**The life doesn't reflect how we want.**
First of all it was not based on any book, but you can see that book kind of effect in the storytelling. One of the best original screenplay, I won't be surprised if it wins the Oscars for that. I actually struggled in the opening to catch the storyline. Because the past and present overlapped while sharing the presentation alternatively. But it was about the present with flashbacks popping out regularly to join the tale by comparing/revealing the earlier events. So after few occasions, I got used to it and enjoyed my rest of the watch.
I always love good drama films. But not all the drama films I have seen are the masterpiece. So despite it was received so well from all the quarters, I kept my expectations low. The initial parts were okay, but its only during the final stage I begin to like it more. Especially the Casey's performance. I have seen him in many great films, in the big roles, but I think this one is his best, particularly from the positive perspective of the character he had played. Looks like the decade belongs to Affleck brothers. They have given great performances recently and acted in the great films that will be remembered for a long time.
This is the story of the Lee, a man who works as a janitor. One day he receives a call that his brother had passed away as he was suffering from the illness for a some time. Since his brother got divorced, all the responsibility comes under his belt, including his teenage son. Now those two struggles to join the force, but somehow manages all. Meanwhile, till the conclusion, the Lee's life before that point were disclosed to us, like how he struggled in his own life before coming to end in the current situation.
I could be wrong, but Casey Affleck's going to win the Oscars for his performance. Andrew Garfield is the other guy standing between his chance. I'll be happy whoever wins between them. I like Michelle Williams, but her Oscars nominee is meaningless. What, she appeared for 10-15 minutes in the entire narration which can be tagged as a guest appearance than a full fledged role. This is a fine drama, one of the year's best, deserved all the Oscars nod it got. Surely worth a watch and I recommend it.
_8/10_

American dramatist Kenneth Lonergan’s third feature, after his career has been punishingly stalled by the ill-fated MARGARET (2011), made in 2005 as a much-anticipated follow-up to his sterling debut YOU CAN COUNT ON ME (2000), then embroiled in the lawsuit purgatory with the film’s producers and only would be permitted for a limited release 6 years after, MANCHESTER BY THE SEA impacts as a resounding comeback and it is as good as you can get while toiling away with thumping grief and inconsolable guilt.
Lee Chandler (Affleck), a building janitor in Boston, he is the dour and withdrawn everyman type who distances himself from rest of the world and occasionally courts unwarranted bar brawl to unleash the smothering anger, so routinely the film will slowly mine into his profoundly buried tale-of-woe which would explain how he has fetched up to the current walking-dead state, and in this case, it is a helluva calamity, the most heart-rending accident could ever happen to a parent, and he has no one but himself to answer for. Receiving the news that his brother Joe (Chandler) died in a sudden heart attack, brings Lee back to his hometown, the titular Manchester-by-the-Sea where flashback adroitly interleaves into the narrative to refresh Lee’s memory (edited with pellucid correlations with what he experiences now) where the concealed secret incubates, and would eventually unfolds in the murky, snow night accompanied by Tomaso Albinoni and Remo Giazotto’s ADAGIO IN G MINOR, a sublime sequence transmits a synesthetic frisson which can knock dead its armchair viewers.
In Joe’s will, he names Lee to be the guardian of his son, the 16-year-old high-school jock Patrick (Hedges), which takes Lee aback, a resultant, seemingly life-affirming uncle-nephew bonding process takes its spin sensibly on veracity and wrestles with both Patrick’s suppressed grievance toward his father’s demise (Lee’s heart condition has been long diagnosed, so that it is more like a time-bomb ticking situation), and Lee’s attempt to re-settle in the town on the face of aghast memories and unrelieved penitence, in a pivotal scene, when Lee’s ex-wife Randi (Williams) pleads him for forgiveness and reconciliation after she has been finally capable of moving on to form a new family and embrace a new life, but feels obliged to proffer some extrication for him too, but things are different for the culpable party, not everyone can make peace with the past, however rational it might sound, some pain can be alleviated through time but other stays, thus one must brave himself to live with it for the rest of his life, that is the affirming life-philosophy Lonergan tries to pass on to his audience through studiously delving into the realistic double-bind based on an über-dramatic back-bone, which appears to be an abiding mythos in all his three directorial works to date.
Casey Affleck finds his footing in inhabiting Lee with a simmering intensity underneath his alternatively inscrutable/apathetic/distraught veneer, a performance is so aptly up his alley (a combo of hang-dog frustration and whimpering elocution) and to call it the performance of the year wouldn’t be such a stretch. Michelle Williams, shoe-horned in a peripheral role, but manifests herself as a sniveling and imploring scene-stealer just in one scene, she dangles us with immense curiosity about how her character has gone through the catastrophe, but essentially this film is Lee’s story. Lucas Hedges gets a windfall for being cast in a plum role and nominated for an Oscar, which could be a double-edged sword for the future of his budding career, but as credible and affecting as his portrayal is, the credit should mostly given for Lonergan’s well-rounded script of a rather bratty teenager; also Kyle Chandler is virtually next-in-line for a renaissance on the big screen after starring a string of high-caliber Oscar-baits, from ARGO, ZERO DARK THIRTY (both in 2012), to THE WOLF OF WALL STREET (2013), CAROL (2015) and now this, all in small roles but his presence looms larger each time.
The cinematography is bracingly crisp and un-showy, a modest production design and an unobtrusive score borrows many classical pieces, MANCHESTER BY THE CITY is a contemplative continuation in the aftermath of a latter-day Greek tragedy, which elevates Lonergan’s status as one of the most outstanding cinematic story-teller currently from USA soil, and one can bet, co-producer Matt Damon must secretly rue the day that he couldn’t commit himself to Casey's role which would have earned him a coveted Oscar statuette as an actor, and in hindsight, his preference to star in Zhang Yimou’s Chinese monster fantasy THE GREAT WALL (2016) now looks like a dumb decision.

