#2007films

Is Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer better, or worse than the first film? It doesn't matter. They're neither good nor truly awful, just in that sweet spot in the middle that makes them forgettable.

Set some time after the first film, Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffudd) and Sue Storm/The Invisible Woman (still played by Jessica Alba, still too hot for the role) are getting ready to tie the knot. Their nuptials are put on hold when an alien called "The Silver Surfer" (voiced by Laurence Fishburne) appears on Earth and causes havoc. His appearance foreshadows the arrival of the planet devouring Galactus. Reed, Sue, Johnny (Chris Evans), and Ben (Michael Chiklis) are forced to team up with Dr. Doom (Julian McMahon) to save the world.

In some ways, this sequel is an improvement. It’s more serious and has fewer scenes that force Jessica Alba to take off her clothes (though there's still one). The threat the FF has to confront is more interesting, the plot better developed, and the character dynamics are meatier. The climax - where we get to see the special effects go into overdrive - is pretty cool. Laurence Fishburne is great as the voice of the Silver Surfer. The best part of that first movie was the duo of the Human Torch (Evans) and The Thing (Chiklis) ribbing on each other. Same thing here. They get more screen time than anyone else, proving director Tim Story and writers Don Payne and Mark Frost paid attention to what was firing on all cylinders.

When the story isn't concerned with the Silver Surfer, it suffers. A large chunk of the running time is dedicated to annoying inner team squabbles. So much, you hardly feel like they're a team or family at all. They don’t trust each other, they get hung up on petty subjects, and with the wedding of Reed and Sue (more boring than romantic, unfortunately) the movie's 92 minutes often feel like padding.

Then, there are the villains. The first is Andre Braugher as General Hager. He’s the stubbornest, worst judge of character I’ve ever seen. I get that times are tough and that Dr. Doom is willing to help save the planet, but we haven't forgotten all of his cold-blooded murders! The extent to which Hager disapproves of everything Reed Richards does, and how willing he is to give Doom slack, it’s almost as bad as letting Norman Osborn run S.H.I.E.L.D. Almost.

Next, we have Dr. Doom. Once again, he’s totally flat. Evil for the sake of being evil, and with judgment so poor he's constantly at risk of getting himself killed. Just what we want in an ultimate nemesis, right?

Finally, we have the duo of the Silver Surfer and Galactus. I don’t know whose idea it was to alter the characters from the source material so drastically but a carnivorous cloud is no substitute for a giant purple world-eating pimp. Without giving too much away, the way these two take part in the big conflict at the end is not only ridiculous, it makes no sense. The post-credit sequence doesn’t do it any favors either. It’s just flat-out bad.

Like several of the mid-2000’s superhero films, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer frequently skirts the line between mediocre and bad. It’s watchable, but nothing to write home about and unmemorable. I could smell trouble from the get-go when we see Mr. Fantastic busting out some dance moves as his clothes inexplicably stretch just as much as his limbs do. I gave it a chance. When my review inexplicably vanished, I watched the whole thing AGAIN. Now, I'm done with these movies, and thank goodness for that. (Full-screen version on DVD, August 24, 2015)

Somehow, I keep getting dragged back to Ghost Rider. Why? The performances are bad, special effects dated, villains are boring and the story's a mess. Either it’s madness, or I’ve just seen this film too many times but its lack of quality is starting to grow on me.

Johnny Blaze (Nicholas Cage) is a stunt motorcycle driver who sold his soul to the devil. Now, he's "The Rider"; charged with running errands for Satan (Peter Fonda). To accomplish this, Johnny transforms into a flaming skeleton and turns sinner's trespasses against them. The adventure begins when Johnny is tasked with taking down the Devil’s own son, Blackheart (Wes Bentley). At the same time, Johnny's old flame, Roxanne (Eva Mendes) shows up, ready to win over Blaze's heart and be kidnapped for climactic convenience.

