Stacy Conradt
The Quick 10: 10 of the Biggest Movie Failures Ever
by Stacy Conradt - September 1, 2010 - 4:00 PM

q10

Giving a movie a blockbuster-sized budget doesn’t always guarantee a blockbuster at the box office. Here are a few big-budget flops that left theatergoers cold.

1. Town and Country. You would think with amazing stars like Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton and Goldie Hawn, this movie could do no wrong. Well, it did. It lost something to the tune of $100 million. Diane Keaton came out of it OK though – she went on to star in Something’s Gotta Give less than three years later, which was a huge success.
2. Stealth. Famously known as the mess that Jamie Foxx starred in after his Oscar-winning performance in Ray, Stealth lost more than $60 million.
3. The Adventures of Pluto Nash. You surely remember this Eddie Murphy bomb, and no doubt Warner Brothers does too, because it had a $120 million budget and only made $7 million. I’m guessing we won’t be seeing The Further Adventures of Pluto Nash anytime soon…

4. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Compared to some of these, a loss of $50 million doesn’t seem that bad, but it was bad enough to cause the demise of Square Pictures, the studio that animated it.

5. The 13th Warrior. Even the charming Antonio Banderas couldn’t save this one – it lost nearly $100 million and was declared a terrible movie to boot. Roger Ebert noted the expensive set pieces and said perhaps more time should have been dedicating to telling a story that “might make us care.”

6. Cutthroat Island. The Guinness Book of World Records listed this Geena Davis flick as the #1 box office bomb of all time, and indeed, it bankrupted Carolco Pictures when it lost roughly $100 million ($147 million according to some inflation figures).
7. Sahara. Although this movie opened at #1 at the box office, it cost so much to make it couldn’t possibly perform at the levels it needed to in order to make it worth it. The price tag? $241 million. The gross? $119 million.
8. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Being a Disney purist and not being much of a Nicolas Cage fan, I was against this one from the second I heard about it. And I guess I wasn’t the only one, because it lost $83 million.

9. The Alamo. We’re talking the 2004 version, not the 1960 John Wayne movie. This one, starring Billy Bob Thornton and Dennis Quaid, cost $145 mil to make and made just 25 of that million back.

10. The Postman. When a movie costs $80 million to make (not even including marketing efforts), it’s pretty sad when it only returns $18 million. It was critically panned as well – Siskel referred to the Costner vehicle as Dances with Myself.

These are just a few of the biggest bombs in Hollywood – I bet you can think of a few more. What big-budget movies do you think were terrible?

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Click here to get a Risk-Free issue of mental_floss magazine
Comments (82)

  1. I kinda liked 13th Warrior and The Postman is always good for a laugh

    posted by Troy Hopper on 9-1-2010 at 4:07 pm

  2. According to Wikipedia Evan Almighty cost $200 million and only brought in $173 million. The movie was terrible too, especially because of Wanda Sykes

    posted by Yams on 9-1-2010 at 4:07 pm

  3. What about the classics like Ishtar, Bonfire of the Vanities, and Heaven’s Gate?

    posted by Troy Hopper on 9-1-2010 at 4:09 pm

  4. Wasn’t Waterworld in this category?

    posted by Melissa on 9-1-2010 at 4:09 pm

  5. what abou that awful John Travolta movie Battlefield Earth? Didn’t it have a huge budget and did terrible at the box office.

    posted by Kristina on 9-1-2010 at 4:17 pm

  6. Yeah, what Troy said…LOL! Those were the three that came to my mind.

    posted by Helenann on 9-1-2010 at 4:18 pm

  7. Yah, Melissa I was expecting to see Waterworld in this too… I thought I remember them setting the record for busts at the time…

    posted by Steven on 9-1-2010 at 4:19 pm

  8. Melissa, per wikipedia:

    “With a budget of $175 million, the film grossed a mere $88 million at the U.S. box office, which seemed to make it the all time box office bomb.[9] Adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2006 dollars (USD), the budget for the movie was $231.6 million, and grossed $116.8 million at the U.S. box office.

