You don't have to go in expecting Shakespeare to see how horrible that first movie is. Are you funnin me right now, son?

@Myst-Vearn

It's clear we won't be agreeing on this, but I personally thought it was horrible. The pacing, the acting, the special effects, the story, the writing. Not a single thing about it was good. Not a single thing about it was mediocre. It was all terrible. I will say when he is the Ghost Rider, those scenes can be cool. But they are so few and far between.

The rest of the movie, focusing on his human form, grinds everything that was already bordering on boring to an even more boring halt. And do not get me started on that awful scene where we're introduced to... what is his name, Inkheart? It felt like a Twilight movie in the way it was shot, the color correction, and the awful "acting." I think a more appropriate comparison would be The Covenant, a movie that came out around the same time. And it is frustrating because I usually like the guy that played that villain character.

It was just terrible in every way. Except for parts of the Ghost Rider scenes, but again those were few and far between.

I'm not saying you have to dislike it. But I am curious why you don't see it as objectively terrible? You can enjoy movies that are objectively bad. I have some under my belt! But to not be able to see how it is technically, objectively, a bad film... that eludes my understanding.

Exactly. The Affleck Daredevil could have been really good if the writing had been better.

Not all his movies after GR1 are trash, Joe, The Croods, Knowing, National Treasure: Book of Secrets and Pay the Ghost are good, give the man some credit.