#10: The Alamo (released 2004, net losses-$94,090,019.50)
Historically speaking, historical dramas with dramatic set pieces that follow the subject of an inspiring cultural struggle have done particularly well at the box office, tended to get good reviews from critics far and wide and have snatched up a considerable amount of awards. To name a few, films such as The King's Speech (2010), Glory (1989, which is a great film coincidentally) and Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) are based on great historical events, happenings, figures and relationships with relatively simple storyline that have won multiple awards and critical acclaim. The Alamo however, which details the battle for the Alamo keep between Texan revolutionaries and the Mexican army between 23rd of February and 6th of March 1836 during the Texas revolution received terrible reviews when it was released and lost Touchstone studios nearly $95 million.
One aspect that differs this telling of the doomed Alamo garrison from the famed 1960 original film is the fact that Texan director John Lee Hancock attempted to show the political world of not only the Texans but also the Mexicans as well. In hindsight, perhaps he should have done the same as Clint Eastwood did with Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima (both 2006) and told both sides of the tale in two different films as The Alamo is a wholly confused and way-too-long mess. Regardless however, I'd still recommend searching for the action scenes on YouTube as they're really well shot and directed with plenty of good effects to boot. Still, even this can't hide the miserable worldwide gross that The Alamo made of only $25,819,961 against a budget of $107,000,000.
One aspect that differs this telling of the doomed Alamo garrison from the famed 1960 original film is the fact that Texan director John Lee Hancock attempted to show the political world of not only the Texans but also the Mexicans as well. In hindsight, perhaps he should have done the same as Clint Eastwood did with Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima (both 2006) and told both sides of the tale in two different films as The Alamo is a wholly confused and way-too-long mess. Regardless however, I'd still recommend searching for the action scenes on YouTube as they're really well shot and directed with plenty of good effects to boot. Still, even this can't hide the miserable worldwide gross that The Alamo made of only $25,819,961 against a budget of $107,000,000.
#9: Final Fantasy The Spirits Within (released 2001, net losses-$94,434,085)
Whereas The Alamo merely put a nasty-looking dent in the reputation and funds of Touchstone studios, Final Fantasy cost so much to make, took so long to animate and develop and made back nowhere near enough so much so that it is blamed by many for the economic collapse of Square Pictures. Despite bearing the same name as the legendary JRPG (Japanese-Role-Playing-Game) series and being directed by its creator who had a huge budget of $137,000,000 behind him though, Final Fantasy was universally criticised for having surprisingly little to do with the game series it was based off of and instead concentrating on an unknown storyline set in a post-apocalyptic world populated by murderous ghost aliens.
Wait...what? That's really what it's about? Jesus Christ, no wonder the film was panned for a multitude of reasons, that sounds like a really freaking stupid plot. Thinking back to when I first saw this in fact, I can probably see why the film was criticised for being 'boring' as the majority of the film's funds clearly went into its highly-detailed animation and staggering 4 year development period eschewing the talent of some of the voice actors that included the likes of the great Alec Baldwin. Yet even the talents of the good Mr Baldwin could not prevent this flop of a film from only making back slightly over half of its budget in worldwide gross ($85,131,830).
#8: How Do You Know (released 2010, net losses-$95,665,546.50)
Generally speaking, romantic comedy films don't usually tend to do so well, particularly if they feature overrated actors such as Reece Witherspoon and Owen Wilson (yeah I went there, come and get me) which is even more so the case in terms of How Do You Know which was developed over 5 years and changed plots several times thus stretching its $120,000,000 budget to the limit. Because of this crazily-over-the-top development time for a romantic comedy, the film ended up costing a huge deal to make thus meaning that Director James L Brooks's reputation to a poke in the eye because of the flop of his first film since The Simpsons Movie in 2007 and received further criticism for the overly-meticulous development of the film.
Not only did this increase the amount that had to be spent on the film though as the combined salaries for Brooks and his four stars (Reece Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, Jack Nicholson and Paul Rudd) totalled a whopping $50 million despite the film's $120,000,000 budget and mere $48,668,907 worldwide gross profit after the film's release. What many will remember the film most for however is undoubtedly the terrible reviews it received including a measly 32% on Rotten Tomatoes out of 144 reviews.
