Every actor who's played Lex Luthor, ranked from worst to best, including Nicholas Hoult
After a few tries, you'd no doubt get to Lex Luthor, the bald baddie obsessed with taking down Superman — and that would bug him to no end.
What makes Lex a compelling villain is that, despite having the most powerful hero of all time as a nemesis, he's actually a worthy opponent. His intellect, wealth, and enormous reserve of hatred for our favorite Kryptonian are more than enough to concern Superman time and time again.
In every version of on-screen Superman (or Supergirl), there has been a Lex, including in the latest film, "Superman," starring David Corenswet as Clark Kent and Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor.
We've gone through every major version of Lex — sorry, to the extensive list of animated DC TV movies, but we'd be here all day if we included them — and ranked them from worst to best.
Here's how Hoult stacks up to every Luthor before him.
13. Ike Barinholtz ('The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part,' 2019)
Due to the nature of his time on screen — essentially a cameo as a brainwashed version of Lex, who was friends with Superman and the rest of the Justice League — Barinholtz's version of the character is at the bottom of this ranking.
But we'd like to see Barinholtz take another crack at it. Please give us a sequel to "The Lego Batman Movie," Warner Bros.!
12. Lyle Talbot ('Atom Man vs. Superman,' 1950)
This is the first on-screen depiction of Superman's greatest foe, just 10 years after his comics debut — and before his background was revamped for the Silver Age of comics in 1960.
Therefore, Talbot's version of Lex is just too different from the character we've come to know and love (to hate) over the last 65 years.
This serial is fun, though, for any fan of Superman who wants to be a completionist.
11. Titus Welliver ('Titans,' 2022)
Welliver was in just one episode of "Titans" before the character was killed off, but he made an impression. However, his version of Lex can't be any higher because we barely saw it.
Welliver's performance, though, does have the inherent malice and manipulation skills needed to be a solid Lex. We just wish we'd seen more.
10. Jesse Eisenberg ('Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,' 'Justice League,' and 'Zack Snyder's Justice League,' 2016-2021)
Far and away, the most controversial portrayal of Lex is Eisenberg's version of him in the now-defunct DC Extended Universe.
The first issue? It takes him the entire movie to be bald. We just can't abide by that.
Secondly, Eisenberg's version of Lex is too motormouthed and manic to be intimidating. And his plan in "Batman v Superman" is too convoluted to be scary. Remember the jar of pee?
Eisenberg himself knows that he wasn't the most popular version of the character. "I was so poorly received," he told Dax Shepard on an episode of " Armchair Expert" in 2024. "I've never said this before and it's kind of embarrassing to admit, but I genuinely think it actually hurt my career in a real way."
9. Michael Cudlitz ('Superman & Lois,' 2023-2024)
Cudlitz popped up in the final two seasons of The CW show "Superman & Lois," which followed Supes and Lois on their journey as parents to twin teenagers.
His version of Lex is more of a brawler than some others and, weirdly, not that smart, which is a problem since his intellect is usually what makes him a formidable foe.
8. Jon Cryer ('Supergirl,' 2018-2021)
In a funny bit of meta-casting, Cryer was tapped to play this bald baddie 31 years after playing Lex's nephew Lenny in "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace."
However, Cryer (best known for his comedic roles in "Two and a Half Men" and "Pretty in Pink") just wasn't quite intimidating enough to be a plausible threat to Supergirl and the rest of the heroes from the Arrowverse.
7. Giancarlo Esposito/Lance Reddick/Wendell Pierce ('Harley Quinn' and 'Kite Man! Hell Yeah,' 2019-2025)
We're lumping the three vocal performances across the "Harley Quinn" and "Kite Man" universes together, since they're equally brilliant, but ultimately, Lex isn't a big enough character in the "Quinn"-verse to rate higher.
6. John Shea ('Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman,' 1993-1997)
This version of Lex brought the idea of Clark/Superman and Lex as romantic rivals to our TV screens, as both were in love with Lois Lane (Teri Hatcher), a plot that was also used in "Smallville."
