IGN's Top 10 Worst Comic Book Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)

[Sloth7d]

I will say that Batman Begins does have two villians and does it right but really Scarecrow and Falcone, to an extent, are merely an underling of Ras and the same could be said for Lady Deathstrike in X2 who I think uders 4 lines of dialogue? If your speaking of Magneto he is no villian in X2, he HELPS the X-men so really you have just Stryker who raids the X-mansion and tries to kill all of Mutantkind. Star Wars has Multiple Villians? Really? Last I heard it was the Empire, maybe Jabba but he really only shines for like 15 minutes in Jedi. I will concede LOTR's but look at the source and look how it was adapted that is a special thing. Potter has one main villian for practically ALL of its stories, except the 3rd where the primary threat is the Dementors that tie back to Voldy.

Yes, yes, they each film manages their line up of villains for different reasons, but you do see that the amount of villains in a film isn't the problem but how you manage them. Though I should correct you on, I assume, counting a team or a collusion of individuals as one villain. They are still multiple characters to develope which I assume is the core of the complaint of "too many villains in a film". My example is to show that isn't a problem.

I should also disagree about the Dementors. At that point in the story they were not working for Voldemort, neither was Lupin who is very much akin to how the Lizard could be in a film, nor Black whom was framed.

So you see those films dont suffer due to to many villians like Spiderman 3, I would have been fine with Goblin II and Sandman but they shoehorned in Venom and by doing so they made the film cluttered and contrived. Also connecting Sandman to Ben, really?

I don't believe SM3 suffered from too many villains any more than those films did. Eddie Brock received the same amount of development and screen time as Scarcrow, Falcone even less time than the Sandman, and Ras was equal to Harry whom really didn't need much developing anyway.

Yeah, I agree. Shoving Venom in was bad in the sense that Raimi didn't want to use him, but I heard the Vulture would've had his spot had Venom not been included anyway. Really, I wonder what Raimi was doing more than the studio. Sandman and Vulture? I'd rather him be forced to use Venom against his will than try to work both of them. In fact, I almost wish the studio went a step further with filtering his ideas by axing the whole Sandman retcon entirely.

I suppose your right, they do not need there own seperate movie but they sure as hell do not need to be in the same one. Two tops. I think that maybe Falcone could have handled his own movie rather well if you ask me but thats another topic.

Hey, I'm not saying he couldn't. I just don't think there's any need for him or Scarecrow to get their own films when the serve their role so perfectly here. It didn't stop Scarecrow fans from whining about it, sadly AVGN being one of them, and had Falcone been renamed Rupert Thorne I doubt there would be any end to Thorne fanboys declaring how bad the movie is just because their favorite villain played second fittle instead of judging it on it's entire worth. Hell, look at the backlash TDK got from Two-Face fans.

How did Raimi MANAGE Venom? Really explain cause last I looked he just butchered what could have been an AMAZING story with great character beats and just threw it out the window, but I digress this is Sony's fault. Not his.

Well, it's his fault too. His idea was to retcon Ben's murder to make Sandman relevant. Venom on the other hand? What more did we need? Obnoxious fraudulant reporter blames Peter Parker for exposing him as the sleeze he is, get's Peter's discarded new powers, and attacks a loved one of Pete's.

I'm a Venom fanboy myself. Eddie Brock specifically and only Eddie! But I acknowledged that Venom served his role. Would I have preferred Sandman remaining dead after his "drowning", the film ending on a cliff hanger when Eddie gains the symbiot, and Spider-man getting a part4 so Venom can steal the show like Joker did in TDK? Yeah, but I won't bring the film down based on my want of what could have been.

I will say that the 1st two films took liberties and i lived with them because they were for the greater good of the films the third takes liberties that it just didnt need to. I mean I like the movie up until harry wakes up in the hospital but after that its downhill. The tieing Sandman to Ben's murder and including Gwen for no reason along with Venom being vaporized, something i have a huge problem with when it comes to the villians in the Spiderman movies. Why must they all die? Except Sandman.

That's all superhero films isn't it? Aside from Lex Luthor, the Joker in TDK, and Doom don't they all die? I liked Gwens inclusion, but I do admit she might as well have been named Felicia Hardy for she was more like her or MJ than Gwen. But I was happy that she was finally introduced for hope of her role in future films (though that hope is gone now.)

