Roger Ebert’s selections for the worst superhero movies of all time may have looked differently if he had lived to see the blockbuster phases of Marvel’s cinematic universe and DC’s succession of flops. Regardless, the critic shared his thoughts on the heroes of his era, the best, the good, the okay, and the worst. His ratings for sequels leaned lower as he questioned the dedication to developing storylines that weren’t immediate rinse-and-repeats for quick release. With every negative review, Ebert counterbalanced with a title that succeeded where the other failed. Like many genre moviegoers, he found excitement in the potential of revisiting the iconic symbols of Gotham or the nostalgia of placing hope in the hands of a superhero. He commended the mastery of special effects that elevated the premise and not overtake it.
The worst movies of the genre skimp out on the development of the very characters it seeks to endorse for moviegoers to idolize, giving the actors he deemed unfortunate to portray them nothing to work with. These movies pay little to no attention to the emotional and psychological ranges of these superpowered beings, taking away the humanistic element that connects with its audience. For some, they don’t go to the blockbusters of the genre for the story, but rather for the action. For Ebert, it has to be both, and the worst superhero movies, in his opinion, are unable to do both.
10 ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ (2009)
Directed by Gavin Hood
His review titled, “A monosyllabic superhero who wouldn’t pass the Turing Test,” Ebert wouldn’t be alive to see Wolverine’s cinematic Oscar-snubbed redemption. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is exactly as advertised as the early life of James Logan (Hugh Jackman) as he seeks out the Weapon X program to avenge the murder of his love, Kayla Silverfox (Lynn Collins). Ebert turned his sights to the film’s director, Gavin Hood, at one point, essentially calling him a sellout for “making a big box-office hit for mostly fanboys” instead of remaining true to the craft that garnered him praise for his earlier films.
“Am I being disrespectful to this material? You bet. It is Hugh Jackman’s misfortune that when they were handing out superheroes, he got Wolverine, who is for my money low on the charisma list. He never says anything witty, insightful or very intelligent…”
His two-star review acknowledges the well-rounded and balanced nature of superhero movies like Iron Man, Spider-Man, certain Batman movies, and Superman, but this version of Wolverine lacks commitment to script development outside of plug-and-play genre tropes. By the end of his tirade about the missed opportunity of the film, Ebert is jealous Wolverine’s ability to forget the whole ordeal occurred.
9 ‘Batman & Robin’ (1997)
Directed by Joel Schumacher
While this installment in the iconic franchise has earned its due as a laughable so bad, it’s good, Ebert didn’t shy away from expressing his distaste in his two-star review. Featuring George Clooney and Chris O’Donnell as the titular caped crusader and sidekick, Batman & Robin pits the heroes against Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) in their attempts to freeze over Gotham City. Ebert’s exhaustion is palpable as he indicates that the installment is “wonderful to look at, and has nothing authentic at its core,” touting a hefty amount of visual effects but no in-depth exploration of its characters.
“My prescription for the series remains unchanged: scale down. We don’t need to see $2 million on the screen every single minute. Give the foreground to the characters, not the special effects. And ask the hard questions about Bruce Wayne.”
Ebert’s low rating fell in line with the audience and critic consensus in 1997, but over the years, Batman & Robin has woven its way into acceptance of its genre audience. He acknowledges in other worst genre reviews that superhero movies are supposed to be about nostalgia and wonder, but lacking substance isn’t a prerequisite to getting a superhero label. Little did he know, but Ebert would get his wish just under a decade later with The Dark KnightTrilogy.
Watch on Hulu
8 ‘Supergirl’ (1984)
Directed by Jeannot Szwarc
A try-hard movie, Supergirl may have earned two stars from Ebert, but it still remains in his canon of the worst of the genre. Premiering shortly after Superman III, Superman’s cousin Kara (Helen Slater) travels to Earth to retrieve a powerful energy source from falling into the wrong hands of a witch named Selena (Faye Dunaway). Ebert’s review is the equivalent of “I’m not mad; I’m just disappointed,” which is altogether worse than being mad about a bad movie.
“We do not go to ‘Superman’ and ‘Supergirl’ movies to laugh condescendingly at the characters (which is what the writers, directors, and even some of the actors have started to do). We go to recapture some of the lost innocence of the whole notion of superheroes.”