Shea was only a series regular for the first season of "Lois & Clark," so we didn't get to see much of the arc between Superman and Lex, but he was a suitably sinister Lex.
He was also quite believable as a snarky businessman, a key part of the character.
5. Kevin Spacey ('Superman Returns,' 2007)
Spacey's performance as Lex is another controversial one, as he was supposed to be a continuation of Gene Hackman's version of the character (more on that next), but the two weren't all that similar.
Spacey's version of Lex has more barely suppressed rage than Hackman's, and while he might be even hammier than his predecessor, we'd argue that he's almost as compelling.
Two scenes of Spacey's stand out to us. First, when Lex is demonstrating his evil plan to his team on the model town, and he slowly disappears into the darkness. It's genuinely eerie stuff.
Second is when he's captured Lois on his megayacht, and he's begging her to say that Superman will "never let you get away with this!" … only to scream "WRONG" in her face.
3. Gene Hackman ('Superman,' 'Superman II,' and 'Superman IV: The Quest for Peace,' 1978-1987)
Hackman, who played Lex across three movies, is still probably the best-known and beloved version of the character. He's a perfect foil to Christopher Reeve's Boy Scout-esque version of Superman — while Superman is selfless, Lex is only interested in the bottom line.
Our only knock is that Hackman's performance gets campier and more outsized as the movies go on, capped off by the abysmal "Quest for Peace."
But if we limit his performance to the first two films, Hackman belongs on the comic-movie-villain Mount Rushmore.
4. Nicholas Hoult ('Superman,' 2025)
Yes, he might be new, but Hoult's version of Lex is an all-time, No. 1 Hater of Superman, which is really what the character boils down to. He just hates Superman's guts and everything he stands for.
Hoult is also perfectly calibrated to director James Gunn's wild and wacky tone, so his over-the-top moments don't stand out. And, while a bit silly, he manages to be quite menacing throughout and unafraid to get his hands dirty to take down the Man of Steel.
There's a speech Lex makes in this movie that also explains why he hates Superman so much: He's jealous of him. That might be a simple idea, but it's not one we've seen depicted on screen many times.
2. Clancy Brown (The DC Animated Universe, 1996-2006)
One of two Lex Luthors who played their character for a decade, Brown's vocal performance as Lex is a standout in an animated universe that's filled with iconic performances (Kevin Conroy as Batman, Tim Daly as Superman, Mark Hamill as the Joker, Dana Delany as Lois — we could go on…).
Brown's version of the character is never anything less than cool. He's smart, he's rich, he's got an iconic lair surrounded by an aquarium of sharks, and we wouldn't want to cross him. What more could you ask for from Lex Luthor?
1. Michael Rosenbaum ('Smallville,' 2001-2011)
Are you surprised? Rosenbaum had seven seasons (plus a series finale cameo) to build his characterization of Lex. He starts the show as one of Clark's friends and ends it as his biggest enemy (and also the president of the United States, somehow).
We got to learn about Lex's tortured relationship with his father, his insecurities about his intellect, and his insatiable curiosity.
