THE WORST
"Batman & Robin" is a lot like genocide: It's drawn-out, horrifying and, for some reason, George Clooney is involved.
Call it zany, call it neo-camp, call it forgivable. But the simple truth is that director Joel Schumacher killed the '90s Batman film franchise faster than the Joker would kill a wheelbarrow full of under-privileged infants.
The Caped Crusader is probably the easiest comic book character to adapt into compelling cinema: He's moody and troubled, he inhabits a city filled with dramatic shadows and he has wonderful toys and a bitchin' ride. Tim Burton got it. The creators of the Batman animated series got it. Christopher Nolan got it. Each created a different on-screen iteration of a character whose history stretches back decades. And that's great! Because, as we all know, it's OK to be different.
Except.
Except Schumacher's craptacular Batman, who fights crime with ice skates, rubber lips and (shudder) Bat-nipples. Add Ah-nuld as Mr. Freeze, spouting ice-themed one-liners that are both obnoxious and factually inaccurate (a comet killed the dinosaurs, not the Ice Age), and it's easy to see why I rank this film just below Darfur in terms of crimes against humanity.
OK, that's going too far. I apologize. "Batman & Robin" was a product of its time: the fourth movie in a tired franchise, designed to sell bright and flashy toys to distract from the God-awful story. And really, I can forgive all of these things, because I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: It makes for a hell of a drinking game. Take a drink for every Ah-nuld one-liner and call me in the morning.
Quick, describe the Hulk in three words. If all three of the words you picked were "smash," then you win. You should probably move to Hollywood and start directing superhero movies.
Ang Lee, on the other hand, should stay away from comics like they're kryptonite. Kudos to Marvel for hiring a popular, visionary director to take on one of its big properties back when this current bubble of comic film franchises was new. But when you go to see a movie about the big, green meanie, you really expect to see some explosions and a lot of smashing. That's all. Instead, Lee delivered a quiet, moody meditation on fatherhood, landscapes and existential angst in the American Southwest.
Hoo boy.
A distracted-looking cast, confusing plot and silly CGI didn't help make Ang Lee's "Hulk" any more exciting. The titular ticked-off titan beats on a few tanks for five minutes, and it's far and away the best five minutes of the film. The rest? Missable.
Five years later, Marvel tried again with Louis Leterrier at the helm of a much more action-packed "The Incredible Hulk." As a solid effort exemplifying the benefits of the Michael Bay School of Film, it fit the green gamma guy much better.
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
The fourth movie in a franchise always has it rough. By that point in a series it's too late to introduce any cool new ideas and it becomes painfully clear that money, not art, lubricates the bastard machine we call Hollywood.
Let's take a stroll through the Hall of Abominable Four-quels.
"Alien: Resurrection." Ugh.
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Blarg.
"Live Free or Die Hard." OK, that one was actually pretty badass.
Honestly, I'm a "Superman" film apologist. If you let me, I'll talk your ear off about the saving graces of "Superman III" (yes, that's the one with Richard Pryor in it). So you might think I could find a reason not to hate "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace." It carries a meaningful humanist message about nuclear weapons and was co-written by the late Christopher Reeve, who starred for the fourth and final time as Big Blue.
It's also boring, preachy and thoroughly mediocre, and the negative response it garnered kept Superman out of theaters for almost 20 years.
The Man of Steel can change the course of mighty rivers and bend steel in his bare hands. He can fly around the Earth so fast he travels back in time. But even he can't sustain a quality quadrilogy. Only John McClane can do that.
This is a list of bad movies. Ideally, you are not going to run home and check them out on Netflix. But just in case, there should be one bad movie in this feature that is so bad it goes back to good again. And praytell, what modern actor embodies that very maxim?
Sir Nicolas Cage, of course.
The "actor," who was set to be the new face of Superman for a while in the '90s, finally landed a superhero role in 2007. Cage plays Johnny Blaze, a stunt man who sells his soul and in return must become a superpowered bounty hunter for Mephistopheles.
While it might not be a worse film than some other super stink bombs Marvel and DC have dropped over the years, "Ghost Rider" deserves credit for taking a fairly obscure character and making certain even fewer people will want to read the comics in the future. But Cage is enjoyable and "Ghost Rider" is certainly less of a punishment than "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" or "
Unless the Internet is lying again, "Ghost Rider" will be receiving some sort of reboot/sequel/travesty this coming next year, with Rage Cage himself reprising the title role. Hooray!
There are so many horrible superhero movies to throw on this list. Clearly, movies and TV shows from the '60s, '70s and '80s aren't even included. Since 1990, the number of great superhero movies has been dwarfed by the legions of atrocious garbage. So how does one pick a worst? Who is crowned king of the dung heap?
is a member of the 
Be the first to comment on this article!