As they say, the most surprising moments on Oscar night lie within the Acting categories. I don’t really know who they are, but they must not have said that after seeing this year’s nominations. All throughout the Awards season, we have been treated to a cavalcade of Forest Whitaker, Helen Mirren, Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson taking home hardware. This would lead most to believe that these will be the four men and women on stage Sunday night who will be making copious acceptance speeches, thanking everyone in sight — and God. But one key thing to remember is that most of the major awards given up to now have been voted on by critics, not members of the Academy. And I know you are saying “but what about the SAG Awards?” Nevermind those little guys, this is the big show and the Academy loves to throw us for a loop every now and again. Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role Who will win: Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls)Who should win: Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls) The whole of Hollywood and the rest of the world knew who was going to win in this category back in December when the buzz around Dreamgirls was red hot. They weren’t talking about Beyonce finally failing to ruin a film or about the best musical since Chicago, they were talking about the rags-to-riches sensation Jennifer Hudson. In one of the weaker categories in the entire show, Hudson is the standout by a long shot. [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Earlier today I laid down the groundwork for what may be my most prolific year of Oscar predictions. I feel confident in the sense that this year I have seen the highest number of nominated flicks in comparison with years past. Thus my opinions can be more solid, calculated predictions rather than a mess of guesswork — I save all of that for my reviews. But enough of that self deprecating drivel, let’s get on with the good stuff: Best Animated Film of the YearWho Will Win: Happy FeetWho Should Win: Cars Here is a very difficult category for me. I love almost every sleek animated film that is released. I am able to look past gaping plot holes, massively over-used clich©s and even some lame characters in order to see a film that looks cool. While all three of the nominated flicks look cool, though, I can say that Cars was really the show stopper of the year. Pixar’s glorious return to power in the world of animation sported a good story, a kickin’ soundtrack and that patented Pixar look and feel. Happy Feet, while a good film in it’s own right, was just too much of a song and dance and not enough substance. But then again, those Academy members are suckers for a good song and dance every once in a while. Best Documentary, FeaturesWho Will Win: An Inconvenient TruthWho Should Win: An Inconvenient Truth Hollywood has really developed a thing for Al Gore. They liked him [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

While the basketball world eagerly awaits their March Madness, the cinematic world is on the brink of its own special month. Though it seems that the world is not fully cognizant of what is about to occur, being caught up in the anticipation of one lone film, I think that March, 2007 will produce more good cinema than the entire year preceding it, and possibly more than any single year of this decade so far. March Magnificence is about to get under way. On March 9th , the long awaited and much ballyhooed 300 opens. So far, Rotten Tomatoes has it all fresh, though only a few reviews are in. Directed by Zack Snyder, it tells the tale of the Battle of Thermopylae according to the vision of graphic novelist Frank Miller, filtered through the conception of the young and aforementioned director. After his surprisingly good Dawn of the Dead remake, I tagged Snyder as a filmmaker to keep an eye on. All early news is that 300 is far superior to his first film. But though 300 has taken all the press, it could well be a March 2nd opener that proves the best of the month. For the first time in half a decade, the superlative David Fincher is back, bringing us Zodiac. Chronicling the real life story of the California killer from the late sixties and seventies, it too is all fresh at Rotten Tomatoes. From what I hear, this may be his best film (better than [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

The big night is mere days away. I guess it is about time that I formally enter my predictions into the pot. I am notorious for not being able to pick all that well, but I have a strong feeling about a few of these categories, even if some of my favorites failed to make the cut. Well all know that all these awards boil down to is a marketing tool paired with a lot of back slapping. Still, that isn’t to say that the nominated films are not worthy. Generally speaking, all of the films nominated are worthy of their place. Yes, there is always room for dissent, and we often see our favorites on the outside looking in. My favorite film failed to make a dent in any of the major categories, and i can say that I am truly upset over that, however, my number two is up for best foreign language, and my number three is front runner for the top prize. Well, let us dispense with the opening and get right down to it. Below you will read who the winners will be, so beware of spoilers! Yes… that was a weak attempt at humor. Best Motion Picture of the Year Babel. This film has the momentum of having won the Golden Globe, but I think that Oscar voters are going to go in a different direction. The Departed. This will be your winner. It is a wonderful film that is funny, dramatic, and completely [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

