A “Catwoman” project rumbled around in the Hollywood circles for over a decade after Michelle Pfeiffer’s Selina Kyle stole the show in “Batman Returns.” In fact, Tim Burton had an $18 million idea for a “Catwoman” spin-off. As is often the case in the studio system, the interesting concepts make way for whatever brain fart the boardroom has on the day, so a decision was taken for an all-new “Catwoman” film, directed by Pitof (yes, known by just one name) and starring Halle Berry as the titular character.

Berry doesn’t play Selina, though; instead, she’s the meek and mild Patience Phillips who works for an evil cosmetics company. After she discovers the dangerous side effects of a product that the company sells, she’s offed, only to be revived and given powers by a cat that’s actually connected to an Egyptian god.

On the surface, 2004’s “Catwoman” sounds like a feline version of “The Crow,” as well as a subtle social commentary about the dangers of cosmetic companies and their destructive role in the distortion of beauty. What “Catwoman” turns out to be is less cat power and more kitty litter. The film is a total disaster, from top to bottom, where even an Academy Award winner like Berry is made to look bad as what’s effectively Catwoman 2000. Also, the less said about the goofy costume, the better. Unfortunately, Berry’s Catwoman falls very much into the “we have Catwoman at home” category, and that isn’t a compliment.

If you think about the Green Lantern Corps and which character Ryan Reynolds would be perfect for, the right answer would be Guy Gardner. Reynolds’ natural biting humor and sneaky snark fit the mold of the loudmouth Lantern with the bowl-cut haircut. As Hal Jordan, though? Nah.

This holds true in 2011’s “Green Lantern,” as Reynolds’ Hal feels off from the get-go, though this is only one of the various cinema sins committed in the Martin Campbell-directed movie. This version of Hal is like a ChatGPT summary of what every superhero origin tale needs to contain without any of the nuance of what makes Hal stand out from other Lanterns, such as Gardner, John Stewart, and Kyle Rayner. Unfortunately, this results in the character (and actor) never quite fitting in here, there, or anywhere. It’s almost as if no one read an actual “Green Lantern” comic book before making the movie.

Showing incredible self-awareness, Ryan Reynolds knows why “Green Lantern” failed, often discussing how not enough work went into establishing what the film was supposed to be in the first place. He also isn’t against poking fun at himself and performance, including his own meta assassination after receiving the “Green Lantern” script in “Deadpool 2.”

Spare a thought for Ben Affleck, who experienced a woeful 2003. Not only did he have the fallout of “Gigli” to contend with (which Seth Rogen could have starred in), but he also had to wash off the stench of “Paycheck” and “Daredevil.” To make matters worse, all three films saw him win a Razzie Award — a dishonorable trophy that he smashed up on “Larry King Live.” Hopefully, the millions he received in payment for the movies soothed the indignation.

It’s tough to lay all the fault of “Daredevil” on Affleck, but he isn’t faultless here either. He looks mighty uncomfortable in the tight leather suit that could easily have been the prototype for Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman, but he also never fully convinces as Matt Murdock. Whether it’s the script, direction, or his own acting, Affleck appears to be in another movie altogether. It’s even worse when you look back now and compare him to Charlie Cox’s version of the character, which is infinitely better.

Ben Affleck regrets “Daredevil,” though he admitted he still cares for the character deeply. He would have another turn at a major superhero in the form of Batman, but that didn’t exactly turn out any better as studio politics played a factor in his various appearances as the Dark Knight.

Let’s get this out of the way immediately: Joel Schumacher’s “Batman & Robin” is a two-hour commercial to sell Happy Meals and merchandise. Consequently, no one should expect this film to be deeper than the first step of a swimming pool. It’s shallow entertainment designed for marketing purposes and Batnipple aficionados. No matter which actor would have been under the cowl, it’s likely that they, too, would have sucked.

For George Clooney, it’s almost a double blow, because he was perfect for the part. Rich, handsome, and appearing with the latest model on his arm at social gatherings, he was a real-life Bruce Wayne in the ’90s. Yet all the charm and sophistication fade away in “Batman & Robin,” as Clooney plays what can only be deemed an “In Living Color” parody of the DC superhero. His lines fall flat. He has no grit nor conviction in the action. Face it, he’s more fruit bat than Batman.