I watched this movie based on its high score, I found the movie to be too long and maybe should have been edited down to 90 minutes or less. I usually go for exteneded versions of movies as I like to really get into the characters and don't normally like it to be over to quickly.
This was one of those occasions where instead of entertainment it was a chore to watch, I didn't find the actors performances anything special or the context of the story.
Overall very boring and if I am going to score this it would be a 1 out of 10. I did stick with it to the end and gave it its best shot, but not for me.

I loved this movie when I was a kid. Not so much any more for some reason.

Lewis Carroll really did provide Walt Disney with a veritable Aladdin's cave of delights to work from with for this hugely entertaining and colourful adaptation of his "The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland" stories. From the start with the "White Rabbit" she has adventures, mishaps and an a-maze-ing time meeting the "Mad Hatter" the centipede; talking roses; the mischievous "Cheshire Cat"; a truly surreal tea party, and of course the "Queen of Hearts" as bonkers and over-the-top as ever the author could have imagined - you sure wouldn't want to be a flamingo at her court! The whole thing makes no sense at all, really - so don't go looking for any logical structure or story narrative - there isn't one. Oliver Wallace's cracking score lost out for the Oscar to "An American in Paris" but is still, every inch, a winner...

'Stand by Me' is undeniably an 80s flick - and a good one at that. The kid actors aren't actually all that great in terms of the performances that they give, though do have likeability and a beliveable friendship that make them worthy of watching across a road trip of sorts.
Corey Feldman is the only youngster onscreen that I thought that I previously knew of, though I now see that Jerry O'Connell ('Kangaroo Jack', whatta film) appears - unrecognisable! The much more identifiable Kiefer Sutherland and John Cusack are in this too. As noted at the top, the cast are fine but work best as a collective.
I was wondering all the way through if they were actually going to use the great Ben E. King track at some point, so you can imagine my happiness upon hearing those first few notes sneaking in at the conclusion. A fitting end, to a movie that my uncle has been recommending for a while - a generational favourite, evidently. I get it.

**A good film about the value of friendship and companionship.**
This is one of those films that becomes adorable not only because of what it shows and tells us, but also because of the affective memories it awakens in us, or even because of the messages it brings and which it explains in its narrative. The value of friendships is a more than common theme in cinema, but perhaps this is one of the most paradigmatic and memorable films when the subject is precisely that.
Very consistently based on a book by Stephen King, the plot is simple: four young friends get together to find the corpse of a boy who disappeared, and set off on a long journey on foot that will take them through a series of obstacles and difficulties, and that will test the friendship and unity of the group. The matter itself ends up being quite irrelevant, no one cares about the dead boy. What matters is the journey of the four boys and the way they overcome difficulties, forgetting their differences and what eventually separates them. Each of them has their own sad story: broken homes, families with little structure, domestic violence, dramatic family losses (a father, an older brother…). In short, none of them is a boy born with a silver spoon or into a well-positioned family. And the film explores this very well, with inspired dialogue and absolutely believable and well-conceived situations.
Rob Reiner is a very effective director who knows very well what he wants. One of the points in which he shined most was in choosing the filming locations, designing the sets and reconstituting the period (the film takes place in the late 1950s, at the height of the post-war “American dream”): the director It really manages to transport us to the past and to magnificently designed and credible places. Another point he valued was the choice of actors for the four main characters. In addition to being a perfect fit in terms of age and physique, Corey Feldman, Jerry O’Connell, River Phoenix and Wil Wheaton are very talented and do their best with their characters and their material. Without the effort of these four young people, the film would not have the strength it has.
On a technical level, the film stands out for its good cinematography, the sets, costumes and props that I mentioned above, the choice of period cars and an excellent soundtrack, featuring some iconic melodies of the time.