This week sees the arrival of a couple of high profile releases, featuring stars from Billy Bob Thornton to Jim Carrey. There is a drama, a thriller, a comedy, a little something for everyone. Last week, Ghost Rider opened and cruised right on by the predicitions, will one of these new releases do the same thing? I tend to doubt it, but I am terrible at predicting these things. The Astronaut Farmer. (2007, 104 minutes, PG, drama, trailer) I have to say as corny as it sounds, this looks like a good movie. It is an inspirational drama about a would be astronaut who was dismissed by NASA who refuses to give up his dreams of space. Defying the odds, he sets about building a space ready rocket on his barn. This action draws the attention of the FBI, CIA, and the military, all intent on shutting him down, not to mention the townspeople. It looks good, a story instilling the desire to dream and reach for the stars, literally. Billy Bob Thornton stars as the man with a dream, joining him are Virginia Madsen and Bruce Dern. Michael Polish (Northfork) directs. The Number 23. (2007, 95 minutes, R, thriller, trailer) The quality of this one could go either way, but I have to see it. First off, the trailer looks pretty cool. Second, Jim Carrey in a thriller is an intriguing proposition. Third, my birthday is a 23. So, good or bad, I am there. Carrey stars as a [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Over the next two days you will see plenty of predictions about who will take home a little golden guy on Sunday night, but I thought I should throw up a disclaimer from the start. As a critic, it is difficult for me to make predictions without a bit of bias toward the films that I really like. Thus, in addition to giving you who I think will win, I am going to lay down who I think should win as well. With that said, lets get down to it. We start with some of the lesser publicized categories, the awards given to those who work behind the scenes. From the man behind the camera to those who adapt previous literature into a two hour cinematic adventure, these folks are the gears that keep the wheels of cinema rolling. Without them, there would be no story, no dazzling visuals and certainly none of those eye-popping effects that sell popcorn. Best Achievement in CinematographyWho Will Win: Guillermo Navarro (Pan’s Labyrinth)Who Should Win: Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men) Combining his keen eye with the strong willed vision of director Alfonso Cuaron, Emmanuel Lubezki helped to create one of the most visually stimulating films of the year in Children of Men. The two men brought to life P.D. James’ dark and chaotic vision of a future world where humanity can no longer procreate and everyone is just waiting for the end to come. The look of the film sets the tone of intrigue [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

The astronaut farmer in The Astronaut Farmer is not only a real farmer but his name is too — Charles Farmer, played by Billy Bob Thornton in this heart-warming inspirational film about determination and pursuing your dreams. Usually such inspirationally themed stories are centered on sports feats as with Invincible or Rudy, but rather than the journey toward a championship, The Astronaut Farmer is about the dream of space exploration. Although, the film’s producer Len Amato notes that the film isn’t necessarily about space travel either, but is “a story about overcoming obstacles, it can apply to any accomplishment where there’s always a certain amount of doubt and a chorus of naysayers and you have to push through with you own vision to make something where there was nothing before.” The plot focuses on Charles Farmer and his obsession with making it into space. He had been an engineer and Air Force Pilot but was forced to retire from the NASA Astronaut training program so he could save his family farm after the passing of his father. Decades later now that he is a dad too, he still can’t give up his dream of space travel and employs his engineering skills and builds his own rocket ship. His wife (Virginia Madsen), and three charming children–two young girls and a 15-year-old boy eager to be his father’s “ground control” are all invested in Farmer’s dream too and believe he’ll launch his rocket and himself into space despite the financial costs and [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Tom Hanks has had an interesting career, not that I am an expert or even know all that much about it. However, if you look at the films that he has starred in, more often than not they are movies that are well worth your time. He is one of those actors that I find very hard not to like. Sure, there is the occasional film that he is not right for (I’m looking at you Da Vinci), but by and large they offer up great entertainment. He began in comedies, after cutting his teeth starring in the series Bosom Buddies, you remember, the one with the guy that no one seems to remember, before jumping to the big screen in Ron Howard’s hit Splash. That brings me to this collection from Universal, it contains three of Hanks’ comedies in one package on two disks. The Money Pit I cannot recall if I have ever seen this before. I remember commercials for it when I was a kid, but do not remember seeing it. It is a one note comedy that rests squarely on Hanks’ shoulders. When it comes to Hanks, this is a winner, everything else just sort of just there. Imagine, if you will, buying your first home. Not having much in the way of money, and needing to find a place quickly, you buy something of a fixer upper. A large country home, a suspiciously low price, and a seller wanted by Israeli Intelligence, yes sir, everything [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