Clooney has done the apology tour for his part in the movie, even reprising the role for a gag cameo in 2023’s “The Flash.” Does that mean there’s a chance he could feature in a “Batman Beyond” project or multiverse crossover project down the line? George Clooney has issued a blunt statement about his Batman future, saying, “I don’t think there’s enough drugs in the world for me to go back.”

At this point, Jared Leto should stay away from comic book movies forever, because he’s the one superhero actor who is always horribly miscast. Fresh from the hunka-hunka hubris of the Joker in 2016’s “Suicide Squad,” the man with a thousand method acting holds returned as Michael Morbius in Daniel Espinosa’s “Morbius.” As far as we know, Leto didn’t bite the head off a bat nor hang upside down in a cave for a month to prepare for the role, but he used crutches to get around as he tried to channel the movements of the character before his vampiric transformation.

Even so, this all feels excessive when you watch “Morbius.” There’s absolutely nothing serious about this movie, as it’s silly superhero fodder reminiscent of days gone by. Yet, Leto commits to it like a Shakespearean performer doing an over dramatic rendition of “Othello.” Did he stay in his trailer the whole time and not see the rest of the production apart from his own scenes?

If Leto had hammed it up like his co-star Matt Smith did as Milo, he would have likely had taken less flack for this giggle-worthy performance. Instead, he’s now remembered as the actor who morbed a million memes. But hey, no one can argue that 2022 was truly the year of “Morbius.”

No one can dispute Shaquille O’Neal’s extraordinary ability on a basketball court, but as an actor leading his own superhero movie? Yikes! Based on the popular DC Comics character of the same name, 1997’s “Steel” sees Shaq suit up as John Henry Irons, who creates an armored outfit to fight crime.

Apart from the horribly designed costume that makes Steel look like a 1960s kettle, Shaq didn’t have the acting experience nor on-screen charisma to carry the film. It’s almost as if he’s learning how to be a leading man with each progressing scene, and it shows in the final product.

As it turns out, “Steel” director Kenneth Johnson agreed that Shaq was wrong for the part, but he had no choice in the matter. “Shaq is a nice guy, but he had done two movies, neither of which made any money or noise,” Johnson told Vice. “He’s not an actor. Yes, he was a big persona and a great role model for kids and all that, but he’s no movie star. But these people just wouldn’t budge a dime to place an actual movie star in the role.” In the end, “Steel” turned into the worst DC Comics movie, at least according to IMDb.

Most Marvel fans forget that Dolph Lundgren played Frank Castle once upon a time in 1989’s “The Punisher.” While it didn’t have the Cannon Group logo slapped over the intro, it might as well have, since this low-budget affair cost less than half a dozen hot dog rolls. In tone, it nails the dark and broody elements of the character, as Lundgren’s Punisher tallies up a body count to make serial killers jealous. But how is this different to any other revenge film that Lundgren has been in? What about this makes him the Punisher?

Sure, he dyes his hair jet black and looks like he could have been drawn by John Romita Sr., but there’s no real connection to this being a “Punisher” film apart from the name. This isn’t strictly Lundgren’s fault, as Boaz Yakin’s script largely avoids the rest of the Marvel Universe — likely because of complicated rights issues — but would anyone put Lundgren’s version of the character above the interpretations from Thomas Jane, Ray Stevenson, or Jon Bernthal? Let’s be real, if we’re ranking every live-action version of Marvel’s Punisher, he has to be stone last.

“Titans” remains one of the strangest DC shows of all time. While it soars to incredible heights, it also can’t get out of its own way when it’s on a roll. In season 1, it’s clear that the show doesn’t want to develop a reliance on Batman — and it works, as the Dark Knight features largely in the shadows or briefly in blink-and-you-miss-it moments. Season 2 changes this by introducing “Game of Thrones” actor Iain Glen in the recurring role of Bruce Wayne in “Titans.”

Ironically, fans thought Glen was Alfred Pennyworth when he appeared on screen for the first time. Forget about the age factor, since this is a creative choice to include an older Bruce in the story, and consider the performance. While Glen is a tremendous actor, he does come across as a better Alfred than Bruce. Maybe it’s because we have blinkers on and remember him best as the supporting character Jorah Mormont in “Game of Thrones” rather than the undisputed hero.

