Nicolas Cage suffers from a burning sensation after urinating and ejaculating. [Photo: Columbia Pictures] Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance ½

by Michael Nordine on February 17, 2012   Jump to Comments (3) or Add Your Own


There's bound to be a lot of puzzlement as to how this sequel to 2007's Ghost Rider, the Marvel Comics adaptation starring Nicolas Cage as the eponymous daredevil-turned-Faustian vigilante with a flaming skull for a head, required three people to write it. Starting things off by vaguely informing us that we're in "Eastern Europe" via text at the bottom of the screen is a fairly clear sign that the responsible parties aren't aiming especially high, but the trio of scribes who penned this total misfire one-up themselves minutes later with a dose of lazy, expository narration which grossly overestimates the extent to which viewers unfamiliar with the first entry need to be brought up to speed. If the ensuing 90 minutes are to be made sense of at all, it's either as a dedicated act of surrealism or as a series of happenings whose silliness is matched only by how needlessly convoluted they are.

Were it only poorly written, this film might be salvageable. But the cinematography manages to be just as bothersome, alternating as it does between shaky-cam action scenes as seen through a sheen of CG gloss and awkward close-ups which look to have been shot from no more than two feet away. The intent is likely to make us feel as though we're part of the goings-on, but it's more distracting than immersive. Add the uninspired direction of Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (whose decision to be credited as Neveldine/Taylor puts them in the same mononymous camp as McG) to the mix and you're left with that rare action film whose action sequences are somehow more boring than everything else. The only bright spots come as a result of Cage's off-kilter delivery of the few lines that manage to evoke laughter, but even here the humor feels unintentional. The actor has a seemingly innate knack for refocusing a film's energy—whether it be sedate, mildly unsettling, or downright manic—around himself in a way that's often over the top, but which provides an otherwise tiresome exercise such as this with a few passing moments of entertainment. Just as Liam Neeson's second-act transition into an action star has provided the genre with a certain amount of gravitas, Cage has apparently taken it upon himself to make bad films strangely watchable. Anyone else in the title role would simply be boring, even unfortunate, but Cage makes the stray scene work in spite of itself. It's just a shame that his personality completely evaporates every time his CG alter ego takes over.

To question where things went wrong feels somehow strange, as the project seems to have been ill-conceived from the very start. Unlike its predecessor, it doesn't even offer much in the way of camp value; considering Cage's unrivaled ability to needlessly freak out, this is a dubious achievement indeed. Lurking behind the fire and brimstone of its melodrama is a far too literal message about not letting your demons get the best of and define you, which is fine in theory, but hard to take seriously when the one espousing the idea is earlier shown pretending to piss a stream of fire into the wind in slow-mo.


  • Director(s): Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor
  • Screenplay: Scott Gimple, Seth Hoffman, David S. Goyer
  • Cast: Nicolas Cage, Ciarán Hinds, Violante Placido, Idris Elba
  • Distributor: Columbia Pictures
  • Runtime: 95 min.
  • Rating: PG-13
  • Year: 2012


Comments

c_dillar on February 17, 2012, 06:56 PM

Who is this Nordine fellow? He is not worthy of writing at Slant Magazine. In fact, Nevaldine/Taylor are making the entirety of the critical internet world look like a bunch of assholes this weekend. Nordine seems to have no idea who these filmmakers are.

"The only bright spots come as a result of Cage's off-kilter delivery of the few lines that manage to evoke laughter, but even here the humor feels unintentional."

Unintentional? Seen either "Crank" film Nordine? They are thoroughly Carnivalesque, satirizing while engaging socio-political matters, ephemeral culture. Likewise, their latest implicitly questions the nature of post-capital consumer culture, the infuriating emphasis placed on expository and diegetic narrative/characters, and the self-seriousness exhibited by these "films as product." N/T started with Troma, they are satirists, so suggesting they take themselves absolutely seriously is laughable misguided and questions whether you viewed the film with only one eye open. I would recommend you read Steven Shaviro's book entitled "Post-Cinematic Affect," where he examines "Gamer" as a like-minded manifestation of these cultural questions, trying to bridge the gap between form and content, where movement, proximity, and aesthetics are ignored in favor of close-readings and strictly narrative analysis - which, as Barthes would say, is worthless, relatively meaningless, and simply an exercise, not real thinking.

This is just such a lazy, half-assed review, without any real exhibited knowledge of the filmmakers and/or little by way of a nuanced discussion.

Dave1983 on February 18, 2012, 10:33 AM

This review is so smug and arrogant. To review a film because it doesn't meet a standard it never intended to meet is not very fair. Also it's a pretty boring angle.

bandwagon on February 18, 2012, 11:46 AM

@ Dave1983 - 'Were it only poorly written, this film might be salvageable. But the cinematography manages to be just as bothersome...'

' Unlike its predecessor, it doesn't even offer much in the way of camp value...'

'... grossly overestimates the extent to which viewers unfamiliar with the first entry need to be brought up to speed...'

Just few of the examples which prove beyond doubt that the reviewer understands the 'intended standard' of the film.

Add Your Own

Login to post comment

or Create an Account



Giveaway

Hell on Wheels: The Complete First Season Blu-ray
Newsletter