    The film, however, did much better overseas, with $176 million at the foreign box office (for a total of $264 million),[10] and good VHS and later DVD sales, giving the movie over $100 million dollars in profit.”

    posted by Steven on 9-1-2010 at 4:21 pm

  9. What about Alexander? How did that do?

    posted by Daniel on 9-1-2010 at 4:27 pm

  10. No mention of The Last Airbender?

    The 13th Warrior wasn’t that bad…

    posted by Steve from San Diego on 9-1-2010 at 4:32 pm

  11. I loved 13th Warrior, it was a Michael Crighton story!

    posted by ethan on 9-1-2010 at 4:45 pm

  12. It’s somewhat of a guilty pleasure of mine learning about box office bombs. You know, how much they lost, how few people saw them in theaters and even how actors that star in them sometimes go down withship, never to be heard from again.

    I guess it’s something of a Hollywood Schadenfreude.

    posted by Tyler on 9-1-2010 at 4:50 pm

  13. I agree that Battlefield earth was apocolyptically bad. Also on my top list of flops were a couple of the last movies made by and with Bill Cosby. Ghost Dad and Leonard Part 6. OMG, those 2 movies were bad, bad, BAD.

    posted by JD on 9-1-2010 at 5:05 pm

  14. I went to see The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and while it was bad, it wasn’t as bad as I was bracing for it to be. Not a terrible action movie for kids, really, and with different marketing, it could have performed a lot better. I have a begrudging affinity for bad Nic Cage film projects.

    posted by Eve on 9-1-2010 at 5:05 pm

  15. Shame to see The 13th Warrior on this list.

    I thought it was awesome :D

    posted by Bakedpotatoes on 9-1-2010 at 5:06 pm

  16. An interesting one is Titan AE. It wasn’t that bad of a movie, got good reviews and pulled in over $30 million, but with a $75 million budget, the loss was great enough for 20th Century Fox to shut down Fox Animation Studios.

    Nine years later, Fox relaunched their Fox Animation Studios label. You may have heard about their first film — the award-winning Fantastic Mr. Fox, which had a relatively low $40 million budget and turned a modest profit.

    posted by Mark on 9-1-2010 at 5:18 pm

  17. Wild Wild West. Didn’t Will Smith pass on the Matrix to make that mess?

    posted by Antonina on 9-1-2010 at 5:26 pm

  18. I liked Pluto Nash!!!

    posted by Paul on 9-1-2010 at 5:39 pm

  19. What about AI?

    posted by Sara in Al on 9-1-2010 at 5:47 pm

  20. What, no Gigli or Glitter? Oh, we’re talking biggest box office flops, not the worst movies ever.

    posted by Amy D on 9-1-2010 at 5:51 pm

  21. @Paul,
    I liked Pluto Nash, too! Maybe we’re the only ones?

    posted by Jessi on 9-1-2010 at 5:54 pm

  22. @ Steve from San Diego

    The Last Airbender was critically bashed but managed to do okay at the box office. I think it’s M. Night Shyamalan’s 2nd largest grossing picture. I’m not sure if it turned a profit yet but I don’t think it’s on the same level as this list. Plus there are always DVD sales to consider (which is also true for the Sorcerer’s Apprentice).

    The original Austin Powers movie didn’t do very well at the box office but the DVD profits were through the roof prompting 2 sequels.

    posted by Brit on 9-1-2010 at 5:55 pm

  23. Mission Impossible 4 will Suck when it is released in 2011. It will cost at least 100mil and will only make 10 dollars total i’m guessin. Check out http://www.mi4movie.com to learn more

    posted by Mission Impossible 4 on 9-1-2010 at 5:59 pm

  24. man whats up!!!! I love most of the movies that was on this!Cutthroat Island was great as the 13th warrior..but thats just me,guess i just love bad movies .

    posted by Laurie Ann on 9-1-2010 at 6:20 pm

  25. The 13th Warrior was an excellent movie. One must possess an I.Q. higher than a wet floor mop in order to enjoy it — which requirement immediately disqualifies Roger “I Love Me” Ebert.