Regardless, hardly anyone is about to mention Glen as one of the best actors to play a live-action Batman — heck, even Clooney might get more votes than him.

Remember the time in which Hollywood tried to turn Taylor Kitsch into an A-lister with projects like “John Carter,” “Battleship,” and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” awhile back? That’s not to say he didn’t deserve it, because he’s a highly underrated character actor, but it did turn into a situation where studios attempted to put a square peg into a round hole, especially in terms of the X-Men role of Gambit.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” boasts many, many issues that are worthy of an entire book, but its biggest crime is shoehorning mutants into the movie. Case in point: Gambit, The Ragin’ Cajun, who didn’t need to be in this story at all, but hey, here he is! While Kitsch is blameless for the terrible dialog and lack of comic-accurate costume, he does himself no favors with the vanilla accent and underwhelming performance as Remy LeBeau. Hardly anything about him screams Gambit.

Taylor Kitsch’s Gambit only appeared in “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” and that’s more than enough for the average viewer. After seeing how Channing Tatum made a name for himself as the character in “Deadpool & Wolverine,” it’s unlikely that anyone would want to see Kitsch’s interpretation ever again. May this version stay dead and buried in Fox’s “X-Men”-verse, along with the silent Wade Wilson.

Hey, Siri, show me a video of sleepwalking in a movie. Is anyone surprised that Dakota Johnson’s performance as Cassandra Webb in “Madame Web” comes back as the number one result?

You can visibly see the moments in the movie when Johnson’s soul leaves her body and she officially gives up, as she puts in minimal effort into her line delivery or believability as the character. Judging by her comments after the release of “Madame Web,” it’s obvious that she knew this was a dud in the making, and there was little she could do to salvage it from the non-creative creative committee. Dakota Johnson is adamant she ‘will never do anything’ like “Madame Web” again, and who can blame her?

Look, it’s weird that Sony made a movie about a D-list Spider-Man character to begin with. What’s even stranger is how no one bothered to research and understand the source material. There’s nothing “Madame Web” here, so whatever character Johnson is playing here is anyone’s guess and certainly tangled us in its web of confusion.

The issues with “Batman & Robin” were covered earlier, and no one escapes the film with their reputation intact. However, there’s yet another superhero miscast that we can’t look past: Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. So, first off, Silverstone isn’t playing Barbara Gordon, Jim Gordon’s red-headed daughter. Instead, she’s Barbara Wilson, Alfred Pennyworth’s very blonde niece. Why? Who knows! The entire origin story gets changed for the character to turn her into an orphan, because apparently those are the only people who can relate to Bruce Wayne/Batman, and someone read something about symmetry in a screenwriting book in the past.

Due to this change, Silverstone’s character already feels foreign to anyone familiar with the backstory. It also isn’t helped by the fact that Silverstone practically plays Cher Horowitz (“Clueless”) here, spending the bulk of the film pulling funny faces and coming off as uncomfortable in the part. You never get the impression that Barbara is actually superhero material, seeing her more as a third wheel to the duo of Batman and Robin.

It’s almost as if Batgirl was included as an afterthought in the film when someone high up at Warner Bros. realized there’s the potential to add more characters to the toy line. Sounds like a lot of “Batman & Robin” was thrown together at the last minute.

In 1998, “Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.” debuted on television screens, aiming to be a backdoor pilot to a full-blown series. Well, it didn’t happen, because pretty much everyone hated it. In the lead role was “Baywatch” star David Hasselhoff, who does actually possess a striking resemblance to the original version of the character from the comics. Hasselhoff also hasn’t been shy of telling anyone who wants to listen how the Hoff’s version of Nick Fury is better than Samuel L. Jackson’s, while claiming that Marvel lied to him about having a ‘forever’ gig.

But honestly, Hoff’s Fury is the soap opera Nick Fury. He’s John Black in “Days of Our Lives” and Ridge Forrester in “The Bold and the Beautiful.” He’s a tough guy cheeseball who inspires more hilarity than heroics. While it’s all good that Hasselhoff takes pride in his performance and considers it great, anyone with a set of eyes can see that Jackson’s Fury surpasses the Hoff’s in every single department. Sorry, Hoffriends, but Hasselhoff is a superhero actor who was horribly miscast.