Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews6
lynnlefey's rating
The movie is a beauty to behold visually. There are moments in film, images that could just as well be still frames that engrave into our minds. This movie has many of them, and rightly so, based on the work of Frank Miller.
The only down sides I can think of are as follows; first, I would hardly call the plot advanced. Even so, the simple story plays out well. Second, while the music was certainly appropriate, I fear it may not age well, like 'Ladyhawk', where modern instruments are used in a fantasy (or in this case near-historic)... particularly heavy metal guitar and drums.
Set all that aside. Set aside any preconceived notion about the morality tale this movie may be trying to send, since I find it very unlikely it was intended the way many accuse.
It plays well, if you take note that it is (seriously) rated R. It is profoundly violent, and has a smattering of nudity and adult content.
I think when coming out of the theater, I was nearly in shock, not at the blood and gore. Those things really don't bother me. It was the impact of the story. I had an emotional connection to it. Simple story or no, it resonated.
Not a perfect film overall, but nearly perfect visually. I would HIGHLY recommend it.
The only down sides I can think of are as follows; first, I would hardly call the plot advanced. Even so, the simple story plays out well. Second, while the music was certainly appropriate, I fear it may not age well, like 'Ladyhawk', where modern instruments are used in a fantasy (or in this case near-historic)... particularly heavy metal guitar and drums.
Set all that aside. Set aside any preconceived notion about the morality tale this movie may be trying to send, since I find it very unlikely it was intended the way many accuse.
It plays well, if you take note that it is (seriously) rated R. It is profoundly violent, and has a smattering of nudity and adult content.
I think when coming out of the theater, I was nearly in shock, not at the blood and gore. Those things really don't bother me. It was the impact of the story. I had an emotional connection to it. Simple story or no, it resonated.
Not a perfect film overall, but nearly perfect visually. I would HIGHLY recommend it.
Okay, look. I sat through both 'Electra' and 'Catwoman'. People who rate Ghost Rider a 1 out of ten need to see 'Manos: Hands of Fate' and get their scales readjusted.
I am a long time fan of comics, and read mostly Marvel Comics as a kid. I actually have a reprint of the original Ghost Rider comic that I recently reread, and now I realize just how bad those 1970's comics really were. People should consider how palatable this movie is, considering its source.
Things I liked about this movie: Sam Eliot; Apparently he can say anything, no matter how ludicrous, and it will sound deep and meaningful. The song 'Ghost Riders in the Sky' hyped up on heavy metal playing during the scene where the two Ghost riders ride together. The visuals; Yes indeed, a cyclist with a flaming skull for a head does indeed look just as cool as it sounds.
Things I didn't like about this movie: The dialog; I have to agree that Mark Steven Johnson should work on his craft. I'm not a fan of one-liners either. Eva Mendez; I never noticed her before, but apparently, either she can't act, or MSJ can't direct.
This is not a movie of high craft. It is a fun movie though. It's not quite so bad that you have to completely leave your brain at the door, but you do have to strap on the James Bond one-liner defense guard. It is cheesy in parts. It requires a good deal of suspension of disbelief, even within its own reality, but I mean... it's a movie about a guy that somehow bursts into flames, burning away his flesh, that will later return unmarred, so maybe leaving other questions of logic behind is the best thing for all concerned.
In my opinion, it rates under Spider-Man, and X-Men, but better than the rest of Marvel's recent efforts (Daredevel, Fantastic Four, etc.)
I am a long time fan of comics, and read mostly Marvel Comics as a kid. I actually have a reprint of the original Ghost Rider comic that I recently reread, and now I realize just how bad those 1970's comics really were. People should consider how palatable this movie is, considering its source.
Things I liked about this movie: Sam Eliot; Apparently he can say anything, no matter how ludicrous, and it will sound deep and meaningful. The song 'Ghost Riders in the Sky' hyped up on heavy metal playing during the scene where the two Ghost riders ride together. The visuals; Yes indeed, a cyclist with a flaming skull for a head does indeed look just as cool as it sounds.
Things I didn't like about this movie: The dialog; I have to agree that Mark Steven Johnson should work on his craft. I'm not a fan of one-liners either. Eva Mendez; I never noticed her before, but apparently, either she can't act, or MSJ can't direct.
This is not a movie of high craft. It is a fun movie though. It's not quite so bad that you have to completely leave your brain at the door, but you do have to strap on the James Bond one-liner defense guard. It is cheesy in parts. It requires a good deal of suspension of disbelief, even within its own reality, but I mean... it's a movie about a guy that somehow bursts into flames, burning away his flesh, that will later return unmarred, so maybe leaving other questions of logic behind is the best thing for all concerned.
In my opinion, it rates under Spider-Man, and X-Men, but better than the rest of Marvel's recent efforts (Daredevel, Fantastic Four, etc.)
