gurochuck

I saw a sneak preview of this movie w/ somewhat 'curious' expectations. This is mainly because of the style of 'Crank' directors Neveldine/Taylor. Being a fan of the Ghost Rider comic book, I was a bit disappointed in the original film as I found it a bit flat. However I gave it a bit of a pass because I knew that 'Daredevil' director Mark Steven Johnson's style was simply not suited for this type of subject matter. So whenever I watch that installment I can't help but feel a bit torn because although I didn't care for GR1 overall, I have to admit that there were aspects of it that I can appreciate.

But after watching GR: Spirit of Vengeance I was very refreshed and impressed. They gave it more of a 'cult film' feel which I thought was PERFECT for this project. Neveldine/Taylor seem to never be scared to take risks w/ going outside the box of contemporary filmmaking and GR:SOV is a true testament of that. Since I can relate this feeling w/ the one I got when I first saw Lexi Alexander's "Punisher: War Zone" I strongly anticipate that this film is gonna take a beating from the masses. But I don't care because IMHO, the mainstream nowadays apparently have no idea of original thought and much of their opinions are spoon-fed to them by corporate media.

Also what helped make this work is the performance of all the actors, ESPECIALLY NIC CAGE! I admit I had my doubts about him reprising the Johnny Blaze character but it's quite evident he was in tune w/ the directors' vision. SOV (like PWZ) is clearly a 'love-it-or-hate-it' movie which works for me because since movies like this don't rack up at the box office and tend to be viewed as commercial flops, they come out on home releases pretty quick at very reasonable prices (w/ extras to boot). IMO this film will make most of its money on DVD/blue-ray sales.

Not wanting to spoil it for anybody, all I can say is if you go see GR:SOV, "try" to have an open mind. Otherwise you might just be setting yourself up to be disappointed w/ no fault being that of the movie. The only reason I didn't give this a higher rating is because I thought it was a bit short (1:36) and I admit I'm a bit torn because perhaps it may have been best not to draw it out.

Chalk up another 'underground hit' for Marvel Knights!!!

Here it is 2011 and I'm STILL lovin' this movie! As a matter of fact up until I looked over my IMDb history, I thought I had already reviewed it but much to my surprise I haven't. I guess that will make this review that much more better as it will be one of the more current ones.

This is one of those "you-either-get-it-or-you-don't" movies made to appeal to the egos and fantasies of the rugged alpha male. You get that sense at the opening credits as Mickey Rourke's intro scene during the opening credits makes you want to go out and ride a chopped up steel horse. It's the ultimate escape, at least for men! It's laced w/ moral fiber in that it's all about being down-and-out and still managing to drum up the where-with-all to help your fellow man. IMHO I think this movie's setbacks are through no fault of any of its creators or participants. Looking at many of the cynical reviews of movie-goers and critics of its time, it was clearly ahead of its own genre. And although many might find the title as well as some of the names of the characters to be cheesy (Virginia Slim, Jack Daniels, etc), I admire that they took the risk to acknowledge the outlaw, anti-hero biker image through images of Americana. I also read somewhere (probably on this site) that Rourke did this movie out of desperation which doesn't help a new viewer go in w/ a favorable attitude. Hopefully Mickey can look back and appreciate this piece of work like much of us do. I've still yet to see Butch & Sundance but now I'm inspired to check out Redford and Newman's piece even if it's just for the similarities that many reviewers have suggested.

I guess it comes down to the fact that this is much like anything else in that it isn't for everybody. Perhaps the audience it was intended for has dwindled substantially (if it's ever really been out there). But if that's so, we can always take comfort in knowing that we have something we can truly appreciate w/o having to be fashionable.

Seems like everyone has their own perception of what a "good movie" is and even furthermore what a "good time" is. The Expendables IMO has succeeded in many aspects of molding the two together.

I went to see this movie twice already and both times I've walked out feeling fulfilled. Perhaps it might be because I knew how to approach it.

The first time, I admit I felt a bit of conflicted angst mainly because I didn't know how Stallone can almost single-handedly create a decent product w/ all of that established star power. Too many times I've seen movies w/ big ensemble casts fall flat simply because there simply isn't enough space and time to get the most out of each performer. This movie has every right to be a big "abortion" mainly because Stallone runs the risk of having chemistry issues among a diverse cast of action stars from different generations nonetheless. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that he managed to pull it off! Was it as good as the first two X-Men movies? No, but Bryan Singer only had the one director role to play in that franchise while Stallone has to don several hats (writer, director, star, etc). I can only recall one other time I've seen anyone come close and that was Eddie Murphy's "Harlem Nights" project which IMO was mediocre at best. To me, the Expendables was a display of many multi-faceted stars w/ one common goal to produce an entertaining piece of film and that I can fully appreciate.

I guess the second time I went to see it was to ingest each actor's character contribution and to get a better appreciation of the actual story and once again I was not disappointed. Although this is a "man's movie" there's quite a bit of substantial entertainment to be had by all types of viewers. I guess my own biased criticisms is that there was not more involvement by Bruce Willis' "Mr. Church" character but that's cool because the path may have been laid out for that in the announced sequel(s)which many people have seemingly forgotten about or chose to ignore. I also really enjoyed seeing the more philosophical side of Mickey Rourke's performance in his portrayal of "Tool". I'm not going to give an individual synopsis as I've taken up too much space as it is but I'll just summarize by saying that everyone played their parts to the hilt w/ not much more to be desired.

I just have to laugh at the harsh criticisms and at times almost feel sorry for the cynics who seemingly don't know what to look for in these types of films.