If one actor is bad, it’s their fault. If two are bad, they needed to rehearse some more. When EVERYONE (or in this case, EVERYTHING) is bad, the director's to blame. This story feels like it was written in a day, with no second opinions or revisions. Stuff just happens without logic or explanations and characters’ powers are loosely established so we can conveniently move from one nonsensical event to the next. I'll forgive Johnny for selling his soul to the Devil. Otherwise, you've got no plot. But Why does Mephistopheles/Satan need the Rider if he can just kill people with effort or consequences?

When it comes to the villains, there’s no other word for it. They suck. The principal adversaries that Ghost Rider faces are Blackheart, basically Edward Cullen with vaguely established demonic powers (“All of my father’s powers, and none of his weaknesses” because originality has no place in this screenplay) and three bozos who would be more threatening if they wore Halloween costumes. None of these Nephilim lasts more than 30 seconds against the Rider. How can there be any tension when one of their most powerful moves is driving a truck and attempting to run over our hero?

Continuing the chain of weak links are the protagonists. The only thing that gives Johnny Blaze any kind of personality is Nicolas Cage's performance. He's a stunt driver but the aspects attributed to this profession, like being reckless and a thrill-seeker disappear entirely when he becomes the Ghost Rider for the first time and then never return. Paired up with him is Sam Mendez as the love interest. Her character is just there to be kidnapped and to have the typical “superhero identity clashing with civilian life” stuff that works in superhero stories who feature actual characters but not so much when your hero’s dialogue is entirely composed of puns and one-liners. I will give her some credit though. First of all, she has the funniest scene in the movie and, thanks to the costume designer spends nearly the entire film with her shirt in various states of openness. She has a great rack.

This movie is awful, but also entertaining. The performances and dialogue are consistently laughable, the weak villains are easy fodder for comedy (I particularly liked “Wet Willie”. He looks like a mix between a Jamaican rapper and the whitest vampire you’ve ever seen). Ghost Rider inherently lends himself to bad puns and ridicule.  Keep an eye out for Rebel Wilson in a small role. She’s not good - in fact, I’d call her part embarrassing but everyone, from Sam Elliot to Nicolas Cage’s overacting to Eva Mendez’s cleavage are cringe-inducing.

It's a paint-by-numbers superhero origin story. Not the worst out there but without Nicolas Cage hamming it up, hoo boy. This would be a chore to get sit through. As a flick you can riff on, however, Ghost Rider can be a lot of fun. (On Blu-ray, March 12, 2015)

Have you been itching to see a deceptive, manipulative, badly acted, poorly written film about a teenage girl getting tortured and gang-raped that lacks a satisfying conclusion? If you pop Jack Ketchum's The Girl Next Door into your machine, that's what you're asking for. Who watches movies to be entertained, right?

The plot (told in flashback) begins in 1958 when teenage Meg (Blythe Auffarth), and her crippled sister Susan (Madeline Taylor) have been orphaned by a car crash and now live with their psychotic aunt. As Meg's only friend (Daniel Manche) watches powerlessly, Aunt Ruth (Blanche Baker) entices the neighborhood boys into physically, mentally, and sexually torturing Megan.

Years ago, I had started this film and turned it off in disgust. It haunted me ever since. Having finished it now gives me no satisfaction. I must grant the picture certain points. Its objective (exploitative as it may be) is to generate outrage within the viewer. This story is inspired by true events. If you didn't know who Sylvia Likens was before this film, you will afterward, as the story compels you to dig deeper into what happened in real life. It succeeds... but so what?

If you're going to springboard someone's real-life suffering into a movie, you better have a good reason. Otherwise, you’re just a cheap, manipulative sleaze. Of course, I was moved by the story, but who wouldn't be? What does this movie do that a newspaper article about the real case couldn't?

Maybe your skin is so thick you're not worried about the nearly-traumatic impact this story will have upon you. Even then, the movie is not particularly well made. Blanche Baker is terrific as the villain. You hate and believe her character - one-dimensionally evil as she may be. The child actors are not up to this material. They can’t sell the dialogue they've been given and multiple times, the camera fades to black as a character is about to cry because there's no way director Gregory M. Wilson could've gotten them to deliver the waterworks. The dialogue is uniformly stilted, though more experienced actors might've been able to make it sound more natural.

