Worst MCU movie?

[Chris B]

I voted Iron Man 2. While it has its flaws, I do enjoy TDW. As well as TIH, which I think suffers from being a bit generic more than anything else . But IM2 has always felt like a huge missed opportunity to me as it had the elements to be something good, but they just didn't come together for whatever reason.

IM3 and AOU are both middle-tier entries to me. Decent films in their own right, but still fall short of the likes of IM1, GOTG, TWS, and The Avengers.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I knew Thor dark world would lead poll.

 

[Guard82]

I don't hate any of the MCU movies, but I do consider TIH to be the weakest of the lot. I don't consider it a "bad" movie per se, but I find it too generic and unremarkable in its overall plot and character development. The movie has its moments, like all MCU movies do, but TIH has the least amount of rewatch value for me. With TDW, I can at least enjoy the Thor/Loki scenes a lot, despite that movie's many weaknesses. With TIH, on the other hand, there just aren't many standout moments in the movie that I really look forward to.

 

[Godzillasaurus]

Dark World followed very closely by Ironman 3

 

[dude stannis]

A tie between Thor 2 and Avengers Age of Ultron. Both are lazy and just atrocious.

 

[Steamteck]

Iron Man 3. I dislike with a passion and broke my faith in Marvel a bit. TDW just doesn't seem so bad after IM3 . too much Darcy and not enough development of malekith but Thor got to be Thor and his Thorness and the genre was not spit on.

 

[gildedmuse]

I honestly mean no offence to anyone who voted for TIH, but I get the feeling people are voting it the worst because it feels the most disconnected from the MCU because of the change in actor and it being referred to very little. I feel people are measuring the movie on that rather than its quality.

I say this as I felt the same until last year when I re-watched it with all of the MCU movies before AOU came out. I realised then it was still actually a good movie on it's own terms.

I think TIH is referenced just as much as the other solo movies in the team ups, and perhaps the reasons it feels forgotten is simply because it's a different actor referencing the movie, and that any solo is going to look kind of "abandoned" compared to a bunch of ongoing series.

But believe you me, it is still a pretty poorly done film.

So, to me, a huge part of what makes a good movie is the characters. There are only so many versions of the hero's journey you can put on film so it's going to come down to changing up the details, the story beats, the tone, and making sure we can even be bothered to care about this particular hero.

A huge part of building character is done through dialogue. So take IM2 & 3, TDW, and TIH. Try and straight up ignore what you know about comics and the characters past works, turn off the video and just listen to the dialogue and here's what you get:

IM3: Dead on, great character moments and engaging dialogue, each character is easy to tell apart from just their lines.

TDW: Some weaker moments but most characters are still well defined. Thor's relationship with most characters can be be inferred through the dialogue although it could have been built up better and a lot of roles were underplayed or given little to do in the story despite their apparent importance. (I'm also one of those who feels the alien dialogue was a bit harmful to the overall film. Your ear just hears when most people are faking a language, either it isn't their own or is entirely made up, and it hurts those sections).

IM2: The actors do a lot to save this movie, admittedly, by really bringing it in their dialogue. So even while it still has a lot of weak moments, the performances totally carry this film. Tony's character isn't as strong as it is in his other movies but then he thinks he's dying so there is some sense to that. Hammer and Pepper, though, are very well built characters who shine in the dialogue even while others - Vanko, Natasha - are a bit muddled and lost (Since Natasha plays the part of a generic assistant here, it makes some sense, but her lack of real personality change when she shifts into SHIELD mode could have been better handled). Still, the weakest of the three attempts dialogue wise.

TIH: Actually painful to listen to in some parts. The dialogue doesn't really deferential between characters in any strong sense. This line of scientific gobbly **** could be spoken by Banner, Ross, Ross, Samson or Sterns you wouldn't know. Most of the romance scenes are just painful which is too bad seeing as for the most part (IM1-3, CA:TFA, Thor) the MCU is actually pretty good at both presenting your typical comic book love interest without it becoming overly cliche and forced. Sterns is the only one with some mildly character flavored dialogue if not counting Blonsky's very typical villain lines.

