10 Superhero Movies Roger Ebert Hated
Though renowned film critic Roger Ebert loved some superhero movies, there were a select few that he actually hated. Often considered one of the most influential movie critics of all time, Roger Ebert’s distinct voice and characteristic way of cutting through the jargon to deliver succinct and witty reviews of films saw him pass judgment on countless movies. Though Roger Ebert loved some superhero movies, there were other entries into the genre that he actually hated.
As Ebert passed away in 2013, he didn’t live to see the superhero fulfill its full potential as the dominant force in modern cinema, but he did witness the birth of the MCU and its pioneering of the genre. For all the comic book movies that Ebert considered great, there were others that he despised. On occasion, Roger Ebert was known to love terrible movies, but some superhero movies proved to be completely unenjoyable for the critic.
10 Elektra (2005) Ebert's Rating: 1.5 / 4 stars Close 2005’s Elektra brought Jennifer Garner’s titular character back from the dead after her introduction and demise in Daredevil. The movie, which received terrible reviews across the board, was also a superhero film that Roger Ebert hated. Rating it 1.5 stars out of 4, Ebert considered Elektra to be “muddled” and “lost in disorder”, lamenting its many missteps with his singular sense of humor.
Ebert’s review of the movie pokes fun at many of its more nonsensical elements, criticizing Elektra’s apparent inability to adequately contextualize its own story. He also disliked the film’s action sequences, explaining: “none of their shots are more than a few seconds long, saving the actors from doing much in the way of stunts and the director from having to worry overmuch about choreography.” Ebert’s review of Elektra is as witty as it is negative, deftly dismissing the movie as one of the worst of the superhero genre.
9 Thor (2011) Ebert's Rating: 1.5 / 4 stars Close Coming as it did early in the MCU’s movie timeline, 2011’s Thor did not have the benefit of the franchise’s more refined formula behind it. Instead, it had the task of establishing the MCU’s Asgardians, introducing a more fantastical element into a previously more human-centric franchise. This is a challenge that Ebert believes Thor did not rise to, as he considered it to be inferior to other entries into the superhero genre, including its MCU predecessor, Iron Man.
Ebert rated Thor 1.5 stars out of 4, and his review of the movie is scathing. He lamented its extensive use of CGI, and described the film as “a desolate vastation”. He explained that “the story might perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children, with Thor, Odin and the others played by piglets.” Ebert highlighted no real positives about the movie, firmly establishing that the MCU movie was not at all something he enjoyed.
8 Constantine (2005) Ebert's Rating: 1.5 / 4 stars Close Constantine, released in 2005, is one of DC’s less successful movies that later earned itself a cult following. Starring Keanu Reeves as the eponymous exorcist, Constantine follows the supernatural DC character as he fights to gain access to heaven by exorcising demons to Hell. It’s not a film that earned the respect of Roger Ebert, as the critic openly and actively disliked it, as evidenced by his review.
Offering it 1.5 out of 4 stars, Ebert had very little to say about the movie itself. Instead, his review simply pokes fun at various elements of the movie, from its visual presentation to some of its illogical plot points. There are no real positives in Ebert’s review of Constantine, although he suggests that Keanu Reeves’ performance might at least be on-brand for its dour protagonist, at least.
7 Blade: Trinity (2004) Ebert's Rating: 1.5 / 4 Stars Close Long before his return in the cast of Deadpool & Wolverine, Wesley Snipes’ Blade went out with a whimper in 2004’s Blade: Trinity. The movie rounded off a trilogy in decidedly underwhelming fashion, standing out as by far the worst of the three-film arc. Roger Ebert certainly considered it such, as his review of Blade: Trinity highlighted the movie’s many issues with a scathing indictment of many of its aspects.
Rating Blade: Trinity 1.5 out of 4 stars, Ebert compared it to its predecessors, explaining that “it lacks the sharp narrative line and crisp comic-book clarity of the earlier films”, and that it “descends too easily into shapeless fight scenes that are chopped into so many cuts that they lack all form or rhythm.” Ebert’s assessment of the movie is not at all positive, particularly as he compares it unfavorably to the two movies it follows.