It's the most fully realized version of the character, and for that reason, Rosenbaum ranks No. 1.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Warner Bros. to layoff 52 people in Motion Picture Group
Layoffs are hitting the Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group, reducing its staff by 52 people, according to an internal memo to staff Wednesday and a letter sent to the state Employment Development Department. The job cuts, which will impact marketing, distribution, production, strategy, operations and theater ventures, are part of a larger restructuring at Warner Bros. Discovery that began earlier in the year. Part of the restructuring includes a focus on breaking down the barrier between U.S. and international divisions in marketing and distribution in favor of a 'fully global structure,' the memo announcing the layoffs said. 'Adapting how we work often calls for evolution, and the future of how we run this business has required us to make some very difficult decisions,' Motion Picture Group chairmen Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy jointly wrote in the internal memo reviewed by The Times. 'In the coming weeks and months, we will work with leaders around the world to shape and implement this global operating model in a way that reflects local needs and realities,' the memo stated . A letter sent to the state Employment Development Department confirmed 52 employees will be laid off, starting on Oct. 4. Warner Bros. Discovery is burdened with billions in debt, a vestige of Discovery's takeover of WarnerMedia from AT&T three years ago. Since then, the company has restructured and cut thousands of jobs, and announced it will divide its assets into two separate publicly traded companies. In January, leaders in the film division — veteran marketing chief Josh Goldstine and international film distribution head Andrew Cripps — left the company in a shake up its senior ranks after some 2024 titles underperformed in the box office. The studio has had more success at the box office this year, with 'A Minecraft Movie,' 'Sinners' and 'Superman' each topping the charts. The new cuts come just days after Warner Bros. Discovery announced additional details about its corporate split, saying the separate entities will be called Warner Bros. and Discovery and enumerating the properties that will fall under each separate company. 'We will proudly continue the more than century-long legacy of Warner Bros. through our commitment to bringing culture-defining stories, characters and entertainment to audiences around the world,' Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav said in a statement regarding the post-split future of the company. Warner Bros Discovery shares closed at $13.26, up 1.07% on Wednesday. Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
‘Fantastic Four' Won Grownups But Lost Kids And Families To ‘Superman'
Director Matt Shakman's Marvel superhero franchise launch Fantastic Four: First Steps is heading into its second weekend having won grownups but lost the kids and family audience to writer-director James Gunn's Superman, as a different paradigm takes hold of blockbuster business at the box office, and superpowers won't change it. Fantastic Four By The Numbers After a low-end debut weekend outcome of just $216 million worldwide, Fantastic Four looks to enter the weekend right around $155 million domestic, and I anticipate a second weekend of about $43.5 million stateside. With international, the global total is eyeing $357 million by end of business Sunday. That's potentially a sizable sophomore drop, especially compared to Superman's own solid second weekend hold. The difference seems due to what I feel is a simple equation: Superman is mostly an all-ages family film that also has strong appeal for adults, Fantastic Four is a mostly adult film that also appeals to all-ages. Put another way, the terrific Superman is made for the kids first, and the also-terrific Fantastic Four is made for the parents first, and only one of those approaches rides the current zeitgeist driving cinematic business. Some pundits expect Fantastic Four to hold better than I do, and to be sure it's entirely possible. Fantastic Four might enjoy such good word of mouth that folks who skipped it opening weekend show up this weekend, and the allure of IMAX, Dolby Cinema, and 0ther premium formats might ensure better weekly holds as people waiting for those prime seat locations keep turning out. And this is the MCU, among the most powerful and successful brands in movie history, so you'd think their summer tentpole release sees steady turnout for several weeks. But the falloff in family viewers and lower interest among teenage audiences points toward a less optimistic best-case scenario, in my own assessment. A worst-case probably sees it falls of a cliff with something closer to $150 million through the weekdays and $40 million domestic, and south of $350 million worldwide. Without decent holds, I don't see a path to a final gross north of $550 million. This is lots of early speculation and depends entirely on what in fact the weekday numbers tell us about word-of-mouth driving