Supergirl tried so hard to no avail to lean into the campiness that it backfired into just plain bad. The movie didn’t take itself seriously in the worst way, unlike Ebert’s example of Clint Eastwood’s spaghetti westerns where they do take themselves seriously, making the straight and simple approach organically comedic. Supergirl was unable to tread the same waters as its Superman franchise counterparts, making an unfortunate installment in the superhero genre.
7 ‘Thor’ (2011)
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
After being eviscerated by fans following his first review of Thor, the acclaimed critic admitted his faults and published a second review; however, it wasn’t enough to change his opinion that it was only worth a one and a half stars. Based on the Marvel comic characters of the mythical Asgard, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the God of Thunder, is banished to Earth to learn humility by living among humans; however, things get messy when his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the God of Mischief, sends The Destroyer there to kill him. In his original review, Ebert called the superhero movie “pitiful,” a “failure,” and “a desolate vastation.”
“There is a larger question here. Does it make a movie ‘good’ because you ‘like’ it? No, it doesn’t, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. It is helpful to separate one’s immediate amusement from more lasting standards.”
His major gripe with the movie was its seemingly scattered premise and lack of a quality villain in Loki. Months after his first review was published following the outrage, Ebert wrote a response called “My mighty hammering over ‘Thor,'” where he admitted many of his criticisms regarding the plot were made in error for not knowing the source material inside and out. Still, he didn’t backtrack on his opinion that Thor was a bad movie produced only for mass marketing gain compared to other genre knockouts like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2.
6 ‘Elektra’ (2005)
Directed by Rob Bowman
Suffering what Ebert determined was an identity crisis, Elektra was a disappointing misfire considering the potential displayed in her first appearance in Daredevil. The film stars Jennifer Garner as the titular assassin-for-hire whose conscience reverses when she’s tasked with killing a man and his daughter. Instead, she vows to protect them from the Hand, the organization that employs her, and the assassins they sent in her stead. Ebert awarded the superheroine movie a one-and-a-half-star rating, his review questioning the thought process behind its production.
“Jennifer Garner is understandably unable to make a lot of sense out of this. We get a lot of closeups in which we would identify with what she was thinking if we had any clue what that might be. Does she wonder why she became a paid killer instead of a virtuous superheroine? Does she wonder why her agent is a bozo?
In a movie that hinges on stable, well-shot action sequences, Elektra‘s technical struggles mirrored attention deficit disorder, as he put it. With edits so quick lasting no more than a few seconds, it was like the movie couldn’t pay attention to its own stunts, Ebert suggesting a possible cop-out for having to choreograph them. As for the development of Elektra’s origin story and character identity, Ebert said, “The movie’s a muddle in search of a rationale.” It remains one of Marvel’s worst superhero movies alongside Ebert’s selection of the worst of all time.
5 ‘RoboCop 3’ (1993)
Directed Fred Dekker
It’s one of the many franchises whose reviews got progressively worse with each sequel, and RoboCop 3 was no different, with Ebert awarding it the lowest rating of the original trilogy with one and a half stars. The half-man, half-robot (Robert John Burke) returns to help the citizens of a Detroit neighborhood fight against the greedy development Omni Consumer Products seeks to build by violently evicting the current residents.
“Robocop, for example, is a character whose limited dimensions have been exhausted. There is only so much you can do with a creature who is half-man, half-machine. Who walks like a child’s toy. And who eventually disobeys his programming in order to fight for the good guys.”
In his review, Ebert compares continuing this tired storyline to auto manufacturing, where every installment is “an old design and [a] slap [of] some fresh chrome.” The minor moments of humor in the movie are not enough for it to overcome the rusted-out packaging of a character with nothing else to offer and side characters who are given little to work with, unable to add any real substance to the movie.
Directed by Stephen Norrington
What began as a promising narrative with some of literature’s most reputable characters crashed and burned into a one-star superhero movie. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen assembles a cast of literary icons including Alan Quatermain (Sean Connery), Mina Harker (Peta Wilson), Dorian Gray (Stuart Townsend), Tom Sawyer (Shane West), and Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (Jason Flemyng) among others. The squad of fictional heroes bands together to stop a villain called the Fantom (Richard Roxburgh) from starting a World War.
