It's no secret that the world of Hollywood means big business, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every film produced is going to start rolling in the cash. Some of the time a box office failure is nothing to do with the quality of the actual film, although in this list we'll be looking at those films that weren't even any good before becoming financial flops. Remember, this isn't a list for the films that have lost the most money, rather the films that deserved to lose a large amount.
#10 John Carter (2012) (4/10)
So one day Disney decided they were going to make a high value sci-fi adventure that would be based on a retro franchise. That's great, however it's name is 'John Carter'. How is that supposed to signal to people that this is an epic adventure into an alternate reality? John Carter is the bloke you meet every week down the pub, not a blockbuster journey into the vast realms of space. That feeling of this film not being anything special at any stage is a recurring theme throughout this whole 350 million dollar production, and not surprisingly this film aimed at kids becomes boring very quickly. Aside from the visuals I have absolutely no idea where any of the budget went. The money certainly didn't go towards the generic characters, the inconsistent plot or the woeful script. For some reason 'Disney' thought an amateurish performance on such a high budget film was acceptable if they made the thing look nice, which it does, but if you start paying stupid amounts for things that are merely trivial then the likelihood is always a box office bomb.
I still can't comprehend how 'Disney' thought this film would be marketable to children. As an adult I struggled to follow the lack of direction in the plot, so how children were supposed to absorb this mess is beyond me. I feel like the production team tried to achieve everything they could out of the visual effects rather than trying to achieve the best piece of art they could, and for a blockbuster as expensive as this one to be as shallow as it is annoys me greatly. The final results were a gross sales of 284 million dollars, as opposed to the 600 million that experts predicted the film would need to make for it to even break even. With a disappointing film that had no big name stars or a positive public image to bring in the crowds the results were never going to be 600 million dollar amazing, and it was thanks to the positive reception in countries such as Russia that this film even got over the nine figure mark. A prime example of why good films on paper can so easily be retracted from the public eye for such simple mistakes that now mean this film will rot in the graveyard of forgotten films for eternity.
#9 Speed Racer (2008) (4/10)
Don't get me wrong, I love 'Speed Racer' as a franchise. For me it gets the right balance of quirky and awesome antics, which unfortunately for the series didn't translate itself into a good film. Instead of fun antics we got a trippy insight into a five year old's wet dream, which is great if you're five years old, but not so much if you're middle aged and likely paying for those tickets. It turns out a lengthy narcotic trip for people who obviously don't value their sanity isn't a big seller at the box office, which isn't great news for a production that needlessly relies on high impact special effects to dazzle the viewer into submission. This tactic not only had the effect of keeping mainstream audiences away from the cinema, but also hiked the production costs up as well; not exactly sound business practice is it.
I'd like to say that 'Speed Racer' had something other than those special effects, but it just didn't. There was no substance under this brightly coloured racer, leaving audiences with a basic storyline and a lack of characters they could ever consider caring about. I know it's primarily a racing franchise at heart, but that doesn't excuse a film where the only element is just pure and simple racing with the occasional lecture on how capitalism ruins everything. It's rather ironic that this film takes an anti-capitalist stance, as it's that very principle that ended up ruining this big budget production. Out of the 120 million dollars it cost to make 'Speed Racer', it made back just 93. That's both a big disappointment and a shame from a film that should have been really enjoyable.
#8 Stealth (2005) (4/10)
'Stealth' was a film that tried to merge the high flying action of the highly rated 'Top Gun' with the sci-fi sleekness of films such as 'The Terminator'. Usually that kind of ethos goes down a hit with crowds, but unfortunately this film wasted a load of money on nice visuals and nothing else. 'Stealth' has no substance, nothing to make it stand out to cinema goers. Just look at that image; it looks like they're heading for a sleepover, not about to blow some shit up. For 135 million dollars we get some awesome planes, which almost look 135 million just by themselves, although that did little to persuade moviegoers to part with their cash. In the end 'Stealth' made back just 75 million dollars, which statistically makes it one of the biggest flops in cinema history.
It's easy to see why the film failed so badly. Both me and the critics hated the stupid and predictable plot, although I found there was more charm to be felt underneath what is an expensive excuse to blow things up in cool looking planes. The results aren't exactly on par with 'Top Gun', and I will admit that it feels like a commercial whore rather than anything desirable or fanciful, but as a high flying adventure this is an acceptable film for the majority of people. The love of explosions and frail script are however not acceptable, and as a result 'Stealth' will be remembered by precisely zero people in years to come, when in reality we could be discussing a classic.
