For me, the plethora of superhero movies we've had have been more crap than good.
While I never saw the third Blade movie, the first two were okay, but sadly, the best scene out of the two films was the opening of the first one. That said, they were quite a bit of fun, and weren't boring like most other superhero films to follow them. I should check out the third one.
I found Bryan Singer's two X-Men movies to be dull and uninteresting. His Superman Returns was better, but it had a crap ending and he turned Superman into a creepy stalker who spies on Lois Lane and her family with his X-ray vision.
X-Men 3 I felt was better than the first two, but wasn't a particularly good movie.
League of Extraordinary Gentleman was a really poor outing.
Batman Begins I found to be boring. It wasn't bad, there's nothing wrong with it - it's just, for me, very dull with nothing good to it.
I never bothered to watch Catwoman, Elektra, or Ghost Rider.
Hulk and Daredevil were good tries, but both suffer in that their best scene isn't the ending, but rather it occurs 20 mintues before the actual ending. That, and Daredevil suffers in that Bullseye is easily the best character in the film and more interesting than Ben Affleck.
The two Spider-Man are half-good movies, but the half changes. The first one got all the Peter Parker stuff right, but ****ed up on the Green Goblin who was just stupid. Whereas Spidey 2 had a great villain in Doctor Octopus but messed up the Peter Parker stuff. I don't blame Kirsten Dunst for not wanting to be in any more Spidey films - MJ in these films is terribly dull.
Fantastic Four was a happy meal. They forgot to make it 'fantastic'. It felt like a sequel to a bad movie that hasn't been made yet.
Hellboy is a terrific film, but has a crap ending in the last 10 minutes. As soon as Rasputin becomes a CGI squid, the film falls apart. Before then, it's great.
The Incredibles, the superhero film not based on an existing property, is brilliant and obviously the best of all the competiton against it. It's worth pointing out that it's a cartoon, which makes me wonder further why people feel they need to make stories like this which require huge special effects and even CGI main characters, and characters who look better drawn than filmed, why they have to make these as live-action films. I also wonder why people hold onto the idea that cartoons can't be really good when The Incredibles is obviously a top film that kicks virtually everyone else's ***.
The biggest con of superhero movies, or rather, those movies based on pre-existing characters is that once the movie is made, it can't be touched again for what, 10 years? If the X-Men hadn't had the boom it had, I wonder if Batman would've been resurrected, or if we'd have to wait twenty years like Superman did. Unlike the comic industry, which tolerates multiple Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman comics a week, the movie and television industry is far more diverse and you only get one shot at these characters for the most part. To me, it's like when they ultimise characters in the ultimate universe. It's an extremely finite resource and I think if one goes to that well, one has to make sure their one shot is on target. I mean, I look at the X-Men trilogy and think it's sorely lacking as a demonstration of what the X-Men is about. And I can't help but think that it did this well and was that bad, how amazing it would've done had it been as good as Star Wars or Indiana Jones or even Back to the Future. But it's a different Hollywood now. Lord of the Rings proved you can sell a trilogy of films before the first is even made. You can get a big enough turnover to guarantee sequels with enough hype and backing, and here we have these films that, to me, seem more like toy commercials than stories.
I dunno, it strikes me that the best superhero film to come out in the last ten years is an original property, a cartoon, and took a lot longer to make than any of its contemporaries.