Ok everyone - this is a 80's kid about kids, but don't think it is like the others as it is a Stephen King adaptation. It isn't for kids - unless you want to traumatize them.
Coming of age at a high price, what makes this a special one on that decade.
A solid 8.2 out of 10.0 / A in my score.

My all-time favourite movie! Like Gordie, I was a shy, sensitive boy, who was (and am) a writer, and I've been told by so many people I have a talent for it. Also, I've had many friends like Chris, being tough on the outside, while sweet on the inside, and I've known people like Vern, Teddy and Denny too :) Beautiful music, acting and truth about growing up, as relevant today as it was in the 80s/50s :) <3

The triumvirate of Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter returns for this entertaining adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's musical adaptation of the deathly vengeful antics of the eponymous London barber and his pie making accomplice. For my money, it features one of the best songs from Sondheim's repertoire - "Not While I'm Around" which neatly brings me to the starring role, for me at any rate - the young Edward Sanders who plays "Toby" strongly and charmingly. Jamie Campbell Bower also delivers well amongst a supporting cast of solid British stage talent - a rather menacing Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall amongst them. It is dark and gritty, and stays fairly faithful to the theatrical performance that impresses not just with it's solid performances (perhaps not so much with Johnny Depp who comes across as eerily uncomfortable) but with the super costume and make-up effects, the lighting and, of course, a score that marries cleverly the threatening with the frequent (very black) humour. HBC is probably at her best here, I have rarely seen her more effective in a role and she can certainly hold the attention, if not so much perfect pitch, whilst having fun converting customers into pasties. Like the stage play, it has highs and lows but on the whole it progresses entertainingly enough to a conclusion that I didn't like so much - I always like a good baddie, and these two were certainly of the most creative. Ketchup anyone?

It took five years to reassemble the cast for this third outing for the exhibits that magically come to life in their museum at night. This time, though, their days seem numbered. The tablet of "Ahkmenrah" (Rami Malek) is starting to lose it's powers and so unless "Daley" (Ben Stiller) can find some way of reinvigorating it, his friends will revert to their plastic and papier-mâché forms for ever. This means that he has to convince "McPhee" (Ricky Gervais) - who is, himself, facing redundancy to let them travel to the British Museum where it might be possible for the young Pharaoh to talk to his father and learn if this process is reversible (or not). It's almost as if all the cast have gathered together for a farewell party with the film having quite a mischievously joyous atmosphere to it as the same old scenarios are replayed around the rather tired, by now, characterisations. That said, it's more fun the the middle episode in the franchise and the adventure a bit livelier - Dan Stevens (check out the blue eyes!) is clearly enjoying his portrayal of Sir Lancelot and Sir Ben Kingsley seems to be struggling to keep the grin from his face as daddy "Merenkahre". No jeopardy and very little menace here, just a bit of forgettable fun that ought to see off this franchise now. Perhaps an whole new generation of kids will be taking their's to a museum? Hope so.

Night at the Museum: The Closure.
Part 3 - and expected last instalment - of the poplar NATM series pitches Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) on a mission to save the magic stone that brings his exhibit friends to life. So off he goes to London where new characters and new exhibit creatures join the frothy frolics.
In truth it's all very predictable and plays exactly like the money maker it is, but as with the other two films prior to this one, it has bundles of joy for the kiddies, whilst inserting some dark patches and edgy gags for the benefit of the adults. There's fun cameos, one of which is a joyous belter, and all the returning cast members are joined by an ebullient Dan Stevens as Sir Lancelot.
For a series closer it could have disgraced itself, but with some neat injection of ideas and decent story telling, it winds up as above average. The caveat, though, is that at the same time it convinces that the franchise has very much run its course. 6/10

Is very very funny!!! I like the movie...

