The most expensive movies of all time were all terrible
Hollywood spent the most money on sad titles.
(Note: 2014 inflation adjustments for following pieces of shit are according to the U.S. Consumer Price Index.)
“The plot is not only hard to follow,” writes Newsweek’s David Ansen. “There seems to be nothing real at stake. Half the characters are already dead, and half the movie seems to involve swordfights with dead people who can’t be killed with swords.”
“Like his future massive hit ‘Avatar,’ it is an immense crowd pleaser because it doesn’t challenge or push its audience to think,” according to Cinema Crazed’s Felix Vasquez Jr. “It merely offers up vague characters, hackneyed archetypes, and a bang up special effects presentation that is still the small highlight in a giant disappointment.”
“Nap time,” quips Time Out New York’s Josh Rothkopf. “Perhaps it’s the weight of expectations, the rattle of a zillion calculators or the curse of Bryce Dallas Howard (forever our Lady in the Water), but the latest Spider-Man is a fussy, dispirited affair.”
Dave White of Movies.com does not recommend this one: “Yet another princess story calculated to revive the public’s cash-dispensing interest in that kneaded-to-death formula.”
“Potions play a pivotal part in ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,’” relates the Wall Street Journal’s Joe Morganstern. “I wish I’d been able to find one for patience.”
“Nearly $200 million down the drain,” said The Movie Report’s Michael Dequina, “and you get this astonishingly mediocre action wannabe-epic.”
CinePassion’s Fernando F. Croce says its overblown CGI ”replicates less a Disney theme-park ride than an extended stay at a Guantánamo base cell.”
Al Alexander of The Patriot-Ledger in Quincy, Massachusetts, loved writing this zinger a little too much. You can just tell. “Cameron’s $300 million baby,” he said, “is nothing but a 5- and 10-cent snore.”
“Mil veces mejor que la película ‘John Carter,’” writes Amazon user Andres Hoffman. “El libro te transporta a un mundo de valor, fidelidad, aventura, amistad. Buena lectura para jóvenes.” I couldn’t agree more.
“Peter Jackson’s remake of the 1933 classic is a loving homage that recreates and updates many of the familiar sequences,” says Steve Biodrowski of Cinefantastique, ”enhancing them with color widescreen photography and contemporary computer graphics. Unfortunately, the recreation leaves one wondering what, exactly, the point of the film is, other than indulging the director’s wish to remake a film he loved as a child.”