Mon, July 27, 2026 at 12:45 AM UTC
The age of superhero movie domination is almost certainly coming to a close. With films like “Backrooms and Obsession” leading one of the most important weekends ever at the box office in 2026, coupled with widespread superhero fatigue (yes, that’s a thing, and it’s becoming clearer with every new B-tier character James Gunn tries to elevate at DC Studios), the writing really is on the wall: It’s time for superhero movies to take a nice, long break for their own good. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take stock of the last couple decades worth of superhero-mayhem. In fact, we have a duty to do so.
Is superhero fatigue a result of too many comic book movies or too many bad comic book movies? If so, what makes a bad comic book movie? Well, we’ve assembled the ultimate group of case studies using the highly scientific method of having a quick look at Rotten Tomatoes.
While a film like “Deadpool & Wolverine,” which was essentially one long cameo reel, remains fascinating for being so unlike anything that had come before (is it an event, theme park attraction, or a movie?), some superhero films have just been unequivocally bad. We’re not talking “Batman & Robin” bad, either — and that was an infamous travesty. We’re talking films that have only just managed to prod the Tomatometer beyond 0%. Yes, these are the movies that lurk at the very deepest level of the Rotten Tomatoes strata. Come with us as we dare to relive some of the darkest moments in superhero movie history, and not dark in a cool, “Dark Knight,” Christopher-Nolan-does-“Heat” kind of way.
Catwoman – 8%
Was there ever any doubt this would be on the list? Look, it’s no good piling on here. “Catwoman” has come in for so much flak over the years that we’re loath to dredge this one up just to put it down for the umpteenth time. Nevertheless, Halle Berry’s woeful 2004 superhero movie is in the bottom five on Rotten Tomatoes, with an 8% critic score based on 195 reviews. Hey, some of the films on this list would probably kill for such a score — not that that will be any consolation to those responsible for unleashing this infamous flop.
Back in 1992, Tim Burton ushered in the franchise era with his freakish “Batman Returns.” Alongside many other triumphs, this still severely underrated Batman movie gave us the best on-screen Catwoman yet. Michelle Pfeiffer’s Selina Kyle was a fascinating character, an office drone alienated and overcome by the drudgery of full-time work and pushed to her breaking point by a perfume ad in a subtle yet scathing indictment of the modern age’s ever-present commercialism. Halle Berry’s version? Well, she played basketball.
In fairness, Berry didn’t play Selina Kyle since “Catwoman” couldn’t use the title character’s original name. Instead, she played Patience Phillips in a film that never really had a chance of garnering any sort of critical praise. In fact, let’s see how it even managed 8% … Turns out, Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times enjoyed the way that French director “Pitof” brought “sophistication to a comic book sensibility.” Indeed, the part where he zooms in on Berry’s ass during her basketball game recalls the most sublime achievements of the Rive Gauche movement.
Son of the Mask – 6%
1994’s “The Mask” remains foundational for ’90s kids raised on the comedic stylings of Jim Carrey. But it’s also weirder and darker than his other beloved classics, which is likely the result of “A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors” and “The Blob” director Charles Russell overseeing production. That and the fact the comic book on which it’s based was pretty darn violent — like splatter punk violent. Of course, the movie got rid of all of that, but it started life as a much more adult film, and vestiges of its original tone lingered.
Now, what can be said of “Son of the Mask?” Well, for one thing, instead of being infused with a horror filmmaker’s sensibility, the follow-up was directed by the guy who made “Cats & Dogs.” Y’know, where the dogs and cats are spies with little headsets and stuff?
After the original movie became a surprise hit, plans to bring back Carrey for a “Mask” sequel fell through, and the project stalled. Eventually, in the early 2000s, development resumed, with Jamie Kennedy coming aboard to play a cartoonist whose dog brings the titular artifact home and gives it to his baby … or something. Look, this thing has a 6% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes based on 102 reviews. I’m not watching it.
The “Mask” follow-up barely registered on the radars of kids who’d grown up with Carrey’s inimitable take on the Dark Horse Comics character, and it certainly didn’t impress any critics. Of the 33 “top critics” included on Rotten Tomatoes, two liked this movie, and both urged viewers to throw caution to the wind and embrace their inner child. The others wrote stuff like, “Parents who let their kids see this stinker should be brought up on abuse charges.”