During my formative years, well before I got heavily into film watching, I was quick to voice my dislike of period dramas and costume dramas. It was exactly the films like Band of Angels that I did not care for. It was nothing I could put my finger on, and there was no logical explanation other than I, for one reason or another, chose not to like them. My opinions were not limited to movies, but to music as well, for a long time I could not stand U2, never even having heard a single song. Well, time goes on and attitudes change. I am still not a big fan of this type of film, but I am more than willing to watch them and be won over if they happen to be good. This one falls somewhere in the middle. Band of Angels is set during the time leading up to the Civil War in the South. It is a melodramatic tale of love and relations in a turbulent time of our nations history. Is this a believable tale? No, not really. Is it one that held my attention? Well, sort of. Is it a film worth seeing? Yes. It is worth seeing, I mean, after all, it is one of Clark Gable’s final screen appearances, it features a charismatic young Sidney Poitier, and it centers on the lovely Yvonne De Carlo (who I primarily knew solely through The Munsters). De Carlo is Amantha Starr, a woman of culture [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Nostalgic in the worst of possible ways, The US vs. John Lennon is yet another entry in the ongoing series of films that would function better as Wikipedia entries. Nothing more than a glorified VH1 special—the fact that it enjoyed a theatrical run is downright stupid—it’s a tired highlight reel of all the big events of the American 1960′s (the Kent State massacre, the Democratic Convention in Chicago, etc.) set to the tune of John Lennon’s solo records. It’s another pitifully disingenuous depiction of the late ’60s/early ’70s, the kind that refers to that shallow fraud Abbie Hoffman as a “radical activist” and, by the way, doesn’t even acknowledge that G. Gordon Liddy, who holds a peculiarly prominent talking head position in the film, is a convicted felon. One way the filmmakers attempt to compensate for their own vacuity is by providing ostentatiously “artsy” backdrops for the interviewees, who were apparently interviewed in front of a green-screen; another is through gimmicky graphic effects. What am I, an idiot? An artfully edited collage of John Lennon interviews could have been interesting, even enlightening, but instead we’re offered a feature-length episode of “I Love the ’60s; John Lennon Edition”, with the insufferable Michael Ian Black replaced by the, well, insufferable Geraldo Rivera. You’d be better off Netflixing the John Lennon-Dick Cavett interviews, readership. The film’s ostensible purpose, to illuminate of Lennon’s political life, is pretty thin and primarily covers a surprisingly brief period of his life, the early seventies. Lennon, near the [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Ever since the success of Spellbound, which I found dull, it seems that indie documentary filmmakers can’t scramble fast enough to record other seemingly boring contests and attempt to imbue them with a weightier resonance than they actually possess. The DVD-era, in tandem with more democratic access to camera and editing equipment, is bringing on a series of non-fiction films that would really function better as Wikipedia entries: 2004 brought us Word Wars, about competitive Scrabble players, and 2006 brings us Word Play. I readily expect a movie about Sudoku to be released before I finish writing this article. Imagine the visual possibilities: people on subway cars, with newspapers and pens in hand… The first half of Word Play is interesting, at least for me as an amateur solver, as it delves into the history of crossword puzzles, the personalities of the people behind them (most prominently Will Shortz, editor of the Times puzzle), and parades a handful of celebrity solvers to offer insight. Taking only forty-five minutes to do this, however, the filmmakers needed another angle to pad out the film, and they found it in the Stamford Crossword Tournament, a competitive crossworld puzzle competition and the focus of the film’s second half. Hang onto your hats, readership. Watching people do crossword puzzles, even if you jazz it up with rock music, split screen and animation, is about as captivating as watching someone read a book. (Unless, of course, the person doing the solving is Jon Stewart or Bill [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Disappointed by the ubiquitous appearances of United 93 on many respectable critics’ best of 2006 lists, I reprint here my essay on the film: When United 93 was released it was, along with the subsequent World Trade Center, seen, as Frank Rich noted, as a referendum on whether or not America was prepared for “9-11 The Movie”. The problem for me, from a film critic’s standpoint, is why the general public or the media would feel that the events of September 11th necessitate a cinematic interpretation? The question is not whether it’s “too soon” to make a movie but why a movie should ever be made in the first place. American films based on actual events and/or persons, living or dead, have always possessed a conspicuous flaw: they feel fake, because the standard Hollywood narrative form is inherently artificial. All Hollywood movies are basically identical in terms of their storytelling style; of course there is wiggle-room for variations in complexity, but on a basic level they all follow the same framework, the three-act structure of set-up, conflict, and denouement. When attempting, however, to tell inspired stories (as opposed to invented stories) within this inhibiting structure, the intricacies of the original story are inevitably lost. Real-life people and situations are irreproducibly complex; condensing them into standard Hollywood forms yields invariably awkward results. (This explains why Made-for-TV movies are often so laughable, because they need to explain months of subtle change in one or two histrionic scenes.) Consider Ray (2004), the overrated [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