Now, obviously there is way more to a movie than just dialogue (In fact, dialogue alone may be the stronger parts of IM2 and TDW) but it's still a pretty good indicator of how good a movie is overall. I mean, I've never seen a movie and thought the dialogue was utterly horrid but the movie itself was good. And movies like Green Lantern always sound as if the bulk of the writing was done by just grabbing the most cliche lines directly off TVtropes. TIH's dialogue definitely hurts it (the strongest scenes are the ones in south America which have very little spoken lines), and it makes for weak and mostly uninteresting characters which is why I was honestly taken back and surprised by how much I loved Dr. Banner in the Avengers. Based off the solo attempt I assumed this was just a really boring character I would never care about.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think TIH is referenced just as much as the other solo movies in the team ups, and perhaps the reasons it feels forgotten is simply because it's a different actor referencing the movie, and that any solo is going to look kind of "abandoned" compared to a bunch of ongoing series.

But believe you me, it is still a pretty poorly done film.

So, to me, a huge part of what makes a good movie is the characters. There are only so many versions of the hero's journey you can put on film so it's going to come down to changing up the details, the story beats, the tone, and making sure we can even be bothered to care about this particular hero.

A huge part of building character is done through dialogue. So take IM2 & 3, TDW, and TIH. Try and straight up ignore what you know about comics and the characters past works, turn off the video and just listen to the dialogue and here's what you get:

IM3: Dead on, great character moments and engaging dialogue, each character is easy to tell apart from just their lines.

TDW: Some weaker moments but most characters are still well defined. Thor's relationship with most characters can be be inferred through the dialogue although it could have been built up better and a lot of roles were underplayed or given little to do in the story despite their apparent importance. (I'm also one of those who feels the alien dialogue was a bit harmful to the overall film. Your ear just hears when most people are faking a language, either it isn't their own or is entirely made up, and it hurts those sections).

IM2: The actors do a lot to save this movie, admittedly, by really bringing it in their dialogue. So even while it still has a lot of weak moments, the performances totally carry this film. Tony's character isn't as strong as it is in his other movies but then he thinks he's dying so there is some sense to that. Hammer and Pepper, though, are very well built characters who shine in the dialogue even while others - Vanko, Natasha - are a bit muddled and lost (Since Natasha plays the part of a generic assistant here, it makes some sense, but her lack of real personality change when she shifts into SHIELD mode could have been better handled). Still, the weakest of the three attempts dialogue wise.

TIH: Actually painful to listen to in some parts. The dialogue doesn't really deferential between characters in any strong sense. This line of scientific gobbly **** could be spoken by Banner, Ross, Ross, Samson or Sterns you wouldn't know. Most of the romance scenes are just painful which is too bad seeing as for the most part (IM1-3, CA:TFA, Thor) the MCU is actually pretty good at both presenting your typical comic book love interest without it becoming overly cliche and forced. Sterns is the only one with some mildly character flavored dialogue if not counting Blonsky's very typical villain lines.

Now, obviously there is way more to a movie than just dialogue (In fact, dialogue alone may be the stronger parts of IM2 and TDW) but it's still a pretty good indicator of how good a movie is overall. I mean, I've never seen a movie and thought the dialogue was utterly horrid but the movie itself was good. And movies like Green Lantern always sound as if the bulk of the writing was done by just grabbing the most cliche lines directly off TVtropes. TIH's dialogue definitely hurts it (the strongest scenes are the ones in south America which have very little spoken lines), and it makes for weak and mostly uninteresting characters which is why I was honestly taken back and surprised by how much I loved Dr. Banner in the Avengers. Based off the solo attempt I assumed this was just a really boring character I would never care about.

I'll be honest I don't agree with a lot of this, but I understand your points and totally see where you are coming from.

 

[Guard82]

I think TIH is referenced just as much as the other solo movies in the team ups, and perhaps the reasons it feels forgotten is simply because it's a different actor referencing the movie, and that any solo is going to look kind of "abandoned" compared to a bunch of ongoing series.

But believe you me, it is still a pretty poorly done film.

So, to me, a huge part of what makes a good movie is the characters. There are only so many versions of the hero's journey you can put on film so it's going to come down to changing up the details, the story beats, the tone, and making sure we can even be bothered to care about this particular hero.