    posted by Pile of Pooh on 9-1-2010 at 6:20 pm

  26. but on an adjusted for inflation basis, or a simple percent returned, which movie fared worst of all time? Even a movie losing only $10K would be considered very bad if it cost $11K to make.

    posted by mary ann on 9-1-2010 at 6:28 pm

  27. Glad to see I’m not the only one who liked The 13th Warrior! I haven’t seen Sorcerer’s Apprentice, but I thought it looked like a great Harry Dresden reference (Cage is a fan). The Postman wasn’t bad either…although I haven’t gone out of my way to see it a second time.

    posted by Nyghtbeauty on 9-1-2010 at 6:35 pm

  28. the baron von munchausen lost an absurd amount of money.

    posted by Reid on 9-1-2010 at 6:42 pm

  29. @Amy D, Gigli only made about 7 million worldwide(box office) while it cost 54 million. So not only does it rate as one of the worst movies of all time, it bombed at the box office.

    posted by Lindsey on 9-1-2010 at 6:46 pm

  30. Speed Racer had a budget of $120 mil and only pulled in $44 mil domestically. Even with it’s overseas box office of $50 mil added, it still didn’t break even. Same story on a smaller scale for 2004′s Thunderbirds: $57 mil budget – only made $6.8 mil domestically + $28 mil overseas.

    posted by Vinnie on 9-1-2010 at 6:56 pm

  31. When Russell Crowe’s Robin Hood opened with a $36M weekend, I heard people talking about it being possibly the biggest bomb ever. It had a $200M budget and grossed $105M in the US. Not sure about the rest of the world, though.

    posted by Ron on 9-1-2010 at 7:17 pm

  32. I *Like* Cutthroat Isalnd…why am I the only one???

    I saw in the theater and everything!

    (the people I saw it with liked it too)

    posted by Lola on 9-1-2010 at 7:48 pm

  33. I watched the MI4 trailer..great even the trailer bombed… Mission Unprofitable!

    posted by neight71 on 9-1-2010 at 8:21 pm

  34. BTW…if your not familiar with rottentomatoes.com, its a great peer movie review site. I did a quick search on worst movies with more than 100 reviews…
    Norbit was the one that jumped out at me. Again, this is rated on suckiness not dollars.
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/browser.php?movietype=&genre=&tomatometer=0s&avgrating=&numreviews=100&mpaa=&decade=

    posted by neight71 on 9-1-2010 at 8:27 pm

  35. I loved “The 13th Warrior” and I have tried to read the book by Michael Crichton that the movie was based on and, trust me, it’s very hard to get through so I think they did a great job with the movie.

    posted by Sarah in CA on 9-1-2010 at 8:52 pm

  36. I remember the Lindsay Lohan movie “I know who killed me” being a bomb, perhaps not financially but definitely in the ratings.

    posted by Lisa on 9-1-2010 at 8:57 pm

  37. What about “Water World”…that surely must have been a flop. Did you just phone it in and do a Wiki search?

    posted by MaMinSu on 9-1-2010 at 9:02 pm

  38. Agreed with most of these…too bad Stealth and Sahara weren’t seen by more people, I love both movies.

    posted by Cashmere on 9-1-2010 at 9:08 pm

  39. Just fact checking some of the movies mentioned:

    AI – $100 million budget, made $236 million worldwide

    The Adventures of Baron Munchausen – Budget $47 million, made $8 million worldwide.

    Wild Wild West – $170 million budget, Made $222 million worldwide

    Battlefield Earth – $73 million budget, made almost $30 million worldwide

    Ishtar is another bomb with Warren Beaty – $55 million dollar budget. Made $4.3 million.

    Glitter had a low budget of $22 million but only made $5 million worldwide

    The Last Airbender had a budget of $150 million and actually made $252 million worldwide.

    Heaven’s Gate had a $44 million budget and made a dismal $3.4 million worldwide.

    Troy is an interesting one because 73% of it’s money was pulled in from overseas. Budget was $175 million. It made $497 million worldwide ($364 mil. of it foreign)

    Alexander is the same way. Budget of $155 million, made $167 million worldwide ($133 of it foreign).