The Girl Next Door raises many strong emotions. Unfortunately, its bleak and extremely violent story proves to be its biggest strength... until they eventually undo any potential it might've had. You power through the lackluster performances just to see what's coming next but in the end, what are you left with? What do you learn about yourself? About people? Not much. It isn't even a matter of whether you're thick-skinned or not. No one could see this film and emerge untouched but I can't imagine anyone sitting through it and leaving satisfied or enthusiastic. Who would YOU recommend The Girl Next Door to? I can't think of anyone. (On DVD, February 25, 2015)

I would rather cure a constipated elephant with my bare hands - without gloves - than watch Curse of the Zodiac again. Think I’m being hyperbolic? Everyone understands what an elephant is. Everyone knows how unpleasant of an experience it would be to reach inside its butt and fiddle around until the feces run freely. No one can truly understand what an overbearing, depressing, blood-boiling and draining experience watching this movie is. When the credits on this abomination finished rolling, I desired nothing more than to track down the director, the people who green-lit this project and the studio executives who thought it was good enough to release so I could strangle them with their own intestines. This is the worst movie I've ever seen.

You’re wondering what this movie from hack director Ulli Lommel is about. You’re out of luck because there's no plot. Things happen during the 81-minute running time, but that doesn't mean there's a story. We have three characters. The first is the titular Zodiac killer (Jack Quinn). He kills women and narrates the movie. If there’s anything resembling a protagonist, it’s a 20-something woman who has visions of the “Z-Man” as he stalks and murders women. These two randomly interact with a reporter, who does little but answer the phone and look disturbed as Zodiac taunts him.

There isn’t a single thing that is good, or even decent about Curse of the Zodiac. NOTHING. The acting redefines the word atrocious. Characters flub their lines, miss cues, and are never convincing even when lying dead. It appears as though there were no second takes, ever. If you can read this sentence and say it out loud, you could've been cast in this film. The dialogue is some of the most dreadful ever committed to the page. We get such linguistic vomit as “Don’t look at the gun I show in your ass” and “Playing piano is like life. You make mistakes in life.” If this weren't bad enough, there is an extreme overabundance and over-reliance on foul language. Goodfellas is notorious for having about 300 uses of “fuck” and its derivatives. It lasts 146 minutes so we have about two a minute. I counted the uses of any 3, 4 and 11-letter swears, along with everything in between and I got a whopping 147, including 45 instances of “fat fuck” (the nickname Zodiac gives to the reporter). Goodfellas still wins but this movie gets pretty close. It’s an astonishingly lazily written script, delivered by a bunch of robots masquerading as human actors and there’s not even a story to keep you entertained.

Not only is this movie less frightening or unsettling than the worst episode of Goosebumps you’ve ever seen, but it’s also boring. There's nothing to look forward to except the end of the end credits or your death, whichever comes first. I can’t even fathom someone making a movie this painful unintentionally. It uses stock screams when women are being murdered, has bad grammar in the screens of text, has sequences where the sound cuts in and out and gore that looks about as convincing as strawberry jam drizzled onto a CPR torso. Don’t even get me started on the editing and “special effects”. The camera shakes uncontrollably and images are constantly being mirrored, flipped upside down, tinted or otherwise modified through filters. It’s as if editor Bertrand Paré (which I assume is either a pseudonym of Lommel's or someone determined to destroy his career) decided to use every single editing tool in the free software they had.

This movie isn’t only infuriating, it's disheartening. The only reason Curse of the Zodiac is available to watch is because Lommel has connections with Lionsgate. Someone saw this and thought “It’s about as appealing as a bucket of crawling centipedes, but we’ll make money off of it if we give it a semi-decent DVD cover”. This knowledge is enough to make me want to go on an ax-wielding rampage. If you’re associated with the production and release, watch your back, I’m coming for you. (On DVD, January 28, 2015)