Yeah I know there are bad parts in all movies they just seem to glare in this movie. Dancing down the street, cooking the dinner, in the hospital when Harry wakes up, I think the pie scene with harry? Just I mean it seems like Rami called it in. Oh and that british reporter in the movie was just atrocious. I won's say the films you named didnt have bad scenes just they are oscar worthy compared to this.

I really can't understand the problem everyone has with the "Emo"-dancing. I don't get it. I thought it was amusing, and that he was supposed to come off obnoxious. On the other hand, the cooking scene dance was... weird and out of place. I didn't understand their urge to let loose right then, while I could understand that Peter's ego gave him a euphoric sense of arrogance. The reporter wasn't that great either, but what do you expect from extras? Hell, look at the guy from movie one, and even they are both better than the majority of the cast in Watchmen, a film that has gain a decent chorus of approval.

But, Meh, most of these things just didn't bother me in this film or in other films. Could SM3 have been better? Yeah. Did it have flaws? A good amount. Was it as bad as everyone is making it out to be? No, I just can't agree there, especially not when everything from " he looks emo" to " he's in front of the American flag too much" to some of the points you and others repeatedly bring up make up some of the criticisms attacking the film. I really don't think it's a bad film at all, but definitely not top 50 material if it is.

 

[El Payaso]

Spider-man 3 was on cable last night. It's really not bad, like, at all.

Really the only thing that's a bit silly is Peter's emo hair and the dance scenes. And those take up, what? 3 minutes of the movie?

First of all, you can easily ruin a movie in 3 minutes (and I'm sure emo Peter dancing on the streets, jazz club, talking to Connors while having milk and cookies - any dark side's favourites - took far more than 3 minutes).

And secondly, it was much more than just that; the villiains are exceptionally weak, the dialogues bad, the jokes terrible. We have that alliance between Spidey and Goblin that reminded me the Adam West/Burt Ward fighting tandem, everything rushed, a lot of little awful details.

And on top of that, Bernard the Butler, which speaks volumens about how rushed and subpar a script can be.

It has good action, good CGI, decent acting.

Average acting, CGI that gave the characters cartoony faces at many points - check Peter's face durting the Goblin fight or the final confrontation - and the action wasn't any better than in SM2, but yes it could be considered good even when good action doesn't define a good movie alone.

The story is a bit cluttered but it's nothing to slit my wrists over. It's decent. For someone to cry and whine about it makes them an idiot. Get laid. It's just a movie.

It's far from decent. The story felt rushed; you have the Bernard the Butler scene or the insanely bad written Sandman meets Venom scene.

One certainly needs to get laid to wash those memories away.

Now if it's "just a movie," accept it is bad, or that most people consider it bad, it's not the end of the world, etc etc.

I liked both Punisher movies too. War Zone was great, it was like a modern day grindhouse film. Over-the-top violence, corny dialouge, sadistic villains. By the title alone you should know you're not going to see an Oscar worthy film. Same goes for Ghost Rider. You're watching a film about a C list superhero with a flaming skull for a head starring Nick Cage. Don't expect Shakespeare.

There's an abyss of difference between Shakespeare and a decent script.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Yes, yes, they each film manages their line up of villains for different reasons, but you do see that the amount of villains in a film isn't the problem but how you manage them. Though I should correct you on, I assume, counting a team or a collusion of individuals as one villain. They are still multiple characters to develope which I assume is the core of the complaint of "too many villains in a film". My example is to show that isn't a problem.

I should also disagree about the Dementors. At that point in the story they were not working for Voldemort, neither was Lupin who is very much akin to how the Lizard could be in a film, nor Black whom was framed.



I don't believe SM3 suffered from too many villains any more than those films did. Eddie Brock received the same amount of development and screen time as Scarcrow, Falcone even less time than the Sandman, and Ras was equal to Harry whom really didn't need much developing anyway.

Yeah, I agree. Shoving Venom in was bad in the sense that Raimi didn't want to use him, but I heard the Vulture would've had his spot had Venom not been included anyway. Really, I wonder what Raimi was doing more than the studio. Sandman and Vulture? I'd rather him be forced to use Venom against his will than try to work both of them. In fact, I almost wish the studio went a step further with filtering his ideas by axing the whole Sandman retcon entirely.




Hey, I'm not saying he couldn't. I just don't think there's any need for him or Scarecrow to get their own films when the serve their role so perfectly here. It didn't stop Scarecrow fans from whining about it, sadly AVGN being one of them, and had Falcone been renamed Rupert Thorne I doubt there would be any end to Thorne fanboys declaring how bad the movie is just because their favorite villain played second fittle instead of judging it on it's entire worth. Hell, look at the backlash TDK got from Two-Face fans.



