But seriously...

Over the years, there have been many "less than succesful" films released into the public foray. Rejected for their "uniqueness", they were labeled "bombs", and relegated to the dusty shelves of video stores for posterity...

This post isn't designed to reverse any opinions that may have already solidified, or generate any furor over "taste vs. trash". This meager list should in no way be interpreted in any way other than a compilation of unique opinion, and not a public decry of injustice in the system, or personal statement of definitive self-value. Basically, it's just good fun, so try and accept it in the spirit that it is shared.

(In reverse chronological order)

10. Monkeybone (2001) - Henry Selick's amazingly visual voyage through sexual repression and the layers of the psyche. Probably a victim of misrepresentation, no critic knew exactly what to make of this film, the poor devils. (Even the video art prominently features Chris Kattan, who had barely 5 minutes screen time, in hopes to sell the movie on its' comic laurels.) Too animated for adults, too allusive for kids. Anne Dudley's score is full of quirks, much like the film, which would make it the perfect accompaniment.

9. Titan A.E. (2000) - It's a shame that Fox animation studios went out of business over this film. Again, it's a very fantastic visual representaion, painstakingly blending traditional with computer animation. The film also blends pop tunes with Graeme Revell's (as-of-yet-unreleased) score, which may seem like a "hard sell" to "Gen X" teens. Kids bought the album, but not the movie.

8. The 13th Warrior (1999) - Another film delayed because no one knew exactly what to make of it. Chances are, if you never read Beowulf, you probably didn't know what to make of it, either. Adapted from Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead, even the title was altered in hopes to appeal to the non-necrophagic audience. In actuality, a surprisingly good "realistic" interpretation of one of the oldest works of literature in the English canon. Braveheart without the heart, the Goldsmith score is very rousing and adventurous, a good follow-up to his earlier 1999 effort, The Mummy. (Also noteworthy is Revell's discarded contribution to this film, if you can track it down.)

7. The Postman (1997) - Discarded as a Costner-ego trip, and misinterpreted as "science fiction", merely for the fact that it takes place in the future. (Granted, author David Brin is a science fiction writer.) James Newton Howard's score begins dark and eases into a romantic, and at times, patriotic vein. Reminiscent of Howard's work for an earlier Costner epic, Wyatt Earp.

6. Cutthroat Island (1995) - Christmas Day release of another troubled production. Maybe folks were taking this homage to old pirate swashbucklers too seriously...even composer John Debney had his eyes open with the score, an instant classic, by virtue of its' grandeur.

5. Hudson Hawk (1991) - Nobody bought it. <shrug> A late 80's satire featuring Bruce Willis in one of his most natural-fitting roles. His rapport with Danny Aiello is terrific, though ultimately, the film may have been trying to be too many things, an action film, a buddy pic, a far-out comedy, a quasi-musical....It didn't fly well with audiences. <shrug> Whattaya do? Michael Kamen's score blends renaissance and swing jazz, and Bruce Willis and Danny Aiello sing "Swingin' on a Star". It's not bad, if you don't take it too seriously....

4. Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) - Another satire past its' prime, also featuring Bruce Willis.... Tom Wolfe's book was a shrewd satirical look at the 1980's corporate life, but by the time the film adaptation made it to the screen, it was an idea no one wanted. The roles weren't cast as the book read, though the talent does well, regardless, featuring a small-but-powerful appearance by Morgan Freeman. Dave Grusin's piano-score always manage to sound a bit dated, but one shouldn't discredit this to his talent. This score's become a little more difficult to track down, over the years, as well.

3. Star Trek V (1989) - Summer of Sequels, another one that lost out in the flood of Karate Kid III, Ghostbusters II, Lethal Weapon 2, and...well, Batman. Also losing out to the then-recently featured "Next Generation" television series. Probably not the best "Star Trek" story, it was still an interesting idea, addressing the exploration of religion through science, and the conflicts that are addressed therein. (Perhaps better addressed in Zemekis' Contact) Still, a good contribution by Goldsmith for this Shatner-directed effort. The "return" of Goldsmith's Enterprise-theme opens the film, and segues into a memorable opening theme underscoring a relatively "non-science fiction" opener, Kirk climbing El Capitan in Yosemite....

