What were the most disappointing movies of 2005?

[jimmmy]

Now I know we can do it by numbers but would quickly say Stealth or maybe the Island. From
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2005&p=.htm

Stealth (2005)
Budget: $138,000,000
Domestic Gross: $31,704,416 (-106 million)

The Island (2005)
Budget: $122,200,000
Domestic Gross: $35,799,026 (-87 million)

A Sound of Thunder (2005)
Budget: $80,000,000
Domestic Gross: $1,897,575 (-78)



According to this site (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html) Stealth is the biggest Money loser of all time in absolute gross in unadjusted numbers, while A Sound of Thunder is number 18 all time in terms of poor ROI. The Island was clearly going to be DreamWorks no.2 (after WoW) major movie release this year – its second banana blockbuster/moneymaker and to lose money to that extent is a SHOCK.

Looking at that, Ron Howard’s Cinderella Man (budget exceeding the domestic gross by ~20 million) and Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven (budget exceeding Domestic gross by ~70million) kind of don’t look so bad in comparison….

But we can come down to hard numbers and pick one criteria to answer “most disappointing” more or less in a General Questions way.

Really though in Café Society, maybe taking that as one facet (or not), what do you see as the biggest disappointment in Movies this year?

For me it was Sahara. It lost money (68million domestic gross on a 130m budget). And I am not going to exaggerate for the sake of my thread and claim it was the worst movie I saw in a theater this year… but as a Dirk Pitt movie, long awaited and with A-list equivalent budget and with real movie Stars, it should have been on the level of a Bond or a Borne. THAT was what I expected – all that talk from Cussler for decades about not making a movie until he was sure the production would be first rate. It just wasn’t – Oh, they were clearly on location and I guess that ate the budget up because it “felt” like I was watching an episode of the A-team in the 80’s (maybe a very special 2 parter season finale) – I don’t want to be overly negative but that was my perception. I was VERY disappointed.

Kicking and Screaming is my number 2. It was marketed to kids. We go to every kid movie and so I took my then 6 year old because he ate up the commercials. It made money 52 million (on a 45 million production budget – almost 40% of the take was on the opening weekend which tells you something). But I soo freakin pissed. Ditka, Soccer, Will Ferell as a crazy Dad, a bunch of child misfits trying to be a team, were all the trailers in kids movies for months. That was the movie I paid $16 bucks for us to see on my day off. Well it was really a movie about Robert Duvall as Great Santini ; the mean as cr^p grandfather and abusive father and this huge “issue” movie between Ferrell and Duvall. ALL the funny parts were in the trailers, and then the insults came: 3 (!!!!) music montages each cornier and more hackneyed than the next Vangelis' theme from "Chariots of Fire," Queen's "We Are the Champions" and Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger," set to the kids doing appropriate stuff.

Go ahead : Be a cornier than Kansas kids movie. Be a Father son Great Santini style movie. But don’t be half-assed issue movie that is not funny – advertised and marketed to KIDS for crissake. It was only my number 2 disappointment because I didn’t look forward to it for decades like Sahara – but I felt suckerized and mislead and apologized to my kid who was bored by it.

[Krokodil]

I think it's a bad idea to focus on how much money a movie loses at the box office domestically. Technically, no Hollywood movie "earns" money, because film studios have wacky accounting practices. Also, I'd be real surprised if Stealth and The Island didn't close the gap with foreign and DVD sales.

Fantasia was in the red until its third or fourth theatrical release. So, IIRC, was Duck Soup. I wouldn't call either "disappointing." Frank Miller's Sin City made money had over fist, and I was intensely disappointed with it.

[Hey, It's That Guy!]

Frank Miller's Sin City made money had over fist, and I was intensely disappointed with it.

Just curious: were you familiar with the source material (the graphic novels) before going to see it?

My biggest disappointment this year was Be Cool, a sequel to the great Get Shorty, with an excellent cast, but a crummy and pointless movie (and really obnoxious how it marketed Aerosmith and the Black Eyed Peas). The Rock and Vince Vaughn were very funny and entertaining in it, but the whole thing was a colossal waste of everyone involved.

I also disliked The Brothers Grimm, made by a director I love (Terry Gilliam) and what looked, from the trailer, like a period version of Ghostbusters or The Frighteners. Instead, it was a disjointed, poorly-paced mess, not scary, not exciting, and not any fun.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Just curious: were you familiar with the source material (the graphic novels) before going to see it?