6 The Green Hornet (2011) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 stars Close 2011’s The Green Hornet is far from a memorable superhero movie, as it earned only mixed reviews and swiftly faded into obscurity after its release. Based on the character first created in the 1930s and later featured in the TV series of the same name in the ‘60s, The Green Hornet stars Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, and Christoph Waltz. Roger Ebert had nothing but contempt for the film, rating it just 1 star out of 4.
Ebert described The Green Hornet as a “half-cooked mess”. He criticized Seth Rogen’s co-writing credit by asserting that he “[gave] himself way too many words, and then hurls them tirelessly at us at a modified shout.” In fact, Ebert had nothing positive to say about the movie whatsoever, ending his review by commenting on his dislike of 3D releases for blockbusters, particularly those like The Green Hornet.
5 Kick-Ass (2010) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 Stars Close Though 2010’s Kick-Ass caused some controversy upon its release, it was largely well-received by critics, and found success at the box office, later gaining a significant following. The movie is a dark comedy that satirizes elements of the superhero genre, following a high school boy as he joins forces with an 11-year-old vigilante to fight a gang of ruthless criminals. Despite its generally positive reception, Roger Ebert was on record as thoroughly hating Kick-Ass.
Ebert scored the film 1 out of 4 stars, and wrote at length about why he considered it “morally reprehensible”. He acknowledged that it was intended as satire, but that its brutal depiction of violence performed by a child was too much for him. “When kids in the age range of this movie’s home video audience are shooting one another every day in America,” Ebert explained, “that kind of stops being funny.”
4 Fantastic Four (2005) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 stars Close Years before the beginning of the MCU, the cast of 2005’s Fantastic Four established a superhero team on the big screen, bringing key Marvel heroes to life in live-action. The movie concerned the origins of the titular team, pitting them against Doctor Doom after gaining powers in a cosmic storm during a space mission. Ebert considered the movie tedious, explaining his dislike of its handling of the characters in detail in an overwhelmingly negative and insightful review.
Scoring it just 1 out of 4 stars, Ebert started by describing Fantastic Four as “all setup and demonstration, and naming and discussing and demonstrating,” and asserting that it never actually gets around to telling a compelling story. He described its heroes as being “underwhelming” due to being so “indifferent about themselves”, concluding by insisting that Fantastic Four was so inferior to other superhero movies that it didn’t even belong in the same theaters.
3 The Spirit (2008) Ebert's Rating: 1/ 4 stars Close Released in 2008, The Spirit is often listed among the worst superhero movies ever made. With an overwhelmingly negative critical reception, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Ebert’s voice was among those who disliked the film. His review heaped criticism on the movie, offering The Spirit just 1 out of 4 stars and launching straight into a powerfully cutting indictment of its many shortcomings.
Ebert starts by describing the film as having “not a trace of human emotion in it”. “To call the characters cardboard,” he continues, “is to insult a useful packing material.” He heavily criticizes Frank Miller’s direction, claiming that the movie is all style and no substance, and pointing at other adaptations of Miller’s work as better examples of how his stories can work on the big screen. Ebert had no real positives to mention about the movie, instead simply lamenting its lack of any general substance.
2 Catwoman (2004) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 stars Close It’s no secret that 2004’s Catwoman is one of the worst superhero movies ever made. The Halle Berry-led movie faced overwhelmingly negative reviews upon release, and its reputation has lived on in infamy ever since. Roger Ebert was an especially vocal detractor of the movie, with his 1-star review explaining in detail why he considered it such a terrible entry to the superhero genre.
Ebert’s review of Catwoman started by explaining that while Halle Berry looked great in the lead role, the movie seems to have been made simply to showcase her rather than tell a story. "Everything else is secondary,” he wrote, “except for the plot, which is tertiary.” He then compared Catwoman to Spider-Man 2, which was also released in 2004, explaining in no uncertain terms that the former lacks any semblance of human storytelling or exploration of its titular character.
1 The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 stars Close The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, released in 2003 and based loosely on the comic book series of the same name by Alan Grant and Kevin O’Neill, has not been remembered fondly by many. Despite being a financial success, the movie received generally unfavorable reviews, with the majority of critical appraisals ranging from the moderately negative to the utterly scathing. Roger Ebert’s was among the latter, and he scored the film 1 star out of 4.
