Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)

The first Ghost Rider film from 2007 was fairly faithful to the comic. When Ghost Rider came out in 1972 it was more of a general idea than a fully fleshed-out premise. This was clear as the stories changed from writer to writer and one artist to another. Ideas were added as the years progressed, like the "penance stare" and Blaze's growing awareness of the former angel of justice Zarathos. The book was canceled in 1983 after a ten-year run. In 1990 a new version of Ghost Rider was introduced with a different character and it ran eight years.

The first film was an amalgam of the ideas presented in these two series, mostly the first, and struck me as the comic-book come to life. Really, the only thing that was disappointing (other than Cage being too long in the tooth for the role of Johnny Blaze) was the villain, Blackheart, who was seriously scary in the comics, but fairly bland in the movie and looking totally different.

"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" (2012) is a worthy follow-up with Nicolas Cage returning as Johnny Blaze. The story switches to Europe and, more specifically, Romania and Turkey, where the film was shot.

This time the devil is played by Ciarán Hinds, rather than Peter Fonda, which isn't a big deal considering Satan could presumably take different physical forms. The devil's main minion is played by Johnny Whitworth, a different character than Blackheart from the original, albeit similar. The hot female is Violante Placido, who's arguably better than Eva Mendes. Another positive is the rockin' soundtrack.

I don't mind the story switching to Europe since the locations are excellent, particularly the amazing cave-monastery, but there are other changes that I'm not so crazy about, like the charred biker jacket of the Ghost Rider, but this is just a matter of taste; I simply prefer the cool "costume" as opposed to the dirtbag biker look. A more significant negative is the overactive camera that's annoying and draws attention to itself. I can't wait for this "hip" fad to pass.

BOTTOM LINE: "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is a quality sequel that interestingly fleshes out the nature of the spirit that possesses Johnny blaze (I'd say more, but I don't want to spoil it). People who claim the film's more "serious" and "faithful" to the comic are off the mark. It has the same quasi-serious, cartoony-horror vibe as the first film, with glimpses of humor. As radical as the first movie was (in a comic booky way), this one ups the ante and is the better for it. Unfortunately it's marred by the hyperactive camera and quick editing.

The film runs 96 minutes.

GRADE: B

Fmovies: Proper Ghost rider! Nicolas Cage, actually played the part well. Bit loopy when needed. pseudo daddy for the rest of the time, sort of worked! I really like the fact that this film has tried to be more like the Graphic Novel & less like the original film. Moral, immoral & fun. The CGI style is perfect for a boy/angel/demon with a flaming skull riding on a motorcycle & killing folk(in an admittedly, sometimes pointlessly staring at people for a really long time, sort of way). I have honestly never seen flames & the whole burning monsters & things done so well!

Please, just switch off Hollywood review mode, Ignore the first films existence & enjoy!

The first Ghost Rider was already a disappointment – compared to other Marvel adaptations to the cinema, it was far under the average. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, however, is even worse. It didn't even look like a big Hollywood production – the special effects and the action sequences were sometimes absurd going to the ridiculous. It looked like a low budget film – a poor visual with only one or two exciting scenes - if I can call them exciting.

Then, there is the plot issue. Those 'blockbusters' are not supposed to have a story with philosophical meanings as they are made aiming pure entertainment, but this one actually didn't even have a story. It was totally redundant, silly and cliché – actually kind of ambiguous because the characters were not well explained or explored - things seemed too much up in the air leading the audience to nowhere.

Nicolas Cage also didn't help at all as he was not convincing on what he was doing. But, we can't put all the blame on him – the character was already badly written by the screenwriters who didn't know how to make him interesting. The Ghost Rider is not the conventional superhero – he has an obscure personality. So, where is this aspect on the story? Where is the true nature of the Marvel superheroes? In this film, there isn't any.

What surprises me most is the fact that this film coasted $75 million and no one knew how to make a good use of this big budget. It was a total waste of money and time – not only for the audience, but for the actors too. A superhero movie that promises more than it really has to offer. If you didn't like the first film, you'll probably hate this one.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance fmovies. The ghost rider has the potential to be one of the coolest and most successful franchises today,Ghost rider is so iconic and so much can be done with him,the problem is morons are making the films.

The film has several styles that never really gell,It tries humor but fails,Halfway though the movie it literally starts making fun of itself..and its not funny.I felt like they were saying haha we got your money.

The over used Prophecy child theme,The fish eye 1970's lens used to death and poor effect..the home computer cgi..

If you rent this one day in redbox you'll want your dollar back,If i ever see the director I'll ask for my money back and shame him for taking something that could be so cool and just dropping the ball,he should be banned from making films for 2 years for this one.

I hope one day someone with imagination and talent takes on a ghost rider film and finally does it justice.

I don't know what to make of Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance. I know it's laughably bad, but I couldn't help being entertained. The first film was actually a decent, enjoyable film, but the sequel is more campy and has a different tone. The story is very dumb, compared to the first film. But the visuals are excellent. I loved the look of the Ghost Rider and his charred skull.

Neveldine and Taylor's film brings about the return of the Ghost Rider. Johnny Blaze has been hiding out in the remote parts of Europe, but he returns when the Church recruits his help to help protect a boy, whom has the Devil after him so he can use the boy's body.

Nic Cage delivers another over-the-top performance as Johnny Blaze and despite some amusing moments, it did get old and stale after awhile. Idris Elba does a good job as the Church guy and Ciarin Hinds is decent as the Devil.

Overall, this is a over-the-top superhero film that doesn't deserve widespread hate, but still is pretty bad. But what I mean by bad is the film is "good" bad. I found it somewhat entertaining and a nice way to spend an hour and a half. The story/script is just plain silly, but the visuals are very good. I rate this film 7/10.

Seems anyone can be a movie producer / director / screen writer these days. One of the worst stories I've ever seen in a movie, crippled by awful directing and poor acting even from Nicolas Cage, of whom I happen to be a fan. The movie is a complete disaster from beginning to end, failing to capture the spectator because of a weak storyline, bad timing and management of tension and viewer expectations, and action sequences that besides not having the impact the film maker wishes they had, look pretentious and anti-climatic.

About the lines written for the characters, all I can say is: if *I* was invited to work in this movie as an actor (and I'm not an actor by any stretch of the imagination), I'd still be embarrassed to say them and ashamed that other people would watch me doing it.

The fight scenes are not believable at all, seems like people are waiting to be punched in the face, shot or whatever it is that's going on at any given moment. The reasons given for the outcome of any conflict in the movie seem like the ones a child would come up with while playing with his little friends.

I went to see the movie in a 3D "XD" (Extreme Digital) movie theater and even that didn't compensate enough how bad the movie is that I wouldn't be anxious to get out by 3/4ths into watching it.

Now here's something I definitely don't get, how can Stan Lee let such a horrible, horrible, horrible abomination like this thing be released under the Marvel name?