business, and what the final second weekend ticket sales look like. There's room for high-end and low-end outcomes here, obviously, and Superman surprised with a solid second weekend hold that changed the narrative and expectations. But signs pointed in the Man of Steel's favor, whereas those same signs don't bode as well for Fantastic Four: First Steps. It's a shift in perspective, but that's always been true of the distinctions between DC and Marvel, from the comics to the films, and now a new factor enters the frame and we'll see how each responds. So far, though, James Gunn and Peter Safran as co-CEOs of DC Studios seem to have recognized the trend or at least sensed a need to lean into that direction (at least for their first foundational feature release), and it payed off. Superman is now flying high and looks to top $600 million, a much happier milestone for everyone involved. Let's see if Keven Feige and Marvel Studios adopts a similar approach, or choose to stake out a position as the adults-first superhero cinematic world while looking to replicate Deadpool & Wolverine's and the Spider-Man franchise's enormous success in an often brutal and unforgiving new theatrical landscape. Of course, I always say not to bet on Disney or Marvel, so Feige surely has plans and insights better than mine here, and I have no illusions I've figured something out that he hasn't. In a general sense, however, I think all of the complexity of this evolving cinematic situation can be summed up with hamburgers. Fantastic Four vs Happy Meals? McDonalds won the burger wars because they have Happy Meals, costumes, and playgrounds. They won the kids first, because they knew the kids would make sure (including with tantrums if necessary) that if the family went out to eat, they went to McDonalds. The result speaks for itself, with McDonalds behind only Starbucks for market share when it comes to eateries. Win the kids' bellies, and their parents will follow. Because even weak burgers and fries with cold sodas still tastes good to kids, so add in 'free' toys and cookies in a cartoon box, and how can anyone else compete? All you need to do then is have some burgers for their parents, too. Again, quality matters less to a captive audience, right? And it gets easier to make that choice every time, especially if they've even got breakfast for you on the way to school or work, too. Cinema is sort of heading that same route in many ways, as studios have increasingly been swallowed into massive corporate bundles that see everything and everyone as a commodity. If you want our dollars, what's the fastest route to our wallets? Look at what toys children want and what cartoons they watch and what video games they play on their phones, and then put most of your chips on those brands/IP (because that's what they are when the bosses decide to use them that way) knowing if the kids show up, they'll bring their parents, so you merely need to do minimum duty providing parents with anything to maintain their interest. Smarter studio conglomerates realize that throwing in some popular younger performers (TV, film, music, anything) to appear or provide voices and/or songs helps hook some teen audiences and provides a wider chain of interconnected merchandising to sell for associated brands. That's how you have to talk to even explain this, but it's important to understand a grossly simplified but generally predictive summation of how most studios are starting to approach making films and distributing them. It's why most of the top 10 highest grossing films are primarily movies made for kids that add something for the parents, or the rare breakout 'parents got a babysitter' adult release like F1 for example (or Top Gun: Maverick for another). If you make a would-be blockbuster film primarily geared toward adults, you better make darn sure it has a huge hook like Deadpool & Wolverine or Avatar that also works to make the kids either a co-dominant target demographic or such a close runner-up it's a distinction without a difference. Or, make it so appealing to grownups and the teenagers in the household that the younger ones are along for the ride regardless. Because otherwise, you have to roll the dice on being the breakout adult-focused movie that claws its way into the top of the box office charts. This is not, by the way, any commentary (yet, as the crucial qualifier) on the movies themselves that are topping the charts. Of the ones I've seen so far, they're all highly entertaining and I get why not only the children in the audience but also the parents enjoyed them, and how this in turn led the parents to recommend it not merely to other parents but to other adults in general. Lilo & Stitch and A Minecraft Movie for example, or Superman as the standout superhero movie that applied the correct template and target demographic approach, which we'll discuss more in a moment. So far, I'm grateful that despite the lack of much interest in overall quality and serious cinematic storytelling and diversity of approaches and stories, the actual artists still determine the final results and are still overwhelmingly committed to their crafts and work. But with studios