The Battle of Shaker Heights (2003) March 30, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Efram Potelle and Kyle Rankin
HBO’s Project Greenlight television series strikes back with another attempt at making successful filmmakers out of struggling hopefuls. This time, both writer and director positions were filled separately in order to allow more competent entrants in both categories, and industry outsiders flooded in droves to prove their talents. With a $1 million budget from Miramax up for grabs, it was directing team Kyle Rankin and Efram Potelle who were offered the chance to make a script by newcomer Erica Beeney. Entitled ‘The Battle of Shaker Heights’, it not only had to stand as a solid feature in its own right, but to some extent, prove the worth of Project Greenlight itself.
The protagonist of this story is Kelly Ernswiler, a teenage boy who has a passion for war re-enactments as well as anything to do with the army. While ‘in battle’ one afternoon he meets Bart Bowland, a well-to-do boy who takes him back to his rather grand house. While there, Kelly meets Bart’s older sister and begins an unspoken infatuation with her. On the flip side, Kelly’s own home life is strained by anger towards his recovering-addict father, which he escapes by leaving the house and working at a local store. It isn’t long, however, until both his unrequited love and the neglect for his family catch up with him, causing him to question his outlook on life.
There were many struggles throughout making this movie, all documented by the second series of Project Greenlight, although I think that the pressure this time was on producers Chris Moore, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, who needed to convince the studio that their mission was viable and achievable. This is touched on briefly during remarks about the first Greenlight movie, Stolen Summer [review], which received a limited release and took little money. They never delve too deeply into the issue, but you can tell it is always present in the background, making Shaker Heights a movie caught in the middle of many different interests (writer’s vision, director’s ability, producer’s accomplishment, and studio financing & marketing) even before it began shooting. This really shows in the final product.
Not to place too much trust on the events of the series (reality television in this manner can be edited to over-emphasise any aspect) but there are certain truths that appear undeniable when you see the completed film. Firstly, it’s a movie struggling to find itself in terms of tone - part comedy, part drama; it ends up trying to service both but satisfying neither. Secondly, the story is extremely unfocused and there’s little drive or arc across the length of the picture. Losing certain elements of the plot (mainly with Kelly’s family) completely disrupts the narrative and leaves you wondering quite what the point of it all was.
Billed as a kind of ‘coming of age’ story, the character of Kelly is done a complete disservice by this loss of plot. His witty, sarcastic personality is wasted on a tale that doesn’t show him coming of age as much as it finds him just dealing with typical high school problems - bullying, romance and emotional turmoil. He reconciles these issues through a series of events that don’t quite join together and give the impression that though a full version of this movie may exist, it isn’t being relayed in the final cut. Maybe Kelly’s wisdom beyond his years stops you believing that he could be as naive and unnecessarily angry towards his parents as he is, but without a strong resolution or a sense of learning a valuable life lesson, there’s little to take away from Kelly’s story.
It’s not fair to be entirely negative though, since the movie has some things going for it. More confidently shot than Stolen Summer and with a sense that the limited $1 million budget stretched a long way (especially in the war recreation scenes) it is hard to fault the visual aspects of the film. The real discovery is Erica Beeney’s script, which is very good at showcasing her talent for smart dialogue and witty banter. Crafting a central character with a similar sensibility to recent indie-hit Juno [review], the script bounces around within its scenes, generating laughs where necessary. This is aided by a great central performance from star-in-the-making Shia LaBeouf, who shows his early talent and has rightly been on the up ever since. He alone is the film’s biggest strength and while the script allows him to shine, the final story structure confines that achievement to ‘moments’ of genius, rather than a fully rounded performance.
A saying that starts ‘Too many cooks…’ springs to mind when considering the pressures put on this film. It needed to be a comedy drama as intended because there was clearly not enough comedy in the story to remove the dramatic element completely - in this version Kelly’s family issues are addressed so tentatively and with such a loose resolution that it barely makes the reconciliation work. A test screening shown during the series in which the audience seem to be having a great time but then give the film very low scores suddenly becomes completely clear while watching Shaker Heights. It is a funny movie, but the whole is so much less than the sum of its parts. Once again, a Greenlight movie went on limited release and failed to make money - everyone compromised and nobody got what they wanted, which I guess is a sad truth about the movie industry. Not even Erica Beeney has garnered any more writing credits since this film, leaving only an early role for Shia LaBeouf to remind anyone that it even exists.