    Another Travolta bomb was Primary Colors which cost $65 million and made only $52 million worldwide.

    Catwoman cost $100 million to make and made only $82 million worldwide

    Sean Penn’s All The King’s Men cost $55 million to make and made only $9 million worldwide.

    Basic Instinct 2 cost $70 million and made only $38.6 million worldwide

    Hudson Hawk cost $65 million to make and brought in only $17 million worldwide

    posted by Closure on 9-1-2010 at 9:09 pm

  40. Haha! Some of my favorite movies are on this list and the comments. Thoroughly enjoyed Waterworld, The Postman, The Sorceror’s Apprentice, The 13th Warrior, and Russell Crowe’s Robin Hood.

    Of course, everyone who knows me knows I’m a coupla clicks off “normal”…

    posted by Mistertroll on 9-1-2010 at 9:19 pm

  41. This list isn’t whether the movies were good or not, but, how they didn’t recover expenses. Sure, a bad movie is sure to fail money-wise, but there are several factors involved, including bad marketing, bad release time, competition, and not enough wide appeal.

    posted by Ken Zieger on 9-1-2010 at 9:22 pm

  42. I guess the 13th Warrior was a flop monetarily, but whoever “declared” it “a terrible movie” was an idiot!

    posted by Phil on 9-1-2010 at 9:38 pm

  43. source Wikipedia
    Earning only $18 million on a $35 million budget,The Shawshank Redemption was a box office bomb.

    posted by davids on 9-1-2010 at 10:24 pm

  44. I think Jonah Hex belongs on this list

    posted by Sparky on 9-1-2010 at 10:41 pm

  45. “Amazing” stars like Diane Keaton? Something’s Gotta Give a ‘huge success?’

    posted by joe on 9-1-2010 at 11:13 pm

  46. I think that any movie with Eddie Murphy nowadays is a flop. C’mon remember Norbert. SICK!!

    posted by osvaldo on 9-1-2010 at 11:29 pm

  47. I was glad that “Sahara” bombed. It was a horrible cast (except for William H. Macy– he was spot-on down to the Van Dyke), didn’t include the scene from the book where Dirk Pitt meets an old prospector (my favorite scene in the book) and this needs emphasis: a poorly CAST movie. Dirk Pitt should have been older and tougher, Al Giordino should have actually been Italian looking and a massive dude. Clive Cussler movies without the wild time travel aspects of the books just don’t make it!

    posted by Tim S. on 9-2-2010 at 1:53 am

  48. Check out the website Boxofficemojo.com if you’re interested in how well, or bae, movies did making money.

    posted by Kent on 9-2-2010 at 8:13 am

  49. I meant bad not bae.

    posted by Kent on 9-2-2010 at 8:14 am

  50. I went and saw The Sorcerer’s Apprentice- it was actually pretty good! I think they just didn’t market the movie very well.

    posted by Suz on 9-2-2010 at 8:37 am

  51. I too will also vouch for the 13th Warrior being a good flick. Classic sword and sorcery sans sorcery!

    posted by Joel on 9-2-2010 at 8:56 am

  52. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within – If they left off the Final Fantasy part I think it would have done better. They need to stop with the video games to movies and the video games based on a movie that’s based on a video game. Horrible.

    posted by Christina on 9-2-2010 at 9:06 am

  53. Also, it surprises me that there aren’t more Uwe Boll films. From the information I could find, here’s why:

    House of the Dead: made $1M
    Alone in the Dark: lost $10M
    BloodRayne: lost $20M
    In the Name of the King: lost $40M
    Postal: made $3M
    Far Cry: lost $29M

    This guy has lost about $90M from the movies he’s made.

    That being said, he will box you into submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Boll#Critic_boxing_matches_.28Raging_Boll.29

    posted by Joel on 9-2-2010 at 9:08 am

  54. “Treasure Planet” was a huge flop and contributed to the temporary demise of 2D Disney animation. The irony is that it’s actually a pretty good movie and did badly mostly to a combination of poor marketing and timing.

    posted by MetFanMac on 9-2-2010 at 9:11 am

  55. “Something’s gotta give” a hit? It may well be the worst-written romantic comedy in recent movie history.

