Notable Bombs
Submitted by JohnnyW on Tue, 03/13/2001 - 13:30
Tags:
- Cleopatra (1963) [$26m gross/$60m budget]. Amazingly, this four-hour epic was also the top-grossing film of 1963! Bad publicity over Liz Taylor's demands and her "home-wrecking" affair with Richard Burton contributed to the film's reputation as a disaster.
- Heaven's Gate (1981) [$3m/$40m]. The film that (almost) single-handedly destroyed both the New Hollywood era and UA (which was bought by MGM after Gate was released). Track down Stephen Bach's book The Final Cut for an inside look at Michael Cimino's out-of-control ego and the panic behind the scenes at UA. Oh yeah, and it's not all that bad of a film.
- Inchon (1981) [$2m/$50m]. 1981 appears to have been a great year for bombs. Inchon told the story of the UN invasion that briefly turned the tide of the Korean war in favor of the West. A boatload of stars couldn't salvage this one, Omar Shariff, Richard Roundtree (Shaft!), and Laurence Olivier (as Gen. MacArthur) among them.
- Dune (1984) [$27m/$40m]. Perhaps we should thank Dune for Blue Velvet? David Lynch's disillusioning experience helming this adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel led to him turning his back on Hollywood and pursuing his own unique vision. In Dune's defense: it introduced us to Sting as an actor. Whew!
- Howard the Duck (1986) [$16m/$37m]. An abysmal sci-fi comedy with a interstellar duck who escapes the military and mates with a human woman. Surely not even cult-movie fans would touch this one...
- Ishtar (1987) [$14m/$40m]. An attempt at a Classic Hollywood throwback, this Beatty/Hoffman vehicle seems as misguided as it is unwatchable.
- Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) [$15m/$47m]. Sounds promising on paper: bring Wolfe's scathing critique of the Reagan era to screen, casting popular actors like Bruce Willis and Tom Hanks against type. Unfortunately the film accomplishes what seemed impossible, utter boredom. And Hanks doesn't come off too well either.
- Hudson Hawk (1991) [$17m/$65m]. A better film than both its reputation and gross indicate. Forget the inflated budget (for its time) and go in with reasonable expectations, and you'll be surprised.
- The Last Action Hero (1993) [$50m/$85m]. Most of Hollywood was rooting for Arnold to fail at this point, and they got their wish. This intellectually-flaccid "postmodern" take on Buster Keaton's Sherlock, Jr. couldn't be saved by one of the biggest acts of hubris seen in years, posting a mammoth-sized ad on the side of a U.S. rocket about to launch. If I remember correctly, the rocket blew up in mid-flight.
- Waterworld (1995) [$88m/$175m-$235m]. Like Hudson Hawk, Waterworld is a decent film. The spiralling budget and Kevin Costner's rift in the editing room with his director saddled it with horrific buzz that even surprisingly strong box office couldn't erase. Check out Dennis Hopper as "Deacon" however; you won't be disappointed. And who would ever guess that the little girl with the tatto map, Tina Marjorino, would re-emerge years later in cult comedy Napoleon Dynamite?
- Cuthroat Island (1995) [$10m/$98m]. Another Not-Really-That-Bad movie, but it did lose nearly $90 million dollars! Lack of star power sank this ship, as Michael Douglas bolted right before filming, leaving Matthew Modine (!) to team up with Geena Davis as the main actors. Has Renny Harlin ever directed anything worthwhile?
- Battlefield Earth (2000) [$21m/$73m]. In the running as the worst movie I've ever seen. John Travolta's cherished adaptation of L. Ron Hubbard's novel (which I'm told is rather enjoyable) is nothing short of cringe-inducing. To one of my favorite actors, Forest Whitaker: Just tell me you're now finacially secure for the rest of your life...
- Glitter (2001) [$4m/$22m]. Financially speaking, a money-loser, but not staggeringly so, Glitter is seen as a mega-bomb mainly because of the effect it had on Mariah Carey's career. She created a fools-gold monument to her romanticized origins and then promptly went out and had a nervous breakdown.
- Town & Country (2001) [$6m/$90m]. Warren Beatty makes a second appearance on this list! T&C received a muted reception, little talked about because it was kept on the shelf for several years and then dumped quietly by its studio onto a few screens, possibly as a write-off?
- Gigli (2003) [$6m/$54m]. The movie that gave us the beast known as "Bennifer." Tabloid exhaustion on the part of the public led to scant interest, and the negative reviews didn't help. Has become a byword for unmitigated disaster...
Author Comments:
Title/Release Year/Gross/Budget
Not much point in extending this list much past the early nineties, as we now live in the age of the bi-monthly bomb. When these movies came out, bombing still meant something. Ahh, the good old days...
Seems like a few bombs are still transcendent in our day and age. Have I brought this up to date enough?
Not only were these bombs at the theatre, they're bombs anyway. Neat list.
Thanks! If anyone has anymore additions, feel free to suggest them...