This week has lots of releases to like, and more than a couple to be curious about. As we gear up for the Academy Awards, we have two films that are nominated, and a new special edition for an 8 time Oscar winner. In addition to those, we have a couple of direct to DVD sequels, and a couple of recent films that could be of some interest. Read on and see what there is to see. This week’s pick is The Prestige. If you have not seen this movie, do so as soon as you can. It is a film that is filled with great acting, and is tightly scripted, keeping its secrets until it is time for their revelation. It is a movie that will leave you wanting more, and thinking about what had just unfolded before your eyes. It is also nominated for two Academy Awards. The Prestige was directed and co-written by Christopher Nolan. Nolan has delivered a great string of films, with not a croaker in the bunch. Ever since I first saw Memento I have been a fan, also enjoying Insomnia and his fantastic restart of the Batman mythos in Batman Begins. With The Prestige he continues his trend of creating these films which have a strong human element as well as a tight plot. This film centers on a career spanning rivalry, both professional and personal, between a couple of magicians. The magicians are played by Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman, with Michael [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Breach is a tightly scripted, well acted espionage thriller. It is such a joy to sit in a theater and watch a film that gets right down to business. Breach doesn’t get bogged down in side stories, on any superfluous subplots. It is a film that delivers plenty of details regarding the true life story, yet also folds in a layer of emotional depth to create a well rounded film that will slowly build the drama before reaching its inevitable conclusion. Breach is another film based on real world events. Now, whenever you see that “fact” tacked onto a film, you must be sure to take it with a grain of salt. While many stories from the realm of the real make great fodder for the cinema, there are inevitably going to be changes, compromises, and fictions made to accommodate the medium. So, knowing that much, I cannot say how true this is to the real events, as I am completely unaware of the case. Still, Breach is completely engrossing and has a wonderful sense of realism that would have me believe that this is completely accurate. Again, that is a something I know intellectually to be false, yet easily set aside as the filmmaking craft here is so involving. This is the story of Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent who was a traitor, selling intel to the Soviets over the span of 22 years, before finally being arrested in February of 2001. The film chronicles the final two months [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

A confectionery treat for the non-discerning fan of the romantic comedy. A film featuring leads that are so likable that you are likely to gloss over the lack of actual character, content to let the sappiness and generally agreeable tale wash over you like so much warm sunshine. A movie content to drift along on the cliches, confident enough in itself that it can do so and survive, leaving you to walk out of the theater with the feeling that you saw a nice movie, rather than the thought that you had seen this somewhere else before. Music and Lyrics is the perfectly agreeable date movie. It takes two of the most bankable romantic comedy stars, concocts a plot to put the two together, toss in a roadblock or two, perhaps some miscommunication, and voila, a Valentine’s Day movie is born. As you can see, it practically writes itself. While the story has that distinct “been there, done that” flow, and contains nothing that we haven’t seen these two in before, there is still a sweet nature to it, something that goes down easy. I found myself enjoying it, for some odd reason. The story centers on Alex Fletcher (Hugh Grant) and his relationship with Sophie Fisher (Drew Barrymore). Alex is an aging pop star, having been in a mega successfully 80′s act called Pop (think of Wham), relegated to playing state fairs, amusement parks, and getting asked to “Battle of the 80s Has Beens.” His bandmate left and became [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