Well, it's his fault too. His idea was to retcon Ben's murder to make Sandman relevant. Venom on the other hand? What more did we need? Obnoxious fraudulant reporter blames Peter Parker for exposing him as the sleeze he is, get's Peter's discarded new powers, and attacks a loved one of Pete's.

I'm a Venom fanboy myself. Eddie Brock specifically and only Eddie! But I acknowledged that Venom served his role. Would I have preferred Sandman remaining dead after his "drowning", the film ending on a cliff hanger when Eddie gains the symbiot, and Spider-man getting a part4 so Venom can steal the show like Joker did in TDK? Yeah, but I won't bring the film down based on my want of what could have been.





That's all superhero films isn't it? Aside from Lex Luthor, the Joker in TDK, and Doom don't they all die? I liked Gwens inclusion, but I do admit she might as well have been named Felicia Hardy for she was more like her or MJ than Gwen. But I was happy that she was finally introduced for hope of her role in future films (though that hope is gone now.)





I really can't understand the problem everyone has with the "Emo"-dancing. I don't get it. I thought it was amusing, and that he was supposed to come off obnoxious. On the other hand, the cooking scene dance was... weird and out of place. I didn't understand their urge to let loose right then, while I could understand that Peter's ego gave him a euphoric sense of arrogance. The reporter wasn't that great either, but what do you expect from extras? Hell, look at the guy from movie one, and even they are both better than the majority of the cast in Watchmen, a film that has gain a decent chorus of approval.

But, Meh, most of these things just didn't bother me in this film or in other films. Could SM3 have been better? Yeah. Did it have flaws? A good amount. Was it as bad as everyone is making it out to be? No, I just can't agree there, especially not when everything from " he looks emo" to " he's in front of the American flag too much" to some of the points you and others repeatedly bring up make up some of the criticisms attacking the film. I really don't think it's a bad film at all, but definitely not top 50 material if it is.

I agree a thousand percent

 

[OctaviusINC]

First of all, you can easily ruin a movie in 3 minutes (and I'm sure emo Peter dancing on the streets, jazz club, talking to Connors while having milk and cookies - any dark side's favourites - took far more than 3 minutes).

And secondly, it was much more than just that; the villiains are exceptionally weak, the dialogues bad, the jokes terrible. We have that alliance between Spidey and Goblin that reminded me the Adam West/Burt Ward fighting tandem, everything rushed, a lot of little awful details.

And on top of that, Bernard the Butler, which speaks volumens about how rushed and subpar a script can be.



Average acting, CGI that gave the characters cartoony faces at many points - check Peter's face durting the Goblin fight or the final confrontation - and the action wasn't any better than in SM2, but yes it could be considered good even when good action doesn't define a good movie alone.



It's far from decent. The story felt rushed; you have the Bernard the Butler scene or the insanely bad written Sandman meets Venom scene.

One certainly needs to get laid to wash those memories away.

Now if it's "just a movie," accept it is bad, or that most people consider it bad, it's not the end of the world, etc etc.



There's an abyss of difference between Shakespeare and a decent script.

I had very low expectations for SM3. Really low. Battlefield Earth low. So I was a bit surprised when I seen it. I don't think it's in the same field as the first 2 films at all, but I enjoy it in a sense that it's entertaining and silly. It's a fun movie if you don't take it so personally. And I do accept that's others think it's bad. I mean, I DO visit the hype don't I?

And it's not the end of the world. That's what I said in the first place.

And you know what I mean by the Shakespeare line. You know if you lock a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, you'll probably get an abyss of difference there too.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I had very low expectations for SM3. Really low. Battlefield Earth low. So I was a bit surprised when I seen it. I don't think it's in the same field as the first 2 films at all, but I enjoy it in a sense that it's entertaining and silly. It's a fun movie if you don't take it so personally. And I do accept that's others think it's bad. I mean, I DO visit the hype don't I?

And it's not the end of the world. That's what I said in the first place.

And you know what I mean by the Shakespeare line. You know if you lock a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, you'll probably get an abyss of difference there too.

Is it even possible to have expectations that low?

 

[OctaviusINC]

Is it even possible to have expectations that low?

Haha. Indeed it is. It took some practice, but it was possible.

