list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around An Unreasonable Man on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/An_Unreasonable_Man/273885/default.aspx Title: An Unreasonable Man
Year: 2007
Director: Henriette Mantel, Stephen Skrovan
Plot: The life and career of one of America's most tenacious consumer advocates and political activists is brought to the screen in this richly detailed documentary. Born in a small town in Connecticut, Ralph Nader was raised to believe the words of his father that "you can fight city hall," and Nader made a nationwide reputation for his willingness to take on the wealthy and powerful. After receiving a degree from Harvard Law School, Nader first became a household name in 1965 with his book Unsafe at Any Speed, in which he detailed the auto industry's willingness to sacrifice safety in the name of greater profits. The book so outraged General Motors that they hired investigators to dig up dirt on Nader and make trouble for him; the plan backfired when Nader sued for invasion of privacy and walked away with a 425,000-dollar settlement that he used to set up an activist group to investigate both public servants and private commerce and how they live up to their responsibilities. However, Nader's long career as a incorruptible watchdog was tarnished in 2004 when Nader ran for president in a campaign that attracted a great deal of attention for a third party candidate -- and was blamed by many Democrats for drawing enough votes away from Al Gore to allow George W. Bush to walk away with an extremely narrow victory. An Unreasonable Man was directed by Henriette Mantel and Stephen Skrovan, the former of whom worked as a member of Nader's staff in the '70s. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:30:11 GMTAn Unreasonable Man2007Henriette Mantel, Stephen SkrovanThe life and career of one of America's most tenacious consumer advocates and political activists is brought to the screen in this richly detailed documentary. Born in a small town in Connecticut, Ralph Nader was raised to believe the words of his father that "you <i>can</i> fight city hall," and Nader made a nationwide reputation for his willingness to take on the wealthy and powerful. After receiving a degree from Harvard Law School, Nader first became a household name in 1965 with his book Unsafe at Any Speed, in which he detailed the auto industry's willingness to sacrifice safety in the name of greater profits. The book so outraged General Motors that they hired investigators to dig up dirt on Nader and make trouble for him; the plan backfired when Nader sued for invasion of privacy and walked away with a 425,000-dollar settlement that he used to set up an activist group to investigate both public servants and private commerce and how they live up to their responsibilities. However, Nader's long career as a incorruptible watchdog was tarnished in 2004 when Nader ran for president in a campaign that attracted a great deal of attention for a third party candidate -- and was blamed by many Democrats for drawing enough votes away from Al Gore to allow George W. Bush to walk away with an extremely narrow victory. An Unreasonable Man was directed by <a href="/players/P___196906/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Henriette Mantel</a> and Stephen Skrovan, the former of whom worked as a member of Nader's staff in the '70s. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide1Slightly Tagged (1-5)343http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s273885.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/An_Unreasonable_Man/273885/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28681.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 4:20:30 PM
Body: So is Ralph Nader really an unreasonable man? Few prominent Americans have gone from respect to the gutter as fast as the famed consumer advocate without a major crime or sex scandal. A liberal hero throughout most of his adult life, in November 2000 he became one of the most hated of all public figures by Democrats when his Green Party presidential campaign cost Al Gore the election. It is hard to overestimate just how much Democrats despise Nader, even though most admit that they support many of his policy positions. One of my fellow liberals told me unironically that she hopes he "burns in hell". One of the benefits of this documentary is that it is not a standard rise and fall of an American icon, nor a cloying piece of agitprop. Most of the first hour is spent on Nader's achievements in the 60's and 70's, and if the film praises them, well, they deserve to be praised. After a former classmate was paralyzed by a car accident, Nader began to small grassroots campaign (mostly on his own) to petition the government to regulate the auto industry. Nothing much happened until it was revealed in a Senate hearing that he was being harassed by General Motors, which gave his effort legitimacy and ultimately success. The film quotes a study that says that Nader's safety requirements saved about 190,000 