German film director, Uwe Boll, is known as one of the worst and most hated directors of all time. He is single-handedly responsible for giving video-game films a bad name by making some of the worst video-game movie adaptations ever. “The House of the Dead” was a popular, on-rails zombie shooting video game that was pretty prominent in Arcades. Fans were initially ecstatic about the film adaptation until they found out that the director was going to be Uwe Boll himself.
“The House of the Dead” was ranked the 41st worst film of the 2000s and was overwhelmingly hated by fans just as much as critics. Uwe Boll’s business model does work, though, as these bad films have both the popularity of the video games they’re based on, and the media attention from just how bad they are. Too bad it resulted in a box office flop.
Estimated gross: $1.8 million
The Alamo (2004)
This version of the exceedingly overplayed battle of The Alamo was a major bomb at the box office. Many critics thought it was unmemorable, but reviews were definitely mixed. And, American history buffs and patriots likely loved it.
War movies generally don’t do that well, especially those that are not superbly done. In this particular rendition of "The Alamo," it seems the Hollywood heavyweights sunk the budget. Disney’s Michael Eisner wrangled over the top-heavy investment including Ron Howard and Russell Crowe and opted to let go of Russell Crowe and bring in John Lee Hancock to take over directing. Ron Howard agreed to stay on as a producer. By the time of its theatrical release, it grossed an abysmal $25.8 million dollars. The production budget was $107 million dollars. And despite Eisner’s budget trimming, the total estimated loss rocketed to $122 million!
Estimated loss: $94 million
Alexander (2004)
"Alexander" was a 3-hour film made of flashes of half-baked ideas sewn together, riding on the hope that viewers would be thrilled to see a bleached blond Colin Farrell, who depicted Alexander The Great, and Angelina Jolie, who played his mother, together on the big screen. If anything, the general public found this to be one of the most ridiculous things about the film, besides the historical inaccuracies. Farrel was mocked for his golden locks, while Jolie fans couldn't ignore the fact that she was cast as the mother of someone only one year younger than her. Nothing about the movie was convincing or informative.
If matters weren't confusing enough, Colin Farrell's Irish accent, along with the several other dialects of his castmates left viewers wondering what era was being depicted. "Alexander" received 6 Raspberry Award nominations including Worst Actors- for Colin and Jolie, Worst Director, and Worst Picture.
Estimated loss: $ 71 million
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)
This typical Disney-style animation brings to life a clever action-adventure plot that was met with mixed reviews, weighted mildly on the positive end. The story is based on a band of rascally adventurers headed by Sinbad (Brad Pitt) who is set on pirating “The Book of Peace” and fighting Goddess Eris (Michelle Pfeiffer) in the process. Bottom line: this kids' flick bombed. Even with such Hollywood greats voicing the lead characters.
The final nail in the coffin for this epic money-loser? It opened against "Finding Nemo." It also fell behind against "Terminator 3" and "Legally Blonde 2." Opening weekend placed it at an embarrassing 6th, and its domestic gross came in just over a humiliating $26 million. Worldwide ticket sales grossed $80.8 million. DreamWorks spent $60 million on the budget and suffered the monumental loss of $125-$167 million.
Estimated loss: $125-$167 million
The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
Featuring epic performances of Hollywood legends such as Christopher Plummer, Alec Guinness, and the crowds-favorite, Sophia Loren, today the film is considered to be one of the best “sword-and-sandal” movies of all times. It also broke records, with a 92,000 m2 replica of the Roman Forum, it was the largest outdoor film set in the history of the film industry.
Despite all the accolades for the film's script, direction, and acting, its box office performance fell disappointingly short. It wasn't nearly enough to cover the costs of its extravagant state-of-the-art production, not to mention the additional marketing costs. When adjusted for inflation, the film lost a brutal $126 million. As the case with other now-famous films, even with the biggest names in the game, and the most renowned directors and producers, huge production costs can absolutely put a damper on a movie's box office success.