A huge part of building character is done through dialogue. So take IM2 & 3, TDW, and TIH. Try and straight up ignore what you know about comics and the characters past works, turn off the video and just listen to the dialogue and here's what you get:

IM3: Dead on, great character moments and engaging dialogue, each character is easy to tell apart from just their lines.

TDW: Some weaker moments but most characters are still well defined. Thor's relationship with most characters can be be inferred through the dialogue although it could have been built up better and a lot of roles were underplayed or given little to do in the story despite their apparent importance. (I'm also one of those who feels the alien dialogue was a bit harmful to the overall film. Your ear just hears when most people are faking a language, either it isn't their own or is entirely made up, and it hurts those sections).

IM2: The actors do a lot to save this movie, admittedly, by really bringing it in their dialogue. So even while it still has a lot of weak moments, the performances totally carry this film. Tony's character isn't as strong as it is in his other movies but then he thinks he's dying so there is some sense to that. Hammer and Pepper, though, are very well built characters who shine in the dialogue even while others - Vanko, Natasha - are a bit muddled and lost (Since Natasha plays the part of a generic assistant here, it makes some sense, but her lack of real personality change when she shifts into SHIELD mode could have been better handled). Still, the weakest of the three attempts dialogue wise.

TIH: Actually painful to listen to in some parts. The dialogue doesn't really deferential between characters in any strong sense. This line of scientific gobbly **** could be spoken by Banner, Ross, Ross, Samson or Sterns you wouldn't know. Most of the romance scenes are just painful which is too bad seeing as for the most part (IM1-3, CA:TFA, Thor) the MCU is actually pretty good at both presenting your typical comic book love interest without it becoming overly cliche and forced. Sterns is the only one with some mildly character flavored dialogue if not counting Blonsky's very typical villain lines.

Now, obviously there is way more to a movie than just dialogue (In fact, dialogue alone may be the stronger parts of IM2 and TDW) but it's still a pretty good indicator of how good a movie is overall. I mean, I've never seen a movie and thought the dialogue was utterly horrid but the movie itself was good. And movies like Green Lantern always sound as if the bulk of the writing was done by just grabbing the most cliche lines directly off TVtropes. TIH's dialogue definitely hurts it (the strongest scenes are the ones in south America which have very little spoken lines), and it makes for weak and mostly uninteresting characters which is why I was honestly taken back and surprised by how much I loved Dr. Banner in the Avengers. Based off the solo attempt I assumed this was just a really boring character I would never care about.

I agree with a lot of the points you make here. Nice post.

 

[DACrowe]

Iron Man 2 felt like the biggest failure, but Thor 2 had a lot less potential to squander since it didn't aim to be much more than fluff. Neither are memorable.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Regarding the TIH discussion though I will add that movie has 2 moments which still make me giggle like a school child and that puts it above the likes of TDW and the IM sequels for me.

1) when Hulk finally overpowers Abom in their fight and...
2) straight after when he uses the Thunder clap to put out the flames on the helicopter.

 

[Bayne]

I continue to wonder when the "fans" will finally get over their irrational hatred of IM3. Or at least stop making ludicrous arguments that simultaneously condemn the movie for being unfaithful to the comics, while also condemning the movie for not using Fake!Mandarin, despite the fact that these two complaints are incompatible, as Trevor!Mandarin was even less faithful to the comics than Killian!Mandarin.

I suspect it will happen around the same time that IM3's insistent defenders stop implying that everyone who hates IM3 is a dumb, rabid hypocritical fan boy with no valid complaints and acknowledge that the movie actually has a lot of problematic parts.

 

[DrCosmic]

Polls are so interesting. Someone walked out of Guardians of the Galaxy and was like "Man, Marvel's really hit a low point."

 

[Rowsdower!]

LOL, yeah. GOTG, in my opinion, was Marvel's best film. I can't imagine why someone would rank it as the worst of the bunch.

 

[Eddie]

Somebody clearly had a bad experience with a walkman in their younger days. Peter Quill triggered them.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Hahahaha

That's understandable. Walkmans (Walkmen?) were a pain in the ass. Thank God for Steve Jobs.

