The Worst DC Comics Movie, According To IMDb

Although Marvel has had its ups and downs in the last few years, it is largely accepted as conventional wisdom now that when it comes to the world of cinematic comic-book adaptations, they've always done things better or at least more consistently than DC. The Warner Bros.-led DC distribution arm has gone through many iterations of some of the comic-book company's most quintessential heroes, like Batman and Superman, as much because of distinctive directors like Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder wanting to put their stamp on these iconic figures as because some of the more ambitious efforts have been big swings and misses. Yes, some of the DC Comics films have been amazing, such as Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy, but then there are films like "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," or "Catwoman," just to name a couple of misfires.

And yet, while those latter two films are perhaps the most famously derided among DC's titles, neither of them can claim the dubious honor of being the worst DC movie, as long as you limit yourself to ratings on IMDb. It should be noted at this juncture that looking at a film's IMDb rating may not tell you the whole story, both because some films are exceptionally highly rated by users on the website, but may not have similarly impressive scores on an aggregation site like Metacritic (or vice versa). "Catwoman," for one, does have a pretty low IMDb score; it's at a 3.4 out of 10, which is appropriate considering the film's poor quality and equally poor reputation. But no, that one's not the worst. What wins this golden turkey? Well, that would be the 1997 superhero film "Steel" with a 3.0 on IMDb. You remember "Steel," right?

You can be forgiven for not recalling any details of the Warner Bros. film "Steel." When it was released in the middle of August 1997, the best selling point the film had was simple: what if NBA superstar Shaquille O'Neal was the lead in a superhero movie? Shaq was popular enough by this point to a) have his own nickname, and b) have already starred in another film meant to rely in part on his presence and name recognition. Though Shaq was not perhaps as mammoth of a player on the court as Michael Jordan, another NBA legend who had appeared in the family film "Space Jam" the previous fall, he was a well-known quantity and superhero movies weren't entirely passe at this point. Of course, one downside of "Steel" is that it had the equally dubious honor of being the second DC superhero movie of the summer of 1997. The other title? "Batman and Robin," which was such an ignominious disappointment that it led to a near-decade-long period in which DC didn't make any theatrical features with the Caped Crusader, and when they did, it was with Nolan and the drastic tonal shift of his three films.

So "Steel" had a tough act to follow all by itself. But it was also based on a character not as many people were familiar with, which may partly explain the fact that the film's budget was pretty low for a superhero film, reportedly at just $16 million. Even with that low budget, the film's box office was almost laughably anemic, making less than $2 million when all was said and done. The story, about a weapons designer named John Henry Irons (O'Neal) and how he resigns from his work after seeing the damage it does to his friend Susan Sparks (Annabeth Gish), may seem at first blush a bit reminiscent to the story arc of the 2008 Marvel film "Iron Man," though the level of intensity of the weapons being used and the damage they do is on a much smaller scale. And the way that Irons transforms himself into the vigilante Steel is a bit more cobbled together with family help than with supersuits. (It's telling that, per the film's production notes, producer and music icon Quincy Jones says that Steel is more of a "super human being" than a superhero.) 

And of course, there's the presence of Shaquille O'Neal himself. On one hand, his popularity had transcended the NBA; one of the production hiccups was having to figure out when to film him in the middle of being in the 1996 Summer Olympics and also getting ready for a new season of the NBA with his then-team the Los Angeles Lakers. On the other hand, as the family film "Kazaam" had already made clear, the talent O'Neal had on the court was not so easily replicated on the big screen. In short, his acting talents weren't that impressive, meaning that the center of the film wasn't going to be as captivating as necessary. (And the film's writer/director Kenneth Johnson would later say that casting O'Neal was a mistake.) The box office was almost shockingly terrible, too, with "Steel" arriving in more than 1,250 theaters in its opening weekend and making just over $870,000.

In truth, it's almost impressive that "Steel" has a lower IMDb rating than "Catwoman," precisely because the 2004 film was a much bigger, more pronounced flop. Where Warner Bros. Pictures may have been able to collectively shrug its metaphorical shoulders with "Steel," either because non-comic-book fans weren't familiar with the character or because Shaquille O'Neal's limitations as an actor hampered its chances, the same couldn't be said for "Catwoman." The character is undeniably recognizable and iconic across decades, and star Halle Berry was fresh off a notable Oscar victory. And yet, even though more than 100,000 people rated "Catwoman" on IMDb, it's just a few tenths of a point above "Steel."

Could "Steel" have ever worked? It's easy to wonder if having a different leading man would have been helpful, especially since Johnson had reportedly wanted Wesley Snipes to play the title character. Instead, of course, Snipes went onto play the vampiric Marvel superhero Blade in a successful trilogy (with that character potentially being revived in the MCU, though at this point, who knows when or if that will really happen). And O'Neal managed to weather the storm of playing this unsuccessful hero thanks to being one of the most iconic modern NBA players. Considering how quickly "Steel" was forgotten at the box office, we can only assume that the impassioned negative ratings on IMDb are reflective of the most dedicated comic-book fans being overly protective of even the lesser-known heroes and incensed at the end result.