The Vorion: No, I dragged my girlfriend at the time to see it, too. We didn’t break up until about a year after that, for the record.
Waterworld, that soggy, steaming lump of whale shit, turned a profit?
It’s Pat - grossed $60,822. Gotta be some kind of record for a non-independent release.
How about Ballistic: Ecks vs. Server? I’m still not sure what that movie is supposed to be about.
Oh, apparently, it’s Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. Well, that still doesn’t make any sense, but at least now I’m not imagining a pissed-off sys-admin taking a crowbar to the server rack.
Apparently, it’s based off a video game that no one ever played. So, the movie got that part of it right, at least.
Loopydude - I didn’t mind waterworld. It isn’t one of my favorite movies but I didn’t think it was all that bad. It certainly isn’t worth 200 million though.
My pick has to be Battlefield Earth. Not only did it lose an absolute fortune at the box office but it also happens to be a terrible movie.
Johnny L.A. writes:
> Of course, it [Heaven’s Gate] is blamed for causing the death of Universal
> Studios.
United Artists, actually.
Wendell Wagner: You are correct. I thought about it a few hours ago, and I wondered if I really did type “Universal Studios” instead of “United Artists”. Then I forgot to come back and check. :o I stand corrected.
Miller: Almost. The Ecks Vs. Sever game was supposed to be based on the movie. But apparently, the movie ran into production snags, so the game (a FPS for the GBA) released much earlier.
I realise this isn’t the point of the thread, but I enjoyed The Postman and still do if I happen to catch it on the telly. You have to fast forward through a couple of hours but the bit where
he meets another guy who says he’s a postman, only this one’s actually doing it, and realises that he has single-handedly accidentally given everybody the faith to rebuild society
… was quite good, I thought. Although the sheer Costneresque length of the movie may have dulled my senses to the point where I actually totally misread that scene.
The Color Purple, but I liked it. Oprah did pretty well too.
I don’t know if we can call a film with multiple oscar nominations a bomb…
And as to the IMDB’s bottom 100 list, I think that a film had to have some expectation of success to qualify as a bomb. Either a big budget and/or big names attached to it.
It may well have been a financial stinker, but the Universal Studios attraction that’s based on it is quite awesome. 
It was a record Hollywood studio low at the time. I don’t know if it’s been passed. But it is unfair in some sense. There’s a dozen movies made each year that never leave the shelf*, making $0 in box office. Pluto Nash and Envy are films that just barely got off the shelf after sitting for some time. OTOH, you don’t go into the hole advertising a film you don’t release (usually). The new Alamo movie may not make back even it’s advertising budget on domestic receipts. (What am I saying? Like it’s going to make money overseas.)
But Julia Sweeney was great in And God said “Ha!” and had a nice small role in Pulp Fiction.
*Okay, so most bad movies at least go “direct to video” nowadays, but that doesn’t give them any box office and the take is usually negligible. Oddly, New York Minute would have probably made more money if they had kept it as direct to video.
The new Alamo did rather poorly. Funny thing is John Wayne’s 1960 version also did poorly at the box office. When it comes to movie-making, maybe it’s better to “forget the Alamo”. (my apologies to any Lone Star State residents that were offended by my attempt at humor).
The only one of the “losers” I’ve seen from the link SuperNova provided is An Everlasting Piece. It’s about, of all things, a two-man toupee sales team (one Catholic, one Protestant) in Northern Ireland. Not a great film or anything, but it was pretty entertaining and I don’t regret the rental. Many flops probably manage to make up for some of the financial damage in rental fees.
I’m not sure if I’m surprised that Boondock Saints is on there, or that they’re still (apparently) making a sequel at some point. On one hand while I love the movie I never even heard of it until this year, and on the other I thought that movies that lost money didn’t get sequels.
Conventional wisdom is that a sequal will make 70% of what the original made. So a sequal to a loser is a truly bad idea from a business standpoint.
Kind of surprising to see “You Got Served” rated so harshly. I mean, I never heard anything terribly great about the movie, but I certainly didn’t hear the same kinds of bad things that I heard about, for instance, “From Justin To Kelly,” which according to this list is just a smidge better.