 

[DarKush]

I don't think either Punisher film belonged on the list; well, maybe War Zone for the horrible take on Jigsaw. Same with FF and DD (at least the director's cut). Perhaps Elektra deserves to be on the list, but I don't hate the film like most people do. I actually liked what they did with the characters like Typhoid Mary (?) and the dude with the tats.

I would've put Superman Returns and probably Blade Trinity on that list.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

There's very few super hero films I've disliked as much as Ghost Rider.

Agreed.

This is why, for me; even Batman & Robin has ambition, and a lot of ideas and creativity behind it. Bad ones, certainly, and it doesn't suceed in what it tries to be, but atleast it does try to be.

Ghost Rider is surely the blandest, most cookie-cutter conveyor belt superhero movie ever made. NOTHING in the entire movie is not something we've seen endlessly before. It doesn't just repeat elements from previous comicbook movies, it repeats the elements that are in every superhero movie, without offering anything new.

Cage almost literally says, "This is my blessing, this is my curse; who am I? I'm Ghost Rider."

Let's break it down; script is 100% recycled. Acting is woeful, Eva Mendes is is simply standing infront of a camera trying to be sultry. Cage is, even for him, completely lost. Note to Hollywood: you can't just get Cage to play any role, it has to be suitable for him. Action; quick and lame. The fight scenes with the demons were just blink and you'll miss 'em CGI displays.

Ghost Rider is an awful film, but worse than that, it's extremely boring. I'd rather watch just about any other comicbook movie.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Are The Spirit and Punisher Warzone that bad?

I have watched about 20 mins of each. The Spirit is crazy and oh-so-stylish, I like it so far. Warzone is surely a comedy; the first ten minutes is full of Z-grade actors doing every Mafia cliche ever, I laughed hard at how lame it was. But it seems okay apart from that. Not good, but I can think of ten worst comicbook flicks.

 

[Doc Ock]

X3 and Spidey 3 should not be on that list IMO. Although alot of that list makes sense, i'm sure there are many far worse comic book movies out there. I liked Ghost Rider and the DC of DD....but I think that being in the top 10 makes sense.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The problem with these lists is always that they only include the famous movies.

I know this is strictly 2000s movies, but there is always a problem with these lists (apart from they always contain the usual suspects, Catwoman, B&R, Supeman IV, etc - I'd love to see a list with Spider-Man 2, X2 or The Dark Knight just for the sake of originality).

If you're a real fan of the genre and endured the likes of Return of the Swamp Thing, the Justice League TV movie, and The Guyver starring Mark Hamill...suddenly Daredevil isn't bad at all.

Try watching the Generation X TV movie (which weirdly predicts the plot of X-Men for years later), or David Hasslehoff as Nick Fury, and then come back and say Spider-Man 3 or The Punisher are bad movies.

 

[El Payaso]

I had very low expectations for SM3. Really low. Battlefield Earth low. So I was a bit surprised when I seen it. I don't think it's in the same field as the first 2 films at all, but I enjoy it in a sense that it's entertaining and silly. It's a fun movie if you don't take it so personally. And I do accept that's others think it's bad. I mean, I DO visit the hype don't I?

And it's not the end of the world. That's what I said in the first place.

And you know what I mean by the Shakespeare line. You know if you lock a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, you'll probably get an abyss of difference there too.

"Sadly," so to speak, I had my Raimi-expectation high at the time after SM2.

 

[spider-neil]

the big difference imho with SM3 and say SR, ghost rider or any other poor superhero movie is I was entertained the entire time even with the dancing and stuff. I saw the movie several times whereas with other superhero movie I hated I wasn't entertained at all and in the case of SR I was just plain BORED.

 

[El Payaso]

the big difference imho with SM3 and say SR, ghost rider or any other poor superhero movie is I was entertained the entire time even with the dancing and stuff. I saw the movie several times whereas with other superhero movie I hated I wasn't entertained at all and in the case of SR I was just plain BORED.

SM3 dances and such made me puke. While in some parties puking is fun and entertaining, this was far from the case. Yes, the action (most of it) was fun to watch but that doesn't cut it.

 

[shogunrua]

I have mixed feelings about SM3.personnaly I think the story is a mess and it's not about the number of villains, it's just that unlike batman begins/the dark knight, they couldn't find a proper way to balance the villains. Let's take Venom out of the equation for now. The biggest insult to their own mythology (I'm not talking about the comic books but just the mythology built in the movies) is clearly turning Sandman into Uncle Ben's killer, because that nullifies the "great power/great responsability" (if Sandman was the killer, than stopping the robber wouldn't have stopped Uncle Ben's death from happening), that was the biggest mistake they made. But this derived from the crazy idea that Spidey and his villains should be related (I sincerely still can't understand this idea).