Drillbit Taylor (2008) March 27, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Steven Brill
You’d be forgiven for leaving the kids at home if you heard that a new Judd Apatow produced movie was rolling into theatres. Tagged boastfully in the trailer with the line: “From the guys who brought you Knocked Up and Superbad”, there comes a certain amount of expectation, not just from the standard, but also the content. As is the case with Drillbit Taylor, a film with Apatow collaborators behind the scenes and acting regular Seth Rogen involved in the script - but wait, not everything here is as it appears. Look lower down the posters and you might catch a glimpse of something that demolishes all your preconceptions about this film and the kind of laughs it will employ: a family-friendly certificate.
As their first proper foray into the 8-and-up arena, Drillbit Taylor borrows extensively from films that have had past success in this market. Set in a regular American town, the film follows two best friends named Wade and Ryan, who about to start high school and, hopefully, make themselves cool and popular in the process. Of course, nothing goes to plan, and an ill-advised stand against the school bully, Filkins, leaves the boys as the prime target for his rage and an unwanted geeky friend by the name of Emmit. Desperate to end the constant berating, the kids buy the services of a personal bodyguard to protect them during school hours. They choose Drillbit Taylor - a war-hardened special ops operative who charges a suspiciously reasonable fee. Unbeknownst to the boys, he’s a liar who’s also homeless, and planning to rob them blind to fund his expedition to a better life in Canada.
There are no prizes for looking at Seth Rogen’s involvement in the script and branding this movie ‘Superbad-lite’, a rather trite and obvious comparison you might think, until you see the film itself. The three main characters are clones of the archetypes set by last year’s raunchier hit: there’s a slightly shy kid, an overweight and over-opinionated kid, and an geek-eclipsing kid whom the fat one struggles to get on with but the shy one kind-heartedly accepts. If you’re not thinking of Evan, Seth and McLovin within the first few minutes of this gang getting together, then I’d start checking for Alzheimer’s. And that’s not all, there are numerous other glaring similarities including a ‘getting off the bus’ scene that is strangely reminiscent, and a conclusion that takes place at a high school house party - red plastic cups and all. Of course - and this is how it gets the “lite” moniker - it is strangled by a PG-13 rating (12A UK certificate) and so tones the themes of rampant teenage hormones down to the more age approriate subject matter of high school bullying. Instead of getting ready to leave High School, these kids are just entering, which adds a slight innocence to the mix that the Apatow gang movies don’t really deal with often.
And there’s a reason for this. I think it says something for their preferred writing style that almost all their movies are ‘R’ rated. They certainly have a penchant for the explicit in both metaphorical and literal senses of that word, so any dialogue that can’t be said right on the nose comes across as only half-baked. A case proven by Drillbit Taylor, which is left forlorn by its PG-13 boundaries. Unable to rampantly swear and make crude innuendo, the script never bounces or conjures up the same laughs as previous adult-oriented efforts. Notably, all the other Apatow produced comedies being released this year will be R’s, 
and rightly so as this movie shows that anything else just might be out of their comfort range. Not that there’s anything wrong with what they do: Knocked Up [review] and Superbad [review] were big hits last year for the simple reason that they were refreshingly upfront and unsubtle; but take away that unrestricted license and there’s not a lot left.
What the film does have going for it is the natural charisma and comfortable presence of Owen Wilson in the lead role. He’s almost too chilled out as a homeless destitute but at least it makes his turn into bodyguard and, later, school teacher, all the more believable. He handles the comedy with his usual vocal exacerbations but is well backed up by the casting and performance of the three young actors: Nate Hartley (Wade), Troy Gentile (Ryan) and David Dorfman (Emmit). There are also roles for Lesile Mann as a Drillbit-adoring teacher, and Alex Frost, who does the threatening bully routine with plenty of menace. Director Steven Brill helms the film well, while the script by Seth Rogen and Kristofor Brown has the interesting addition of giving a story credit to Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club director John Hughes. Quite what involvement the quintessential 80’s teen maestro had here is unclear, but it certainly makes for a unique mix of talent.