#7: Jack the Giant Slayer (released 2013, net losses-$96,156,198.50)
Another film genre that tends to have its very turbulent moments is the adaptation of classical fantasy and fairy tales onto the big screen in a modern age where such literature is not as commonly read as compared to a century or so ago. Case in point, the 2013 flop of the adaptation of the famed books Jack and the Beanstalk (1807) and Jack the Giant Killer (1711) directed by Bryan Singer who is probably more recognised from directing the films of questionable quality, X-men (2000) and X2 (2003) as well as Superman Returns (2006). However, we shouldn't rag on Mr Singer for these films but I find it hard to do otherwise with his 2013 release which seemingly drowns the classical story of adventure and courage with copious amounts of special effects that some argue got in the way of the adaptation of the source material.
In contrast though, the film didn't receive wholesale bad reviews but generally only managed to get mediocre or average reviews at best. For example Metacritic gave the film 51/100 and Rotten Tomatoes gave a rough 52% rating, but as it stands, the $197,687,603 profits made by the film were barely enough to consider it being a success in much of a sense of the word.
In contrast though, the film didn't receive wholesale bad reviews but generally only managed to get mediocre or average reviews at best. For example Metacritic gave the film 51/100 and Rotten Tomatoes gave a rough 52% rating, but as it stands, the $197,687,603 profits made by the film were barely enough to consider it being a success in much of a sense of the word.
#6: The Adventures of Pluto Nash (released 2002, net losses-$96,448,013.50)
Oh man, here be rough territory boys and girls. Even though this comedy sci-fi, Eddie Murphy flick didn't have the worst box office losses on this list, it did by far make the least amount of money overall. In total, the film only grossed $7,103,973 despite having been made with a budget of around $100,000,000 and starring one of modern Hollywood's most famous and popular faces in a role that you'd expect to fit him like a glove. But considering the combined cost of the marketing for the film and the budget itself reaching $120,000,000 and the fact that the film only made back around $7.1 million both in the USA and overseas, it sure as hell isn't any wonder that this is considered one of the worst box office bombs in film history.
This in turn is supported by the generally negative reviews that the film received what with it being given the title of 'one of the worst films of the early 2000's. Therefore, it really is a wonder that Eddie Murphy was able to stay afloat as an actor thereafter, perhaps his success with the Shrek franchise however is to thank for the prevention of the collapse of his acting career. By the way, why is it that Alec Baldwin is in this piece of crap too?
This in turn is supported by the generally negative reviews that the film received what with it being given the title of 'one of the worst films of the early 2000's. Therefore, it really is a wonder that Eddie Murphy was able to stay afloat as an actor thereafter, perhaps his success with the Shrek franchise however is to thank for the prevention of the collapse of his acting career. By the way, why is it that Alec Baldwin is in this piece of crap too?
#5: Stealth (released 2005, net losses-$96,533,564)
Now call me crazy, but despite the poor reviews that this film received upon international release, I actually liked it. Admittedly it is flawed in some departments but when looking at the more popular response to Rob Cohen's aerial combat, sci-fi action piece I have to admit that Stealth was by far the coffee-flavoured chocolate in the bag of revels that was the major releases of 2005. Broadly speaking, the plot is relatively simple as the main 3 protagonists who fly highly-advanced fighter jets team up with a robotic stealth fighter in a special US air force experiment but realise that the technology they fight alongside is fundamental flawed, something that reveals itself more and more as the film progresses. Yet this set-up was not enough to prevent popular and legendary critic Robert Egbert from panning the film as a rip off of Top Gun (1986) crossed with the Hal 9000 computer from 2001: A space odyssey (1968) which reflected the popular mood towards the film that it was a rip off of the legendary 1986 Tom Cruise flick.
In turn, high expenses during the development stages and a poor reception at the box office meant that Stealth only grossed $76,932,872 despite the film having a budget of $135,000,000 making it one of the worst losses ever suffered by Columbia pictures in recent memory.
#4: Sahara (released 2005, net losses-$100,365,257)
Actually, now that I think about it, 2005 did see some poor-performers released onto the silver screen didn't it? Mind you, the misfortune that befell the treasure hunt, action romp set in Mali and starring Penelope Cruz flopped more so due to the crazy amount of money that it took to develop and advertise the film, the production itself cost around $160,000,000 and combined with the fact that the film took another $80,000,000 or so to distribute, meant that the $119,269,486 worldwide gross made by the film was negligible enough that Sahara still lost a huge amount of money.
As for reviews, the film wasn't necessarily received badly per-say, but what it might be remembered for is the series of legal disputes between Paramount pictures and Sahara's producers that lasted for over 5 years over accusations between either sides and other parties involved that the production had been sabotaged before its release. This resulted in a further loss of money in arguably pointless legal disputes and some bad blood being brewed between the conflicting parties in these cases.