So the final movie in the trilogy. That's what I'm hoping for. Because when the first movie came I thought it was a nice idea and then its sequel was so bad without any further innovative ideas to add up. I was not expecting the third movie, but it made its way and I give it a try only to get disappointed.
Ben Stiller is a fine actor and a great director, this trilogy was just a passing cloud in his career, other I would have blamed him for accepting the offer. As we know its a multi star movie, in that I am very happy to see Robin Williams one final time. What a great actor, lucky we had him in our time. The funny thing is I am confused for Rebel Wilson as Melissa McCarthy, but soon after realised.
The rest of the cast, Wilson, Coogan, Kingsley and other were what to say, their existence were in individual narrow thin lane in a weak story. Badly needed a fresh plot in the well known concept from the last two movies, and it did not give us. Hope the reboot would be very creative in the each three. May be it should set in the Hollywood studios like Marvel, Disney et cetera. Because, as I am a movie fanatic, love to see some of my favourite characters like Gandalf the gray, Joker et cetera, as well as beasts like Godzilla, King Kong et cetera come alive at night. It would be so awesome. Anyway, this movie was just okay for a certain reason. Don't expect high, because it won't serve you.
5/10

Ethan Hawke is on great form here as the rookie "Jake" assigned to the street-wise "Alonzo" (Denzel Washington) so he can learn the ropes on the highly dangerous streets of Los Angeles. Unsure as to whether not he is the one being tested, he finds himself being placed in a series of increasingly dubious scenarios by his new partner - each one testing how far he will go; how far he might "bend" the rules - just how ruthless can he be? What is soon clear is that "Alonzo" has few, if any, boundaries - and we are fairly rapidly immersed in a tale of police corruption and brutality. Will "Jake" join that lucrative club, or will he remain steadfast? I am not sure I remember Washington in such an ambiguous role before, and he plays it really well. The dynamic between the two men goes full circle from that of one dependant and slightly awe-inspired to one that puts lives, quite literally, on the line. Antoine Fuqua uses a combination of tautly played-out scenarios, spiky dialogue and plenty of attitude to deliver this solid and superior crime thriller. Well worth seeing on a big screen if you can find it.

This movie is meh at best. The plot is so-so. This isn't anything to write home about. You could make it into a B-Movie and no one would care.
No one likes Training Day for Training Day... they all just love Denzel Washington's performance in Training Day, and that is just an honest fact.
The movie wouldn't be anything if he didn't deliver and what he delivered was so sensational that people are going to be talking about it decades after we pass. And that is what people like. They like how deliciously evil Denzel was in the role. They like that he had free reign, as a villain, to make the role as memorable as possible. And he did, he knocked it out of the park.
So now, people watch Training Day, but let's be honest, they are only watching it for Denzel Washington, and that is as it should be, he was stellar in this, he deserves the recognition, and it's one of those movies that is otherwise so meh that his performance just shines out as the only thing really great about it.
Even this rating, 10 out of 10 stars? It's not because the movie was good, it's 100% based on Denzel Washington.

Denzel Washington is sensational in this, the plot might not quite match his performance but 'Training Day' is still a great watch. It's a riveting 122 minutes, I'm just not in love with how the premise is played out.
Washington's character, Alonzo, never really changes throughout, despite a supposed problem of his. I kept waiting for a reason to change the opinion that the first act puts to you regarding him but it never came, there's never a point I cared for him and I assume I was supposed to... at least to some degree? Also, his issue is thrown at you in one scene and isn't really mentioned again until the end. I get the character, just not his arc.
Ethan Hawke is very good, too, in this, even if I kept hearing Tom Cruise when he spoke... You also have a load of now familiar faces involved, including Eva Mendes, Raymond Cruz, Cliff Curtis, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg and Terry Crews. Quite an interesting cast list, that.
Loved all of this, except the (still good) plot execution. Maybe that's just me though. From what I've seen, Washington's best performance so far. He's the main takeaway from this whatever way you look at it.

_**Great urban thriller**_
Ethan Hawke plays Hoyt, a rookie cop on his first 24-hour training day with the L.A.P.D. narcotics division. Denzel Washington plays veteran Alonzo Harris whose methods seem questionable, to say the least. Harris argues that one has to become a wolf to take down a wolf. Will Hoyt make it through the day alive, let alone uncorrupted?
"Training Day" had a lukewarm reception at the box office the first weekend of its release in 2001, but the profits steadily increased for the next six weeks as word-of-mouth spread. The greatness of "Training Day" is not simply due to the intriguing story and excellent writing, but also the superb casting. Hawke is perfect as the naive, but ambitious rookie and Washington is nothing short of stunning as Alonzo Harris, ranking with the best performances in cinematic history, like Jon Voight's Manny in "Runaway Train" or Robert Duvall's Col. Kilgore in "Apocalypse Now."
As the training day continues Alonzo's methodology becomes increasingly dubious and you can just imagine Hoyt responding, "I... don't... see... any... method... at... all... Sir." How can anyone withstand the temptations he faces and not give in (and I don't mean the drugs)? Needless to say, the film scores high marks on the moral conundrum front.
There's one obviously contrived element but that's par for the course with movies and it could've been worse. Of course, the action and thrills are amped-up, but the tone is thankfully realistic.
BOTTOM LINE: "Training Day" is an excellent urban thriller with a captivating performance by Washington. It's fittingly ugly, raw and brutal, so stay away if you don't think you can stomach it.
The film runs 2 hours, 2 minutes, and was shot in L.A. Peripheral actors include Scott Glenn, Tom Berenger, Eva Mendes, Charlotte Ayanna, Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre.
GRADE: A-