seeing AI as a chance not merely to be a tool that elevates each crew member's and artists' abilities and work, but to try to replace them and reduce costs, as well as the demand to churn out sequels and spinoffs to maximize merchandising profits as fast as possible in case the kids all grow out of it too fast and the franchise is short-lived, the simple truth is that quality will be sacrificed. I know, gasp, right? But I don't just mean in the general vague sense we all talk about in common discussion but which actually doesn't manifest as the overriding truth or definition of film and TV so far. Quality is in fact great, and improving overall. More options exist with more diverse types of more content for a larger audience, and it's only increasing. What happens next, though, will be determined by a lot of very powerful people, companies, and entities in ways that none of us – including them – can really predict anymore. But we've seen the model at McDonalds, and it also took place amid rapidly improving industrial processes and distribution and expanding cities, driven by technological and social advances. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think once you think about it and look around, it makes a lot of sense and describes what we're seeing. Less like a carefully crafted and precise strategy, than a rough and bumpy outcome after lots of tactical trial and error favoring executives' own wallets than shareholders or studios per se at times, and finally settling into a structure that already existed and merely needed all the various parts to fall into place. We're talking about the top of the box office charts of course, and the race for blockbuster results, so there will still be plenty of lower-tier movies and series produced. But I think the days of superhero cinema dominating the top-10 and having reserved seats in the top-5 are over, except for those occasions when the right template is applied (made for kids, also has something for adults) with a popular enough character/star that great audience grades and equally positive critical reviews generate massive turnout and repeat business from families, in turn spurring big turnout among teenagers and childless adults. Fantastic Four, Superman, And Superheroes' Future Aside from Avengers or other event-status team-ups like Deadpool & Wolverine, I doubt superhero movies will even return to semi-regularly hitting $1 billion or just a stone's throw away. Instead, animated films and live-action remakes/adaptations of beloved animated movies/series/games will probably dominate box office charts now, while superhero cinema only cracks the top-10 with a couple of the best offerings from DC and Marvel, respectively, and most entries that seem to lean toward adult audiences still have heavy appeal to kids as well as the teenage audience. The direct appeal toward the child audiences with clear indicators for parents to attend as well. If it's too kid-focused and overtly lacks any potential adult appeal, there's risk only one parent or a babysitter takes only a few of the kids, instead of both parents and all children in the household – family audiences rule and the kids are in charge, basically. Marvel always had a balance between being kid-friendly superhero fare and appealing to the grownups with smart, witty storytelling and well-defined characters in exciting stories with cool visual effects. Eye candy that isn't so unhealthy after all. But over time, as often happens, the films 'grew up' more with the audience and sometimes felt like they were far more adult-skewing and counted on the kids to keep up because it's still their favorite superheroes. I love most all of those films, but I realize the more they favor adult themed and adult-focused approaches, the less they can count on their reputation as family-friendly and assumptions of 'something for everybody.' It may seem like a mild shift in perception and intent, but it's not, and even when audiences can't put their finger on it or articulate it precisely, they can sense the changes and shifts. They can tell when a story is talking mostly to them, mostly to their kids, or is treating them all like one big family. Each has advantages, and the better the quality of the storytelling and the offerings for kids and adults alike, the better the odds of success. But blockbuster success is going to require the latter two from now on, even if and when exceptions inevitably arise to prove the rule. This isn't 'superhero fatigue," it's simply that unless the superhero movies keep up with the demands of audiences and their families, the genre will have to settle for the lower-end of the top-10 at the box office, and make adjustments to budgets and expectations. Which was always bound to be true, and the post-Avengers: Endgame slump was mostly due to the simple fact it's impossible to maintain that level of anticipation and perpetual self-one-upsmanship the MCU achieved for a brief time. The decline isn't failure, and they'll still be popular and can achieve blockbuster outcomes in the second tier pretty consistently. It will merely be the top tier that I expect will prove elusive from now on. Fantastic Four