Ebert’s review lamented the nonsensical nature of the movie’s plot, suggesting that it “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.” He poked fun at the countless inconsistencies and plot holes in the movie, making numerous jokes at its expense. Considering the nature of the review, it’s safe to say that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was one of those superhero movies that Roger Ebert hated.
Upcoming MCU Movies
As Ebert passed away in 2013, he didn’t live to see the superhero fulfill its full potential as the dominant force in modern cinema, but he did witness the birth of the MCU and its pioneering of the genre. For all the comic book movies that Ebert considered great, there were others that he despised. On occasion, Roger Ebert was known to love terrible movies, but some superhero movies proved to be completely unenjoyable for the critic.
10 Elektra (2005) Ebert's Rating: 1.5 / 4 stars Close 2005’s Elektra brought Jennifer Garner’s titular character back from the dead after her introduction and demise in Daredevil. The movie, which received terrible reviews across the board, was also a superhero film that Roger Ebert hated. Rating it 1.5 stars out of 4, Ebert considered Elektra to be “muddled” and “lost in disorder”, lamenting its many missteps with his singular sense of humor.
Ebert’s review of the movie pokes fun at many of its more nonsensical elements, criticizing Elektra’s apparent inability to adequately contextualize its own story. He also disliked the film’s action sequences, explaining: “none of their shots are more than a few seconds long, saving the actors from doing much in the way of stunts and the director from having to worry overmuch about choreography.” Ebert’s review of Elektra is as witty as it is negative, deftly dismissing the movie as one of the worst of the superhero genre.
9 Thor (2011) Ebert's Rating: 1.5 / 4 stars Close Coming as it did early in the MCU’s movie timeline, 2011’s Thor did not have the benefit of the franchise’s more refined formula behind it. Instead, it had the task of establishing the MCU’s Asgardians, introducing a more fantastical element into a previously more human-centric franchise. This is a challenge that Ebert believes Thor did not rise to, as he considered it to be inferior to other entries into the superhero genre, including its MCU predecessor, Iron Man.
Ebert rated Thor 1.5 stars out of 4, and his review of the movie is scathing. He lamented its extensive use of CGI, and described the film as “a desolate vastation”. He explained that “the story might perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children, with Thor, Odin and the others played by piglets.” Ebert highlighted no real positives about the movie, firmly establishing that the MCU movie was not at all something he enjoyed.
8 Constantine (2005) Ebert's Rating: 1.5 / 4 stars Close Constantine, released in 2005, is one of DC’s less successful movies that later earned itself a cult following. Starring Keanu Reeves as the eponymous exorcist, Constantine follows the supernatural DC character as he fights to gain access to heaven by exorcising demons to Hell. It’s not a film that earned the respect of Roger Ebert, as the critic openly and actively disliked it, as evidenced by his review.
Offering it 1.5 out of 4 stars, Ebert had very little to say about the movie itself. Instead, his review simply pokes fun at various elements of the movie, from its visual presentation to some of its illogical plot points. There are no real positives in Ebert’s review of Constantine, although he suggests that Keanu Reeves’ performance might at least be on-brand for its dour protagonist, at least.
7 Blade: Trinity (2004) Ebert's Rating: 1.5 / 4 Stars Close Long before his return in the cast of Deadpool & Wolverine, Wesley Snipes’ Blade went out with a whimper in 2004’s Blade: Trinity. The movie rounded off a trilogy in decidedly underwhelming fashion, standing out as by far the worst of the three-film arc. Roger Ebert certainly considered it such, as his review of Blade: Trinity highlighted the movie’s many issues with a scathing indictment of many of its aspects.
Rating Blade: Trinity 1.5 out of 4 stars, Ebert compared it to its predecessors, explaining that “it lacks the sharp narrative line and crisp comic-book clarity of the earlier films”, and that it “descends too easily into shapeless fight scenes that are chopped into so many cuts that they lack all form or rhythm.” Ebert’s assessment of the movie is not at all positive, particularly as he compares it unfavorably to the two movies it follows.
6 The Green Hornet (2011) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 stars Close 2011’s The Green Hornet is far from a memorable superhero movie, as it earned only mixed reviews and swiftly faded into obscurity after its release. Based on the character first created in the 1930s and later featured in the TV series of the same name in the ‘60s, The Green Hornet stars Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, and Christoph Waltz. Roger Ebert had nothing but contempt for the film, rating it just 1 star out of 4.