This Film has to be one of the most intense shows I’ve seen . Ethan Hawke and Denzel are a great match together. Ethan plays the supporting role majestically.
Great cameos in the show too. With Snoop Dog. Macy Gray, Tom Berrenger .
But the show is highly tense. But good entertainment.
“Are You a Wolf Or A Sheep?”

**_Intelligent writing, cool style, kinetic thrills, cartoony horror, good cast and Salma Hayek_**
Two violent thugs in Texas (George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino) take hostage a disillusioned ex-minister (Harvey Keitel) and his son & daughter (Ernest Liu & Juliette Lewis). They escape into Mexico where they stop at a desert strip joint in order to rendezvous with their contact in the morning (Cheech Marin). Horror ensues.
"From Dusk Till Dawn" (1996) is a crime thriller/horror directed by Robert Rodriguez from Tarantino's script. Mixing "Pulp Fiction" (1994) with the basic plot of "Vamp" (1986) and bits of "The Lost Boys" (1987) and "The Evil Dead" (1981), it pulsates with hip energy and flair.
Clooney shines in his first feature film as the antagonist-turned-protagonist. Salma Hayek's dance routine is jaw-dropping and iconic. The movie blends weighty spirituality with extreme irreverence, violence, gore and comic booky evil for a entertaining flick, if you can stomach the nasty elements. It's not scary at all; but it's fun and thrilling in an increasingly farcical context, with thoughtful dialog and black humor.
The film runs 1 hour, 48 minutes, and was shot in Barstow, Lancaster, Calico Dry Lake and Los Angeles, California; as well as Chihuahua, Mexico. The cast also includes: Tom Savini, Fred Williamson, Danny Trejo, Michael Parks, John Saxon and Kelly Preston.
GRADE: B

So "Seth" (George Clooney) and his nasty brother "Richard" (Quentin Tarantino) leave a trail of death and mayhem as they head to the safety of Mexico after robbing a bank then trashing a convenience store and a motel! Close to the border, they abduct a pastor "Jacob" (Harvey Keitel) and his family and use them to slip un-noticed across the border before heading to a lively brothel "Titty Twister". Once there, and suitably tanked up with booze, they discover that there is something distinctly fishy (and it's not just with the stockings) as darkness descends and the clientele, well let's just say they get hungry... What now ensues is a bloodbath worth of any Hammer film - and frankly, it's of about the same standard. Tarantino may well be formidable behind the camera, but in from of it he is hopeless. Clooney fares a little better but it's really only Keitel who manages to keep this increasingly farcical film moving along for what seems like an age. I found what passed for humour to be pretty vulgar and tawdry and to be honest, I was rather bored with the relentlessness and repetition of the whole thing one we had got past the obligatory violent stages of the plot development. Was it supposed to be a comedy? You tell me - but either way, I won't bother watching it again.

