Why I gave this two out of ten....

Rating: 2/10 (9 March 2007)

I'm afraid there's not much intelligent to be said about this film. May I begin with addressing some critics who believe that this film's plot is thin. I disagree outright; the plot is not thin, it is non-existent. I have no further commentary on the issue; to me, the plot was about as discernible as the producer's reasons for releasing the film at all. I reserve criticisms of the plot to those who want to waste their time noting the film's infinite number of failings in that area. I don't.
Also, the punchlines and one-liners that litter this movie are not just hackneyed, not just boring, not just mediocre, and not just outright predictable - they are poorly executed as well. If you're going to throw in a cheesy one-liner comeback (this film is guilty of all too many instances of this), at least execute it fashionably or be original in one way or another. There is no attempt to be original here; quite the contrary, it appears as though this film sets out to cherry-pick the weakest and most predictable one-liners from the cesspool of hero-villain Motion Pictures and then attempt the seemingly impossible: make them worse. All else aside, this film deserves credit just for pulling off this feat.
Again I must disagree with critics: Ghost Rider is actually funny. I personally cried from a fit of laughter when the "Ghost Rider"'s skull was set on fire, no seriously, this was so ridiculous it was funny. Sure it was in the comic and whatever, but give me a break - at least make the damn thing scary, not some flame-headed clown to be laughed at! The dark guy (I don't even remember his name, that's how forgettable the characters in this film are) also offers some comic relief with his gross overacting, thoroughly deserving of a part in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. No really, we get it, he's evil - cut the snake voice, satanic laugher and dark glances every two seconds, it's beyond a joke.
So what about the screenplay and acting? Well, to be fair, from Nicholas Cage through to Eva Mendes, the performances were not disappointing. They were far beyond that; in fact, disappointing would be a compliment. No more sugarcoating: from Mendes' fake breasts, female cliché (even that was poorly executed!) and forced dialog to Cage's botox-ed face, perpetually half-asleep daze and, of course, misfitted role, the acting just plain sucked.
To rub salt into the wounds, the soundtrack was like being hit by a train, and not in a good, Metallica kind of way, just a downright, pure and simple shredding of the eardrum, pounding of the skull, I-want-to-leave-the-cinema kind of way. Guitar riffs, fifty-decibel-too-loud orchestral pieces mixed with shrieks of the undead really aren't a good mix, trust me on this one.
So why did I give this film two stars when it deserved none? One for the special effects. The other for sheer astonishment - for the fact that, despite the director's blatant incapacity to make a film worth watching, a generous budget was nevertheless acquired for its production. This film should go down in history just for that awesome piece of cajoling on whoever's part it was. Amazing con-artistry. Kudos.
Otherwise, this is honestly the worst movie ever made.