. The point is that she doesn't lay a finger on Daniel Radcliffe's character, and actually seems totally incapable of doing so.

When it comes to Daniel Radcliffe, she poses no threat. She's not doing anything to him besides suddenly appearing next to him and screaming, or slowly...SLOWLY walking up on him from behind, stealthily making her way to him, as she gets closer and closer...until FINALLY...

She does nothing.

"Hello? Are you standing next to me again? Were you planning on attacking me? Pushing any heavy objects on my head? Scratching me with sharp nails? Anything? Shall I just go back to sleep, then? Would you be so kind as to not scream in my ear? It makes it difficult to nap."

So tell me, movie, why should I be afraid of her? She's doing nothing to him. I'll get nervous when he goes back to town, because I know a kid is about to die or something, but why do you keep a half hour long sequence going in the house when NOTHING BAD HAPPENS TO DANIEL RADCLIFFE? It's really quite annoying to have jump scare after jump scare with no payoff whatsoever. She doesn't even knock anything heavy on him or slam a door in his face. She just appears next to him and screams.

Pretty weak sauce there, ghost.

The best scene of the film is a truly terrifying image of the ghost/zombie/spirit of a child crawling up out of the mud. Daniel Radcliffe sees this through an upstairs window, and it's actually very creepy and well done. Soon after there's a pounding on the front door, and he goes down like an idiot to check it out.

It's a really well put together scene which gets pretty scary, until the muddy child shows up and...

does nothing except appear next to Daniel Radcliffe and scream.

::sigh::

Are you sensing a pattern here with this movie?

So in addition to breaking a whole heck of a lot of horror movie rules as far as "do and don't do's," I really didn't find "The Woman In Black" very effective in any form of genre you could name. The villain is lame, the characters are forgettable, and the scares are simply annoying and insulting. I would also like to give the makers of this movie a piece of free advice: If you want to make Daniel Radcliffe more masculine and more of a legitimate actor, don't have him call out the villain with a bunch of music boxes and children's toys. It tends to undermine any aura of macho.

Oh and the ending is balls, too.

THE BOTTOM LINE - There isn't enough to recommend "The Woman In Black" to anyone looking for a good horror movie. Fans of Daniel Radcliffe might find it an interesting curiosity, and he isn't terrible in it, but overall it's just not an effective experience, and you get the feeling that he deserves better than this. Watch the excellent "Insidious" for an example of how to do this kind of movie the right way. Skip this one, though.