lives over a twenty five year period. The consumer advocate spent most of the 70's working (often successfully) on other issues, including food and water safety, as well air pollution. Although he lost momentum in the Reagan revolution, he never stopped fighting and one some occasional victories, mostly on the local level. At this point, Nader looks like a saint. The apparently asexual man never married and had no children, claiming that his advocacy is his life. A biographer in the movie claims that he dug and dug, and found no evidence that Nader had any sort of romantic relationship with anyone. Nader turned down repeated bribes from corporations as well as a chance for the Vice-Presidency on the 1972 Democratic ticket. The movie says that before 2000, his name was virtually synonymous with integrity. And then the 2000 controversy starts. Was Nader correct that the differences between Gore and Bush were so small that they were insignificant? Of course not. Although he is correct in stating that big business has far too big a sway over both parties, it is ridiculous to think the current Iraq situation would have existed under a Gore administration. And although his supporters are correct in saying that Nader was of course not the only factor in Bush's victory (Gore's overly calculated and impersonal campaign hurt far more than anything a third party candidate ever could) the facts are clear. In Florida, Nader received 90,000 votes, and Gore lost the state by only 537. It inconceivable to think that, had Nader withdrawn from the campaign, all of his voters would have stayed home or voted for Bush by a margin greater than 537. Regardless, of what he or his supporters say, Ralph Nader swung the election to George W. Bush. The directors interview a large number of people when it comes to this issue, and all feel passionately about it. Nader's supporters say (correctly) that he did not set out to put a Republican in office, and really did not care much who won. His detractors argue that his intentions don't make any difference, as the effects of his action were catastrophic, and his run irresponsible at best an delusional at worst. It is also interesting to note, how many prominent liberals (Michael Moore most notably) who had argued Nader's "not a dime worth of difference" repeatedly in 2000 changed their tune by 2004, when they realized just how bad a Republican worse then Reagan can be. When Nader ran that year, the insults flew, and they were vicious, and I think appropratley so. Ralph Nader has undoubtedly done many great things, but whatever caused the 2000 candidacy (arrogance? naiveté?) cost more than anything that might be gained by his political statement. I wonder which ultimately be greater- the 190,000 lives he saved through the auto regulation, or the amount of people who will have died in Iraq, Katrina and maybe Iran. An Unreasonable Man (2005)
]]>Mon, 12 May 2008 20:20:30 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 4:20:30 PMSo is Ralph Nader really an unreasonable man? Few prominent Americans have gone from respect to the gutter as fast as the famed consumer advocate without a major crime or sex scandal. A liberal hero throughout most of his adult life, in November 2000 he became one of the most hated of all public figures by Democrats when his Green Party presidential campaign cost Al Gore the election. It is hard to overestimate just how much Democrats despise Nader, even though most admit that they support many of his policy positions. One of my fellow liberals told me unironically that she hopes he "burns in hell". One of the benefits of this documentary is that it is not a standard rise and fall of an American icon, nor a cloying piece of agitprop. Most of the first hour is spent on Nader's achievements in the 60's and 70's, and if the film praises them, well, they deserve to be praised. After a former classmate was paralyzed by a car accident, Nader began to small grassroots campaign (mostly on his own) to petition the government to regulate the auto industry. Nothing much happened until it was revealed in a Senate hearing that he was being harassed by General Motors, which gave his effort legitimacy and ultimately success. The film quotes a study that says that Nader's safety requirements saved about 190,000 lives over a twenty five year period. The consumer advocate spent most of the 70's working (often successfully) on other issues, including food and water safety, as well air pollution. Although he lost momentum in the Reagan revolution, he never stopped fighting and one some occasional victories, mostly on the local level. At this point, Nader looks like a saint. The apparently asexual man never married and had no children, claiming that his advocacy is his life. A biographer in the movie claims that he dug and dug, and found no evidence that Nader had any sort of romantic relationship with anyone. Nader turned down repeated bribes from corporations as well as a chance for the Vice-Presidency on the 1972 Democratic ticket. The movie says that before 2000, his