When I first saw the trailer for Bridge to Terabithia, you could almost hear me grown. It isn’t that the movie appeared to be bad, it looked like a decent fantasy film, it is more that it looked like I had already seen it. The trailer made the movie look like The Chronicles of Narnia: Part 2. Considering, that I enjoyed, but was ultimately lukewarm to that feature, it did not bode well for this family fantasy feature. What I got was not so much a fantasy yarn with mythical creatures and sword play and magic, as it is a story of youth struggling to deal with harsh realities escaping into the realm of imagination. It offers up a lot of heart, touches on serious issues, and while leaving you with hope, doesn’t wrap everything up in a neat package. Jesse is a fifth grade outsider, a young artist who finds solace in a pencil. He is picked on rather mercilessly by bullies, and at home he struggles with his older sisters, and an overworked father. His young life is thrown for a loop when Leslie moves in next door, she too is an artist, a writer. Like Jesse, she is picked on for being different. The two are kindred spirits, and they soon find themselves escaping into an imaginary world where they can control what is happening, something they lack in the real world. It may be a story about struggling to deal with the real world, and have [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Comic book adaptations can be split into two categories. There are the ones that the studio pushes as big A list releases, like Spider-Man, X-Men, Hulk, Batman, and Superman, then there are the B-listers, which so far includes Daredevil, Elektra, and now Ghost Rider. This is not a reflection on perceived quality, or lack thereof, you can just tell by the release date and the marketing. Now, the funny thing is that Mark Steven Johnson has been involved in all three of those B-list films, writing Elektra, and writing and directing Daredevil, and now Ghost Rider. His track record is spotty at best, but there is always some level of entertainment involved. For my money, Ghost Rider is the best of the three, despite it still being rather seriously flawed. Ghost Rider is about a curse. Every so often, Mephistopholes will approach a troubled person, someone who would be willing to give anything in order to save someone, or some other noble cause. The price is merely a single soul, and in return the person will become something of a debt collector for Hell. The cursed will become the Ghost Rider when he is called upon, a fiery skeleton of vengeance, out doing the bidding of his master, or so the master would like to believe. You see, nothing always works out the way it should. At some point in the past, a Ghost Rider realized what the result would be if he collected a certain large debt, and decided [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Ghost Rider took the cineplex by force over the weekend, opening to the estimated tune of $44.5 million for the three day weekend. All this despite the lack of decent reviews. Following at a distant second, with approximately half the take of the top film, was the fantasy film Bridge to Terabithia. All this one a weekend that saw a large turnover in the top ten, with half of last week’s entrants making a hasty exit in the face of a full slate of new offerings. Although, there is one film that is hanging on tenaciously to the top ten, that is Night at the Museum, now in its ninth weekend. Mark Steven Johnson’s take on the fiery skulled comic hero was not screened for critics, which is generally a sign that the film is of lackluster quality, a sentiment most critics agreed with and most filmgoers chose to ignore. This is a fine example of the disconnect between what critics like and what the moviegoers at large wish to lay out the cash for. Granted,I liked the movie, but reading the reviews, and seeing the big bucks it raked in may show that critical thoughts mean little when it comes to event type movies which offer flash and bang, without that much depth. On the other hand, this week’s number two movie shows that the family movie can offer up a lot more, or a lot less depending on your view, than it is being sold as. The commercials [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Following last weeks selection of two new releases, this week brings with it a smattering of no less than five new wide releases. Of course, two of those opened on Wednesday, so they have a bit of a headstart. Among the other new films are a flaming biker, a traitorous FBI operative, and kids escaping into a fantasy. Who will come out on top? Which ones will be worth seeing? Sadly, I cannot tell you that, but read on and you can get some more information regarding. Breach. (2007, 110 minutes, PG-13, thriller, trailer) This is a thriller based on the true store of Robert Hanssen, a top level operative who was convicted of selling secrets to the Soviet Union. This story follows the young agent assigned to him in order to gain his trust, and hopefully evidence of his dirty dealings. Hanssen is played by Chris Cooper, and the young agent is Ryan Phillipe. This looks like it could be good, Cooper has turned in some fine performances and he looks good in this role. Bridge to Terabithia. (2007, 95 minutes, PG, fantasy, trailer) My impressions from the commercials is that I have seen this before, it was called Chronicles of Narnia. I have read that it is, in fact, quite a different story, so there is hope. I just cannot say that the commercials excite me. The story concerns a young boy who befriends the class outsider, and together they create an imaginary world where they rule and [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]

Here is a challenge for you, take a popular yet somewhat obscure comic book franchise and make a movie about it. Now, by obscure I do not mean Superman, Batman or Spiderman, those have already been done and are far from obscure. Now once you have this story in your midst, your goal will be to make a movie that is campy, unnecessarily clich© and drives die hard fans of the franchise nuts. Once you have done that, then you will be on your way to being Director Mark Steven Johnson, who has completed said task not once, not twice but now three times. In 2003 he directed Daredevil, which was a critical knockout, and not in a good way. Two years later he was the writer and executive producer for Elektra, which got hit by a huge critical bus. So now, after all of that, Mr. Steven Johnson has come back with Ghost Rider, and lets just say that what he lacks in his decision making, he does make up with some visual flair. The film stars Ghost Rider fanatic Nicholas Cage as Johnny Blaze, who as a young boy sells his soul to the devil (played by Peter Fonda, yes, that Peter Fonda) in order to cure his dad of cancer. Little does he know that the devil is a trickster who would kill his old man off anyway. Didn’t that kid read the New Testament? That devil is a sneaky bastard. Anyway, the now soulless Johnny is [Due to Content Scraping and Theft, we have been forced to try abbreviated feeds. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and woud very much appreciate you clicking through to view the full article on FilmSchoolRejects.com]