Outrageous!
It was probably the most fun I had at the cinema back in 1996. I absolutely love "From Dusk Till Dawn", very much one of those films that you either buy into or you don't. There's no surprise element with the film, you get everything that director Robert Rodriguez and writer Quentin Tarantino said you would get - a hard buttocked road movie that turns into a raging "B" horror movie gore fest.
The plot, for what's it's worth, sees two criminal brothers, Seth (George Clooney) & Richie Gecko (Tarantino) on the lam after Richie breaks Seth out of prison. They are heading for the haven of Mexico with wads of cash garnered from a robbery. After overcoming a couple of fatal (for others) hiccups, the brothers, in need of a vehicle, kidnap faithless minister Jacob (Harvey Keitel), his daughter Kate (Juliette Lewis) and adopted son Scott (Ernest Liu). From here they must make it to a rendezvous point in Mexico - a bar called "The Titty Twister", where they will exchange cash with a friend of Seth's and start their new lives as Mexican civilians. Trouble is, is that "The Titty Twister" isn't no ordinary bar, it's a vampire stronghold and the Geko's - and their newly acquired captives, are on the menu. Can they make it till dawn and let the daylight be their saviour?.
Swearing, blood, limbs severed, nudity, violence, sexual references, guns, more violence, more blood, other weapons, lots of teeth, bats, a snake, more violence. On it goes really, yet as Rodriguez and Tarantino start thrusting a blunt blade into your stomach, you really should be feeling them also caressing the funny bones in both your arms. For it's a key point that "From Dusk Till Dawn" is a damn funny film as well, something that bizarrely many critics have failed to understand. Honestly you can go to various sites and read people saying the characters are shallow, or the plot is preposterous!! Dear me, it staggers the mind. Hey don't like the film by all means, but failure to understand its genre leanings and homage persuasion is as funny as Cheech Marin is in the movie (one of many awesome "B" cult movie actors in the pic). It's bonkers and silly as hell, but once a fan of "From Dusk Till Dawn", you are a fan for life. Well as long as you don't venture out to "The Titty Twister" yourself of course..
Welcome To Slavery. 9/10

This movie is directed by Robert Rodriquez and has a screenplay by Quentin Tarantino who also has a role in the film. This is actually one of the first movies by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino that I watched and from then on I pretty much became a fan of them both. So, when it came out on Blu-ray a while ago I had to get it for the collection of course.
When I and my dear wife first watched this movie we did not really know what it was all about. We thought it was just another robbery/criminal story and the first half of the movie it is indeed “just” a robbery/criminal story. It is a fairly violent one at that which should be no surprise given who it is that have their fingers in the movie.
Then half way into the movie everything goes wild when the vampires enter the scene. I remember going “what the f…” when I first saw it since I wasn’t really expecting it to be a vampire movie at all.
The movie is quite a rollercoaster ride which bears all the trademarks, in particular lots of bizarre violence, of the Rodriguez/Tarantino couple. Needless to say this is one of my favourite cult/bizarre movies.

Really good movie. He looks pretty cool when he turns into the ghost rider. Great cast and funny too.

Here is the deal. Johnny Blaze was possessed by an evil and dangerous entity called Zarathos who was a fundamentally evil being. What good he did was due to the constant inner struggle with Johnny Blaze, who was a very good man.
Dan Ketch was a kid from Brooklyn what was possessed by the Spirit of Vengeance, who was fundamentally a good spirit. And though they both struggled for control, the entity and its host trusted one another and worked together.
What this movie does is tries to mesh Blaze and Ketch and the spirits that possess them together...and it doesn't work.
The amalgamation robs the story of the intense inner turmoil and the fight between Blaze and the evil entity possessing him...that was a very good, very fun, very intense story that this film NEVER tells.
And Dan Ketch, the story wasn't as interesting, but it was still good focused more on the community, the town, the family life and the stress that the entity caused in the hosts personal life...it was still a very good story, it was still very fun, and it was, again, NEVER told here.
By trying to push the two of them together--including the supporting cast--the movie loses the stories from BOTH of them. What you get instead is. vapidity, and all the CGI in the world can't save a movie with no story.
There was no direction. There was no grand scheme. There were no real characters. It tried to be two different things at the exact same time and, because of that, didn't tell a story.
It ended up being special effects without a story and nothing more.
Had it chosen a direction, either direction, even an entirely new direction, the movie could have told a story. Unfortunately for everyone involved it didn't.

