Pretty fun list to read. I don't agree with all of these, some of them I kinda liked...but this is the kind of riffing I like to read.

I don't want to give a lot away but just to give you a taste: a certain Batman sequel, a horrible excuse for a "war movie", and everybody's favorite Dr. Seuss story are among those that take a beating.

http://www.moviefone.com/insidemovies/2009/08/17/worst-blockbusters/?icid=main|main|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviefone.com%2Finsidemovies%2F2009%2F08%2F17%2Fworst-blockbusters%2F

Well, that list was alright but it really shit the bed on number one...seriously, it's Rotten Tomatoes Rating (63%) is so far beyond the others in the top 5 it's not even funny...

I don't know how you could have the Da Vinci Code on there but not Angels and Demons

Edit: and is Wild Hogs really considered a blockbuster? wow, Hollywood blows dick right now...

_________________
team Mully & Hanley
team Meatpants

I liked/enjoyed 2 of those movies.

_________________
-"God is great. Beer is good. And People are crazy!"

I liked more than 2, heck I didn't think Daredevil was that bad.
The reason Phantom menace is as bad as it is has to have you look at what came before. That's why it sucks so bad (even though it has my fav lightsaber duel in it)

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

A lot of superhero movies on the list and only one of the Batman sequals.

where the frack is Electra, I know it made more than Wild Hogs.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

The two you just mentioned are the ones I liked. I'm one of few that thought Phantom Menace wasn't as bad as everyone says. Granted I have a bias cuz I'm a SW geek, but I enjoyed it despite it's flaws. I'd also say that I enjoyed, yet at the same time was irritated by Spiderman 3.

_________________
-"God is great. Beer is good. And People are crazy!"

One of the biggest blockbusters of this summer, "Transformers 2", may have earned a lot of money, but the critics absolutely ripped the sequel to shreds!

they show the amount of money made; i think a few give you the budgets as well. i believe "angels and demons" was actually a bit of a dud, while "da vinci" made pretty good money.

it's not just worst movies, it's worst movies that made money.

i thought maybe "superman iv" would be on there, but maybe it didn't make money; or "superman returns" for that matter.

I thought "Angels & Demons" was classified as a prequel to "The DaVinci Code"...

it is; just as "phantom menace" is a prequel to the star wars trilogy. wasn't just sequels, shark.

oh, I see... then the question becomes what could possibly draw that many people out to see Wild Hogs

_________________
team Mully & Hanley
team Meatpants

Where's Hudson Hawk? Where's Last Action Hero? That list has EPIC FAIL written all over it.

And what about this high priced summer bomb

I think this list is about movies that made a lot of money and sucked. I think those were both bombs.

hence the term blockbuster used in the title...the worst bombs, well hell...you could probably list 100 in like...10 minutes or less.

waterworld. it HAS to be on this list somewhere.

heh...again. this is about blockbusters, not box office bombs. waterworld cost $157 million dollars; domestically it made $88 million.

Why does "ever" only go back to 1996?

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Titanic should be on there. Armageddon should not.

because it's moviefone and they are probably too young...



so which two do you want to take off for those? sorry, "armageddon" *does* belong there.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

I'm going to defend Armageddon a bit too. It wasn't that bad.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

would you take that off in favor of "kingdom of the crystal skull"? and in that case, how would you defend CS over that movie?

i guess i'm being a pain in the ass over nothing but...i dunno...i'm bored.

One of the comic book type movies or the mummy.

The star wars movie is too heavily weighted because of what it was suppose to live up to.

Armageddon was a cheesy, mindless, summer actiony romanticy movie. It was funny, a couple quotable lines, some good actors, and a totally absurd storyline. It is good bad, like Road House and the Running Man.

i don't accept any defense of the star wars prequels. george lucas had almost 20 years to construct just a basic plot line that was believable and couldn't even do that.

as far as "armageddon" being what it was...i actually didn't hate it, but i think for being a bad movie, it certainly belongs on the list.

"titanic" is at its worst, an overtly romanticized drama that probably could've done with some trimming. but the overall story is good, and the sets are amazing. "titanic" will always be a romanticized story; look at "a night to remember" as an example of that.

That's why I'm suprised you like titanic. It's an extremely superficial movie, the beauty is almost all in the set. The heroine is a self absorbed gold digger. The weathy are mostly portrayed as snobby or selfish. The people of limited means are all good. Then she cheats on her fiance and almost everybody in the movie is dishonest. She flicked somebody off but a young girl in her class would not have known the gesture or what it meant.

There were so many stories of faith and courage on that ship. This movie could have been way better.

the ship itself is emblematic of the people that were aboard it. it was a tale of the rich and their overindulgences. in between was a love story that might've been starry eyed and hollywoodized, but the character of jack was at least honest, and he brought out the best in rose. the script was a bit lacking in character depth, but i still thought the overall product was good. plus there were some minor characters that were well done, and it was very accurate in its depiction of the sinking.

"armageddon" was extremely weak in just about every aspect, including character depth and the storyline was laughably bad. i have a feeling "independence day" would've made the list had it not been for this film.

It was a tale of the rich and their overindulgences. - Why is that always a bad thing?

Jack was not honest, he persued another guy's fiancee and snuck around on the ship. There was no character depth. There was really no love story as far as I could tell he just wanted in her pants. The spit scene was terrible. You have to be a pre teen or teenage girl to like this movie.

And it was long as hell. The actual ship sunk in less time than this stupid movie.

on the basis that she didn't love him...i mean i think that's pretty common in a lot of romantic dramas/comedies. there has to be a storyline there that just because the "bonds of legality" are there doesn't mean there's actual love...she didn't love the guy, she loved jack.



because it always ends the same way. you ever read "the great gatsby"? overextending power and such...it leads to bad things, always. in the context of romantic stories, there is always a price to pay for luxury and wealth. in this case, the titanic represented wealth as a facade. and it was, in itself, a facade. the ship was not unsinkable, just as the people on it were not infallible, though they thought they were.

there were a couple of scenes that showed a "relationship" between jack and rose, at least. yeah in the end it always becomes about sex but there was something there at the heart of it.

ultimately, cameron should've stuck to sci-fi shoot-em-up action films..."titanic" had a fantastic set design and some great moments, but as a narrative it was lacking in some respects. however, it still trumped "armageddon" immensely. not saying much though...