ghost rider Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Now that Nicolas Cage is enjoying some kind of pop-cult-popularity (witness his Colorforms and his Everyman website), Ghost Rider 2 may actually be better received than its predecessor. It may be seen as some kind of art, and not a film no one was asking for.

It's still coming, by the way. Collider caught up with producer Mike De Luca, who confirmed that they were still working with David S. Goyer's script, and that the film had a working title of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. "We have an outline that David wrote that kind of adapts his 2001 script into today's times with incorporating kind of an original idea of Nic's that Goyer thought added to the mix in good way --that we all thought added to the mix in a good way --that gets Ghost Rider into a bigger arena to kind of apply our story in." The outline has just been delivered, so it's all still in a holding pattern. De Luca then confirmed that original idea of Cage's was to take the movie to Europe. "The idea was because Ghost Rider is a unique blend of theology and action, and the character deals with the kind of battle of good vs. evil in a theological sense, that Europe you could avail yourself of a lot of religious sites ... and a history of theology as a setting that isn't available in the U.S. We wanted to kind of signal that we're as different from the first movie just because we want to be fresh and new as you can get in terms of getting away from southwestern kind of pseudo-western thing."

In addition to dumping the Western angle, Johnny Blaze will also lose his cinematic love interest, as De Luca confirmed that Eva Mendes won't return. While they hope to begin shooting this year, they're still looking for a director and hoping Goyer might be able to make room to take the job. If that falls through, may I suggest Werner Herzog? It would feel so right.

Most of us didn't ask the Studio Powers That Be for a Ghost Rider 2, but it doesn't matter, because we'll be getting one. Back in January, the whispers began at Bloody-Disgusting that Columbia was gearing up another Ghost Rider run, and today it has come true. Variety reports that the studio is talking to none other than David S. Goyer to pen a new installment. Nicolas Cage is expected to return as Johnny Blaze, and former Marvel Studios' head Avi Arad will be producing.

Goyer was quick to say (via a spokesperson) that he wasn't officially signed, but that talks were underway to base Ghost Rider 2 on a script he did many years ago. If you'd like to know a little something about that script, you can read a review IGN did of it in 2000. Nothing ever dies thanks to the Internet and if nothing else, you can laugh at the rumors we once believed a decade ago. (Johnny Depp as Ghost Rider!)

At such early stages of fiery fuel injection, there's not much else to say. Since Mark Steven Johnson penned and directed the last one, it's probably safe to assume that if they want new writers, they'll probably want a new director. Variety hints that Columbia is keeping the property alive in order to retain its rights from Marvel, but it doesn't say whether or not they were up against a deadline. So, I'll quit talking and hand it over to the true Ghost Rider fans. Is there any hope for this one if Goyer gets involved? Anything you want to see from a particular Ghost Rider run? Speak up now, and maybe you can influence its pre-production.

New Line insists on "reimagining," but from reading the reviews I take it nobody's buying.

Anyway. Friday the 13th set a horror remake opening weekend record, grossing $40.7 million over the three days and $45.2 including President's Day Monday. That beats Marcus Nispel's Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake by more than $12 million. It's also roughly the second best President's Day weekend opening ever, behind only Ghost Rider and just about tied with 50 First Dates and Daredevil.

Confessions of a Shopaholic opened to a halfway decent $17.3 million, while The International more or less flopped with $10.7 million; the marketing for the latter really pushed the evil bank concept, complete with a shot of an ATM offering "murder" "corruption" and "extortion" as options instead of "withdrawal" "deposit" and "check balance." Maybe people thought it was a comedy.

It was another good weekend for holdovers, with Taken, Coraline and -- once again -- Paul Blart: Mall Cop all doing well. Taken's $81-million-and-counting is really remarkable. $120 million is assured at this point, with more possible. "Sleek, preposterous and breathlessly entertaining" appears to be a good formula. Meanwhile, maybe if I stop mentioning Paul Blart in these posts, it'll go away? Seems unlikely.

Leading up to the Oscars, Slumdog Millionare should be close to $100 million by the big night. The Reader also saw a late bump this weekend; a Kate Winslet win on Sunday can't hurt.

The full 4-day top 10 after the jump.

Warning: This post contains excessive grasping at straws.

Most knowledgeable folks seem to think that the upcoming Wanted looks like a piece of junk. I can understand their position: the trailer was kind of a sensory assault, and didn't exactly make the film seem original. For my part, I'm not ready to write it off. I like James McAvoy, director Timur Bekmambetov is a fellow Russian, and I tend to enjoy the wildly implausible brand of action that the film seems to be going for. So I'm happy to report a piece of news that kind of surprised me: Wanted has been rated R by the MPAA for "strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality." That elaboration makes it seem like they won't be trying to trim the bad parts to earn a PG-13.