name was virtually synonymous with integrity. And then the 2000 controversy starts. Was Nader correct that the differences between Gore and Bush were so small that they were insignificant? Of course not. Although he is correct in stating that big business has far too big a sway over both parties, it is ridiculous to think the current Iraq situation would have existed under a Gore administration. And although his supporters are correct in saying that Nader was of course not the only factor in Bush's victory (Gore's overly calculated and impersonal campaign hurt far more than anything a third party candidate ever could) the facts are clear. In Florida, Nader received 90,000 votes, and Gore lost the state by only 537. It inconceivable to think that, had Nader withdrawn from the campaign, all of his voters would have stayed home or voted for Bush by a margin greater than 537. Regardless, of what he or his supporters say, Ralph Nader swung the election to George W. Bush. The directors interview a large number of people when it comes to this issue, and all feel passionately about it. Nader's supporters say (correctly) that he did not set out to put a Republican in office, and really did not care much who won. His detractors argue that his intentions don't make any difference, as the effects of his action were catastrophic, and his run irresponsible at best an delusional at worst. It is also interesting to note, how many prominent liberals (Michael Moore most notably) who had argued Nader's "not a dime worth of difference" repeatedly in 2000 changed their tune by 2004, when they realized just how bad a Republican worse then Reagan can be. When Nader ran that year, the insults flew, and they were vicious, and I think appropratley so. Ralph Nader has undoubtedly done many great things, but whatever caused the 2000 candidacy (arrogance? naivet&eacute;?) cost more than anything that might be gained by his political statement. I wonder which ultimately be greater- the 190,000 lives he saved through the auto regulation, or the amount of people who will have died in Iraq, Katrina and maybe Iran. An Unreasonable Man (2005) http://www.spout.com/blogs/chesterfilms/archive/2007/10/11/20728.aspx Post By: chesterfilms
Post To: chesterfilms Blog
Post Date: 10/11/2007 11:31:21 PM
Body: It was interesting. I did not know much about him, but as many documentaries go, it's almost impossible to see the truth.
]]>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:31:21 GMTchesterfilmschesterfilms Blog10/11/2007 11:31:21 PMIt was interesting. I did not know much about him, but as many documentaries go, it&#39;s almost impossible to see the truth. http://www.spout.com/blogs/analogzombie/archive/2007/8/3/17219.aspx Post By: analogzombie
Post To: analogzombie Blog
Post Date: 8/3/2007 6:51:00 PM
Body: I’ve always found the idea that Ralph Nader cost the Democrats the white house in 2000 to be especially repugnant and naïve. If the Democratic Party couldn’t muster a solid win against George W Bush it can only blame itself. At the risk of beginning a long and troubled rant on modern politics I’ll turn my attention to the film that endeavors to shed light on one of the most influential Americans of the last half century. From his work as a pioneering consumer advocate for automobile safety to his push for a political reawakening, An Unreasonable Man uses stock footage, new interviews, and classic Nader quips to create a compelling and informative documentary akin to Errol Morris’ The Fog of War. The film tries very hard to follow the structure of Morris’ best work, but it throws so many talking heads at you that it soon begins to blur. The overly dramatic music doesn’t help either. At times the music dominates interviews and overwhelms some very interesting pieces of information, coloring them so heavily that any subtlety is lost. The effect is that the viewer is not invited to draw their own conclusions. With cheesy animation and unrelenting voiceover the film jumps from point to point ramming them home without a moment for seriousness of topics to settle in. Structuring anomalies aside, An Unreasonable Man features interviews with Nader and some of the best political minds alive. What emerges is a portrait of a man with a clear moral center, and the determination to hold others accountable. As the decades and personal crusades tick by, Nader’s image grows with his ego. Rightly so, many would say, because he has been instrumental in helping to organize generations of environmentally conscious voters.Today Ralph Nader is remembered as an electoral curio that some hold responsible for everything from Bush’s win to the war in Iraq. This film illuminates the past of a man who fought for automobile safety, worked to reform the Federal Trade Commission, and became our greatest consumer advocate. An Unreasonable Man does an excellent job as a biographic documentary. While it isn’t as engaging as some of the best films in this genre, it is nonetheless fascinating. Its power to enthrall comes entirely from the life of its subject.