But it’s the story, or at least parts of it, that are also the film’s biggest weakness. One major aspect of the movie involving how Drillbit finds out about the bodyguarding job is completely glossed over, whereby we see one of the boys posting an ad online and then we see Drillbit getting up from someone else’s computer in a coffee shop, which I guess is supposed to imply that he went on the internet and somehow saw the advert or… something. It looks like a little over-zealous scene cutting was done, but it ultimately creates a wild narrative jump early on - a rush to ‘get on with it’. There are also some scenes in the Principal’s office that are, 
quite frankly, ludicrous (especially when the parents tag along) which bring the already shaky credibility of the events down even further. With a conclusion that wraps itself up a little too neatly, what you end up with is a slightly disjointed affair that has little depth beyond the generous helping of gags that punctuate the dialogue.
Drillbit Taylor is a film that never quite seems sure of itself. For everything that is quite good, there something else that is entirely predictable. In fact, if you’ve read the plot synopsis then I bet you could map out the order of every event that happens, because it basically photocopies the story from all these ‘deceitful adult fools kids but turns good’ movies (Bad Santa, School of Rock) and sells it straight back to you wholesale. When its not doing the obvious slapstick routine, breaching moral standards by showing that fighting is probably the way to solve your problems, or pilfering from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off - an odd occurrence given the John Hughes writing credit - there are actually some nice moments, as well as a simple but entertaining story to follow. And even if you’ve seen it all before, there is always Owen Wilson’s easy-going charm to hold you through the reasonable 102 minute duration. The only thing you might need protection from is the certificate - an unsuccessful stab at taking the Superbad ethos to a wider audience.
Drillbit Taylor goes on UK general release from March 28th.
The Bourne Trilogy (2002 – 2007) March 24, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a comment
The Bourne series of films has seen international success and reached its climax (in story arc, at least) last year with a third instalment that was, impressively, better received than its previous two. And it isn’t as if people had exactly hated them so far. Bourne is just one of those unstoppable franchises, seemingly able to double its budget in box office, regardless of what they spend on it (Ultimatum’s $110 million budget brought back $227 million in return). Plus, and for once, what has been good for the studio execs has also been good for the audience, generating increasingly better movies rather than the sub-standard, rushed-out sequels desperate to strike while the iron is hot.
Now I don’t dislike spy movies, and I’m not against realism in the way that is presented by Bourne, but I’ve always been an outsider to this particular phenomenon, constantly looking in, wondering what all the fuss is about. My first viewing of Identity left me cold: What is everybody getting so excited about? Haven’t we seen all this before? By the time the opportunity to see Supremacy came along, I was disinterested and ended up watching it in that worst of film-viewing venues: an aircraft. I fell asleep too - but not before deciding that my opinion hadn’t changed. So you can imagine my surprise during 2007 when I found myself itching to see The Bourne Ultimatum, a movie that I had no right being excited about. It was getting such rave reviews and, later, appeared on so many ‘best of 2007′ lists, that I decided to put aside my agnostic feelings in favour of discovering the truth for myself.
In February, the opportunity to catch the third instalment in its natural habitat presented itself by way of some pre-Bafta cinema screenings, so I headed off with an open mind to find out if the emperor really did have clothes. But not before re-watching the two films that left me so underwhelmed in the first place.
The Bourne Identity (2002)
Directed by: Doug Liman
Set in various locations around Europe, the character from Robert Ludlum’s popular novels comes to the screen as a confused but dangerous man, played by Matt Damon. Plucked out of the sea by fishermen, he can scarcely remember a thing, not least how he got there. What follows is a chase story, in which Jason Bourne (one of his many identities) sets out to discover who he is and what he did, while a secret arm of the CIA under the name ‘Treadstone’ tracks him across countries both themselves, and with the aide of their highly-skilled hit-men. Along the way, he crosses paths with Marie (Franka Potente) and the two go on the run together, looking for answers.
With the heavy Paul Greengrass focus that occupied the two sequels, it is hard to remember that it was in fact Doug Liman (Swingers, Go) who directed the first part of this trilogy. He does so quite steadily, and with clear cut decisiveness about camera placement. There are no particularly flashy filmmaking techniques, but it certainly takes the spy movie back to its origins in terms of keeping the chase tight and making sure that there are enough questions that need answering throughout the movie. I do think it lacks energy at times, and though it might be one thing to argue for ‘realism’ in your spy movies, I’d like to counter-argue for excitement as a reason one might want to see a film such as this. The constant breaks and Jason / Marie conversational scenes are nice, but don’t add much once we ditch Marie in the third act to focus entirely on Bourne.