I don't go to the movies to see graphic novels. I go to the movies to see movies. As a movie, Sin City was unholy bad. So was A History of Violence, for that matter. It doesn't matter what they were like originally.

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was another adaptation that should have been burned before it was ever put onto celluloid.

If you can't refigure a movie for life as a movie, don't remake it.

[Hey, It's That Guy!]

I don't go to the movies to see graphic novels. I go to the movies to see movies. As a movie, Sin City was unholy bad.

How do you figure? I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, in spite of our past posting histories. I know you appreciate a lot of good movies, so I'm curious why you hated it so.

[vivalostwages]

Definitely A Sound of Thunder. I can't believe I didn't just walk out of the damn theater.

[Gangster Octopus]

I was mildly disapointed by Sin City (unfamiliar with the source material), and very disappointed by Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[Frostillicus]

A Sound of Thunder (2005)
Budget: $80,000,000
Domestic Gross: $1,897,575 (-78)

Wow. This one was so bad that I never even heard of it!

[Exapno Mapcase]

How do you figure? I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, in spite of our past posting histories. I know you appreciate a lot of good movies, so I'm curious why you hated it so.
The leaden dialog could not be spoken by living and breathing human beings. The stylized imagery was often interesting, but was almost always undercut by the inability of the actors to convey any equivalent dimensionality. I'm not saying that their performances were bad: for the most part they were quite good. But real life is, in many ways, lived between the panels. This film was a series of highlights, i.e. the panels themselves, and that is insufficient for an effective film.

Some experiments work and some do not. This one was worth trying, but for me it was a flat failure.

[elfkin477]

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was another adaptation that should have been burned before it was ever put onto celluloid.

I think the director took the common statement "Well, they can't make a worse adaptation than the low budget mini-series" as a personal challenge. In that, he succeeded wildly.

I found Amityville Horror to be a fairly disappointing adaptation too. It wasn't a bad horror movie, but it was rumored that it was going to be more faithful to the source material than the orginal movie, and "not a remake of the movie!" Yeah. Sure.

[RikWriter]

Most disappointing for me personally (that I saw) was Fantastic Four.

[Atreyu]

"Sin City" was the most disappointing movie I saw this year. I felt unclean after seeing it, and I simply cannot imagine subjecting myself to watching it again.

Granted, I haven't seen any of the movies named in the OP, and it sounds like it wasn't much of a loss for me to pass them up at the movie theater.

[Push You Down]

For me, The Baxter, a small film done by some of the State/Stella alumni and starring Michael Showalter (sp) and Michelle Williams.

The premise of the movie is that it is a romantic comedy from the perspective of the nebbishy loser who gets left at the alter when the female lead goes off with her one true love. Think Bill Pullman in Sleepless in Seattle. That's what the movie itself tells you it is going to be, but what you get is a standard romantic comedy that pokes fun at romantic comedies. It's a failure on every level.


To talk a bit more about Sin City, I watched it again just a few days ago and I really had a personal revelation about it. Sin City the movie and the graphic novels are really a parody of the noir comics of the time. Faulting the dialogue or performances in the movie is like faulting the dialogue in Airplane!

[First Amongst Daves]

Sin City the movie and the graphic novels are really a parody of the noir comics of the time. Faulting the dialogue or performances in the movie is like faulting the dialogue in Airplane!

Hmm. It wasn't meant to be so. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I like the graphic novels. They are intentionally over the top but regardless are intended to be devoid of any humour about themselves. The only, faint reference to self-mockery is the inclusion of a greasy barfly who resembles Marvel Comics' Wolverine (a tough-guy character Miller has worked on in the past) .

[Omniscient]

I think King Kong probably has to be mentioned.

King Kong (2005)
Budget: $207,000,000 (estimated)
Domestic Gross: $66,181,645 (-141 million)

Of course, there's still plenty of time in the theater for it to close the gap, but from a money standpoint it's looking bleak. Of course with foreign box office, remaining theater time and DVD sales it'll probably break even. Still, it seems like by most measures this film will be a disappointment. Even if not the biggest money loser.

I think based on expectations it certainly has to be at the top of the list for disappointments. I enjoyed the movie, though it had it's flaws, but it appears that that breaking 3 hr. barrier was crippling.

FTR, I knew nothing about [b]Sin City[/i] going in and was certainly caught off guard by what it turned out to be. Still, I liked it. Even if you hated it I don't think the movie had that high of expectations since everyone knew it was going to be a niche film with a limited audience. By that defineition it's not a disappointment.