Now, okay: obviously that doesn't mean much. I mean, the similarly (identically?) themed Hitman was rated R too, and look how that turned out. But for me, the R rating speaks not directly to quality, but to the kind of film Wanted is likely to be. Seeing the trailer (and not knowing the source material), I thought that while it looked kind of cool, it also looked like a broad, inoffensive, second-rate action romp -- my first association, probably due to the presence of Angelina Jolie, was with Lara Croft Tomb Raider. But maybe it won't be. Maybe it'll turn out to be harsh, and sexy, and over-the-top in ways that are actually interesting. Maybe it'll be more like Running Scared or Shoot 'Em Up than like Ghost Rider. You might think that those comparisons don't help and that it still looks like crap, but it seems to me that an R rating for a movie like this increases the odds of it being worthwhile. Or am I off my gourd?

Last night I was watching The Rock with a stranded house guest (first snow = flight cancellations) who really loves Nicolas Cage. Near the beginning of the movie (one of my favorite guilty pleasures), she asked why Cage does these kinds of movies, and I replied that he must simply love doing dumb action. It's got to be easier and more fun than trying to win another Oscar, that's for sure. It's not surprising, coincidentally, to find some quotes from the actor on ComingSoon.net this morning in which he proposes a couple more dumb action movies he'd like to star in. The interesting thing, though, is that they're more sequels -- something Cage hadn't seemed too interested in prior to National Treasure: Book of Secrets. Of course, the only reason he never did a sequel before is more likely because his movies weren't big enough hits to warrant a follow-up. I doubt he would have turned down Snake Eyes 2.

The first movie he asks for is Ghost Rider 2, which he says could happen if only someone gives him a call. It's actually pretty surprising that nobody has contacted him about a Ghost Rider sequel considering it made more than $200 million worldwide, and it had a shockingly great opening -- the best 4-day President's Day weekend gross ever, in fact. Plus, director Mark Steven Johnson claimed last summer that there were talks for GR2. Cage said it would be "fun" to return to the comic book character with the flaming skull head (see: he does it cuz it's "fun"). The other hoped for sequel is a third National Treasure (the second, Book of Secrets, is out later this month), though he is interested in expanding the series so "it becomes more and more International Treasure." Maybe Cage is jealous of Indiana Jones, but he'd like his character, Ben Gates, to have to travel to London, Paris, Egypt, Africa, Asia and more. He said, "that would be a lot of fun for me." (see: he does it cuz it's "fun"). Well, Nic, here's what would be a lot of fun for me: Con Air 2. As long as you enjoy doing dumb action, why not bring back the funniest, dumbest action you've ever made?

Before I begin, let me just admit I am not a fan of Mark Steven Johnson's directing work nor am I a fan of his most recent effort, Ghost Rider. His other films, the equally tepid Daredevil and the so-so Simon Birch did demonstrate a rather meager level of competence, but left me, well, pretty unsatisfied. Given all of that, it was with a great deal of trepidation that I read a recent interview with Johnson over at IGN wherein he discusses, among other things, the development of a sequel to Ghost Rider and that he might, unfortunately, have something to do with it.

In the interview, given during promotion of the upcoming DVD release of Ghost Rider, Johnson discuss many things including another Ghost Rider film, his involvement in it, what villains he would like to see in the sequel and what else he would like to be directing if he doesn't end up doing a sequel. "We're talking about it, yeah, talking about it," says Johnson of Ghost Rider 2. "I don't know what I'm going to do, to be honest. After Daredevil and this ... it takes so long, these movies. I really want something different, and the pressure of the fan community is always so great."

Given the constraints on his time and the fan community's "pressures," what would Johnson perhaps prefer to do next instead of a Ghost Rider sequel? "I would like to do something more comedy-based," he says, "go back to my roots like the Grumpy Old Men movies and do something with effects. I love effects; I love working with them. So I don't know about for myself, if that's in the cards for me." So, he wants to go back to comedies and not make any more comic book movies because they take too long and the fans expect too much? Well, given what he's done with Daredevil and Ghost Rider, I think never doing another comic book movie ever again is a fine career choice. I wish him luck.

The divide between critics and audiences has been growing stronger and stronger. This very site has done several reports of late about how studios and directors think critics are snooty, snobby, and out of touch with what the public wants. It seems more and more movies are not even being shown to critics prior to release. That practice used to be reserved solely for the worst of the worst, but now big-budget movies with big stars aren't being submitted for review. In light of recent evidence, critics' opinions don't really seem to have any effect on business at all. These past few months have made for some shocking revelations come Monday morning box office report time, with such critically panned movies as 300, Norbit, Ghost Rider, and Wild Hogs all doing huge business.

Now Peter Bart at Variety has chimed in with a new article on the subject. He says that critics "may be shopping around for a new line of work," and states that they "should consider a sabbatical until September, when movies aimed at their quadrant magically reappear." Huh? Bart suggests, "if the established media wants to stay relevant, should their critics make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture?" Well, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean hiring a quote whore to just write about how he or she adores every steaming pile that comes down the chute? Why should critics' tastes have to sync up with what makes money? To me, reading a great film review is like having a conversation after the movie. It's a kick to read an in-depth analysis of something I just saw, whether the reviewer agrees with me or not.

