Comments on: Top 10: Biggest bombs of the decade

By: Republibot 3.0

Republibot 3.0 — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:29:04 +0000

GI Joe was pretty good…I’m joking, I’m joking. GI Joe was an adequate popcorn movie. Moon was pretty good, District 9 was pretty good.

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:17:33 +0000

Has there been a movie released in 2009 that is worth a good dump? Haven’t seen “The Blind Side”,which is set here in Memphis.Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus” looks interesting…Morgan Freeman is a Mississippi local guy.

By: Mr. Sideous

Mr. Sideous — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:46:53 +0000

As the Venerable John Nolte noted*, these Iraq movies should kill off the notion that Hollywood is only doing this for the money.

*(paraphrased, of course: I am not worthy to hold Mr. Nolte’s surge protector.)

By: Republibot 3.0

Republibot 3.0 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:46:01 +0000

Are we just limiting ourselves to movies made this century? Because I feel Hudson Hawk should be on the list somewhere. I’d also say that Nicole Kidman has *always* been some kind of soul-draining body snatcher. “Body Snatchers” itself has been remade – arguably – three times, though not all of them efficient, and while the first remake has its charms, it’s totally missing the dream-cum-nightmare quality of the original, which is totally iconic and still rather chilling. I can’t understand why anyone would want to remake it, since it’s already been done to perfection. Twice.

As completely terrible as “Rollerball” was – and believe me, I’m not going to say anything good about it – I will give them some credit for taking the same basic premise and trying to go a different way with it. It wasn’t a straight paint-by-the-numbers remake (Say, as with the remake of Psycho), it was a new take on an old concept. They deserve a tiny bit of credit for that, even if they compltetely, totally, stupidly fumbled the ball.

“Inchon” is always a good bomb, too.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:30:40 +0000

Kit they actually flopped worse if you look at budget and then see what the piece of garbage made.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:29:51 +0000

Star Wars on crack…thats saying a lot John!

By: JohnFN

JohnFN — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:59:22 +0000

Funny you mention Showgirls, because I thought of it a lot when I saw Battlefield Earth. Showgirls was more “we’re taking this so seriously despite the badness” while the cast in BE seem to be more aware of the sea of awfulness they are swimming in. Travolta seemed to buy his own bullshit, but it’s obvious to Barry Pepper (who is terribly underrated) and Forrest Whitaker that they are in on the joke and continue to chew away. The dialogue ranks among the worst written – it’s like Star Wars talk on crack, not to mention there is a low budget vibe to it that permeates more of a “bad feel” than the colossal waste of money Waterworld was. If your a fan of bad cinema, it’s definitely worth a view.

By: Mr. Sideous

Mr. Sideous — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:48:21 +0000

I had forgotten the memo; I found it under the nutty cheeselog I was mailing out to the Threedonia Embassy for Kwanza.

I have always wanted to see Battlefield Earth. Is it good/bad in a Showgirls kinda way, or just not worth it?

By: Kit

Kit — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:28:40 +0000

Well, the anti-war bombs did not cost as much as the bombs listed above. And still flopped.

By: JohnFN

JohnFN — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:54:22 +0000

The memory of those films has been forever washed – didn’t you get the notice? Some of the anti-war bombs were done on the cheap, so maybe they weren’t as much of a bust as “Land of the Lost” which was an expected summer tentpole. Most of the films listed weren’t expected to break even, but to be blockbusters and they failed, shelving my cynicism for the moment.

But given the issue you’ve raised, sometime this month I’ll do some research and list the Top 10 Iraq Flops, which should be quite the list. I’m going to guess “Lions for Lambs” leads the pack considering the cast budget.