Personally, Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy was the most disappointing as a fan of the books, but I'm not sure many people expected it to do that well.

[Sampiro]

I was disappointed in Rent. It wasn't dreadful by any means, but I thought more could have been done. As far as box office, it had a budget of about $40 million and has to date grossed $28 million, though with DVD and soundtrack it should make a profit. (OTOH, in a business infamous for movies that cost $50 million, gross $150 million and yet are "in the red" when it comes to passing out percentages [e.g. Chicago, Coming to America], who knows.)

While The Producers only opened wide this past week, its $4.5 million gross to date against a $45 million budget isn't very promising. As far as aesthetically, I thought it could have been better (and probably will be on DVD) but as is I give it a B.

I was very disappointed in King Kong but I'm sure with international box office, home video, games and promotions it will turn a profit. Narnia has already made back its $180 million budget and I found it very disappointing as well, while Revenge of the Sith is of course a huge hit and imho is to the original trilogy what Godfather III is to Godfather I.

Monster in Law tripled its production budget in gross revenue but I don't really know why- it's a predictable plot, chemistry-less romantic couple, Wanda Sykes as a Hollywood stock "sassy black women don't need good dialogue, they're funny just being black and sassy" character and a phone-in from Jane Fonda.


Flightplan had great acting by Jodie but plot holes you could fly the world's biggest passenger plane through. It's taken in about $190 million foreign and domestic so I'm sure it's a hit, but probably not as big as they'd hoped.

[Silentgoldfish]

I think King Kong probably has to be mentioned.

King Kong (2005)
Budget: $207,000,000 (estimated)
Domestic Gross: $66,181,645 (-141 million)


Well, you're wrong. Domestic gross (according to boxofficemojo.com) is at $128,516,635. Plus overseas gross of $153,600,000 means that right now it's grossed $282,116,635. In other words, it's in the black already and it's only been out a fortnight.

[Sampiro]

PS- Elizabethtown was a box office disappointment as well. People were hoping Orlando Bloom could carry a blockbuster without a sword in his hand but apparently he can't yet. ($26 million gross/$45 million budget- seems like just yesterday I was wondering how on Earth Ishtar could spend $40 million on a movie without spaceships.) I didn't see the movie so I can't speak to its merits.

I'm surprised that Kingdom of Heaven only did $48 million domestic. It wasn't a bad movie at all and had some really great action scenes and good performances. The overseas gross made it profitable at least.

[Silentgoldfish]

($26 million gross/$45 million budget- seems like just yesterday I was wondering how on Earth Ishtar could spend $40 million on a movie without spaceships.)


Overpriced actors, I'm guessing. Serenity had spaceships and was made for $40 million dollars in todays money. That's almost the entire budget just devoted to Jim Carrey's salary in Fun with Dick and Jane.

[Omniscient]

Well, you're wrong. Domestic gross (according to boxofficemojo.com) is at $128,516,635. Plus overseas gross of $153,600,000 means that right now it's grossed $282,116,635. In other words, it's in the black already and it's only been out a fortnight.

I used the figures off IMDB which didn't include overseas box office and figures which didn't yet include the previous week. I never claimed it'd lose money, though it's doing better than my impression had it, but I think it still qualifies as a disappointment. I'm sure Universal expected to be kissing the half a billion worldwide number by 2006.

[cmkeller]

Hitchhiker's Guide, for me. I can't believe I actually fell asleep in the middle of it. I love Douglas Adams's books, but to me, the movie totally failed to capture their spirit.

[Marley23]

PS- Elizabethtown was a box office disappointment as well. People were hoping Orlando Bloom could carry a blockbuster without a sword in his hand but apparently he can't yet.
I'm not sure he's ever going to be able to do that. Unless he comes up with a hit on his own in the next year or two, he'll lose his appeal with the early-teen female crowd and I think he'll be through.
Well, you're wrong. Domestic gross (according to boxofficemojo.com) is at $128,516,635. Plus overseas gross of $153,600,000 means that right now it's grossed $282,116,635. In other words, it's in the black already and it's only been out a fortnight.
And of course, it's still a ways away from coming out on DVD, where the real money is.