#7 Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) (3/10)
The most expensive film ever that's originally based on a video game. 'Final Fantasy' also happens to be one of the poorer attempts at making video games work on the big screen, and there have been many similarly terrible tries over the last few decades. The thing is that this time a film based on a video game had a huge budget, like somebody actually wanted to make a respectable piece of art, and I appreciate the effort, just not the result. The reason why 'Final Fantasy' cost so much is instantly obvious. This was the first film to ever use photorealistic computer animations, and although the results look dreadful to audiences today, back in 2001 this would have blown minds of the few people that actually bothered to watch it, which wasn't many. The only publicity this film did get was when protagonist Aki made it onto 'Maxim's Hot 100' for 2001. Says a lot about the quality of the film when the best publicity it gets is from men getting erections over a virtual girl.
The reason why a film like this had never been attempted before is because of the effort required to pull it off, and yet alone make that effort successful. Each frame of this film had to be individually rendered, and so not surprisingly this mammoth task took over four years to complete, with some days only a single second of footage being produced. Not surprisingly that raised the costs; 135 million dollars to be exact, of which 85 million were made back. This is another example of how looking nice is one thing, but actually creating a film that mainstream audiences will love is another. Unfortunately for 'Final Fantasy' mainstream audiences were alienated by characters that felt like the very computer models the film was designed in, coupled with a conservative story that isn't acceptable in such a high budget film. It's a shame that a film that took this long to create ended up being such a disaster, that unfortunately meant producers 'Square Pictures' had to shut down shortly after the release. What an expensive mistake to make.
#6 The Lone Ranger (2013) (3/10)
When will Hollywood learn that people don't like to watch films that ruin beloved franchises? 'The Lone Ranger' is another example, although why it's named after a character who isn't even the protagonist is a little misleading. No in fact the beloved 'Lone Ranger' character is actually given a supporting role to Tonto, who is played by Johnny Depp, and so one would assume that his presence would at least draw in some sort of revenue. Nobody else has the star studded record in this high budget western, and so it's a massive shame that Depp ballsed up the role of Tonto, diverting the sense of adventure only onto himself. Okay, Depp can't really be blamed for the jumbled mess of a plot, that can't help but try to painfully explain every bloody plot point even if it isn't relevant to the main storyline.
The results are a film with a mixed tone that feels like it lasts for hours; and that's not just because of the lengthy runtime. Inconsistency is placed to the fore, and soon you realise the film is more to do with massaging Johnny Depp's ego than creating a meritable piece of art that celebrates the rich history of 'The Lone Ranger' franchise and the American West. The film is an insult to the genre really; an adventure that makes John Wayne turn in his grave. I honestly don't know who the target market was supposed to be, but it probably wasn't anything human. Not having a preset target market to sell the film to is suicidal business practice when the damn thing cost 375 million dollars to make, which might be in part due to the film requiring a whole new fucking railroad to be built for no other purpose than one scene. Yeah that seems reasonable for one fucking scene; it's no surprise that at one stage the whole film was called off due to the huge amount of financial resources being thrown at it. The reward for this determination was 260 million dollars made back at the box office. Turns out 'Disney' didn't learn their lesson from 'John Carter'.
#5 Cutthroat Island (1995) (3/10)
According to the 'Guinness World Records', but surprisingly not 'Wikipedia', this is the biggest box office bomb of all time. One of the reasons is because the film was total dog shit, and only succeeded in not making the world of female pirates seem remotely interesting. The second, and bigger reason, was because of the huge production costs that arose because of constant recasting and rewrites that took the total up to 98 million dollars. Embarrassingly the film made back ten million of those dollars, which on paper is absolutely pathetic. It didn't help that director Renny Harlin insisted that two huge galleons had to be made from scratch, and these had to be transported 5000 miles across the globe to the two shooting locations of Malta and Thailand. They do say that money can pay for a lot of things, but common sense isn't one of those things. Acting lessons and a decent script however can be, so why the fuck these weren't polished is a bit of a piss take. I guess you could say the script is at least entertaining, but that's not a reason to celebrate.
However the rest of 'Cutthroat Island' is not entertaining; far from it in fact. If there was ever an adrenaline filled pirate adventure it can't be found in anything this film does. I suppose the score and the action sequences are worthy of some praise, and even at times feel like they were worth the huge costs, but that's overshadowed by the huge problem that none of the cast could ever be considered pirates. How the fuck Geena Davis was meant to pass as a pirate captain is absurd. I almost feel like the production company wanted this mess to be a bomb to put them out of their misery. So much hatred must have been generated through the constant re-shoots that most of the dialogue is probably just them playing a prank on the cast that they now must have an irrational hatred for. The deserved losses were so bad that 'Carolco Pictures', who at one time had masterminded films such as 'Terminator II', actually filed for bankruptcy six weeks before the film was even released. Wow, that's quite embarrassing.
#4 Green Lantern (2011) (2/10)
This is the result of giving a lump of cash to people who have no idea how to make a film of at least some quality. I'm not quite sure which part of the huge budget was wasted most, but my vote would go to hiring Ryan Reynolds to play 'The Green Lantern', as he's a guy that should never be allowed into a role that requires any sort of screen presence and likable charisma. Reynolds is a woeful actor, and ends up creating a film about super twats rather than superheroes. I'll admit he's not the only thing about the film I detest, as the script and supporting cast are both equally terrible, but a plain superhero in a rubbish plot is the biggest sin for a film that had so much money to spare.