]]>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:51:00 GMTanalogzombieanalogzombie Blog8/3/2007 6:51:00 PMI&rsquo;ve always found the idea that Ralph Nader cost the Democrats the white house in 2000 to be especially repugnant and na&iuml;ve. If the Democratic Party couldn&rsquo;t muster a solid win against George W Bush it can only blame itself. At the risk of beginning a long and troubled rant on modern politics I&rsquo;ll turn my attention to the film that endeavors to shed light on one of the most influential Americans of the last half century. From his work as a pioneering consumer advocate for automobile safety to his push for a political reawakening, An Unreasonable Man uses stock footage, new interviews, and classic Nader quips to create a compelling and informative documentary akin to Errol Morris&rsquo; The Fog of War. The film tries very hard to follow the structure of Morris&rsquo; best work, but it throws so many talking heads at you that it soon begins to blur. The overly dramatic music doesn&rsquo;t help either. At times the music dominates interviews and overwhelms some very interesting pieces of information, coloring them so heavily that any subtlety is lost. The effect is that the viewer is not invited to draw their own conclusions. With cheesy animation and unrelenting voiceover the film jumps from point to point ramming them home without a moment for seriousness of topics to settle in. Structuring anomalies aside, An Unreasonable Man features interviews with Nader and some of the best political minds alive. What emerges is a portrait of a man with a clear moral center, and the determination to hold others accountable. As the decades and personal crusades tick by, Nader&rsquo;s image grows with his ego. Rightly so, many would say, because he has been instrumental in helping to organize generations of environmentally conscious voters.Today Ralph Nader is remembered as an electoral curio that some hold responsible for everything from Bush&rsquo;s win to the war in Iraq. This film illuminates the past of a man who fought for automobile safety, worked to reform the Federal Trade Commission, and became our greatest consumer advocate. An Unreasonable Man does an excellent job as a biographic documentary. While it isn&rsquo;t as engaging as some of the best films in this genre, it is nonetheless fascinating. Its power to enthrall comes entirely from the life of its subject. http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebabe/archive/2007/7/25/16174.aspx Post By: MovieBabe
Post To: MovieBabe Blog
Post Date: 7/25/2007 4:21:00 PM
Body: By Tricia Olszewski A flaming skull that talks isn’t quite as ridiculous as it sounds. At least you won’t think so watching Ghost Rider, as long as you keep a few things in mind. First, it’s about a fire-friendly crusader who fights evil on his motorcycle. Second, it was written and directed by Mark Steven Johnson, the filmmaker responsible for the much-maligned Daredevil. Lastly, Oscar bait—or even People’s Choice bait—tends not to come out in February. Nicolas Cage plays Johnny Blaze, a stunt cyclist who becomes “the devil’s bounty hunter” years after selling his soul to Mephistopheles (Peter Fonda) in exchange for the health of his cancer-ridden father. When the deal goes sour, a disconsolate Johnny (Blaze the Younger is played by Matt Long) bails on a plan to run away with his girlfriend, Roxanne (Raquel Alessi). From then on he’s determined to live as an eccentric loner devoted only to performing increasingly dangerous feats. Much to the astonishment of fans and his manager (Donal Logue), Johnny not only pulls off most of them but comes out without a scratch even when he doesn’t. This attracts the attention of the local media, including very grown-up anchor Roxanne (Eva Mendes). Johnny finds that it’s difficult to have much of a personal life, though, once his skeleton starts exposing itself and catching fire night after night. Only fans of the comic book on which the movie is based will presumably be able to connect the dots when Satan comes calling at the peak of Johnny’s career. The devil needs a favor involving his estranged son, Blackheart (Wes Bentley), and a particular soul’s “contract” that Blackie is trying to get his hands on. So he equips Johnny with a wicked supernatural hog and makes him transform into a fiery fiend when the sun goes down. That’s all fine, but then Johnny–as–Ghost Rider reflexively begins to fight crime, killing evildoers