[Silentgoldfish]

I used the figures off IMDB which didn't include overseas box office and figures which didn't yet include the previous week. I never claimed it'd lose money, though it's doing better than my impression had it, but I think it still qualifies as a disappointment. I'm sure Universal expected to be kissing the half a billion worldwide number by 2006.

I don't think it's that kind of movie. It's obvious from the way it's making money that it's getting a lot of revenue from word of mouth rather than initial weekend take.

Quite frankly, anyone who looks at 200 million dollars at the two week mark as a disappointment is looking for fault.

[Krokodil]

Just curious: were you familiar with the source material (the graphic novels) before going to see it?

Yep. Sin City started out as Miller's backlash against fifteen years of superhero-type comics. He wanted to depict the real world as he understood it. But being Frank Miller, he quickly reverted to ninjas, freaks and swastika-shaped throwing stars.

The movie--and Frank Miller as co-director doesn't excuse this--missed no opportunity to remind the viewer that this didn't take place in the real world Here's a hint: Cool cars and hot babes look better against a backdrop of ordinary cars and homely women. There's nothing special about a powder-blue Cadillac and a lingerie-clad Rosario Dawson if that's what every guy we see appears to have. And if you show your hero soldier on after catching a hail of twenty bullets, it kinda kills the suspense five minutes later when the bad guy brandishes a gun.

Short version: This blew chunks.

[First Amongst Daves]

I'm surprised that Kingdom of Heaven only did $48 million domestic. It wasn't a bad movie at all and had some really great action scenes and good performances. The overseas gross made it profitable at least.

I can't help that folks were battle-scened out after threee Lord of the Rings movies, Troy, and for those of you in the Far East, Hero. There are only so many massed sword battles people can take (not me personally -"others").

[JohnBckWLD]

Five steaming turds, from stinkiest to least corny.

1. Son of the Mask

2. Aeon Flux

3. King Kong

4. Brokeback Mtn

5. War of the Worlds

[Scissorjack]

My biggest disappointment this year was Be Cool, a sequel to the great Get Shorty, with an excellent cast, but a crummy and pointless movie (and really obnoxious how it marketed Aerosmith and the Black Eyed Peas).

I haven't seen it, but Elmore Leonard's book - which to be fair isn't much cop either - also has a pointless and extended appearance by Aerosmith, in which they are revealed to be just a swell buncha guys.

[Nancarrow]

I used the figures off IMDB which didn't include overseas box office and figures which didn't yet include the previous week. I never claimed it'd lose money, though it's doing better than my impression had it, but I think it still qualifies as a disappointment. I'm sure Universal expected to be kissing the half a billion worldwide number by 2006.

Just to toss a random purely hypothetical factoid out, which I'm not sure I can substantiate without being in breach of something or other... the Powers That Be at work reckon it should take a good $375 million worldwide by around March. At least, they're promising a bonus to all staff if that happens.

(... so maybe they know damn well it won't? :dubious: I ain't been around here long enough to suss out the politics. or be eligible for that bonus :( )

[Ponder Stibbons]

I didn't see a good number of the stinkers listed, because I read about them here first.

So for me, the biggest disappointment was HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It had a good budget, first-rate special effects, freakin' great cinematography and even decent actors. I know, I know, some people didn't like the casting, but I think the actors did a fine job with what they were given. Heck, I even don't mind the position of Zaphod's second head. Artistic license and all, you know?

The problem, of course, was the screenplay. Whoever the hell the hack was that did that should be dropped on a deserted island somewhere with no way to ever, ever contact the civilized world again. That putrid pile of dolphin droppings removed almost all of the humour from the work, leaving you with a semi-pointless meandering through some very nice sets. Arrrrrr!!!

I do not list King Kong as a disappointment, because it was almost precisely what I expected. I never much liked the original 1930's film in the first place, so the remake actually seemed somewhat of an improvement, but still not all that.

[Trunk]

Kingdom of Heaven did poorly because it was good. "Let's all share" and "Christians and Muslims can live together in peace" just doesn't play as well as "Kill 'Em All" in the Sticks.

Most disappointing for me: Must Love Dogs. I'm a sucker for a good rom-com and with the sexy Diane Lane and one of my faves, John Cusack, I figured it couldn't miss.

We walked out. Not a laugh in it. Not an original thought. Supporting characters, and leads I've seen a million times. Terrible movie.

I can't name a worse rom-com from the last 10 years, seriously. Compared to this, Two Weeks Notice and You've Got Mail were masterworks.