 

[DA_Champion]

Polls are so interesting. Someone walked out of Guardians of the Galaxy and was like "Man, Marvel's really hit a low point."

LOL, yeah. GOTG, in my opinion, was Marvel's best film. I can't imagine why someone would rank it as the worst of the bunch.

After watching GoTG, I ranked it in the forum poll here a 7/10 (might have been 8/10), and I remember I was tied for harshest voter.

So overall, the vast majority of posters here loved it.

 

[arrownoir.]

Dark World's pretty unwatchable. IronMan 2 & 3 gives it a pretty good run for its money though.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

LOL, yeah. GOTG, in my opinion, was Marvel's best film. I can't imagine why someone would rank it as the worst of the bunch.

Same here, best MCU movie so far for me, which is no mean feat.

 

[gildedmuse]

I'll be honest I don't agree with a lot of this, but I understand your points and totally see where you are coming from.

I'm really actually grateful that is how it came across. Replying to these types of questions can be a bit dangerous because there will be people answering from all over the spectrum: Is the Worst MCU movie the one that has the weakest artistic/technical elements or the one you enjoyed the least? Even if you do attempt to answer more critically some people will always dismiss it as being simply an opinion and thus having no "true" worth.

A lot of it goes with this idea people have that "objective = true factual reality, subjective = pure personal opinion", that these concepts exist as total opposites with no possible ambiguity or spectrum, and that therefore anything not easily quantified has no real world value because it's entirely at the mercy of a person's view point. I mean, if that were true... Well, nothing exists independently, everything is filtered through our minds and experiences making all of reality subjective. That's an interesting debate in philosophy, sure, but such a strict adherence to the definitions shows just how useless the terms are in real life unless you accept that even objective isn't without some subjectivity. Which is why, really, art/entertainment is not as entirely as subjective as some people like to posit. Things like English and Film Crit are considered intersubjective; they may not be metaphysically objective but they are also not the product of a single person's unique taste. It's the difference between the actual quality of a painting and how that painting makes you feel. Maybe when you look at a Da Vinci you feel nothing, but just because you don't like the work doesn't mean you can dismiss it as being horribly made. Just because something fails to get a positive reaction from you on an emotional level, doesn't mean you can't recognize the artistic skill level involved.

Likewise, you can say that these aspects are poorly done, this features are a weakness and it does mean more than simply "well I didn't like it". True criticism relies on more than just a person's particular feelings but on an actual study/understanding of the medium. It helps if you put the criticism in context, of course.

For instance, I thought Iron Man 3 was a sharp, witty and wonderful film that did all the things I wanted it to. It stayed Tony focused, it showed him breaking down in response to the Avengers's movie and dealt with some serious subjects (PTSD, racism, capitalist as warmongers) while keeping the general tone from past movies and never breaking Tony's character. I might rank it higher than the first one. Yet I feel I can probably criticizes it better than, oh... 80% of IM3 related posts. Because while movies might be art, this:

"The Mandarin Twist hurt the film because the Killain's motivations can easily come across as petty and personal. The way the film introduces him as someone begging for Tony's attention,then in his next scene has him in talks with Stark Industries, flirting with Tony's love interest, and then two scenes later has the Mandarin targeting Tony's home effectively makes it feel as though Killian's whole plan revolves around Tony rather than it being a matter of Tony actively getting in the way and Killian reacting. As a result the Mandarin figure that Killian created as a distraction comes of as the more creditable threat: he appears as a highly effective, ideological driven terrorist whose interest isn't focused on Tony but rather could potentially attack anywhere at anytime making him more dangerous to a far more people. Because of this when the twist is reveled it effectively trades in an ambitious villain with a wide reach for one with a much narrower focus. If you see Killian's plan as all having been leading up to taking revenge on Tony for abandoning him at a party a number of years ago then what you are left with is a villain who has spent the last decade accumulating wealth and power in order to create a figure so terrifying the president is giving into his demands all so he can destroy the life of one drunk guy who ignored him,and this isn't even presented as something pathetic or funny. The movie tries to maintain the tone that Killian is a creditable and major threat, but unlike his own puppet Killain comes off as a shallow character created only to be the typical villain. Meet hero. Hate hero. Try to defeat hero.