by taking their victims’ collective suffering and mirroring it back to the bad guys. Which can’t be what the Dark Lord wants, can it, Mr. Johnson? If there’s an explanation for this apparent contradiction, the audience isn’t getting one. But it’s easy enough to let this head-scratcher slide. After all, we’re not exactly dealing with high-mindedness: There’s no I’m-OK-you’re-OK message, as in X-Men, and there’s no heavy undercurrent of angst, as in Spider-Man or Batman. Ghost Rider is about outrageous battles featuring a dude who’s engulfed in flames, and Johnson delivers the story with an entertaining mix of goofiness, mild frights, and cheese. The look of the movie is all skulls-and-spirits, with dark cinematography and quick flashes of ghostliness—say, a bit of bone showing through a face—when the immortal gets pissed off. Bad puns, scene-chewing, and Mendes’ continually straining shirts are over-the-top fun; the eyelinered Blackheart and his dumb-looking, ambiguously powered minions, Drippy, Frowny, and Dusty, are over-the-top laughable. Everybody wins. What makes Ghost Rider especially worthwhile, though, is Cage. Reportedly a fan of the character and also a contributor to the script, Cage brings all his Elvis-wannabe coolness (along with a hairpiece) to the role, projecting mellow self-confidence whether Johnny is stumbling away from a stunt or telling his manager not to mess with the Carpenters soundtrack in his apartment. (He’s also partial to monkeys and eating candies out of a martini glass.) Cage’s delivery is more dry than menacing—“Thanks for the info. I feel much better knowing I’m the devil’s bounty hunter,” Johnny tells Sam Elliott’s weird grave-keeper after being clued into what’s happening to him. It’s an appropriate hint that the whole thing should be taken with a grain of salt—particularly the speech-heavy, bwa-ha-ha ending, which is admittedly the worst kernel of corn in the movie. But most viewers are probably waiting for a bit of flat-out badness all along—as well as a setup for the sequel. Ralph Nader has recently been accused of acting out of questionable motivations as well: Is he still just an advocate for the people or something darker? Comparing him to Satan would be a stretch, but there’s definitely a strong ego at play here, according to An Unreasonable Man, a compelling documentary about Nader’s career by first-time directors Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan. The film opens with the biting comments of detractors who blame him for the Democrats’ losses in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. James Carville says that he has no greater contempt for anyone besides Jerry Falwell. Jimmy Carter announces that Nader needs to “go back to examining the rear ends of automobiles.” A Nation columnist remarks, “Thank you, Ralph, for the Iraq war.” A machine-gun list of other unpopular issues spearheaded by George W. Bush follows. The Nader haters’ thinking, of course—and these few are just drops in the liberal ocean—is that by running for president as a third-party candidate, Nader took votes away from Al Gore and John Kerry in races that were close enough to warrant hand counts and accusations of cronyism. At this early point in the movie, no more data are given: Nader’s responsibility for the current state of the country, the filmmakers seem to be saying, is as obvious as the fact that he was never going to win. But then Mantel and Skrovan change the emotional climate. Using archival footage and a running commentary by people close to Nader, the directors go back to the beginning of the attorney-activist’s public career. Carter’s quip references Nader’s first cause, the unsafe design of cars (or “psychosexual dreamboats,” as Nader refers to them here). Prompted by an accident that left a friend of his a paraplegic, Nader wrote an article about the issue in the Nation followed by a book, 1965’s Unsafe at Any Speed, which largely focused on the Chevrolet Corvair. A weird series of events followed, thrusting Nader into the spotlight: Ford came up with a popular new safety package, which it quickly discontinued because of threats from General Motors. (Apparently, the company did not want this newfound attention to safety to lead to federal regulations.) And after the book was published, Nader determined that he was being followed by a woman who flirted with him at the Dupont Safeway. A GM exec later admitted that the company sent the vixen out to try to