[DrDeth]

Sin City wasn't a disappoinment- but it was way too violent, and not "all that and a side of fries" as promised.

A Sound of Thunder was both very very bad, AND a disappointment.

Sahara had a few great moments- but the plot was "reedikulus" and those moments couldn't save it.

HGttG was eh. :(

I was very very happy with Narnia- of of the best in this decade. :)

Be Cool wasn't a disappointment- as I have pretty well figured that 90% of Revolta movies are crap.

[Push You Down]

Oh God, Elizabethtown was awful. There's these weird and brillant moments in the movie, but over all it was probably the worst movie I saw all year.

[sciurophobic]

I saw The Island and A Sound of Thunder , both as free sneak previews.

I still want my money back.

[zamboniracer]

Not being an investor in any movie production company or any movie theatre chain, I don't care at all if the movie made money or lost money. That's their problem, not mine. As a movie goer I only care about the quality, or lack thereof, of the product itself. From that perspective I was most disappointed in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy which, as others as already said, failed to translate the book's great good humor into movie form.

[middleman]

Be Cool (2005) 5.6/10 (10002 votes)

[middleman]

That post got away from me too soon. But really, that is the only mention that film deserved.

I was also disappointed with Star Wars. Of course, the previous two prepared me for it.

I thought War of the Worlds stunk up the theater.

[DrDeth]

I thought War of the Worlds stunk up the theater.

Not "stink"- it "noised" up the theatre- with the constant screaming, precociousness and bad over acting by Montana or whateverhernameis. :p

[NoClueBoy]

Disappointing apparnatly means different things to different people. I, for one, don't care much at all for how much a movie makes. Except when it impacts on what could've been a good franchise.

For instance, with the dreary decline of almost everything Trek related, I was really looking forward to the Firefly movie, Serenity. And when I saw the flick, I was not dissappointed at all. It was a good sci-fi movie.

However, the only friends of mine who also enjoyed the movie were previous fans of the TV series. All the others saw it as just another of 2005's 'splosions! movies. This disappointed me because it meant that the movie would not do at the box office and the hoped for franchise of movies would thus probably not happen. Sci-f- movies, TV show, franchises, etc... cannot survive for long with only sci-fi fans watching them. Just not a large enough base.

Now, for a movie that was just completely disenchanted with, we travel back to a galaxy far far away, in a time long long ago. Shit. I've seen better things oozing out of my own wounds.

I enjoyed the big ass ape. All 3 hrs worth.

Douglass Adams rose from the grave and gave us an odd little bastardisation of his own stories, but I didn't mind too much. He had previously changed something in the franchis with each different newest release, version, or part. Funny thing, my non sci-fi friends who had never heard or seen of the franchise loved the movie. Odd thing, that.

There were several non sci-fi shows that made me miss my eight bucks and two hours spent in the effort to attempt to be entertained by them, but none that I can recall causing me to gnaw off any limbs. Maybe I'll recall one or more later...

[Gadarene]

Push You Down:
For me, The Baxter, a small film done by some of the State/Stella alumni and starring Michael Showalter (sp) and Michelle Williams.

The premise of the movie is that it is a romantic comedy from the perspective of the nebbishy loser who gets left at the alter when the female lead goes off with her one true love. Think Bill Pullman in Sleepless in Seattle. That's what the movie itself tells you it is going to be, but what you get is a standard romantic comedy that pokes fun at romantic comedies. It's a failure on every level.

I completely agree. I'm a huge State/Stella fan, and I could not have hated that movie more. I just watched it last night, and there wasn't a single shred of wit to be found. Paul Rudd was the only (momentary) bright spot. Just awful.

...But I really liked Hitchhiker's Guide, so it looks like I'm in the minority in that.

[middleman]

Disappointing apparnatly means different things to different people. I, for one, don't care much at all for how much a movie makes. Except when it impacts on what could've been a good franchise.


So true. It used to affect my enjoyment if a film I liked didn't do big business. Then I realized how silly that was. The movie was still there whether it was a hit or not. It would still make it to DVD. It might even become a mega-hit the second time around (see: Redemption, Shawshank).

But I do root for GOOD movies to make money and bad movies to tank. Not because I care about their box office, but because I want more good films and fewer bad films to be made.

Most of the time, my faves are at the bottom of the box office list.

[Reloy3]

Kingdom of Heaven did poorly because it was good. "Let's all share" and "Christians and Muslims can live together in peace" just doesn't play as well as "Kill 'Em All" in the Sticks.

