5 Classic Superhero Movies That Are Unwatchable Today

No genre of film has changed as drastically over the last 30 years as the superhero movie. What was once seen as a goofy sector of Hollywood dominated by camp and middling reviews rose in short order to become the dominant genre worldwide. That era has subsided some over the last few years, as all movie trends eventually do, and looking back now, some superhero movies that were big hits in their day are far more difficult to return to.

We're not talking about the ones that were always hated, like the disastrous 2015 "Fantastic Four" movie, or "Batman & Robin," or more recent examples like "Thor: Love and Thunder." Today, we're focusing on films that were genuine hits — perhaps not with the critics, but at least with some notable degree of the moviegoing public.

These movies were relevant in pop culture and long had fervent supporters, some even counting among the best superhero movies for a time. Yet, going back to them now, they're nearly unwatchable. Some of that may just be unfortunate choices that date the film's irreparably. In other cases, its directors have lost whatever goodwill we used back then to ignore their shortcomings. With those parameters out of the way, let's look at these unwatchable classic superhero movies.

Many have nostalgia for 2005's "Fantastic Four" and its sequel "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer." Released in the midst of the early golden age of superhero cinema led by the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and the X-Men films, it was clear even then that it wasn't up to par with those movies. Looking back, it's far harder to watch.

From a basic story level, this is a deeply dull film. There is practically no action between the space adventure that grants the foursome their powers and the final showdown with Doctor Doom (Julian McMahon). The middle of the movie is largely spent getting a whitewashed Jessica Alba as naked as possible and following a sad Michael Chiklis around in a funny hat.

There's a level of chauvinism throughout, from the aforementioned Invisible Woman wardrobe malfunctions to Johnny's unceasing, aggressive flirtation with every woman he meets. And even if you try defending all that (good luck), the movie just isn't any fun. The film got a bit of a retroactive shot in the arm when Marvel Studios brought Chris Evans back as the Human Torch in "Deadpool & Wolverine," but one Pointing Rick Dalton meme does not a good movie make. The final reason why there's no reason to revisit this? After an ironic four tries, we finally got a genuinely great "Fantastic Four" movie with "First Steps" in 2025. It's time to put this one to rest.

It's easy to go after less successful superhero films of the late '90s and early 2000s, so let's switch it up. "Avengers: Age of Ultron, written and directed by Joss Whedon returning from the first "Avengers," was a big deal when it came out. It got solid reviews and grossed over $1.4 billion globally, nearly matching the earnings of its predecessor. And it's a giant mess.

First, of course, there's the Whedon of it all. Even before the wave of allegations came out, which ranged from sexual misconduct to on-set abuse, the "Buffy" creator's distinct brand of quippy dialogue began drawing the ire of fans. The characters all sound the same, and their lousy jokes in the midst of catastrophy cast a bizarre asymmetry.

Beyond that, "Age of Ultron" is boring. It's a 140-minute movie that feels like an arduous three hours, loaded with too many untethered CGI slugfests and an overly long climax that rehashes the basic parts of the first "Avengers" without any of the triumph. When you set this movie alongside the other three "Avengers" movies now, it feels woefully out of place. The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo)/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) stuff is hard to watch, the script is one long eye roll, and though Ultron (James Spader) is returning in the upcoming "VisionQuest" show on Disney+, the villain is a miss here. Amidst so many good MCU movies, there's no reason to watch this one again.

It would have been far too easy to put "Superman III" or "The Quest for Peace" here and call it a day. But the headline says "classics," and everyone agrees those last two Christopher Reeve Superman movies are unmitigated catastrophes. "Superman II," on the other hand, is remembered quite fondly, when in reality, it's far closer to its sequels than most would admit.

Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" remains a classic, dated by its episodic pacing and campy special effects, but magical all the same. Much of that is due to the chemistry between Reeve and Margo Kidder as Lois Lane, and their relationship landing at the center of "Superman II" sounds like a great move. What we get is a far less compelling version of Lois, a more self-centered, manipulative Clark Kent, and a film full of too many bizarre set pieces and Looney Tunes-esque storylines for its own good.

Then there's the so-called "Donner Cut" – a version released in 2006 meant to reflect the intentions of the original director. This version's tone and narrative consistency is certainly a step up, making the original theatrical version even less relevant. But the Donner Cut is riddled with similar issues — a level of camp that boils too high, villains who rarely make any sense, and a smattering of bizarre plot devices that only make the script more confusing.

Let's be clear on one thing: The 2003 "Daredevil' movie is very funny. The Evanescence songs, Colin Farrell going absolutely psychotic as Bullseye, the rainy flips and parkour montages that make it feel like a CrossFit version of "The Crow" — it's a hilarious, vestigial collection of early 2000s aesthetics that, for many years, kept it ironically relevant. But today, we have the spectacular Netflix "Daredevil" series and its successor, "Daredevil: Born Again," on Disney+, so what was already a challenging film to get through has become entirely irrelevant.

There are admittedly some bright spots. Michael Clarke Duncan is a lot of fun as Kingpin, in a way that the film seems to actually be aware of, and Jon Favreau makes for a pretty good Foggy Nelson. But Ben Affleck, in the midst of his tenure as a major Hollywood action star, just doesn't work, and the inescapable energy of the worst parts of the late '90s dates the film in a way that's hard to look past.

"Daredevil: Born Again" Season 3 is on the way as Charlie Cox continues to pour into the role of Matt Murdoch. The 2003 movie has been largely forgotten, but calling it completely "unwatchable" might be a tad unfair. It is, at least, very funny.

Amongst Zack Snyder's filmography are many comic book movies. His 2009 "Watchmen" adaptation came hot off the heels of his successful "Dawn of the Dead" remake and "300," and he was clearly on the way up. "Watchmen," however, struggled with critics, and while it was a pretty big movie that still has a lot of fans, it hasn't aged especially well.

On first watch, and especially if you haven't read the original graphic novel, Snyder's flashy cinematic style is pretty hard not to get swept up in. It's a bold, colorful movie that uses the comic panels of its source material as a strong inspiration for some visually striking shots. But "Watchmen" is also a very complicated story, with a lot of ugliness, complexity, and harsh ideology. The more you watch it, the more you notice that Snyder isn't as interested in all that as he is in showing you something violent and dramatic.

Put simply, there isn't much substance here, and the gritty, "dark" superhero schtick has been done more effectively on recent shows like "Invincible," "The Boys," and HBO's own "Watchmen" series, which has plenty of style but also embraces more sophisticated storytelling. The last several years have not been kind to Snyder, and "Watchmen" now feels both outdated and more than a little hollow.