smear Nader’s character, which, as far as they could tell, was without flaw. Nader’s newfound fame (Newsweek dubbed him the “Consumer Crusader”) led him to years of public-safety advocacy; his efforts led to developments such as seat belts, air bags, cigarette warnings, safer X-ray machines, and detailed drug labels. It’s difficult not to think Nader a hero based on this gleaming, intricate biography. A look at his small-town childhood reveals that he was raised by parents who had their kids debate issues at the dinner table. (His father asked him at the end of each school day, “Did you learn how to believe, or did you learn how to think?”) His activism led him to seek out a group of helpers that became known as “Nader’s Raiders,” each of them following their boss’ example of working tirelessly to seek out injustice (particularly in corporations) and improve American lives. “You can bring your conscience to work,” he’d assure them. In making An Unreasonable Man—the title comes from a George Bernard Shaw quote, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself”—the filmmakers talk with dozens of journalists, politicians (Pat Buchanan is among the more amusing ones), Nader’s current and former associates, his sisters, and safety experts to paint the portrait of a man truly interested in serving the people, who points out in interviews here that in ancient Greece, the word “politics” actually had positive connotations. You even cheer for him as the film covers his 2000 candidacy, showing snippets of speeches and zealous rallies that suggest he’s the fresh air Washington has been lacking. To hell with the stale two-party system; as Michael Moore tells a crowd, if you pick the lesser of two evils, “you still end up with evil.” Then, somewhat unsubtly, it’s time to flip back to the naysayers (Nader should have known better in 2004) and back again to the supporters (stats prove that he wasn’t a factor in Bush’s win). Though Mantel and Skrovan’s thoroughness—and even balance—are to be commended, it all gets a bit head-spinning toward the end. The documentary is undeniably informative and interesting and will serve as an adequate crash-course for Nader neophytes. But a film dedicated to a man with a jones for warnings should come with this one: Like Nader himself usually is, it’s better to go into An Unreasonable Man already armed with an opinion.
]]>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:21:00 GMTMovieBabeMovieBabe Blog7/25/2007 4:21:00 PM By Tricia Olszewski A flaming skull that talks isn&rsquo;t quite as ridiculous as it sounds. At least you won&rsquo;t think so watching Ghost Rider, as long as you keep a few things in mind. First, it&rsquo;s about a fire-friendly crusader who fights evil on his motorcycle. Second, it was written and directed by Mark Steven Johnson, the filmmaker responsible for the much-maligned Daredevil. Lastly, Oscar bait&mdash;or even People&rsquo;s Choice bait&mdash;tends not to come out in February. Nicolas Cage plays Johnny Blaze, a stunt cyclist who becomes &ldquo;the devil&rsquo;s bounty hunter&rdquo; years after selling his soul to Mephistopheles (Peter Fonda) in exchange for the health of his cancer-ridden father. When the deal goes sour, a disconsolate Johnny (Blaze the Younger is played by Matt Long) bails on a plan to run away with his girlfriend, Roxanne (Raquel Alessi). From then on he&rsquo;s determined to live as an eccentric loner devoted only to performing increasingly dangerous feats. Much to the astonishment of fans and his manager (Donal Logue), Johnny not only pulls off most of them but comes out without a scratch even when he doesn&rsquo;t. This attracts the attention of the local media, including very grown-up anchor Roxanne (Eva Mendes). Johnny finds that it&rsquo;s difficult to have much of a personal life, though, once his skeleton starts exposing itself and catching fire night after night. Only fans of the comic book on which the movie is based will presumably be able to connect the dots when Satan comes calling at the peak of Johnny&rsquo;s career. The devil needs a favor involving his estranged son, Blackheart (Wes Bentley), and a particular soul&rsquo;s &ldquo;contract&rdquo; that Blackie is trying to get his hands on. So he equips Johnny with a wicked supernatural hog and makes him transform into a fiery fiend when the sun goes down. That&rsquo;s all fine, but then Johnny&ndash;as&ndash;Ghost Rider reflexively begins to fight crime, killing