Not to pick a fight, but any evidence to back this anti-rural statement up? Or is this just another "my favorite movie didn't make a lot of money, it must be those unsophisticated fly-over, red staters fault."

I didn't see KOH, but the handful of reviews I heard didn't particularly make me want to camp out and see it. Of course, maybe your right, after all - I live in "the sticks".

[middleman]

I think KoH's failure came down to the fact that Orlando Bloom has been in a lot of hit films, but is not a star that can carry a film.

I find his presence in films a negative.

[Trunk]

Not to pick a fight, but any evidence to back this anti-rural statement up? Or is this just another "my favorite movie didn't make a lot of money, it must be those unsophisticated fly-over, red staters fault."
I don't care if other people liked it or not. After seeing it, I could have told that that movie wouldn't do well in America.

Kingdom of Heaven was a nuanced movie. It had a more methodical pacing and thoughtful themes. If Ridley Scott wanted the movie to do well, he would have had Orlando Bloom wipe out the muslims and plant a Christian flag right in the middle of Jerusalem. It would have been moronic, but people would have gone to see it.

The finish was anti-climatic, and most of the "excitement" came from determining the characters motivations based on their histories and allegiances. The end of the movie ended with essentially a truce and the Christians ceding the city to the Muslims.

On top of that, the battle scenes were stunning, the cinematogrpahy beautiful, and the siege was as thrilling as the siege of Gondor in ROTK almost.

This movie didn't do well because people want to see one side portrayed as unambiguously EVIL (be it aliens, or orcs, or terrorists) and then see them completely obliterated, and the good guys (US) raise their arms in triumph.

They don't want to see that Christians have divisive opinions amongst themselves, and they don't want to see Christians come out on the bottom of "who is more barbaric" when compared to the Arabs.

[Push You Down]

I don't care if other people liked it or not. After seeing it, I could have told that that movie wouldn't do well in America.

Kingdom of Heaven was a nuanced movie. It had a more methodical pacing and thoughtful themes. If Ridley Scott wanted the movie to do well, he would have had Orlando Bloom wipe out the muslims and plant a Christian flag right in the middle of Jerusalem. It would have been moronic, but people would have gone to see it.

The finish was anti-climatic, and most of the "excitement" came from determining the characters motivations based on their histories and allegiances. The end of the movie ended with essentially a truce and the Christians ceding the city to the Muslims.

On top of that, the battle scenes were stunning, the cinematogrpahy beautiful, and the siege was as thrilling as the siege of Gondor in ROTK almost.

This movie didn't do well because people want to see one side portrayed as unambiguously EVIL (be it aliens, or orcs, or terrorists) and then see them completely obliterated, and the good guys (US) raise their arms in triumph.

They don't want to see that Christians have divisive opinions amongst themselves, and they don't want to see Christians come out on the bottom of "who is more barbaric" when compared to the Arabs.

Cite?

Seriously.

[Reloy3]

Cite?

Seriously.
Indeed - if the movie you described is actually KOH, I'll try to rent it this weekend (if can find it out here in the sticks and see past the hayseed in my mouth- hyuk, hyuk). What I heard was that KOH was boring and unrealistic. I also heard that it was a thinly veiled commentary on the Iraq war with the Moslems as the eternal good guys and the European Christians were Boorish evil-doers. And this didn't come from my rural redneck contacts, this came from a respected professor of the middle ages I still have dinner with ocassionally.

I'm glad to see that your prejudices have expanded from rural America to America in general, though.

[Trunk]

Cite?

Seriously.
You seriously are asking for a cite about my opinion on why a movie did bad?

Sure, it's right here in my butt. Close your eyes and hold your hand out.

You go watch this movie.

Go watch Gladiator, another Ridley Scott epic that was similar in scope and action, and did great. It's theme. . .triumphant revenge of the good guy over the bad guys.

Try to tell me where the major differences lie. And, don't tell me Russell Crowe. He was no bigger a star than Orlando Bloom was when he made KoH.

KoH failed because people don't want to hear what Scott had to say. If he makes the same movie with a triumphant, Christian, good guy ending, this movie does great.

[VarlosZ]

I think KoH's failure came down to the fact that Orlando Bloom has been in a lot of hit films, but is not a star that can carry a film.