    The essence of any rom-com is an ill-matched couple, kept apart by some apparently insurmountable barrier, destined to somehow be together by the end of the movie. “Sleepless in Seattle”: they live on opposite coasts. “You’ve got mail”: opposing political beliefs. etc.

    “Something’s gotta give” offers us two independent, financially stable people of similar age, both well-established in life and successful in their careers. Circumstances force them to live in the same house. Everybody approves of their relationship, including her daughter and her ex-husband, with whom she has such a comfortable relationship that he drops by for coffee. Even his rival in love smiles and gracefully steps aside, accepting that they should be together. The only reason they’re not a couple after the first five minutes? “He only dates younger women”, the other characters repeatedly tell us, a fact that the movie completely fails to show or explain, and why they would date him remains a mystery. Once the two of them have met, the rest of the movie is just marking time until it delivers its unearned and emotionally flat payoff.

    There’s not a single moment in the entire film that rings true, emotionally or dramatically.

    posted by Carl on 9-2-2010 at 9:32 am

  56. @Tim S.

    Guess it matters that I haven’t read the book. Sahara is one of my and my wife’s favorites.

    “I shot a guy with a flare gun.” :D

    posted by Jon B on 9-2-2010 at 10:27 am

  57. The all-time box office bomb has to be Zyzzx Road. It had a budget of $750,000 (actual cost was $1.2 million). Not that much, but consider that it’s box office take was only $30. Yes, thirty dollars. Exactly 6 people had seen the movie in 1 theatre during the week it was open. Everyone involved with the film thought it was a terrible movie, and the only reason it made it to the theatres was to fulfill a obligation with the Screen Actors Guild. The film producer did expect anyone to see the movie at all.

    posted by Eric on 9-2-2010 at 10:59 am

  58. I saw The Sorcerer’s apprentice ans I like it for it’s references to the Micky Mouse in Fantasia. The ending suggests another movie. So why did it fail at the box office.

    2. what hasn’t Warner Bros and Disney bought the films the reformatted for TV in the original wide screen. there are about 25 movies on DVD that I don’t have because of that!

    posted by Charles on 9-2-2010 at 11:33 am

  59. @Jon B, @Tim S.

    I didn’t remember hearing anything about Sahara when it was in theaters, but I Netflixed it last year and loved it.

    posted by Jared on 9-2-2010 at 11:34 am

  60. @Christina – in FF: the Spirits Within’s defense, it really wasn’t based on the games at all. I suspect they just slapped on the FF name for brand recognition, and added a few sops to the fans by including some minor FF traditions (like having a character named Cid). It’s really not a bad movie in its own right, but putting the FF name on it was a really, really bad marketing decision: it immediately biased the critics, and it made the fans expect something the movie wouldn’t deliver.

    So you’re right in the sense that it probably would have done better if they didn’t add “Final Fantasy” to the title, but only because they created false expectations by adding it.

    And video games to movies don’t necessarily have to be bad. They mostly get a bad rap because, with a few exceptions, video games to movies there have been were done really, really badly. But there actually IS a direct-to-DVD movie that was based off of one of the FF games – FF7: Advent Children. It probably won’t make much sense if you haven’t played the game, but it’s a pretty decent action movie and was actually made by the people who made the original games.