Ebert described The Green Hornet as a “half-cooked mess”. He criticized Seth Rogen’s co-writing credit by asserting that he “[gave] himself way too many words, and then hurls them tirelessly at us at a modified shout.” In fact, Ebert had nothing positive to say about the movie whatsoever, ending his review by commenting on his dislike of 3D releases for blockbusters, particularly those like The Green Hornet.
5 Kick-Ass (2010) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 Stars Close Though 2010’s Kick-Ass caused some controversy upon its release, it was largely well-received by critics, and found success at the box office, later gaining a significant following. The movie is a dark comedy that satirizes elements of the superhero genre, following a high school boy as he joins forces with an 11-year-old vigilante to fight a gang of ruthless criminals. Despite its generally positive reception, Roger Ebert was on record as thoroughly hating Kick-Ass.
Ebert scored the film 1 out of 4 stars, and wrote at length about why he considered it “morally reprehensible”. He acknowledged that it was intended as satire, but that its brutal depiction of violence performed by a child was too much for him. “When kids in the age range of this movie’s home video audience are shooting one another every day in America,” Ebert explained, “that kind of stops being funny.”
4 Fantastic Four (2005) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 stars Close Years before the beginning of the MCU, the cast of 2005’s Fantastic Four established a superhero team on the big screen, bringing key Marvel heroes to life in live-action. The movie concerned the origins of the titular team, pitting them against Doctor Doom after gaining powers in a cosmic storm during a space mission. Ebert considered the movie tedious, explaining his dislike of its handling of the characters in detail in an overwhelmingly negative and insightful review.
Scoring it just 1 out of 4 stars, Ebert started by describing Fantastic Four as “all setup and demonstration, and naming and discussing and demonstrating,” and asserting that it never actually gets around to telling a compelling story. He described its heroes as being “underwhelming” due to being so “indifferent about themselves”, concluding by insisting that Fantastic Four was so inferior to other superhero movies that it didn’t even belong in the same theaters.
3 The Spirit (2008) Ebert's Rating: 1/ 4 stars Close Released in 2008, The Spirit is often listed among the worst superhero movies ever made. With an overwhelmingly negative critical reception, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Ebert’s voice was among those who disliked the film. His review heaped criticism on the movie, offering The Spirit just 1 out of 4 stars and launching straight into a powerfully cutting indictment of its many shortcomings.
Ebert starts by describing the film as having “not a trace of human emotion in it”. “To call the characters cardboard,” he continues, “is to insult a useful packing material.” He heavily criticizes Frank Miller’s direction, claiming that the movie is all style and no substance, and pointing at other adaptations of Miller’s work as better examples of how his stories can work on the big screen. Ebert had no real positives to mention about the movie, instead simply lamenting its lack of any general substance.
2 Catwoman (2004) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 stars Close It’s no secret that 2004’s Catwoman is one of the worst superhero movies ever made. The Halle Berry-led movie faced overwhelmingly negative reviews upon release, and its reputation has lived on in infamy ever since. Roger Ebert was an especially vocal detractor of the movie, with his 1-star review explaining in detail why he considered it such a terrible entry to the superhero genre.
Ebert’s review of Catwoman started by explaining that while Halle Berry looked great in the lead role, the movie seems to have been made simply to showcase her rather than tell a story. "Everything else is secondary,” he wrote, “except for the plot, which is tertiary.” He then compared Catwoman to Spider-Man 2, which was also released in 2004, explaining in no uncertain terms that the former lacks any semblance of human storytelling or exploration of its titular character.
1 The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) Ebert's Rating: 1 / 4 stars Close The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, released in 2003 and based loosely on the comic book series of the same name by Alan Grant and Kevin O’Neill, has not been remembered fondly by many. Despite being a financial success, the movie received generally unfavorable reviews, with the majority of critical appraisals ranging from the moderately negative to the utterly scathing. Roger Ebert’s was among the latter, and he scored the film 1 star out of 4.
Ebert’s review lamented the nonsensical nature of the movie’s plot, suggesting that it “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.” He poked fun at the countless inconsistencies and plot holes in the movie, making numerous jokes at its expense. Considering the nature of the review, it’s safe to say that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was one of those superhero movies that Roger Ebert hated.
Upcoming MCU Movies