The conclusion too, poses itself as a problem. Even on this re-watch, when I’m fully aware that sequels already exist, it still stands out as being anti-climatic in a way that it didn’t need to be. I find it hard to believe that anyone was satisfied by an ending that probed only toe-deep into the origins of a character who was all about finding his origins. Still, Matt Damon is suitably anti-action star to fit the role of Bourne neatly, and the rest of the cast including Franka Potente, Chris Cooper, Brian Cox and Clive Owen - who I totally forgot was even in this - do a fine job of keeping the standard up. It still doesn’t sit well with me though, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Picking up two years after the events of Identity, this popular sequel received its fair share of both praise and criticism, namely directed towards new-coming director Paul Greengrass. The story opens with Bourne and Marie living out their lives in hiding. When a sudden unprovoked attempt made on Bourne’s life ends tragically, however, the ex-super spy makes good on his promise to hunt down the members of Treadstone if they ever came after him. Once again, Bourne searches for the truth behind the CIA’s reignited interest in him, and even though Treadstone no longer exists in an official capacity, some of its members apparently have unfinished business to resolve.
The story retains most of the staple elements from the first outing, although it picks up the pace a little, both in narrative and editing. Greengrass was notoriously criticised for the ’shaky camera’ that plagues this movie in its most intense moments, with audiences complaining that they couldn’t make out what was happening. In the four years since this film was released we’ve seen a gradual increase in handheld cameras as a popular style of filmmaking - you only need to look at Michael Mann’s Collateral [review], Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men [review], or the most extreme recent case, Cloverfield, to see how accepting we’ve become of the ’shaky cam’. In 2008, the film seems nothing like the motion-sickness inducing rollercoaster ride it was made out to be, and the editing was positively comprehensible compared to something like AvP - Requiem [review].
So if time has healed the film’s most derided aspect, what is left to say? Well, one thing Greengrass does bring to the project is a sense of the frenetic, and the action sequences this time around are suitably more intense. It still finds the time to slow down, but less so than in Identity. Also, Julia Stiles reappears to play a slightly bigger part this time around, although she still seems underused and underdeveloped - merely a character through-line to link the films together, along with Brian Cox. What we do get is a little more background to Bourne, although the ‘one mission at a time’ rediscovery of events seems a little tired. It’s better, but still not perfect.
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Directed by: Paul Greengrass
The final part of Bourne’s trilogy is where it makes a turn. Between Supremacy and this, Paul Greengrass made one other film: the 9/11 inspired United 93. He was also nominated for an Oscar. So there’s a sense of renewed confidence as the director guides Matt Damon through one last globe-hopping adventure to discover the truth about his past. This time around, Bourne is tracking CIA heads who were involved in the creation of the Treadstone project, including the doctor who initiated his involvement. But he is again being hunted, this time by current deputy director Noah Vosen, while a returning Pam Landy uses her previous knowledge of Bourne to aide the pursuit. Cue car chases, face to face combat, and constantly looking over your shoulder moments aplenty.
The most surprising thing in the Bourne Ultimatum is that without changing director or writer, the film makes a significant change to how it is paced. That’s to say, where the previous entries would let up quite often, Ultimatum keeps the tempo relentlessly high. It barely stops for a second which is exactly what these chase-based stories needed from the outset. Greengrass flips one to the audience by maintaining his much maligned shaky camera experience and while one scene - the chat between Bourne and Marie’s brother in Moscow - features the most intrusive camera movements I’ve ever seen, it becomes gradually easier to watch as the story starts its non-stop sprint to the finish.
Damon knows Bourne inside out by now, while Julia Stiles gets yet another character upgrade and hints that her involvement is far from over. David Strathairn is the standard ‘evil’ CIA operation leader this time while Joan Allen gets to reprise Pam Landy from a slightly different angle. Most interesting is the way this final instalment links itself into Identity and Supremacy, especially in the case of the latter’s end coda turning out to be of great relevance to this film - yes, they changed the season and the details are different, but it’s the effort that impressed me. There are plot holes, quite a few actually, but this is a film that has such exciting pace, such relentless intent, that it sits way above the other action thrillers of last summer.
It may have taken three movies to get there, but Bourne has finally arrived. For the first time I could actually relate to all the enthusiasm handed to these movies - I only hope that Greengrass and Damon can keep a lid on it now, because Ultimatum would be a seriously hard act to follow.