Zoom – 5%
“Zoom” (or “Zoom: Academy for Superheroes”) might just be Courteney Cox’s worst movie. That’s certainly the case where this 2006 dud managed just a 5% critic score based on 66 reviews. What could be so egregious about a family friendly superhero adventure? Well, for one thing, it’s got Tim Allen and Chevy Chase in it. But otherwise, it just isn’t very entertaining … or fun … or good
Needless to say, critics had a grand old time coming up with ways of using this film’s title against it. “Zoom” evidently “describes the sound that you should make in your car, or on foot, or on mule, heading away from any cinema showing this film.” Rob Mackie of The Guardian, there. Otherwise, it was abundantly clear to every single “top critic” included in the RT score that this movie was rubbish. Yes, that 5% came not from the exalted reviewers with special Rotten Tomatoes privileges but from the peasants in the “all critics” category, three of whom seemed to enjoy “Zoom.”
With all that in mind, do you really want to know what this film is about? It’s Tim Allen playing a retired hero who has to train a bunch of kids to be superheroes, and Courteney Cox is there. It’s also based on Jason Lethcoe’s children’s book “Amazing Adventures from Zoom’s Academy,” and that’s probably a better place to get your kids’ superhero entertainment from than this movie, which Joe Leydon of Variety likened to “a subpar episode of a failed Disney Channel teleseries.” Kudos for no zoom puns, Leydon.
Steel – 4%
Warner Bros. is the studio that gave us such seminal superhero movies as Richard Donner’s “Superman,” Tim Burton’s “Batman,” and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s “Black Adam.” Okay, maybe WB doesn’t have a perfect record. Come to think of it, there’s been some truly regrettable entries in the DC adaptation canon, and “Steel” might be even worse than “Black Adam.”
Somebody saw Shaquille O’Neal mumble his way through post-game interviews and said, “That man has what it takes to be a movie star.” Amazingly, somebody else had to agree, before yet another person came up with the idea of putting this man in an ill-fitting costume-store suit and having him amble around downtown Los Angeles stopping crime with all the enthusiasm of a deflated Spalding. In fairness, unlike so many films on this list, “Steel” is actually a good time if you go in knowing what to expect. It’s definitely in so-bad-it’s-good territory and worth a watch in a “How did this get made?” sort of way. What’s more, “Steel” had its heart in the right place, representing an early instance of a Black superhero on the big screen.
Sadly, though, there’s no escaping the fact the movie failed to give the DC Comics character on which it’s based a worthy adaptation, and the film’s 4% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes is testament to that fact. Admittedly, that score is based on just 24 reviews, but it’s unlikely its score would improve much (if at all) with more reviews listed. As it stands, “Steel” is the superhero movie with the second-lowest critic score on the site. Only one film has managed to outdo Shaq’s ill-fated comic book adaptation…
Max Steel – 0%
They did it, folks. Hollywood made a superhero movie with the power to freeze the almighty Tomatometer at a flat zero percent. Applause all round for “Max Steel,” which is not a sequel to Shaq’s “Steel” movie but a 2016 film based on Mattel’s toy line. Forged to fight against the forces of competent moviemaking by a coalition of the most wretched minds in Hollywood, “Max Steel” is truly the hero nobody deserved but which we all got back in 2016.
Things weren’t looking good from the off with this one, which bombed at the box office by bringing in $6.3 million on a $10 million budget. You’d never think a movie about a teenager who bonds with an extraterrestrial to create a super-powered techno being would be too hard to get right. After all, this was a film squarely aimed at a younger audience that would’ve been perfectly fine with some half-decent action and the lineaments of a narrative. Yet, as Christy Lemire wrote for RogerEbert.com, “A movie based on a toy should be a whole lot more fun than this.” That’s about the nicest thing anyone wrote about this flick, too, with Sam Fragoso of TheWrap describing it as “an autumnal, amorphous blockbuster that just sits there, suspended in mid-air, as you soak in its ceaseless banality.”
Unsurprisingly, the Rotten Tomatoes situation is dire. Not a single one of the 21 reviews collected by the site for the movie are positive, resulting in an abject 0% score. As such, the film’s only legacy is being one of several sci-fi movies so bad they were pulled from theaters.
If you’re looking for the easiest way to keep up with all the major movie and TV news, why not sign up to our free newsletter? You can also add us as a preferred search
Read the original article on SlashFilm.