2. Ishtar (1987) - Another buddy-picture/comedy-satire/musical/action-spy movie that flopped because...? (They didn't sing in Spies Like Us..!) The songs by Elaine May are surprisingly hilarious, and Charles Grodin pretty much steals the show, per usual. In the end, the balance of power is sustained and the good guys get the fame they've been seeking all along...immortalized in the clearance window. Dave Grusin's late-eighties synth score takes second chair to the songs.

1. Howard the Duck (1986) - It seems...odd?...that most titles in this list are novel-interpretations and comic-book ideas gone bad...I guess no one really picked up issues of Marvel comics' "Howard the Duck"...so, folks missed out on this goofball /off-the-wall/out-of-the-norm adventure featuring over-the-top performances by...everybody. Tim Burton quasi-alum Jeffery Jones, as well as Tim Robbins co-star. John Barry's score suffered a little trouble, however, and Sylvester Levay and Thomas Dolby were brought in to contribute. Barry's themes are mostly intact, however, and the main theme remains comically heroic, in a mock-epic kind of way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) - Dave Grusin's piano-score always manage to sound a bit dated, but one shouldn't discredit this to his talent. This score's become a little more difficult to track down, over the years, as well.

---

Certainly, overall, better than Random Hearts, another "dated" score, reminiscent of Three Days of the Condor--that was just too dry (film and score). I appreciate what Sydney Pollack was attempting to do with the story/actors...but...it's not a repeat-viewing.

Jennifer Connelly, who is currently my wife, would like to thank you for your kind comments regarding her underrated-ness.

The Rocketeer's "Flying Circus" cue is one of the most exciting Horner's ever composed. Goosebumps every time!

Of the list, only Star Trek V grossed above 47 mil, or even grossed above its' own budget:

Monkeybone
Budget - $75,000,000
Gross - $5,400,500

Titan A.E.
Budget - $75,000,000
Gross - $22,800,000

13th Warrior, The
Budget - $85,000,000
Gross - $32,700,000

Cutthroat Island
Budget - $92,000,000
Gross - $11,000,000

The Postman
Budget - $80,000,000
Gross - $17,600,000

Hudson Hawk
Budget - $65,000,000
Gross - $17,200,000

Bonfire of the Vanities
Budget - $47,000,000
Gross - $15,700,000

Star Trek V
Budget - $30,000,000
Gross - $55,210,049

Do you remember that (decent) remake of The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce Brosnan, and there's a scene in the museum where the kids are looking at a Rembrant (or is it a VanGogh?) and they're pretty bored with it, so to spark their attention, the teacher says something along the lines of "It's worth a hundred million bucks.", and all the kids go "Oooooh" with new-found interest.

And then Thomas Crown steals it. Just for a day. Just to have it and admire it on the wall. He didn't want to sell it, it wasn't monetary value for him.

(Well, the question is always there, in the film, whether he was truly an art lover, or just doing it for the thrill. Maybe both.)

Anyways--to get the attention of the otherwise bored, you have to throw a dollar amount at them--i.e., Waterworld, Titanic.

I posted the budget/gross follow-up as a point to illustrate why the films were considered "bombs". Generally, a film can still be a good film, and do poorly (extrememly poorly) at the box office.

That's not really saying much. As some people figure it, there are four types of films:

1. Good quality films that do well.
2. Bad quality films that do well.
3. Good quality films that do poorly.
4. Bad quality films that do poorly.

Where certain films fit in is eternally debatable. For example, some people would argue that Empire of the Sun is a #3, Titanic is a #2....

Over all, I'd say more people agree on #3 more than any other type. However, that's merely going by that system, and I never think it's that easy, because the "quality" of a film is also, eternally debatable. (As many will recall, I rallied very strongly over the merits of Pearl Harbor--I still do, though not all victories are won on the battlefield....or even by conflict, for that matter.)

