Review: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Nic Cage is back as hog-riding, devil-dealing Johnny Blaze, and for some reason this film finds him in Eastern Europe (Turkey and Romania, apparently), and attempting to keep his demonic alter-ego in check (See what I did there?). A French-accented monk named Moreau (Idris Elba) offers Blaze a job in exchange for freeing Johnny from his curse. He needs to locate and protect a young boy (Fergus Riordan), who just so happens to be the Son of the Devil. Well, the son of the Devil’s human vessel, Roarke (Ciaran Hinds) anyway. It’s the boy’s 13^th birthday soon and Johnny needs to get to the kid before Roarke, who has evil plans for the boy upon his birthday (Apparently at this stage, he’s just a naughty boy). Johnny Whitworth plays Roarke’s albino chief henchman, Violante Placido is the boy’s earthly mother, whilst Anthony Head and a facially tattooed Christopher Lambert play monks.

 

If you’re the kind of person who relies on reviews to tell you whether something is worth seeing or not, you’ve probably worked out by now that I’m not your critic. I’m weird, and my taste is unlike anyone else’s. For instance, I though the first “Ghost Rider” film was perfectly watchable and better than it had any right to be. I’m also a fan of the “Crank” films and I’m apparently the only person on the planet who enjoyed the flop “Jonah Hex”. So when I tell you that this 2012 sequel from the experimental action duo of Neveldine/Taylor (The “Crank” films, writers of “Jonah Hex”) isn’t too bad for a sequel to a film that was perfectly watchable and better than it had any right to be, just bear in mind my unique perspective. Every other review has been savage and you’ll probably hate it. I think that’s your loss, though, because as much as I’m far from a Nic Cage fan, and as much as the first film is superior, there’s still some fun stuff going on here, even if it does sorely miss Sam Elliott. I find it very, very hard not to like any film that features a motorcycle-riding hero with a flaming skull for a head, even if he is played by the most unsubtle actor to have ever won an Oscar. Yeah, I think I lost my credibility somewhere around the time of not hating “Jonah Hex”.

 

I’ve gotta give the dynamic duo of Neveldine/Taylor credit for technological ingenuity and courage. These guys will try to do just about anything with a camera if they think it will look cool. They even shoot scenes whilst on rollerblades. In the “Crank” films, they pretty much did try everything, including bizarre “Godzilla”-like fights, and a human ‘jump start’, and their over-the-top, ‘what will they think of next?’ approach was a lot more entertaining that it probably should have been. In the case of “Gamer”, their shaky-cam approach failed miserably in a film that didn’t need such an approach. But at least they tried. This time out, they once again use handheld camerawork thanks to cinematographer Brandon Trost (whose work on Rob Zombie’s “Halloween II” made it the worst-looking horror film in a long time), but this time out it suits the material better and they’ve got it under control. It shouldn’t make you nauseous (it was probably unbearable in 3D, though), and it’s not used constantly like in “Gamer”. They and Trost also manage to throw in some interesting and cool shot compositions and camera angles. These guys aren’t hacks and I honestly believe these guys will make a great action movie one day (The “Crank” films are pretty damn good for now, though). They just need to find the right balance between talent, ambition, creativity, and application. But make no mistake, these guys aren’t hacks like a Uwe Boll or Michael Bay. They have a genuine vision and talent, though having this be a 3D film and starting it in Eastern Europe certainly had me worried to begin with. The cheesy opening narration and accompanying comic book-style animation put the film immediately back on the right track.

 

The film is probably more “Underworld” or at least “Drive Angry” than “Ghost Rider”, but with better FX than the first film and a cool music score by David Sardy I still found it really hard to dislike this. I know I should’ve hated this film with every fibre of my being, but truly and honestly, the only things that put this behind its predecessor are the average plot devised by writers Scott M. Gimple (a writer-producer on “The Walking Dead”), Seth Hoffman (who has worked on TV’s “House”), and David S. Goyer (“Dark City”, “Blade”, “The Dark Knight”), and the crap Eastern European setting (and accompanying supporting cast). The latter gives the film a cheap feel that is completely unnecessary. That said, Ciaran Hinds is a huge step-up from Peter Fonda as the villain. If they ever do a remake of “Phantasm” (have they already?) and they can’t get Martin Landau, Ciaran Hinds would make a great Tall Man, I think.

 

Even Nic Cage finds an appropriate outlet for his bug-eyed, teeth-gnashing nonsense. It fits the film and the filmmakers’ vision, and he’s certainly well-cast as a pill-popping, hog-riding dude with a flaming skull for a head. I bet he enjoyed the hell out of making this film and working with two guys nearly as crazy as he is (though the money he received for it was likely a bigger incentive). And if you think this is one of the worst pieces of crap Cage has ever churned out, you clearly need to go watch “Deadfall”, “Vampire’s Kiss”, “Raising Arizona” (yeah, I said it), or “Face/Off” (ditto). This is silly, not bad. Johnny Whitworth is amusing in what is essentially the Wes Bentley part from the first film. Bentley took the whole thing a bit too seriously (somewhat of a trend with Mr. Bentley, who does have talent).

 

There’s nothing serious about this film, one need only to look at the ‘pee flamethrower’ bit for proof. The filmmakers are a bit douchy (just listen to their commentary for “Crank: High Voltage”. One of them even burps!), but kinda likeable at the same time. They know this is a dopey film. That’s why they cast Christopher Lambert as a heavily tattooed monk, which on its own should tell you whether or not you’ll want to see this trippy, silly, but in my useless opinion, fun film.

 

Is it a good film? Hell no. The cheap locales are a drawback and I can’t say I was hooked into the plot much, either. But I sure as hell can’t say I didn’t enjoy some of it. I hate myself right now. I truly do.

 

Rating: C+