I find his presence in films a negative.
This is my thought, as well. Being a typical New York Bleeding Heart Liberal Scumbag, moral ambiguity is a big selling point for me when I go the movies, and I didn't like KoH at all. I found most parts to be, well, boring, and I was bothered by the fact that the worst actor in the entire cast was the lead.

They should've made the movie from Saladin's point of view (Ghassan Massoud (http://imdb.com/name/nm1586095/), who doesn't have a huge body of work on-screen, apparently) -- now that guy could carry a scene!

[RikWriter]

KoH failed because people don't want to hear what Scott had to say. If he makes the same movie with a triumphant, Christian, good guy ending, this movie does great.


This is the part he wanted the cite for. And I agree with your earlier assessment of its origin.

[VarlosZ]

Go watch Gladiator, another Ridley Scott epic that was similar in scope and action, and did great. It's theme. . .triumphant revenge of the good guy over the bad guys.

Try to tell me where the major differences lie.
Gladiator takes place in Ancient Rome. KoH takes place in the Medieval Ages. The latter is a much harder sell. Also, for all its faults, Gladiator wasn't boring.

[BrainGlutton]

Another vote for Fantastic Four.


Kingdom of Heaven was a nuanced movie. . .

<snip>

This movie didn't do well because people want to see one side portrayed as unambiguously EVIL (be it aliens, or orcs, or terrorists) and then see them completely obliterated, and the good guys (US) raise their arms in triumph.

They don't want to see that Christians have divisive opinions amongst themselves, and they don't want to see Christians come out on the bottom of "who is more barbaric" when compared to the Arabs.

Just out of curiosity, was KoH released in any countries in the Middle East? If so, what was public reaction?

[Sampiro]

They should've made the movie from Saladin's point of view (Ghassan Massoud (http://imdb.com/name/nm1586095/), who doesn't have a huge body of work on-screen, apparently) -- now that guy could carry a scene!

That guy was incredibly charismatic, at least to me. Such an interesting and intelligent face, and I loved his performance (especially that last part that I want spoil when he's asked "What is Jerusalem to you?").
While there was much deviation from history, I was actually surprised by how much history made it in to KoH. Most of the characters existed, and while Orlando Bloom's real life counterpart had absolutely no similarity to the movie character for most there was similarity: Baldwin really was a leper who wore a mask and was very advanced diplomatically, Saladin really was a military genius and known for mercy, Reynaud de Chatillon really was a fanatical bloodthirst bastard who deliberately killed a member of Saladin's family (some accounts say sister, some say daughter, some say cousin) to start a war, Guy de Lusignan really was an arrogant stupid ass, etc., and the surrender of Jerusalem really was that anticlimactic after an "as good as could be expected under the circumstances" defense. (The priest at the real surrender was actually more bastardly than portrayed in the movie- I'm guessing the director didn't want to offend Christians.)

De Lovely is a movie I think should have been more popular (while actually released in 2004, it didn't play the provinces until 2005 so I'll count it here). An unusual love story, great music and great cameos, but it basically broke even (box office take 18 million/budget 15 million).

The Downfall/Der Untergang (http://imdb.com/title/tt0363163/), also a 2004 movie that didn't play America until 2005, is a German language film about Hitler's last days with [I]BRILLIANT[/B] performances by Bruno Ganz as Hitler (neither a frothing monster nor sympathetic) and Corinna Harfouch as Magda Goebbels (the scene where she poisons her children... agh- every emotion you should feel is there), only grossed $5 million US but did $85 million worldwide. I'm not sure what it's budget was- it can't have been low budget because of the recreation of Fall of Berlin streets, explosions, uniforms, etc., but I hope it made enough to insure more cerebral historical movies.

[middleman]

KoH failed because people don't want to hear what Scott had to say. If he makes the same movie with a triumphant, Christian, good guy ending, this movie does great.

This is the part he wanted the cite for. And I agree with your earlier assessment of its origin.

C'mon. That is clearly an opinion statement.

If one disagrees, the correct response is "No way!" (or if in the Pit, it is "Bullshit, cock-smooch!").

I couldn't figure out what the "Cite" request was asking for and I didn't agree with Trunk's post.

[Silentgoldfish]

The Downfall/Der Untergang (http://imdb.com/title/tt0363163/), also a 2004 movie that didn't play America until 2005, is a German language film about Hitler's last days with [I]BRILLIANT[/B] performances by Bruno Ganz as Hitler (neither a frothing monster nor sympathetic) and Corinna Harfouch as Magda Goebbels (the scene where she poisons her children... agh- every emotion you should feel is there), only grossed $5 million US but did $85 million worldwide. I'm not sure what it's budget was- it can't have been low budget because of the recreation of Fall of Berlin streets, explosions, uniforms, etc., but I hope it made enough to insure more cerebral historical movies.