evildoers by taking their victims&rsquo; collective suffering and mirroring it back to the bad guys. Which can&rsquo;t be what the Dark Lord wants, can it, Mr. Johnson? If there&rsquo;s an explanation for this apparent contradiction, the audience isn&rsquo;t getting one. But it&rsquo;s easy enough to let this head-scratcher slide. After all, we&rsquo;re not exactly dealing with high-mindedness: There&rsquo;s no I&rsquo;m-OK-you&rsquo;re-OK message, as in X-Men, and there&rsquo;s no heavy undercurrent of angst, as in Spider-Man or Batman. Ghost Rider is about outrageous battles featuring a dude who&rsquo;s engulfed in flames, and Johnson delivers the story with an entertaining mix of goofiness, mild frights, and cheese. The look of the movie is all skulls-and-spirits, with dark cinematography and quick flashes of ghostliness&mdash;say, a bit of bone showing through a face&mdash;when the immortal gets pissed off. Bad puns, scene-chewing, and Mendes&rsquo; continually straining shirts are over-the-top fun; the eyelinered Blackheart and his dumb-looking, ambiguously powered minions, Drippy, Frowny, and Dusty, are over-the-top laughable. Everybody wins. What makes Ghost Rider especially worthwhile, though, is Cage. Reportedly a fan of the character and also a contributor to the script, Cage brings all his Elvis-wannabe coolness (along with a hairpiece) to the role, projecting mellow self-confidence whether Johnny is stumbling away from a stunt or telling his manager not to mess with the Carpenters soundtrack in his apartment. (He&rsquo;s also partial to monkeys and eating candies out of a martini glass.) Cage&rsquo;s delivery is more dry than menacing&mdash;&ldquo;Thanks for the info. I feel much better knowing I&rsquo;m the devil&rsquo;s bounty hunter,&rdquo; Johnny tells Sam Elliott&rsquo;s weird grave-keeper after being clued into what&rsquo;s happening to him. It&rsquo;s an appropriate hint that the whole thing should be taken with a grain of salt&mdash;particularly the speech-heavy, bwa-ha-ha ending, which is admittedly the worst kernel of corn in the movie. But most viewers are probably waiting for a bit of flat-out badness all along&mdash;as well as a setup for the sequel. Ralph Nader has recently been accused of acting out of questionable motivations as well: Is he still just an advocate for the people or something darker? Comparing him to Satan would be a stretch, but there&rsquo;s definitely a strong ego at play here, according to An Unreasonable Man, a compelling documentary about Nader&rsquo;s career by first-time directors Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan. The film opens with the biting comments of detractors who blame him for the Democrats&rsquo; losses in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. James Carville says that he has no greater contempt for anyone besides Jerry Falwell. Jimmy Carter announces that Nader needs to &ldquo;go back to examining the rear ends of automobiles.&rdquo; A Nation columnist remarks, &ldquo;Thank you, Ralph, for the Iraq war.&rdquo; A machine-gun list of other unpopular issues spearheaded by George W. Bush follows. The Nader haters&rsquo; thinking, of course&mdash;and these few are just drops in the liberal ocean&mdash;is that by running for president as a third-party candidate, Nader took votes away from Al Gore and John Kerry in races that were close enough to warrant hand counts and accusations of cronyism. At this early point in the movie, no more data are given: Nader&rsquo;s responsibility for the current state of the country, the filmmakers seem to be saying, is as obvious as the fact that he was never going to win. But then Mantel and Skrovan change the emotional climate. Using archival footage and a running commentary by people close to Nader, the directors go back to the beginning of the attorney-activist&rsquo;s public career. Carter&rsquo;s quip references Nader&rsquo;s first cause, the unsafe design of cars (or &ldquo;psychosexual dreamboats,&rdquo; as Nader refers to them here). Prompted by an accident that left a friend of his a paraplegic, Nader wrote an article about the issue in the Nation followed by a book, 1965&rsquo;s Unsafe at Any Speed, which largely focused on the Chevrolet Corvair. A weird series of events followed, thrusting Nader into the spotlight: Ford came up with a popular new safety package, which it quickly discontinued because of threats from General Motors. (Apparently, the company did not want this