    posted by Jina on 9-2-2010 at 11:43 am

  61. Howard the Duck

    posted by c.j. griffin on 9-2-2010 at 12:08 pm

  62. Hey how much did Showgirls lose? It was so bad no one has even thought of it yet.

    posted by Steve on 9-2-2010 at 12:30 pm

  63. I just had to comment on “Last Airbender” as this seems like the only forum or venue where I can be heard. The illustrious{??} M. Knight made some rather strange {yet mostly meaningless} character changes from the T.V. animation to “his” film. If you watched the T.V. show to completion {and liked it as well as I did} it was nearly maddening. First, they changed the avatars name from Aang{ pronounced with an A sound} to what sounded like ong. WHY? Then there was Sokka{pronounced Sock-a} changed to soak_a. WHY???? Also Zukos uncle, whose name was pronounced eye-roh, not ee-roh, was supposed to be a mystically powerful and very wise to the ways of the world yet chubby older man, originally first in line for the fire throne{the current Firelords older brother} until his only son was killed in battle against the earth kingdom, it broke him mentally. Lastly, the firelord was so poorly portrayed compared to his real{T.V.} persona it all but ruined the movie for me. He was supposed to be dark, big, burly, ruthless, heartless, without refinement or any remorse or pride for his son Zuko {who incidentally was very well portrayed per his T.V. persona. These changes knocked the show off kilter, especially considering how many people young and old watched it regularly. I understand that sometimes changes are needed to make a book story fit into a film, but when you already have a very well liked animated show with a very well formed {not mention complete} story line, why distort it like this? The changes were worthless to the story line or any time constraints, basically showing Shamalans arrogance saying “I know the story better than the guy that wrote it, I know what is best”, but he doesn’t. These things were the only real negative issues that I had against the movie version. I understand certain omittances of info and other important figures in the story to make its run time reasonable, but to worthlessly f-up names and character forms in this manner shows a genuine lack of intelligence on the part of whoever made these choices. I would really like to hear their reasoning behind these changes, if for no other reason than to put it out of my mind. Signed, I mean really, come on WHY DID YOU DO IT??????

    posted by Robert on 9-2-2010 at 1:14 pm

  64. @Christina and @Jina – Spirits Within had the Final Fantasy name primarily because it was directed by Hironobu Sakaguchi, the creator of the Final Fantasy game series, and as far as Square Enix was concerned he could do anything he wanted. Probably still could.

    posted by Zed on 9-2-2010 at 1:32 pm

  65. What about Dragon Wars? One of the top worst movies ever!

    posted by Gal on 9-2-2010 at 1:43 pm

  66. I’m not surprised to see the recent Alamo movie is on this list. I watched it last month and I liked it. But they spent $145 million on a movie and expected droves of people to come watch everyone get slaughtered? And apparently, Texans didn’t like how revisionist it was. If you can’t sell the Alamo to Texans, I don’t know who you can sell it to.

    posted by Jim on 9-2-2010 at 1:46 pm

  67. I liked Sahara and am sorry there will be no more Dirk Pitt movies, but it barely resembled the book. My kids and I like The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. and “Closure” Hudson Hawk may have been a flop, but it is always good for a laugh for me

    posted by Maranda on 9-2-2010 at 2:03 pm

  68. Basic Instink 2 cost $70 mil? Crazy!

    posted by Dwayne Craig on 9-2-2010 at 2:34 pm

  69. according to Wikipedia The Sorcerer’s Apprentice cost is $150 million and it’s Gross revenue is $164,210,959

    posted by roy on 9-2-2010 at 2:39 pm

  70. “Elektra” – $56,681,566 Worldwide on a budget of $43,000,000 – movie still sucked.

    posted by Mr. Retro on 9-2-2010 at 3:05 pm

  71. @Robert and your Airbender rave-out: Yep, what you said. Ditto from me.

    M. Night Shyamalan was a one-trick pony with the Sixth Sense – he’s repeatedly made films since then that demonstrate he should seek another line of work, IMHO.

    posted by Mr. Retro on 9-2-2010 at 3:29 pm

  72. Here’s a surprise; Cleopatra (yes the one w/Liz & Burton) cost $44 mil, grossed $26 mil…lost $18 mil. That’s a lot of money back in those days.

    Also, Howard the Duck lost $20.7 mil

    posted by spickles on 9-2-2010 at 3:38 pm

  73. One thing that must be kept in mind is the studio doesn’t get back 100 percent of the box office. Depending on the film and the week of release, the studio will get back something like 50-90 percent of revenue, with the theaters keeping the rest.