The plot in particular is something that should be so much better with the financial resources available. At this level there isn't any excuse for an almost nonsensical and dumbed down plot that would only please the idiots in the audience. It's lazy work from a lazy director that produced lazy results; and that was the final nail in the coffin for critics and viewers alike. Moviegoers shouldn't be forced into paying top money for a half assed job, and so they didn't in the end. Eventually the film did turnover a profit on the original budget, but when the marketing costs are taken into account the film only made back 220 million dollars of the 300 million that was spent on it. Not the biggest flop on this list, but one of the more deserving.
#3 The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002) (1/10)
Oh god, I can't even write a paragraph about this atrocity without cringing. It's a film I have such bad memories about, and that's because I couldn't help but grimace throughout the whole thing. This 'comedy' is never even amusing, with the budget being spent on lavish sets and Eddie Murphy, only so he can try and carry a horrific script that will actually make you feel sorry for everyone involved in making this horror show. I would like to compare this disaster to the varied world of sci-fi films, but that's not fair on a genre that doesn't usually rely on bawdy and piss poor jokes just to get by. Honestly, this film gets tiring after about five minutes, which isn't encouraging from a production that cost 100 million dollars. The production company were so ashamed they didn't even release the film until two years after filming finished. If they knew how bad the thing was why the hell did they even bother releasing it? Surely they must be aware that turds cannot be polished; and this film is a massive turd. The only joke in the whole film that's actually funny is that this made back only seven million dollars. Not even a tenth of what the costs were. Pathetic, and rightfully so.
#2 Town and Country (2001) (1/10)
How the fuck does a romantic comedy lose so much money? Just like 'The Adventures of Pluto Nash' this film cost 90 million dollars to make and made back only ten. 90 million dollars by the way is a similar budget to that of 'Lord of the Rings', and the difference will blow your fucking mind. Compared to films of similar budgets this ensemble comedy was unbelievably shit, only costing so much because of the ridiculous number of re-shoots the director insisted on. The film took so long to complete that it was finished two years after principal photography even began. The difference made by these re-shoots must have been minimal as I honestly can't imagine an end product much worse than this, with dull jokes and characters that aren't particularly funny or amusing in any way. For some reason it took an all star cast to produce a film that isn't exciting or engaging for any human being, and so it comes as no surprise that nobody bought a ticket for this crap.
Not even legendary stars such as Diane Keaton could draw people into the cinema. Keaton's once bright career has been ruined once again by dreary rubbish like this, which even she couldn't save thanks to a woeful plot that introduced the viewer to hateful characters at every available opportunity. Surely the production must have had some idea that their end product was a pile of shit, and even they must have realised there was a lack of chemistry between anyone involved, leading to clunky acting and a message that doesn't have any direction or purpose. Nothing this film does ever hits the target, and as such I can't think of one thing it does well. I guess the fact that the original shooting wasn't released is a plus point. How bad must that have been for the 'improved' re-shoot to be shown to audiences instead?
#1 Mars Needs Moms (2011) (0/10)
If you saw my list of the worst Disney films of all time then you might well have seen this one coming. 'Mars Need Moms' is such an unlikable film that I genuinely question why Disney thought kids would enjoy a creepy tale based on absolutely nothing of any interest to anyone. There were many fantasies I wanted to see in the cinema when I was a kid, but learning manners and realising how important my mother was in an alternative universe filled with talking scrotums was not what I, or any sane child, had in mind. Not only would this have fucked up my life, but it would have also bored me to tears considering how dull the end product is. Never in my life have I ever felt more patronised than watching this pile of steaming shit, and I do believe that children in the audience would feel the same way, assuming they haven't already fallen asleep. I nearly fell asleep, and I'm technically an adult.
I can understand why nobody wanted to see this film. A Disney film without charm or excitement is just worthless. There was no imagination or passion involved in making any of this film, so much so that I believe I stated last time it was trying to achieve the task of making Middlesborough look like Las Vegas. That's quite difficult when you have characters as interesting as my actual mother, and the costly effects are just fucking weird. In short this is not an acceptable feature film for anyone alive in the year 2011, and for the cost of 150 million dollars that's beyond a joke. 'Mars Need Moms' only made back 39 million dollars at the box office, and hopefully after hearing that result the bloke responsible was taken away and executed. What idiot thought that learning the value of mothers would be a box office draw? Was it the same guy that got a hard nob watching those crappy infomercials? Still the damage had been done to not just Disney but a whole generation of impressionable children, proving why something like this should never be touched again. EVER.
-large-picture.jpg)