Vantage Point (2008) March 21, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 2 commentsDirected by: Pete Travis
It’s a bit like Rashomon. There, I said it. Because to even start an analysis of this multi-threaded action thriller without invoking the name of Akira Kurosawa’s 1950 classic is apparently tantamount to treason. But outside of the ’single event from different points of view’ narrative angle, this film has little in common with its Japanese counterpart, especially in terms of the influence it will have on future filmmaking. It’s Rashomon-like in the same way that The Lake House is like Back to the Future. Which is to say that they both deal in time travel, but not that they are both genre classics. Vantage Point isn’t laboured with all the problems of The Lake House [review], but neither does it quite redefine the thriller concept in the way it would like to.
The story opens with the US President arriving at an important summit in a Spanish province. As he takes the stage, however, a sniper shoots him down from one of the surrounding buildings and panic erupts. Amidst the crowds of people fleeing from the area are a few participants who all have differing angles on the event. As a bomb explodes near the stage, we are taken back to the start again, to view the whole event from another character’s perspective. Those featured throughout the course of these various ‘vantage points’ include a television news producer, a Spanish police officer, a camera-wielding tourist, one of the president’s aides, and the president himself. All their stories come together to solve the mystery of what really happened during a crazy half-hour in Spain.
This is a concept movie, and I like concept movies - so yes, while it has been done before, this is the first proper 21st century update for the format and it tries to use that differentiator to its advantage, throwing in modern digital camera technology and a post-24 look at how the highly trained presidential aides can run, jump and crash into things without sustaining an injury. It also takes place over a narrow timeframe, with the whole story occurring in what I would guess starts out at about 10 minutes in time, and slowly expands to about 20 minutes. When we aren’t tracking forwards, we’re zipping backwards to relive the previous events from someone else’s point of view. Like Phone Booth, a similar concept movie that used a tight single location as its USP, this is either something that you’ll buy into, or you won’t. Failing to understand that it’s less about the people and more about how the story is structured may lead to exacerbation each time the Groundhog Day effect kicks in.
As this film is mostly about its ability to craft a tale that doesn’t reveal itself in the first fifteen minutes, I have to commend writer Barry Levy, who has made a concerted effort to structure the film consistently within its own timeframe, and to keep the events updating as we see each side of the story. Sometimes we are treated to more information than others, and there are points when the recap can be nothing more than just that; a reverse-angle version of a scene we already saw. But the filmmakers keep on the right side of inventive when it comes to hiding certain details or outcomes (one such tactic - Dennis Quaid sees something we don’t get to see - they use twice), and most of the endings to each ‘vantage point’ come with enough irresolution to see it through. This is not the easiest kind of story to tell, and they work the format, rather purposefully, to suit their needs.
This inevitably leads to some failings which present themselves at all stages of the film. First of all, it uses a simple story (a necessity of the style) but then burdens it with some predictable plot turns that want to be all-out twists, but are far too overused and obvious to come as any surprise. You won’t guess it all, but even some of the explanation behind who is running the operation and how they are doing it is revealed to be slightly outlandish, even in this modern age. Also, and for me the biggest stumbling block, was that after 75 minutes, this film is crying out for a final chapter that is riddled with aspects of all the stories presented so far, and turns the tables on things we saw earlier to act like a drawstring and pull the whole plot together. This, unfortunately, never occurs. What we do get is a slightly anti-climatic final denouncement and the kind of narrative closure that only bothers to bring the film to an end, rather than raise your appreciation of it further.
British director Pete Travis brings enough visual enticement to the film to keep it interesting, while delivering a fairly clear geography so you don’t get lost when following the different points of view. His cast list is rather good too, including main roles for Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, and a sufficiently high-profile, Oscar-winning, Forest Whitaker. This film demands very little of any of them, however, and as a result most of their talents go to waste. 
Even some of the smaller roles go to the likes of Sigourney Weaver playing the television news producer, and William Hurt as the President, but again they are barely given the chance to make a performance out of what they’re offered. The actors aren’t really disappointing, just never stretched to go beyond the plot-forwarding objective of the story.