    There is also the added auxiliary markets such as TV and DVD that will further line the studio pockets. However, with many of these bombs, who would want the DVD to watch it again!?

    posted by Kevin on 9-2-2010 at 4:38 pm

  74. Kristina: Funny story about Battlefield Earth. It had a reported budget of $75 million, which sounds like a lot until you realize that most sci-fi epics cost in excess of $100 million. But that’s not the best part: The production company that backed it, Franchise Pictures, turned out to have some funny accounting practices where they would raise the full budget, then keep quite a bit of it for themselves. The actual budget for the movie is $44 million. And it still failed to recoup its money.

    Joe: Diane Keaton is amazing. Watch “Annie Hall” and you’ll know what I mean.

    Gal: “Dragon Wars” didn’t make much money in America, but did well in its native country of South Korea. Go figure.

    And it’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but I liked “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.” It kind of boggles my mind that people complain that it has nothing to do with the “Final Fantasy” games; the trademark of the series is that none of the games have anything to do with each other (well, until recently, when they started making direct sequels), so a movie that has nothing to do with the games is actually kind of in the spirit of the series.

    And I’m shocked that so few people have mentioned “Heaven’s Gate.” United Artists gave total creative control to director Michael Cimino; it sounded like a good idea at the time (his previous film was “The Deer Hunter”), but he soon turned out to be a detail-obsessed control freak. Eventually, he turned in a movie that is slow, depressing and rather illogical at times. Critics panned it and audiences stayed away. As a result, United Artists was sold by its parent company and was no longer an independent studio. Say what you will about most of these flops, but how many have actually ruined a distributor?

    posted by Sillstaw on 9-3-2010 at 3:25 am

  75. What about the Nine? I remember stupid ol Entertainment Tonight promoted the hell out of that movie for months, and I think it didn’t make squat in the box office.

    posted by Anita on 9-4-2010 at 8:52 pm

  76. The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies is one of the worst movies of all time but since it probably cost five cents to make it must’ve mad a profit. Other terrible films that come to mind are Manos: Hands of Fate (Tarantino says it’s his favorite “comedy”) The First Nudie Musical, Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla, Trog, Troll, and I can’t mention Waterworld without mentioning Solarbabies since they’re not quite the same movie, but almost.

    There’s also the Ator movies and Deathstalker II, arguably the worst swords and sorcery film ever made.

    posted by Theresa on 9-5-2010 at 6:04 pm

  77. Julia Roberts, Jennifer Anniston, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Lopez… all overpaid actors who have recently had movie losses

    posted by chrisfiore5 on 9-5-2010 at 6:30 pm

  78. How about some more background information? :)

    “The Adventures of Pluto Nash” once again proved that Eddie Murphy is no longer the box-office draw that he once was. See also: Haunted Mansion, Meet Dave, and Norbit.
    Though he does much better in animated movies: Mulan, Shrek 1-4.

    “Cutthroat Island” was the final nail in the coffin for pirate movies (after Roman Polanski’s “Pirates”), which caused everyone to expect Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” to also bomb.

    After “Sahara” was pronounced a bomb, Clive Cussler disowned the movie and sued the studios for defaming the character and a loss of book sales.

    posted by John on 9-5-2010 at 7:26 pm

  79. LOVED FF: The Spirits Within! At the time I was amazed with the 3D.

    Advent Children is where it’s at, though. I really hate turn-based RPGs, but I have a love for the characters of FFVII, even if I never beat the game. The animation and character design was just superb. I will forever and always be a Cloud fangirl. :-P

    posted by Meg on 9-5-2010 at 9:48 pm

  80. I’m really surprised that only one person mentioned Cleopatra. Along with Ishtar that’s what popped into my head.

    posted by jeffcomedy on 9-7-2010 at 4:42 am

  81. I didn’t expect to see Sahara on this list, but I’m not surprised. When an author sues the studio making his book into a movie, you know the movie will probably bomb.

    The book Sahara isn’t just better than the movie, it’s 1 million times better than the movie.

    posted by indotexan on 8-15-2011 at 12:37 am

  82. I loved The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and own it! I however fell asleep on The Alamo and never been able to complete Sahara.

    posted by Ozma88 on 9-13-2011 at 3:45 pm

Comment

commenting policy