newfound attention to safety to lead to federal regulations.) And after the book was published, Nader determined that he was being followed by a woman who flirted with him at the Dupont Safeway. A GM exec later admitted that the company sent the vixen out to try to smear Nader&rsquo;s character, which, as far as they could tell, was without flaw. Nader&rsquo;s newfound fame (Newsweek dubbed him the &ldquo;Consumer Crusader&rdquo;) led him to years of public-safety advocacy; his efforts led to developments such as seat belts, air bags, cigarette warnings, safer X-ray machines, and detailed drug labels. It&rsquo;s difficult not to think Nader a hero based on this gleaming, intricate biography. A look at his small-town childhood reveals that he was raised by parents who had their kids debate issues at the dinner table. (His father asked him at the end of each school day, &ldquo;Did you learn how to believe, or did you learn how to think?&rdquo;) His activism led him to seek out a group of helpers that became known as &ldquo;Nader&rsquo;s Raiders,&rdquo; each of them following their boss&rsquo; example of working tirelessly to seek out injustice (particularly in corporations) and improve American lives. &ldquo;You can bring your conscience to work,&rdquo; he&rsquo;d assure them. In making An Unreasonable Man&mdash;the title comes from a George Bernard Shaw quote, &ldquo;The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself&rdquo;&mdash;the filmmakers talk with dozens of journalists, politicians (Pat Buchanan is among the more amusing ones), Nader&rsquo;s current and former associates, his sisters, and safety experts to paint the portrait of a man truly interested in serving the people, who points out in interviews here that in ancient Greece, the word &ldquo;politics&rdquo; actually had positive connotations. You even cheer for him as the film covers his 2000 candidacy, showing snippets of speeches and zealous rallies that suggest he&rsquo;s the fresh air Washington has been lacking. To hell with the stale two-party system; as Michael Moore tells a crowd, if you pick the lesser of two evils, &ldquo;you still end up with evil.&rdquo; Then, somewhat unsubtly, it&rsquo;s time to flip back to the naysayers (Nader should have known better in 2004) and back again to the supporters (stats prove that he wasn&rsquo;t a factor in Bush&rsquo;s win). Though Mantel and Skrovan&rsquo;s thoroughness&mdash;and even balance&mdash;are to be commended, it all gets a bit head-spinning toward the end. The documentary is undeniably informative and interesting and will serve as an adequate crash-course for Nader neophytes. But a film dedicated to a man with a jones for warnings should come with this one: Like Nader himself usually is, it&rsquo;s better to go into An Unreasonable Man already armed with an opinion. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/activism/MemberTagFilms.aspxactivism
Number of films tagged: 651

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 27

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT6511727Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/controversial/MemberTagFilms.aspxcontroversial
Number of films tagged: 161

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 19

]]>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:51:39 GMT1611719Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/archivalfootage/MemberTagFilms.aspxarchivalfootage
Number of films tagged: 595

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:04:09 GMT59511Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nader/MemberTagFilms.aspxnader
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:30:11 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pariah/MemberTagFilms.aspxpariah
Number of films tagged: 18

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Mon, 18 May 2009 13:02:09 GMT1811Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politicalcampaign/MemberTagFilms.aspxpoliticalcampaign
Number of films tagged: 142

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:03:04 GMT14211Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/advocacy/MemberTagFilms.aspxadvocacy
Number of films tagged: 24

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:08:00 GMT2400Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/careerretrospective/MemberTagFilms.aspxcareerretrospective
Number of films tagged: 1043

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:01:49 GMT104300Tag