What makes a movie “unwatchable” versus just bad?

Well, let’s say Ghost Rider with Nicolas Cage was bad:

Sure, there was much room for improvement but as a kid, I found the film to be loads of fun. Even today I can watch it and just have a blast looking at Nic’s antics. But when you compare that to:

Yeah, that’s Zack Snyder’s Rebel Moon. Geez, I barely managed to watch both films once and it was a horrific experience. Almost led me back to depression. Over an hour of freaking slow motion harvesting. On paper, and judging by Rotten Tomatoes score Rebel Moon’s Director’s cut is better than Ghost Rider.

But I can watch Ghost Rider again but not Rebel Moon.

The difference is that the Rebel Moon is trash. It’s boring, uninspired, and completely lacking in any department. Characters are flat, with barely any backstory or character arcs, and the entire thing is just Zack Snyder’s wet dream of making the longest possible films combining his favorite franchises with his unique filmmaking style of far too many slow motions, unnecessary violence and nudity, again in slow motion. I am wondering if he’s going to film a protagonist taking a piss one day in slow motion too.

Films like Ghost Rider, Batman and Robin are bad, but are still watchable because you can have fun. You can forget how bad it is and just have a blast with friends. I can never watch Rebel Moon again.

Cheers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *