Twitter

Back in 1995, there was one summer blockbuster that was supposed to change the way we saw summer blockbusters. Waterworld, then the most expensive movie ever made (its budget clocked in at $172 million dollars, which would be about $277 million today), was supposed to be an action-packed dystopian adventure. Taking place about five hundred years into the future, Waterworld shows the disturbing result of the melting polar ice caps. The sea level has risen, our cities have submerged under water, and the remaining dredges of humanity live above the oceans’ surface, riding around in hulking ships or — in the case of our hero, The Mariner (played by Kevin Costner) — in trimarans, because even lone wolf sailors in the flooded, dystopian future have insufferably fancy sailboats fit for an America’s Cup race.

To put it mildly: Waterworld was a bust. Plagued with conflicts between its producer-star and its director, a far-fetched plot, and ridiculous characters (Dennis Hopper’s villain controls the seas aboard the Exxon Valdez, while Costner’s Mariner has webbed feet, drinks his own pee, and has gills), the film only made $88.2 million dollars at the domestic box office. While its international earnings made it recoup its production costs, Waterworld was, at best, a crappy investment.

What made this movie such a clunker? Surely worse movies have made more money (both before and after its July 1995 release). Its pricy budget certainly made headlines, which set the film up for failure from the get-go, and its poor reviews (it has a Rotten Tomatoes average of 42%) certainly kept plenty of movie-goers from seeing Waterworld in theaters (its biggest competition that summer were Die Hard With a Vengeance, Apollo 13, Batman Forever, and Pocahontas).

But surely there are other aspects we’ve learned throughout the years from various flops that prove there are some common threads among the biggest blockbuster failures. For example, a movie set entirely on the ocean? A big gamble for a small payoff (that is until Titanic proved the critics wrong). Kevin Costner in a starring role? It was once a boon, but after Waterworld Costner became a problematic movie star (see also: The Postman). A mixed tone that combined the ridiculously serious with hokey comic elements amid a larger theme that warned about the perilous aftermath of climate change? That was probably it, to be honest.

But there are other major factors that will completely ruin a movie, as evidenced in some of the five notorious flops below. Consider all of these cautionary tales: less dos and more don’ts — tips to avoid a massive box-office turd.

[NOTE: All budget and box office information has been culled from Box Office Mojo, with the latter indicating domestic returns.]

Cutthroat Island (1995)

Budget: $98 million
Box office: $10 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 37%
The warning signs: pirates, director-star romantic entanglements

Director Renny Harlin wanted to make his wife, Geena Davis, an action-adventure star. (Romantic entanglements influencing movie-making? Bad call!) Was a swashbuckling pirate epic the smartest vehicle to show off her talents? Possibly not, as the pirate genre was notably primed for disaster following a string of poorly received pirate-themed movies were released in the ’80s (including one directed by Roman Polanski). Finding a bankable male star to appear opposite Davis (and play second-fiddle to a lady) proved difficult, as many of the most famous actors at the time turned down the role (Michael Douglas dropped out early in production). So they settled on Matthew Modine. (Strike two.) An expensive, troubled shoot ensued, with production costs rising after delays, reshoots, and at least one unfortunate disaster in which raw sewage was dumped into a tank where the actors were supposed to film. The result? A mess of a movie, the bankrupting of Carolco Pictures, and strain on the Davis-Harlin marriage. (Well, the two worked together again on 1996’s The Long Kiss Goodnight before splitting up in 1998. One can’t imagine working together was too much fun for the couple.)

The 13th Warrior (1999)

Budget: $160 million
Box office: $32.6 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 33%
The warning signs: cannibalism, hard-to-pronounce character names.

Movies based on Michael Crichton books are generally box-office gold (see: Jurassic Park, Disclosure, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, and — weirdly enough — Congo; pretend that Sphere and Timeline didn’t happen). But a movie about Vikings loosely based on the tale of Beowulf (and with the uncomfy original title Eaters of the Dead) would be a hard sell even if you had a true movie star in the lead. But Antonio Banderas, an international curiosity with a penchant for playing the Latin lover with a tongue firmly in cheek, was probably not the greatest choice for the role of a medieval Arab poet (I mean, a late ’90s film about a medieval Arab poet might also not have been a big box-office draw, either). Throw in a notably messy production (Crichton had to step in to direct re-shoots after John McTiernan’s original cut tested poorly with audiences) and you’ve got your classic messy movie — in this case, a lush period piece with little substance. Its biggest offense? It was so bad that Omar Sharif retired from acting for a few years following its release.

Town & Country (2001)

Budget: $90 million
Box office: $6.7 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 13%
The danger signs: old white people, Jenna Elfman

Just imagine this: a perfectly daffy comedy of errors about middle-aged couples going through your average marital woes (adultery, mostly). A dream cast that includes Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton, Goldie Hawn, Garry Shandling, Charlton Heston, and Andie MacDowell? Sounds like a charmer! A script co-written by the guy who wrote The Graduate? I’m on board! A $90-million price tag? Uh… for what, exactly? Yes, this weird little movie about old, rich white people suffering from crippling infidelity somehow warranted that much money (one assumes that the group of Hollywood A-listers perhaps demanded very large paychecks). But a movie about sex comedy starring actors in their 50s and 60s was not really going to bring in the youth audiences, whose dollars would help the film recoup its expenses? (Jenna Elfman’s participation did not help.) The biggest takeaway here: do not reward the hubris of your ensemble cast when they are clearly past their box-office prime.

The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)

Budget: $100 million
Box office: $4.4 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 5%
The danger signs: a brazen lack of jokes, the involvement of Jay Mohr and Randy Quaid

Put a beloved A-list star with plenty of blockbuster films under his belt into a sci-fi comedy, and what do you get? Well, in your head, you see so many dollar signs. In the case of Pluto Nash, however, the dollar signs only reflect its massive budget — not so much the box-office returns. What we have here is a classic misstep of intergalactic proportions: a cockamamie sci-fi comedy with a preposterous plot (beyond the sci-fi elements, that is) that ushered in a particularly depressing era of Eddie Murphy’s career. (What followed this messy, universally hated film? Box-office hits like Daddy Day Care, The Haunted Mansion, and Norbit, none of which including the stuff that made his previous films feel so fresh and ingenious.) What does Pluto Nash teach us? That even one of the biggest box-office draws and beloved comic actors can’t carry such atrocious material — and that combining the sci-fi and comedy genres is very hard, and rarely pays off.

Alexander (2004)

Budget: $155 million
Box office: $32.4 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 16%
The danger signs: Oliver Stone’s growing irrelevance, homosexual undertones, Rosario Dawson

Oliver Stone, at his best, delivers politically aggressive and controversial films. At his worst, he produces some particularly unwieldy messes. A quick glance at his filmography shows his most fruitful era was in the late ’80s and early ’90s, winning two Oscars for Best Director for Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July (he was also nominated for JFK). But his power seemed to slip in the ’90s, and his artistic vision seemed to hit its deepest depth in the early aughts with his epic biopic of Alexander the Great. With Colin Farrell in the title role, the film also starred Angelina Jolie as his mother, Val Kilmer as his father, and Jared Leto has his BFF / maybe, possibly, definitely gay lover? That the film might portray the pair of Macedonians was homosexual caused plenty of controversy before the movie was released (because lord knows we mustn’t tarnish the reputations of long-dead ancient historical figures with some suggestive man-on-man loving). But was that to blame for its underwhelming box-office returns? Well, it got very bad reviews. It also featured Rosario Dawson (appearing in two films on this list does not speak highly of her abilities to draw an audience.) Oh, and it was three hours long. Do you go to the movies for a three-hour history lesson, or are you just fine with a vague memory from your high school World Culture class? (Fun fact: there are four different edits of this one, all released on home video. Even Stone’s director’s cut is shorter than the theatrical cut. Think on that for a second.)

Sahara (2005)

Budget: $130 million
Box office: $68.6 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 39%
The danger signs: the desert, Matthew McConaughey in a non-romantic role

If this list proves anything, it’s that extreme locales make for tough sells. Medieval eras, water-based locations, and even Mars are apparently red flags. Why wouldn’t the desert be the same? Sahara takes place in — you guessed it — the Sahara, where a rogue adventurer played by Matthew McConaughey (years before the McConaissance, it should be noted) is on the hunt for a Civil War battle ship that has somehow wound up all the way over there. Confused? Me, too. Unfortunately, there’s a sub-plot involving the World Heath Organization and a merciless despot — and you wonder why this one didn’t do too well? (Also, as you’ll read later on this list, people aren’t into seeing Confederate paraphernalia wind up in locations far away from the Deep South.)