Vantage point is an interesting movie and one that keeps itself duefully short at only 90 minutes. In order to fulfil its action quota there is plenty of running, exploding and one lengthy car chase made more redeemable by its narrow street locations. Where the film really succeeds is in its ability to create a rather claustrophobic atmosphere during the central crowd scenes, or working each character into the story progressively so you can keep a grasp on who’s who. It’s entirely a one-viewing-only kind of film, mainly because it goes out of it’s way to plug all the holes and make you understand anything you might have missed, which is a shame because re-watch value can be beneficial in this genre. It needed Memento ingenuity, but what it gets is 24 plus, well, Rashomon. Although I’m still not convinced that the decisions here were influenced by that film. Vantage Point is burdened with the comparison for trying to make a different kind of thriller. I mean, secret service agents, murderous terrorists, bombs and car chases? Still think Kurosawa is the influence? Then I’d ask you to heed the film’s tagline and “look again”.
Ghost Rider (2007) March 17, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 4 commentsDirected by: Mark Steven Johnson
Pigeon-holing yourself can be a dangerous game in Hollywood for both actors and directors alike, but some still seem hell-bent (no pun intended) on doing just that. Writer / director Mark Steven Johnson has committed himself entirely to comic book projects since the turn of the century: writing and directing the Daredevil adaptation, executive producing spin-off title Elektra, and apparently shopping a television series based on the Preacher graphic novels as we speak. So it was no surprise when the announcement of a big screen outing for one of Marvel Comics’ most visually unique characters came with Johnson’s name attached. Ghost Rider might be a no-brainer for the special-effects extravaganza treatment, but that should never be a guarantee that it would work.
As one of the darker Marvel characters, Ghost Rider opens with stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze cutting a deal with the devil in order to save his dying father, Barton Blaze. The catch is that Johnny must become ‘the rider’ when called upon - a leather-clad figure with a flaming skull for a head. When his father eventually dies during a stunt show, Johnny leaves his carnival childhood behind and builds himself a career as a crowd-pulling stunt motorcyclist. It isn’t until Blackheart, the devil’s son, takes a rebellious turn and tries to gain control of Earth, that Johnny is forced into action against him as his unwanted alter-ego: Ghost Rider.
There’s an immediate problem with this film and it hits you in the face within the opening minutes - the script is diabolically thin. Every bit of dialogue that comes out of character’s mouths is nothing but matter-of-fact, scene-driving bilge of the kind you might expect in a school play. Characters regularly state the obvious, have trite and stilted conversations, and never stray from hitting all the standard points of characterisation. It’s a huge detraction in a genre not exactly known for its intellectual plotting or thought provoking dialogue - but that’s no excuse for not even trying. A prime example of quite how lazy the script is comes from the reading of the much sort-after ‘contract’ - a piece of writing from hundreds of years ago written on a 3ft parchment: “This is the contract of San Venganza. All of you. Come to me!”. Hardly a stirring piece of prose considering its importance.
The actors fare no better, with another disheartening career move for Nicolas Cage - who I think can be great under the right conditions. Despite enjoyable performances in Matchstick Men, The Weather Man and Lord of War [review], his most recent decisions have been notably weaker, including an unnecessary remake of The Wicker Man, a poorly reviewed action thriller in Next, and now this. It’s clear that his love for the character on a personal level blinded him from what is clearly a terrible script and an even worse movie. Supporting roles go to Donal Logue as Blaze’s best friend Mack, Eva Mendes playing the love interest, and Peter Fonda as the devil himself - none can do anything to save the terrible material though. Only Sam Elliott’s natural cowboy cool holds him over in a film where almost every other character is a forgettable parody.
It’s not all bad news though, as director Mark Steven Johnson utilises his comic book movie experience to create a visually interesting world where the colours pop and the shadows creep as necessary. His slightly bloated $110 million budget goes into creating some good looking effects too, especially on Ghost Rider himself, with the rather detailed transformation from Johnny Blaze to the flame-headed ghoul providing a particular highlight. The spectacular moments are there (even if most of them did feature in the trailer) so there’s at least some big-screen value to the project, if nothing else.
And nothing else is what it really comes down to. With such a potentially high-profile comic license it is unbelievable to think that Columbia Pictures would let such a weak script pass. This could have been a revenue spinning franchise like all the best comic book movies, but its reputation is now left in tatters by an introductory film that barely does the character justice. I guess Ghost Rider isn’t the easiest product to market, because despite elements of horror and the religious references, he is neither an adult creation (like The Punisher) nor an entirely child friendly concept (such as The Fantastic Four). As writer and director, Mark Steven Johnson is both the best and worst thing about this movie; his paper-thin script failing miserably against the righteous visuals. Unlike his central character, he proves that he really can’t “walk in both worlds”.