will probably underperform significantly, like the previous two MCU releases, and Superman will probably wind up at the higher end of the $600 million range. Both are wonderful films with different approaches, and my comparison to McDonalds is about the conceptual appeal to kids and counting on them to bring the parents along, not to suggest films that are currently winning the box office race are cheap or otherwise 'fast food' per se. Yet despite Fantastic Four and Superman, I fear that 'fast food' is too often precisely how studios perceive and approach kids' entertainment, and that they will revert to the worst instincts of profit-driven commodification more and more. So aside from loopholes like Avatar and Deadpool & Wolverine, parents will have a hard time driving the family car anywhere but to the latest Happy Meal Movies.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
The AI-Altered ‘Wizard Of Oz' Controversy, Explained
Actors Bert Lahr (1895-1967), Jack Haley (1897-1979), Ray Bolger (1904-1987), Judy Garland (1922-1969) and Margaret Hamilton (1902-1985) in costume during a scene from the film 'The Wizard of Oz', 1939. (Photo by Silver) Getty Images An AI-altered version of The Wizard of Oz created for the Las Vegas Sphere has ignited backlash online, with film fans describing the changes as 'vandalism.' As generative AI slowly creeps its way into the film industry, one tendril at a time, the alteration of an iconic film struck many commentators as incredibly invasive. In April, Warner Bros. announced that an altered version of The Wizard of Oz (1939) would play inside the Las Vegas Sphere, with the help of Google's engineers—alterations to the film are estimated to have cost $80 million dollars. The Las Vegas Sphere is something of an absurd object, even for Vegas, a gargantuan metal dome wrapped in LED screens. Surreal images of the Sphere regularly go viral on social media (the Sphere's transformation into a giant emoji is particularly popular). The interior of the Sphere offers an unusually immersive experience for viewers, featuring a curved 160,000-square-foot screen, towering over a 17,600-seat theater. Usually, the Sphere is limited to showing films shot specifically for its giant screen, but in order to bring The Wizard of Oz to the Sphere, AI was used to expand and alter the original film. Google's engineers worked on expanding the aspect ratio, smoothing out the film grain and even adding new background details. Rather than multiplying the existing pixels on screen, Google's generative AI tools created new pixels to increase the definition and scale of the film. While the AI-altered version of the film exists only to be screened in the Las Vegas Sphere, the sight of the artificially expanded land of Oz made commentators uneasy. AI-Altered 'The Wizard Of Oz' Sparks Backlash Shots from the AI-enhanced Wizard of Oz were shared on social media, and baffled many film fans, as intentionally blurry backgrounds had been sharpened, and an AI-generated doppelganger of Uncle Henry had been generated to fill empty space beyond the frame. On X, one commentator offered sarcastic praise, writing: 'I think this is a wonderful idea. Like everyone, I'd been wondering my entire life what Uncle Henry was doing over by the window while Aunt Em argued with Miss Gulch, and finally we know. He was standing there.' Film critics didn't hold back, with many expressing deep disappointment that the original, carefully considered shots of The Wizard of Oz had been altered. While most of the altered shots have the shimmery, glossy sheen of generative AI, the biggest casualty might be the film's glorious hand-painted backdrops, which add to the otherworldly atmosphere of The Wizard of Oz . The Sphere's AI-expansion has changed these backdrops into sprawling, photo-realistic landscapes, making the magical Land of Oz look like just another place—Dorothy might as well have stayed in Kansas. The controversy parallels a widely mocked trend that briefly arose during the early days of generative AI, in which iconic works of art were 'improved' or enlarged using the technology. This led to strange sights, like the AI-generated expansion of the Mona Lisa, creating a bizarre alien landscape. While the Sphere's version of The Wizard of Oz is far from the first time that a classic film has been tinkered with, the fact that AI was used to not only alter existing shots, but generate new imagery beyond the frame, sparked serious concerns. The word "vandalism" appears in many of the critical comments— The Wizard of Oz is viewed as one of cinema's most sacred objects, and film fans do not like to see it being tampered with. Another classic film, Jurassic Park , contains a quote which has proved prescient in the age of generative AI: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." MORE FROM FORBES Forbes How 'Wicked' Connects To 'The Wizard Of Oz' By Dani Di Placido Forbes Cynthia Erivo's 'Wicked' Poster Controversy, Explained By Dani Di Placido Forbes 'Wicked'—Ariana Grande And Cynthia Erivo's 'Holding Space' Meme, Explained By Dani Di Placido Forbes Fortnite's AI-Generated Darth Vader Controversy, Explained By Dani Di Placido