As others may figure, there are two types of films:

1. Films that do well.
2. Films that do poorly.

Of course, this looks more at why films did how they did, and it can be very frustrating to understand...The Last Action Hero is one of my favorite films--a brilliant idea, if perhaps not wholly original, at least carried out in a very original manner. (If you want to say the kid in it is annoying, fine, go ahead. Blame the kid.) Many will say that it was overshadowed by the enormous success of Jurassic Park. This may be a good reason. Others will just shrug it off as a bad film. Maybe it was too much to think through. (Too brainy? Not brainy enough?) Who knows. In the end, if you're looking at the dollar mark, chances are you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for critical praise, chances are you'll be disappointed, too. So how do you find something good in the "trash", so to speak? I don't really know how to answer that one--I suppose my own methods are my own.

Perhaps it's looking at the following--

If, out of 10 people, 9 like the film and 1 dislikes it, understanding that something about the film resonates with more people on the whole.

But, if 9 hate the film and 1 likes it, I have to wonder about the one, and what resonates with the individual. Interpreting and enjoying movies can be a very personal thing.

My intent on generating the post was to, in some manner, rekindle the memory of these "failures", and illustrate, in some cases, the ever-popular occurance of the score's ability to rise above its' subject's demise. The score can often be the phoenix of a "failed" film, (whether failed refers monetary or critical failure--or both), for example Dragonheart, where the music has long outlasted the memory of its' film. (Though, hey, heck, I loved the movie...I'm just one guy, though, so....)

Reading Your message made me to think again, this time a really disastrous movie that was somehow saved by a mighty strong score.

I don't know how well "The Haunting" (1999) did at US box offices, but here in Finland during its release some called it as the "bomb" where the stars just ran like headless chickens searching for the lost screenplay ( - I was one of the viewers who felt like this).

In my opinion it was totally clear that Jerry Goldsmith put every effort to save the movie with his music and I think he did marvelous job.

By the way, Lancelot, if You think Your original post (topic?) has "sunken", I recommend visiting my topic and its chain "Movie Music Underestimated"

Greetings from the lower 48.

In underwater excavation, balloons are often used to raise objects, debris that will not ultimately be destroyed by the atmospheric shift...so, my self-depreciating posts are, in a sense, balloons, rasing my posts once again to the top, where they can be examined once again....

I employ a certain amount of bitchery here...my "get over myself" comments about my sinking posts here, are little more than skewed humor, with a splinter of truth (as most humor intends...)

Ultimately, it's frustrating (not merely for myself, but for everyone who takes the time) to watch your brainchild sink into the discarded depths. It's also equally as frustrating to observe some (not all, but some) of the inanities that get piled on top of the topic. I only say "inane" in the reason that some are barely more than rumors, speculation, and destructive criticism, that only lead to flashfire opinions and endless debates. (Most of which are easily viewable on other boards, and many of which appear on all boards, in the same format!)

So, I hope that newcomers like yourself will continue to arrive and revisit this board and contribute to the discussions that generate here.

In response to your point regarding The Haunting...indeed a silly spectacle. Many movies, with big names stars, a big name director, a topic that people as a whole usually grab onto, and a strong marketing campaign, can usually drum up in the realm of $60-$85million even if they stink. Such is the case with The Haunting. I don't remember its specific take, but I believe it was somewhere in this realm.

And you're right about the score...one of the few positives.

Cutthroat Island is moving that still blows me away...it single-handedly bankrupted Carolco...but was it really that bad? If you're looking for an adventure film they don't get much better. Of course it was ridden with cliches and idiotic moments...but those should be accepted in a film such as this. $11million gross...how is that possible. It did lack major star power...too bad though...truly an entertaining movie with an excellent score!

I kinda slipped here to my own topic
but anyway it's time for little Finns go to bed - time being here 4 AM.