**It entertains very well, but that's all it is, and may be forgotten in a few years.**
If it weren't for this movie, I wouldn't know the Ghost Rider character, who is perhaps one of the darkest and most little-known characters in the Marvel universe. I'm not a comic expert, I just know some characters (the most famous ones) and I've seen some movies. So I'm going to ignore the source material and focus on what this film brings us, assuming I'm not the best person to say if this is a good adaptation or not.
The script has some notes of interest, especially for those who appreciate a more adult and denser universe: Johnny Blaze was a young acrobat who performed impressive circus acts with motorcycles, along with his father. However, upon learning that his father is about to die of cancer, Blaze decides to accept a pact with the Devil in hopes of saving him, which he is unable to do. Forever bound by the pact made, he becomes a monster that seeks out and punishes violent and cruel men... until the day he has to recover a contract of hundreds of souls that would doom an entire village, which would give whoever had it enormous evil power.
If we consider the film as a piece of entertainment, I think we'll leave reasonably satisfied. The film is not an example of art, and I don't think anyone involved will miss it very much, except perhaps Nicolas Cage, for whom the film was a good financial bet, despite not being particularly successful with the critics, and have been heavily criticized by the public. Directed and written by Mark Steven Johnson, it's a film with less action than many would expect, although I didn't have any problem with that. I found it more difficult to deal with the uneven pacing of the film, which wastes time in certain scenes in a way that is difficult to justify.
Despite being undoubtedly popular and charismatic, Nicolas Cage is not at his best here and gives us an interpretation that is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. However, Cage has revealed over time that he is not a steady, balanced actor either. He's very good, he's capable of doing great work, but he can also be disappointing. Peter Fonda is quite good here, but his participation is relatively paltry, appearing only in a few scenes. I have doubts about Eva Mendes' talent for acting, I still haven't seen her play a character that doesn't depend on her sex appeal, and what I saw here didn't convince me. However, what she did is enough for the character, who is just a hot girlfriend. Sam Elliot does well and gives his character an old-time "rough tough" scent, which I liked.
The film consistently and intelligently bets on strong and impactful special effects and quality CGI. Obviously, not everything works well and those fire effects, on the character's face and motorcycle, are so obviously fake that they don't convince anyone, even though the result is aesthetically beautiful and matches the character and the environment. After all, burning skulls are still a classic of tattoos and prints for biker jackets. The film makes good use of the chosen filming locations, it has good sets, good costumes, a dark environment that is not overly dense and does not frighten. Anyone who considers this film a horror should avoid films like “The Exorcist” and others, so as not to end up dying of a heart attack, because this film, as it stands, does not scare a fifteen-year-old teenager.

_**"You can't live in fear"**_
Johnny Blaze and his father make a living as Evel Knieval-like stunt riders in a carnival. When dad is diagnosed with cancer Johnny is misled into making a foolish deal with the devil, which results in his being cursed to become the Ghost Rider – a supernatural flaming skeleton.
Mark Steven Johnson's "Ghost Rider" (2007) combines Faust and Spider-Man and mixes in elements of all the variations of the Ghost Rider comics up to the present, including the 50's Western hero, but its main inspiration is the 70s-80s comic featuring Johnny Blaze as the protagonist.
What makes Ghost Rider appealing? Well, the only thing cooler than a guy in black leather and chains driving a Harley is a flaming skeleton in black leather and chains driving a supernatural flaming Harley. That pretty much explains it.
Some criticize Nicholas Cage as Johnny Blaze because Blaze is supposed to be about 30 years old, while Cage was around 41. I suppose someone like James Franco would have been better for the role, especially since Franco looks exactly like Mike Ploog's version of Blaze, but Cage does a fine job. Besides, Cage is in great shape and I know guys 25 years old who look older than him. As for Eva Mendes, who plays Johnny's girlfriend, she's ten years younger than Cage and is both voluptuous and adequate in the role.
Some criticize the film as too serious, others as too goofy, but the fact is that "Ghost Rider" has the same general tone as all the other superhero flicks released since 2000. It's a serious story for the most part, although completely unbelievable due to the subject matter, with bits of humor thrown in for good measure. In other words, it's neither deathly serious nor a campy goof-fest; it rides the line between these two extremes.
If all you want out of "Ghost Rider" is an entertaining supernatural superhero flick "Ghost Rider" delivers and is worth viewing for this purpose. But the film delivers on a deeper level. Here is a smattering of noteworthy elements:
Note that Johnny is misled into "selling his soul" to the devil and has to face the negative consequences of his decision. Few people will literally "sell their soul" to Satan but we can all relate to the struggle with the evil that exists within our own hearts. If we decide to live according to the inclinations of our lower, destructive, selfish nature are we not, in a sense, "selling our soul" to the devil; that is, giving over our lives to evil? (regardless of whether you view the devil as a literal spiritual being or merely as a symbol of potential human evil). Whenever we choose to live according to this lower nature will we not automatically perform evil and, in that sense, fulfill the devil's will?
Peter Fonda as Satan is perfect and entertaining, as is Sam Elliott as the old Westerner.
Love is an important theme in the story. Johnny "sells his soul" for love of his father. He didn't do it for greed or some other carnal purpose. This is agape love, self-sacrificial love, love in its highest and purest form, which puts Johnny on God's side (as Elliott's character observes) and makes him a serious threat to the devil's purposes on earth.
We also witness Blaze's great love for Roxanne and vice versa, as well as Mack's love for Johnny, etc.
This is contrasted by the total absence of love in Satan's kingdom. The devil hates his son and vice versa. This is a fitting depiction because God is described as love in the Bible; and since Satan has chosen to separate from God and be an enemy, he has naturally separated himself from love and become love's enemy. Hate in all its ugly manifestations is therefore the essence of the devil's kingdom and relationships.
When Blaze first turns into the Ghost Rider and goes for a ride in his flame cycle he causes great havoc wherever he goes. You'll note that this is toned down in his later excursions as Ghost Rider. The explanation? Johnny simply didn't know how to control the supernatural hellfire and "spirit of vengeance" during his initial conversion.
Although it's supposed to be amusing, it makes sense that Johnny would listen to The Carpenters in his down time. Blaze's daredevil lifestyle and his problems with the Ghost Rider curse would understandably cause him a great deal of stress. Listening to Karen's ultra-soothing voice would be a great pacifier.
There's a great scene of Ghost Rider riding off the top of a skyscraper, whipping his chain in exulting fury, and then riding full blast down the building smashing into the pavement below as police and onlookers observe in total disbelief.
In the comics Blackheart was the only comic character that ever sent chills down my spine (in Ann Nocenti's Daredevil). I didn't get this feeling from Wes Bentley's portrayal in the film, although there's a hint of that. Regardless, Bentley does a fine job in the role. And Blackheart's ugly wickedness is certainly revealed or demonstrated here and there.
There's a great musical interlude featuring the Ghost Rider and the Caretaker (Elliott) riding through the night desert for hundreds of miles to San Vengaza. Fittingly, the song is a modern hard rock version of "Ghost Riders in the Sky." (I love that song! Who doesn't?)
The Ghost Rider himself (itself?) is a triumph of special effects. Needless to say, the film is enjoyable just to look at.
The film runs 1 hour, 50 minutes, with the Extended Cut running 13 minutes longer. It was shot in Melbourne, Australia, and other areas of Victoria.
GRADE: B+