This whole debate has gotten out of hand. Audience poller Cinemascore reports that all four of the aforementioned movies were not just successful financially, but at least reasonably enjoyed by audiences. Is anyone who laughs at Wild Hogs an uneducated hillbilly idiot? Of course not. Does Norbit's success mean that all critics are dumb and should quit their jobs because they personally didn't like it? No way. The old "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" rule doesn't, shouldn't, and can't apply to film criticism.

If ever there was a case of statistics being, how to put it politely, skewed, its showcased in this article in The Hollywood Reporter. According to a recent Arbitron survey which asked moviegoers their opinion of pre-movie advertising in theaters, a rather unbelievable 53% of "frequent" moviegoers -- those that attended more than five movies in the past three months -- said that advertising before a movie is acceptable. Compare that to the 46% of people who responded that TV advertising is acceptable.

According to the article, the study also showed that 59% of moviegoers recall the experience of watching onscreen advertising before the movie on their last trip to the theater. To those statistics I just have to say "huh"? I don't know about you, but I and pretty much everyone I know find advertising before a movie to be very unacceptable. So much so that its one of the reasons I pretty much stopped going to regular theaters to see movies. That and the parents who insist on taking their five-year-old to R-rated films and then wonder why they keep crying.

Fortunately, there is still a theater here in Los Angeles that doesn't have adverting -- its called the Arclight and its the only place I will go, other than screenings, to see a film anymore. Now, I'm really trying not to be so negative these days but in my mind, the only thing these statistics, if true, seem to prove is that 53% of "frequent" moviegoers need to have their heads examined. They're probably the same rocket scientists who think Ghost Rider and Eragon are the epitome of cinematic excellence.

Just as you might expect, many of the recently released, universally-panned movies are bringing in big box-office numbers, while praised films like Zodiac are falling short. Using the Rotten Tomatoes scale, which is usually quite forgiving when it comes to negative reviews: Wild Hogs, which was the number 1 film of last weekend, rests at 18%, Norbit rests at 10%, Ghost Rider came in with 27% and Night at the Museum had the highest with 45%, which is still low for a multi-week #1 hit.

With the box-office squarely on their side, the big honchos of mainstream movies are now, unsurprisingly, picking a fight with critics. An exec at Disney recently went on record saying that "critics are out of touch with their readership," while Tom Rothman of Fox proudly says that his feature wasn't embraced by "highfalutin snooty snoot critics." At least he was creative with his distaste. But when has big money ever equalled big quality? McDonald's rakes in the bucks, but no one calls the Big Mac gourmet. So, why are execs getting ticked off when critics, who are paid to evaluate how well something is done, see a film as a limp fast food burger and not a juicy taste of Kobe beef? You might like the limp burger, but that doesn't mean that it was made just as well as the gourmet one.

There's no winner or loser to this debate because the sides aren't arguing about the same thing. Just because a film does well does not mean that it is good. Can anyone attached to any of those films say that they are as good as some of their highly-regarded, highly-praised films? Would William H. Macy describe Wild Hogs as comparable to Pleasantville or Boogie Nights? No. It's time for these execs to stop getting ticked at critics when their crappy, or questionable big-box-office movie gets panned, and start seeing their mainstream schlock for what it is.

Hope your Monday was a good one (but, really, aren't all Mondays super?). So, um, moviegoers went 'Hog' wild, eh? Or were 'Wild' for 'Hogs'? How many other obvious puns are there to make with that title? Too many to count, I'm sure. Or maybe not, considering that the flick made $38 million this weekend. Shew. It's official: Critics really have no relevance on box office take. I know there have been some preliminary reports to such effect, but I'm hereby making it official. And apologizing to the critics. There is one good thing we can say about Wild Hogs, though, and it's this: William H. Macy co-stars (coincidentally, one of the stars of our staff picks celeb crush gallery). Of course, I haven't seen this movie, and judging by the comments that Erik Davis' review received, I guess it's a crowd-pleaser (Moviefone's own Tommy DiChiara did have fun with the cast in Boston). And at least it made more than Norbit when that broad comedy (heh ... we said "broad") opened a few weeks back -- $33 million if you're keeping track -- so that's something. Here's what Patric ia predicted Friday:

1. Wild Hogs
2. Zodiac
3. Ghost Rider
4. Bridge to Terabithia
5. Black Snake Moan

And here's the actual weekend top five:

1. Wild Hogs - $38 million (!)
2. Zodiac - $13.1 million
3. Ghost Rider - $11.5 million
4. Bridge to Terabithia - $8.5 million
5. The Number 23 - $7 million

Get the full box-office report here.