“I don’t really mind the movie’s lack of believability. Well, I mind a little; to assume audiences will believe cars racing through Venice is as insulting as giving them a gondola chase down the White House lawn. What I do mind is that the movie plays like a big wind came along and blew away the script and they ran down the street after it and grabbed a few pages and shot those.”
Ebert’s review called the movie a mess with its descent into “incomprehensible action, idiotic dialogue, inexplicable motivations, causes without effects, effects without causes, and general lunacy.” The genre allows for a hefty suspension of belief and the premise of this one demands that and more with its eyebrow-raising action sequences through the canals of Venice. And would the acclaimed writers who created these literary characters approve of the creative liberties The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen haphazardly takes with them? Ebert suggests they wouldn’t.
Watch on Hulu
3 ‘Catwoman’ (2004)
Directed by Pitof
Failing to provide the talented Halle Berry with anything more than a superficial marketing ploy for her beauty and sex appeal, Catwoman remains for audiences and Ebert among the worst movies in the superhero genre. Who began as a shy graphic designer for a cosmetics company, Patience Philips (Berry) is reborn into a confident vigilante called Catwoman, using her catlike super abilities to unearth a massive conspiracy at Hedare Beauty. Ebert’s one-star reviewcalled the movie “a letdown,” criticizing almost everything down to Klaus Badelt’s score, which he deemed “particularly annoying.”
“The filmmakers have given great thought to photographing Berry, who looks fabulous, and little thought to providing her with a strong character, story, supporting characters or action sequences.”
Ebert takes aim at the movie’s inability to craft a well-rounded origin story, allowing audiences into the psychological transformation process into Catwoman, like audiences are treated to four-star superhero movies. The writers failed to provide Berry with emotional leverage to convey how Patience comes to terms with her newfound species.Catwoman instead produces “a plot that could have been phoned in from the 1960s” about a woman working at a beauty company whose MO is to prey on women’s desire for youthful, eternal beauty.
Buy on Prime
2 ‘The Spirit’ (2008)
Directed by Frank Miller
Before he was leading the now sensationalized legal drama, Suits, Gabriel Macht was starring as the titular superhero in this Ebert one-star-rated superhero movie. The Spirit is a stylized action movie based on the graphic novel by Will Eisner about Denny Colt (Macht), a murdered cop who returns from the dead as the Spirit to protect his city from the evil villain named Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson).
“The movie is all style — style without substance, style whirling in a senseless void. The film’s hero is an ex-cop reincarnated as an immortal enforcer; for all the personality he exhibits, we would welcome Elmer Fudd.”
Written and directed by Frank Miller with a unique, successful track record for stylized fantasy movies like Sin City, The Spirit does not rise to the same caliber. The movie lacked character development, emotion, thought-through sequences, and any sort of fun. Ebert held no punches for this superhero film when indicating that calling the characters cardboard was an insult to packaging products.
1 ‘Fantastic Four’ (2005)
Directed by Tim Story
Not only did he deem this title among the worst action movies of all time, Fantastic Four takes the gold for one of the worst superhero movies of all time, according to Ebert. An origin story, the movie depicts the battle of good versus evil between four astronauts (Ioan Gruffudd, Michael Chiklis, Jessica Alba, and Chris Evans) whose cosmic radiation exposure gives them superpowers and Dr. Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) who seeks to use these powers for his benefit. The genre audience consensus agreed with Ebert, in the assessment that Fantastic Four demonstrates a black mark on the Marvel canon.
“Are these people complete idiots? The entire nature of their existence has radically changed, and they’re about as excited as if they got a makeover on ‘Oprah.'”
A one-star rated movie, Eber criticized the authenticity of the character development and performances, as The Fantastic Four appeared unbothered and underwhelmed with their transformations. He titled his review “‘Fantastic’ flameout,” writing in and calling out the monotone acting and pacing of the movie. As Robert Downey Jr. is set to make his Marvel return as Dr. Von Doom, will he and the new cast revitalize a franchise of failed reboots? Would Ebert agree with this? Who knows?