Is simply more objectively stated than this:

IM3 is the worst. The Killian twist is so lame. God where is the Mandarin we were promised in the trailers! I was so disappointed with the whole thing.

(The movie may have very well disappointed you because of certain expectations you had, but not only is disappointed a very subjective emotional response you're entirely reasoning is that the trailers misled you. That's both personal and fails to address the actual content of the film at all.)

Or this:

That movie just pissed me off. Why even use The Mandarin character only to turn him into a joke?

(Believe it or not, simply "not being like the comic books" is actually not considered a valid criticisms but the vast majority of scholars out there. And no it's not because they are too pretentious for comics. Most the academics I know are actually pretty geeky and love their original source material. However you still generally have to show that the original source is better for some reason other than it simply coming first. Especially true when you are changing media which inherently requires certain changes. Plus, instead of adapting a single story you are simply adapting a character who has been in a wide variety of stories and even the original medium has gone through a few evolution. Now there are arguments to be made for the importance of sticking to the source, but a bad adaption is not nessisarily a bad movie.)

Even when you approach something more critically, though, people watch movies for different reasons and with different focuses. I'm more of a reader and a literary critic so, yeah, I go right for the story, characters, tone, theme, and script which are all aspects you find in (or are comparable between) books as well, but I understand that there is so much more that goes into creating the whole movie experience that just because I rank those qualities so highly does not mean it is what everyone else is watching for so it's not the aspects everyone else will be looking at when comparing films. If you're a visual person you're going to consider framing and film techniques and cgi a lot more than I would. If you're the kind of person who doesn't care so much about characters or story of themes but watches movies for those big "moments" and can really argue your point that a certain movie did those the best, well, I mean in reality I would probably try and convince you how fricking important the characters, etc are but I love a good debate. However, sure, on some objective level you could very well show that one movie had those bigger, better moments.

That post ended up so not in the leas bit helpful and went to somewhere I didn't intend. Sorry.

 

[JtheDreamer]

LOL, yeah. GOTG, in my opinion, was Marvel's best film. I can't imagine why someone would rank it as the worst of the bunch.

I had it in a three-way Mexican standoff for worst with CA:TFA and T:TDW.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Regarding the TIH discussion though I will add that movie has 2 moments which still make me giggle like a school child and that puts it above the likes of TDW and the IM sequels for me.

1) when Hulk finally overpowers Abom in their fight and...
2) straight after when he uses the Thunder clap to put out the flames on the helicopter.

Aside from some dated CGI, I've never understood the flack it gets. It's not a complex film by any means, but the pacing is snappy (definite Feige material) and there's so much MCU goodness packed in there.

I would have preferred they kept the Norton gun scene to give it the emotional element though. Really wish I understood why they chose to cut it.

 

[Loki882]

I'd personally take TIH over TDW, IM 2 & 3, and Ant Man. They all have far more flaws and are more inconsistent imo.

 

[Lantern Venom]

(Believe it or not, simply "not being like the comic books" is actually not considered a valid criticisms but the vast majority of scholars out there. And no it's not because they are too pretentious for comics. Most the academics I know are actually pretty geeky and love their original source material. However you still generally have to show that the original source is better for some reason other than it simply coming first..

If it's successful material, then it has already validated itself. The burden then falls to the people changing the material in the adaptation to prove that the alteration is both necessary and better. Based on the outrage from Iron Man fans, both readers and movie franchise, Marvel Studios didn't do that with Mandarin.

 

[Loki882]

Agreed. I'm fine with them making changes sometimes, as long as you can sell me on it and show WHY changing it makes for a more compelling story.

For example, The Winter Soldier arc in the film diverges from the comics in may ways, and Alexander Pierce is pretty much an "in name only" character when compared to CB Pierce. But those changes worked in-context and the movie justified them well.

The comics has already proven it's worth, the films wouldn't have picked those particular ones to adapt if they hadn't. So if you're going to change things, you have to show WHY said changes are better, or at least as interesting. Otherwise, lots of people go "what's the point, the original material was more interesting to begin with?"