According to imdb, budget was around $15 million, so it made more than enough money.

[Push You Down]

C'mon. That is clearly an opinion statement.

If one disagrees, the correct response is "No way!" (or if in the Pit, it is "Bullshit, cock-smooch!").

I couldn't figure out what the "Cite" request was asking for and I didn't agree with Trunk's post.


Trunk's clearly stating an opinion as fact... Calling for a cite was asking if he had anything to back up his stated as fact opinion. His childish response showed that no, he doesn't. He can shit in his own hand for all I care.

[ianzin]

HHGTTG - we waited so long for this, and what we got was just such a pale imitation of what could have been, might have been, should have been.

Fantastic Four - for personal reasons I've been following the gestation of this movie since around 1998, so I was hoping with all my heart that it would turn out to be another great Marvel movie, like the Spider-Man or X-Men franchises. Alas, it wasn't to be. The wrong director with the wrong cast working from a third-rate script... oh, there was so much wrong with it that it's futile to try and list everything. You know, this could have really been something special. And it should have been - Marvel's 'first family' and all, an enduringly successful comic book, great characters, plenty of visual appeal, a decent enough budget to deliver on the requisite special FX... but no, somehow it all got wasted.

Narnia - basically competent, but it lacked art direction and the necessary sense of style.

Kong - way too indulgent. A very good 80 minute story wrapped inside a 3 hour showreel for a special FX company.

[Cat Fight]

While neither Everything is Illuminated nor Stay were slated to become big box office hits, I thought they'd be gems. I was wrong. The former film's trailer was way better than the actual finished work, and the latter's 'twist' made me feel like I'd just finished an R.L. Stine novel. Oh, and The Aristocrats was painfully bad. Perhaps if I'd approached it as a doc rather than a comedy...

[Kiros]

Be Cool - only because Get Shorty was so good and this was so... blah.

Aeon Flux - again, because there was so much potential here for this to be so cool... and it just wasn't.

I thought Hitchhiker's was uninspiring, and agree that it was mostly the fault of the script more than anything else. But I was never a HUGE fan of the books, either, so I can't really call it a huge disappointment.

I loved Sin City, and I'd never even heard of the source material. It revealed to me that I don't have a personal dislike for "comic book" movies, I have a dislike for "pseudo-heroes who wear spandex" movies. More Top 5 than Top 5 Disappointing, for me anyways.

[ddgryphon]

Well, sometimes at look at the FF movie and I see it as half-full, but in my heart, I know I was terribly disappointed and don't care if they make another one. I thought the cast was quite good (for the most part) but truly the writing was a major disappointment. I think its greatest failure was in not bringing us VonDoom in all his complicated, baroque, and comic booky style. Truly a deep character relegated to being a love-sick meglomaniac (and he's so much more than that!)

So, FF was probably my biggest disappointment (probably only because I knew better than to go see "A Sound of Thunder").

With HHGTHG trailing. While I didn't hate it, it was nowhere near as funny as it should have been.

I have KOH at home and still haven't found the time to watch it. My daughter drug us to see Kong or I probably still would not have seen it. I found it surprisingly better than I expected and a worthy successor to the original (I've been able to blot that 1970's travesty from my mind for the most part).

I have a friend who counts "History of Violence" as one the best movies he's seen in the last 6 months and recommended it highly. I admit I want to see it, but missed it due to repeated viewings of "Serenity" which contrary to this list didn't disappoint me at all.

[elfkin477]

On top of that, the battle scenes were stunning, the cinematogrpahy beautiful, and the siege was as thrilling as the siege of Gondor in ROTK almost.

This movie didn't do well because people want to see one side portrayed as unambiguously EVIL (be it aliens, or orcs, or terrorists) and then see them completely obliterated, and the good guys (US) raise their arms in triumph.


Hmm. I didn't like Kingdom of Heaven for exactly the same reason that the third LOTR movies is my least favorite: too many battle scenes. They weren't stunning, they were brutal at first, then boring in their repetitiveness. If there had been a lot less fighting (scenes of it, anyway) and a lot more scenes that built on character development, both movies might have been significantly more interesting.