Mars Needs Moms (2011)

Budget: $150 million
Box office: $21.3 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 37%
The danger signs: terrifying motion capture technology

Everybody loves a computer animated film, right? Shut up, of course everyone loves a computer animated film. But when we dip our toes into motion capture — creepily animating a real actor’s body movements — things get a little weird. And for some reason, someone thought it’d be a really smart idea to motion-capture the 37-year-old Seth Green for Mars Needs Moms‘ 9-year-old protagonist (in addition to supporting actors Joan Cusack and Dan Fogler for their appropriately aged roles). The result would have been nightmare-inducing if anyone actually saw it. On the contrary, the sci-fi adventure has the recognition of being the least-successful Disney-branded production ever made. New York Times critic Brook Barnes argued that it was a perfect storm of creepy visuals, bad word-of-mouth across social media platforms, and the competition of Battle: Los Angeles that served as the cards stacked against it, making it the fifth biggest box-office bomb in history.

John Carter (2012)

Budget: $250 million
Box office: $73 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 51%
The danger signs: an (extra-terrestrial) dessert, Tim Riggins as a Confederate soldier, an underwhelming title

Executives at Disney had long expressed interest in making a film about John Carter, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ erstwhile Confederate soldier turned Martian hero. Director Andrew Stanton, who proved himself a box-office success with the Pixar films Finding Nemo and WALL-E, attached himself to the project as he was a life-long fan of Burroughs’ stories, and planned a three-part trilogy pitched as “Indiana Jones on Mars.” It would also give Taylor Kitsch his first starring role; at that point he was ready to make the jump to the big screen after success on Friday Night Lights. But the finished product was underwhelming. Critics were mixed, but it wasn’t as smart as the George Lucas franchise to which it was compared. Plus, did anyone really remember who John Carter was? The film marked the 100th anniversary of his debut in a serialized story, but a century later, the character just didn’t have the same drawing power.

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Budget: $215 million
Box office: $89.3 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 31%
The danger signs: Wild Wild West-level absurdity, casual racism

Movies based on very old television properties (and, in this case, a very old radio drama) are generally hit-or-miss. Take, for example, Dick Tracy, The Shadow, The Avengers, and Wild Wild West — with the latter serving as a spiritual predecessor for this overblown western adventure, only without Will Smith or that catchy rap single. Then you have the casting. Armie Hammer, fresh from his breakout role in The Social Network, plays the titular hero, but he also plays second fiddle to the true star of the movie, Johnny Depp. Reuniting with his Pirates of the Caribbean director Gore Verbinski, Depp again takes a deep dive into a totally bonkers character, only this time he didn’t base his performance on a rockstar like Keith Richards but rather on tired racial stereotypes. The film failed for two reasons: for one, it was just plain bad, and two, people weren’t too jazzed about seeing Johnny Depp take a stab at Tonto.

47 Ronin (2013)

Budget: $175 million
Box office: $38.3 million
Rotten Tomatoes average: 15%
The danger signs: medieval Japan, a largely unrecognizable cast

Let me be honest with you: I hadn’t even heard of this movie until I started researching box-office flops for this article, and that it was released just two years ago should say something about its legacy. Like The 13th Warrior, the film takes place in the medieval era of a foreign land, but it has the bonus of starring an honest-to-goodness action hero in Keanu Reeves. But Orientalism is still a tough sell, even if it combines samurai realness with fantasy elements. It’s a niche genre which proved to be a tough sell with critics and audiences alike. It also holds the dubious honor of being the biggest box-office flop of all time, so don’t expect a direct-to-video sequel (48 Ronin?) any time soon.

Like what you see? Follow Decider on Facebook and Twitter to join the conversation, and sign up for our email newsletters to be the first to know about streaming movies and TV news!

Photos: Everett Collection