#3: John Carter (released 2012, net losses-$108,610,950)
The only significant hype leading up to the flop that was John Carter last year only really manifested when 2012 began. There had been some speculation on what this film would be like when it was released and some believed that its connection to the Barsoom book series would give it some weight at the box office. Surely enough, many did end up going to see the film upon its release, unfortunately for those involved in the making, producing and distribution of John Carter, the $282,778,100 worldwide gross profit made by the film was not significant enough to overshadow the quarter of a billion production budget assigned to the film's development and creation.
Like Sahara and Jack the Giant Slayer, John Carter didn't necessarily receive bad reviews, but its poor opening weekend performance in the USA and high production costs meant that it ended up losing huge amounts of money for Disney studios regardless. Furthermore, the film was the first live-action feature-length piece directed by Andrew Stanton and considering the film's overall poor performance at the box office and generally 'eh' sort of reviews, Stanton's debeut live-action film has tarnished his career and definitely not made Disney look any better. Funnily enough though, despite performing badly in the USA, John Carter actually performed well abroad particularly in places such as Russia and Hong Kong.
Like Sahara and Jack the Giant Slayer, John Carter didn't necessarily receive bad reviews, but its poor opening weekend performance in the USA and high production costs meant that it ended up losing huge amounts of money for Disney studios regardless. Furthermore, the film was the first live-action feature-length piece directed by Andrew Stanton and considering the film's overall poor performance at the box office and generally 'eh' sort of reviews, Stanton's debeut live-action film has tarnished his career and definitely not made Disney look any better. Funnily enough though, despite performing badly in the USA, John Carter actually performed well abroad particularly in places such as Russia and Hong Kong.
#2: The 13th Warrior (released 1999, net losses-$129,150,550)
I personally think that a film like John Carter, with the obscene budget that it received, has a little leeway to not be a totally unmitigated disaster if it loses a considerable amount of money. However, if your budget is much lower than $250,000,000, or in the case of the historical action romp The 13th Warrior $160,000,000, then a large loss of net profit will hit you much harder in your stingy parts. Case in point, when this poorly-conceived Antonio Banderas flick was released it was panned across the board (although not as hard as perhaps Stealth and The Alamo were) particularly by receiving a 1.5/5 from Robert Egbert who along with a number of other critics, pointed out that the costumes and sets were brilliant but that the rest of the film was a jumbled and confused mess.
In total in worldwide gross profit, The 13th Warrior only made back $61,698,899 out of a fluctuating budget that peaked at $160,000,000. Combining this with the poor reviews that the film received, it is no wonder that the film is considered a failure and a blight on Banderas's career as an actor. What I find interesting about this film however is not how bad it is but more so the reaction of Egyptian actor Omar Sharif who decided to take a break from acting until the 2003 film Monsieur Ibrahim because he disagreed with the making of the film on account of seeing it as simply a way for the actors involved to get an easy buck. Admittedly I have to agree with the good Mr Sharif as this does seem a pretty simple and immoral reason to make a major Hollywood blockbuster.
#1: Mars Needs Moms (released 2011, net losses-$130,503,621)
Quick question, do you remember this poor, animated, adventure sci-fi flick for the kiddies? No? No, of course you don't, after all, who would want to remember a film with such a lame concept as the Martians needing mothers for their dwindling race which forces them into kidnapping mothers from earth and therefore indirectly showing a little boy the importance of family. Actually, that does seem a little creepy and pandering to conservative family values for my liking. Hell, even the concept of kidnapping is a little creepy, regardless of whether it would be a mother, a child, a cat, a postman or a 12 inch meatball sub with double cheese and hot chilli sauce it must be handled with care as a subject in film due to the sensitivity of the subject.
This was not the film's main problems however as it was hammered by critics for pretty much everything about it except for the voice acting and the casting of said voice actors and actresses. But regardless of this, the film was panned for most features particularly the poor handling of the subject of kidnapping and the lacklustre 3D effects that consisted of the film's animation. On top of this, Mars Needs Moms was an advertising failure as well as a box office bomb what with being released virtually right next to the vastly more successful sci-fi, action flick Battle: Los Angeles which grabbed movie-goer attention to a far greater degree. Taking into account all of this criticism and the fact that the film only made a $38,992,758 worldwide gross profit against a $150,000,000 production budget, its not hard to see why Mars Needs Moms is the biggest box office disaster so far in cinematic history.
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoyed this top ten. See you guys next time!
P.S. sorry for not getting one last post in before I left, but rest assured that I'll atone upon my return from Whales. Until then, cheerio!
No comments:
Post a Comment