Now let's talk about Venom. Okay forcing Raimi to use him wasn't a good idea at all and the way he was managed was wrong in almost every aspect. First, Venom, unlike Doc Ock/Green Goblin from the previous movies (who principal motivations are unrelated to Spidey (GG: killing the board members of Oscorp/Doc Ock: make his fusion experiment succeed), has his motivation in solely destroying Peter/Spidey's life, but so did Harry...and having two villains with the same motivation didn't work. I think a good proof of this is that in the movie, when MJ goes to her appartment, it's Harry who emerges from the shadow to threaten MJ, something done in the comics by...Venom (and if I remember correctly, there was an artwork from the movie showing this scene with a silhouette hidden in the shadows looking like Venom).

So if the whole "get to your family and mess with your life" aspect has been given to Harry, what was the other options they went with ? Make Venom the final act villain. It's not a wrong approach at all, The Dark Knight made it work with Harvey Dent as I thought the final was really intense with two face, you could really feal the struggle, the pain, the madness of the character, but that was effective because the whole story brings to that point, "the Dark Knight" is pretty much about the downfall of Harvey Dent (but not only of course).

On the other hand, what do we have with Eddie Brock ? Him taking a picture of Spidey, being exposed as a fraud, getting all pissed, going to church and getting the suit (Some would say that's enough for Brock, but my point is, imagine Harvey Dent randomly saying "I want to marry Rachel Dawes" than 1 hour later knows she died/becomes Two Face and goes all ape *****), there is no evolution, just mere sequence that felt a bit disconnected. The only good scene about Brock was in the parade with because that could have been the seeds of real character development, he should have kept pushing with Gwen, almost to the point of becoming physically violent. At least it would have made clear to the audience that no, Eddie Brock is not a *****e (what he ended up looking like in this movie), he's a really disturbed man and could be really dangerous.

Final word is, I didn't care about Sandman, I didn't care about Venom (which annoyed me because he's one of my favorite villains). I really cared about Harry because he was the only one of them to have a real development. SM3 had other problems but I just wanted to give my opinion about that long debate that SM3 was overcrowded with villains. For me, it wasn't overcrowded with villains, it was just an awful combination of them.

 

[MarvFromSinCity]

i liked 10, 9,8, 7, 5, and 2! never seen 3, 4, or 1. and # 6 is one of the best movies ever!!!! how can anyone hate the fantastic four movie?!!

 

[Ratcrawler]

The Ghost Rider Sequel's been canned. They're doing a sPinoff about Eva Mendes' cleavage instead.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

The Ghost Rider Sequel's been canned. They're doing a sPinoff about Eva Mendes' cleavage instead.

Yes!

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The Ghost Rider Sequel's been canned. They're doing a sPinoff about Eva Mendes' cleavage instead.

They made that. It's called The Spirit.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

i liked 10, 9,8, 7, 5, and 2! never seen 3, 4, or 1. and # 6 is one of the best movies ever!!!! how can anyone hate the fantastic four movie?!!

The Extended Cut of the first FF movie is rather good.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

X3 should be number one on that list if you ask me, and Spiderman 3 shouldnt even be near it. DD : DC and GR I quite enjoyed as well as the Tom Jane Punisher movie, can think of worse than them personally.

 

[bullets]

Even though these movies are considered the worst , most of them are watchable .
I think the bigger movies make it on there because the dissapointment is more harmful than some crap that shows up low budget most people will avoid seeing anyway.
I think with minor improvements some of these movies would of been really good with the exception of catwoman ,which was doomed from the start. Also X-men 3 should of had cyclops coming into the third act to lead the team , seriously , wtf

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I watched Punisher Warzone a few days back and it certainly deserves a place on the list. Vile, pointless trash without a drop of creativity. The only superhero movie the director seems to have seen is Batman Forever, with the splashes of neon colours and over-the-top villain with ridiculous make-up.

 

[Shemtov]

FF shouldn't be there. It wasn't a bad movie, IMO- just not a good one.

 

[Rac]

Both Punishers are better than Man-Thing, FF2 or Wolverine. One of those should have been there instead of Punishers.