Johnny Waco
Howard The Duck, Leonard Part 6. Theres a couple for ya'.
Awww, yuck. I forgot about those wretched disasters. Leah Thompson making love to a duck? I personally can do without...
"Not much point in extending this list past the early nineties, as we now live in the age of the bi-monthly bomb. When these movies came out, bombing still meant something. Ahh, the good old days..."
I don't know how I missed that little editorial! Very funny, very astute, Mr. Waco. I stumbled across this archived list of yours doing a search on Waterworld, which I just watched this weekend. Review forthcoming in the usual places...
Hey thanks! It's amazing that even though bombs have proliferated, once in awhile one still sinks head and shoulders below the crowd, particularly Glitter and Gigli. I might have to see those at some point to consider their appropriateness for this list.
I'm looking forward to reading what you think about Waterworld. I liked it quite a bit more than it's reputation prepared me for.
Johnny Waco
Most of the movies on your list were big money losers with over-extended budgets and the like. Waterworld would fit the list in that way. Do you base your decisions on "poor quality", "low public interest", "profit loss" or a little of each. It'd be interesting in knowing.
I think all three of the factors you mentioned come into play, because all three contribute to what I was really considering: notoriety. For a film like Waterworld, which is a solid movie, not a great one, issues of quality were swept away as rumors of its runaway budget became common. It definitely lost money, although I believe it made somewhere around $80 million, and all the negative publicity and the fact it didn't become a clear blockbuster cemented it in many people's minds as a "bomb."
On the other hand, something like Battlefield Earth has all three factors you mentioned in spades, making it completely unredeemable (unlike Waterworld). It also had a bad "buzz" before it hit theaters. Most "bombs" seem to be anticipated in some way; everyone knows they will be bombs before they actually are.
Johnny Waco
I may have to watch Gigli as well. And I don't even rubberneck at highway accidents! :-)
My Waterworld review is up.
Cool, I see you've un-archived this list.
Funny thing, I just today removed Cutthroat Island from my Netflix queue (but not my "to see" list). I culled a few guilty-pleasure titles from the herd, including The Core and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I'm sure they'll rear their box-officely-floppish heads in my queue again, when the mood strikes.
I humbly submit Howard the Duck and Wild Wild West for your consideration.
I think you will definitely enjoy Cutthroat Island; bad in a good, good way... I might check out The Core and "LXG" myself sometime.
Two excellent nominations, and I have elected them to prestigious positions on the list;)
Johnny Waco
Alrighty, I'll have to stick that back in the queue, thanks! And thanks for sticking my noms in; I thought they would likely make the cut. :-)
I don't know why Hudson Hawk was such a bomb - I thought it was a perfectly good movie, much better than many movies that didn't bomb. Not one of my favorites, but definitely decent, like maybe a 3/5 or a 3.5/5. Same goes for Waterworld (but a lot of people here say the same about Waterworld)
I agree with the rest of your list though.
I actually liked Battlefield Earth, but I read the book, so it was an understandable movie. Apparently if you're read it it's an OK movie, if you haven't it sucks shit out of Michael Jackson's ass.
You mean the old Dune, not the new one right? (I didn't like the old one at all - so badly done, but I thought the new one was a good movie)
Yeah, I agree about Hudson Hawk: not nearly so bad as some of the others, but it became part of the pantheon of bombs because it was so ridiculed by critics and others.
Good point about Battlefield Earth; I've never read the book, and I always had this bias against L. Ron Hubbard because I've heard so many stories about Scientology supposedly buying tons of his books to ensure their placement on best seller lists. Made me wonder if they were worth reading. Anybody who's actually read him have an opinion?
And, yes, I meant the old Dune (David Lynch).
Johnny Waco
Actually, it wasn't THAT critically ridiculed:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hudson_hawk/
There are tens of thousands of movies with worse reviews than this.
Also, on L. Ron Hubbard, the only book I've read is Battlefield Earth, and I really enjoyed it (most readers did - it's a sci-fi classic). However, the movie only encompasses about 30% of the book, and strays from it in certain aspects and details, while leaving out massive amounts of story. So, most of those who read the book didn't like it because of it's unfaithfulness, and most of those who didn't hated it because it's terrible without it. Since I'm the very rare person who doesn't really care about faithfulness to a book, I'm probably one of the only people who liked it (I'd personally give it 3 stars out of 5).
I recommend reading Battlefield Earth though, and staying away from his Scientology writing.
That's interesting about Hudson Hawk; with the bad buzz that surrounded it at the time, I would have imagined it was eviscerated by the critics.
I also like classic Sci-fi, so I probably will read Battlefield Earth at some point. Even then, I'm not sure I can rewatch the movie; I'll grant you it might be better if someone read the book first (and I agree, literal faithfulness is unimportant--I prefer to see an adaptation of any kind capture the spirit of the original), but I have such bad memories of the film...
Thanks for the enlightenment on Hubbard.
Johnny Waco (who is NOT a Scientologist, even if Beck apparently is...)