Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Sure there used to be a time when Nicolas Cage made good movies but frankly, I don't remember those days. Now I can only remember the past five years or so...where Mr. Cage has stared in terrible films with terrible plots that feature him either speaking corny dialogue or yelling his face off. An example of this kind of film was 2007's "Ghost Rider," a Marvel Comics movie where Cage rode around with a flaming skull, sending demons back to Hell. While the comic character is indeed pretty cool, the film adaptation was much less impressive, which is why I was just as surprised as anyone to learn that a sequel was in the works. Five years later, Cage has dawned his flaming motorcycle again and...oh brother.


The devil's human form has grown week and the time has come for him to find a new host to inhabit. So he chooses a innocent boy...oh wait he's actually the devil's son...I think (the movie doesn't explain). To protect this boy from becoming the Antichrist, a secret sect of the church seeks out Johnny Blaze, who has been hiding out in Eastern Europe, attempting to cope with the demon living inside of him. They tell Johnny that if he can use his demon, the Ghost Rider, to save the boy from the devil, they can relieve him of his curse.


I'm just going to come out and say it...everything was wrong with this movie. The center of all the problems was the plot. The story was so simple and predictable and the directors obviously had no intention of developing it at all. There is no elaboration on any the characters (who are they, what are their motives, why are they doing this, etc.) and there is no character development. All of the characters are one-sided and don't allow the audience to connect with them or care for them.


This might be because of the dreadful acting. I don't know if Cage has realized that the world views him as a madman in his movies and has decided to embrace that or not, but his acting was WAY over the top. In scenes he would go from whispers to screams at the snap of a finger and when he tries to be emotional near the end of the film, the crowd just started to laugh. Some of the dialogue may have been corny to start with but most of the time, he made it corny,


And I though that at least the action would save the movie from being a total waste...wrong! The film tries to find these artistic ways to make the action unique, but it fails each time. If he gets hit with a rocket, have him fly against a wall or something, instead of spinning around on his back in the air like some old cartoon. If you want to show how he can manipulate fire, have him shoot it from his fists instead of urinating fire while shaking his head up and down. Oh, and don't have him do this weird, swaying dance whiles he's waiting to be attacked. The movie almost seemed like it was making fun of itself, through the action, the acting, and everything else.


Awhile back on an episode of Saturday Night Live, Andy Samberg did a hilarious Nicolas Cage impression where he mocked Cage's insanity. In the skit he made a remark on one of Cage's upcoming films (maybe "Ghost Rider) saying, "It has every element of a classic Nicolas Cage movie. One...IT EXISTS!" That's how I view "Ghost Rider 2." It's a bad movie with a lousy plot, dumb action, and a cliche script and yet it existed. And because it existed, Cage wanted to do it. What did he see in this film? I haven't the slightest idea, but one thing is for sure, his acting only made it worst. "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is not only the worst film that Marvel has made in past decade (replacing the first "Ghost Rider") but it's quite possibly one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I give it a half star out of four.


"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" has a running time of 95 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, and language.

The Woman in Black

Nowadays, when a horror movie comes around most people think of several things: pointless gore and torture, disturbing murderers, and overall...a cruddy movie. Of course nine times out of ten, this is true. A good scary movie is very hard to come by these days, but every once-in-awhile one manages to be a crowed pleaser. Since "The Woman in Black" is the first film to showcase the Hammer Film name (who were behind some of the most famous horror films such as the classic Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Mummy) in 35 years, it seemed like this film had promise, and with "Harry Potter" star Danielle Radcliffe as the leading man, the film guaranteed many eager viewers. But does "The Woman in Black" shine in a genre that hasn't been favorite of critics?

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is going through tough times. His visions of his deceased wife, combined with financial problems and the threat of being fired from his job as a lawyer, are causing much trouble in his young life. He is given one last chance to prove himself a worthy worker and is sent to handle the estate of Alice Drablow. Things don't get much better for Arthur when he arrives to the small town where the house is located. Nobody seems to want him there and nobody is willing to take him to the house to begin with...oh, and a creepy ghost is haunting the entire town and is taking out her vengeance on children. Sound creepy? It is! Determined to get to the bottom of this haunting problem, Arthur must learn the past of this mysterious Woman in Black and work to prevent her from further harming not only the towns people but himself.

"The Woman In Black" stands out from other scary movies because of two big reasons: an intriguing character and an engaging story line. So many protagonists are never developed (or given time to) in films of this genre. Instead they are dumbed up only to be slaughtered to simply get a reaction. Not Kipps. It is very clear that the filmmakers want the viewers to really get to know and care for Arthur Kipps. Besides the fact that Radcliffe is almost never off the screen, the character is developed throughout the entire film so that by the climax, we want him to succeed (and survive).

The story itself is a very classic one and that is in no way a bad thing. Several plot points (to give an example would be spoiling the film) echo the most famous of the haunted house/ghost story flick. It's suspenseful, it's intense, and it isn't predictable. Yes it does draw from other ghosts stories but there are some twists and turns that you won't be expecting.

Now make no mistake, while the film is different than most horror films regarding the character and plot, it's all the same when it comes to the scares. "The Woman in Black" is heavy on the "jump scares." And they do it so perfectly that many of the scares come just after you would normally expect them. This process effectively drew screams from most of the audience in my theater (although there were a few who laughed at my terror and the terror of many others). Some people, such as myself, enjoy the feeling of waiting for something freaky to pop out on the screen, and if you are one of these people...you will be impressed. Another great thing about these scares is that they are achieved without the overwhelming amounts of gore found in most horror films

Hammer Films chose the right movie to be their first in so many years. The intense and engaging story and interesting protagonist, combined with Radcliffe's great performance, makes one great film that breaks the mold of the horror genre and succeeded in throwing me out of my chair in shock. I give it three stars out of four.

"The Woman in Black" has a running time of 95 minutes and is rated PG-13 for thematic material and violence/disturbing images.