The problem is Ghost Rider isn't bad enough to be up there with the Nicolas Cage "classics", and it's not good enough to be seen as a fun time at the movies. It kind of just exists in this rather bland netherrealm where mildly entertaining meets instantly forgettable. Eva Mendes is terrible and Sam Elliot is great, so the acting in this movie is all over the place.
Sure, I love any scene where Nicolas Cage starts freaking out as he changes into the Rider. Or the scene where he tries to scare him self by going "booga booga" in front of the mirror. It's especially great when the half rendered fire skull shows up (seriously, how did the studio approve this effect?). But they're few and far between. Better just watch the You Tube clips then.

Can be considered one of the best Nicholas Cage movies ever, Ghost Rider Tells us the Story of a Motorbike Stunt Racer Johnny Blaze who sold his soul to the devil to heal his father from Cancer but alas the devil cheats him by giving his father a bad Death. Johnny after many years is provoked by devil again to kill Blackheart, Devil's own son and turns him into Ghost Rider. And the story goes on from punishing evil souls till the punishing of the Biggest Evil itself. The movie turned out to be a Decent Hit even though it did not perform well at the box office but still the way the character was portrayed and the way the graphics turned out jaw dropping is something we cant miss.
Well to be True Ghost Rider is one of the most coolest Marvel Character ever portrayed by one of the Biggest Hollywood Star.

Full Analysis at https://www.spotamovie.com/ - **Intro** - Released in June 2021, “The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It” is an American-British production that lasts for one hour and fifty-two minutes. It belongs to the genres of religion, crime, horror and drama, and it’s part of the “Conjuring Universe.” The trial of Arne Johnson inspired the movie. The film is not precisely the reproduction of what happened. But we need to remember that it’s a movie, and fiction is mandatory for our entertainment. And the film is engaging. It provides moments of pure adrenaline and pieces of beautiful cinematography and photography. Although it is not perfect, we think it deserves your time because God, daemons and exorcisms, apparently, are with us, believe it or not. Let us explain it to you. - **The Story** - In July 1981, Ed and Lorraine Warren, a couple who specialised in paranormal investigations, were helping the Glatzel. Their eight-year son David was experiencing unexplained and disturbing symptoms, which were consuming David and the whole family. So the Warren decides that it’s time for a real exorcism, and they go to document it.
But something terrible and unexpected is going to happen, and also the Warren get surprised. In fact, the event degenerates into an escalation of violence, murder, and occult rituals. The case became a worldwide event because, for the first time in history, the defence lawyer brought in front of the court the fact that a demon possessed the killer. Will the lawyer succeed with her defence? What is that Ed and Lorraine are going to prove?And what is your opinion about this surreal but true story? - **Full Analysis at https://www.spotamovie.com/the-conjuring-the-devil-made-me-do-it-2021-movie-review-and-analysis/**