Most Disappointing Films Of All Time

Okay, I might get a bit of backlash by adding Hitchcock into this list but here goes. Hitchcock's classic Psycho is, in my opinion, the greatest film of all time, clearly making it Hitchcock's best and he remains my favourite director (after Quentin Tarantino). As a result of this, I had exceedingly high expectations for this film but despite it was interesting for the facts, I came out disappointed overall. Here's why:

Reasons:
1. The decision to select Sacha Gervasi (WHO?!) as the director was ridiculous. I appreciate that he is making his directorial film debut but Hitchcock is a huge project. So to put it kindly, Gervasi lost his footing with the film and it should have been placed in the hands of a more sophisticated director.
2. The script was weak. I do not understand why the whole story with Hitchcock's fantasies in communicating with Ed Gein was even included in the first place. It made no effect whatsoever. Yes, we have established that Ed Gein's crimes became the influence of Psycho and Hitchcock's work towards it, but the film is meant to be about Hitchcock, his work towards the film and to get a glimpse at his personal life.
3. The structure was weak. Although it is based on the book Alfred Hitchcock And The Making Of Psycho, Hitchcock becomes a muddle. It becomes a shamble between the making of Psycho and the controversies before, during and after its release and the relationship between Hitchcock and his wife.
4. Anthony Hopkins fitted into the role of Hitchcock in terms of physical appearance but there were times where his performance was quite shoddy and at times, he failed to grasp that bitterness of Hitchcock as a person.
5. Scarlett Johansson was a disappointing Janet Leigh. I swear, Johansson looked like she was just preparing for a photo shoot wearing 1960s clothing. Didn't really fit into the character at all.
6. The opening of the film was terrible and the ending was even worse.

... aka "Quantum Of Slop".
Quantum Of Solace is officially the most disappointing film EVER! I absolutely love Casino Royale and the anticipation was huge and the disappointment was aswell.
I just pray to God that Skyfall does the opposite of everything that Quantum Of Solace had.

Reasons:
1. Flat acting.
2. Very LAME Bond girl.
3. Clueless direction and flat script.
4. What does 'Quantum Of Solace' even mean?
5. Too much action and very little story.
6. The film's duration was too short.
7. Steals some parts of other Bond films by copying or recreating them.
8. No original Bond quotes, cars, Q/R or Moneypenny.

As a huge fan of Jackson's The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, I had exceedingly high expectations of Jackson's next Middle-Earth series. Although the scale of visual effects and narrative depth isn't quite as large in The Hobbit, the trilogy is still based on Tolkien's beloved novel (three long films adapted from a 300 page book!) and its release declares its status as a prequel trilogy. So, like the Star Wars prequels, The Hobbit had many shoes to fill in order to build up to, at least, Fellowship Of The Ring. However, although An Unexpected Journey was a stretched but entertaining film, The Desolation Of Smaug was hugely entertaining, the finale in the trilogy was a disappointment. Here's why:

Reasons:
1. Although it is in the book that Smaug dies as he attacks Lake-Town when this film begins, it was still a shame that he died. He was easily the greatest and is perhaps the greatest motion-capture based character so far, and the film's opening scene is probably the best part of the whole film.
2. Plot loses steam after the Lake-Town attack and Smaug's demise , and it suddenly becomes a psychodrama involving Thorin's possessive obsession with gold.
3. The battle itself was disappointing. The attacks commenced but during them, there wasn't really any kind of path towards it.
4. The ridiculous love triangle between Tauriel (who?!), Kili and Legolas.
5. Made clear references to The Lord of the Rings that were forcibly included to entice the connection (like when Thanduril mentions Aragorn to Legolas in the battle's aftermath), when it should be done visually.
6. Azog is still a terrible villain, and a bad one.
7. Seriously, what was Peter Jackson thinking including a battle between Galadriel, Saruman, Gandalf and Elrond against Sauron? In The Lord of the Rings, didn't Gandalf only realise (60 years later) about Sauron and the Ring? This is The Hobbit, not Lord Of The Rings. Yes, this is the final prequel to the older trilogy that should fit in a few pieces but not ones that aren't really relevant to the plot of the original book.
8. Beorn only appears in the battle for about two seconds when he took a vital part in the battle in the book.

First of all, why was this film even made? I mean, the second film ended beautifully and now they almost killed it with this third installment. I mean, it's all about money! Half the time they make a film for more money, they don't succeed and Shrek The Third is a very good example of that!
Damn good job that the Christmas short Shrek The Halls came out on Christmas Day 2007 and thank God that Shrek Forever After revived the series and satisfyingly ended it.

Reasons:
1. The story was really weak.
2. It wasn't even funny.
3. Prince Charming is one laughably awful villain!
4. Couldn't feel the friendship between Shrek, Donkey and Puss In Boots as well as the love between Shrek and Fiona.
5. There were moments where you just hold your head and think "No, no, no, NO!!" For example the scene where Donkey and Puss In Boots exchange voices and personalities.

After being partially disappointed with his previous film Alice In Wonderland, Tim Burton, alongside Johnny Depp once again, could have made this film their masterpiece together. I mean, Tim Burton making a vampire film with Johnny Depp in the leading role is like a dream come true! What could possibly go wrong? However, after the release of the theatrical trailer, it totally weakened the film's reputation as it no longer looked like anything to take seriously and the humor gave Dark Shadows a rather corny impression. So, with that in mind, I had a feeling that Dark Shadows would be a disappointment but still wanted it to be another triumph from Tim, Johnny and Helena. It turned out that exact disappointment and here's why:

Reasons:
1. It was not scary. A vampire film is meant to scare the audience with violence and terror, but Johnny Depp's portrayal of Barnabas Collins was almost like a more unorthodox and eccentric version of Edward Cullen.
2. Even Johnny Depp as Barnabas Collins wasn't anything majorly different to what we have seen him do time and time again. In fact, it felt just like Jack Sparrow and the Mad Hatter dressed as a vampire.
3. The story was not dramatic and there was no emotional connection between any of the characters. There was no chemistry of lust, love nor hatred between Barnabas and Angelique.
4. We only knew that it was a horror-comedy after the trailer but in the film itself, there was nothing humorous in the film at all.
5. The plot was quite chaotic. One minute it was a serious love-hate rivalry between two, then it was about a famous family, then it was a newly-born romantic connection and then about business propositions. Which is it?!
6. Even the supporting characters were not developed enough.

After the cliffhanger conclusion in Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, expectations were very high! The trailer looked epic but what we got was a good film that was a mess at times and felt rushed.
Despite those flaws, it was still entertaining and the effects and make-up were outstanding. It was more disappointing than On Stranger Tides because I expected more, but the fourth installment was worse than this one.

Reasons:
1. Story kept changing around so therefore confused the audience a bit.
2. Orlando Bloom should be shot dead after this film!
3. The marriage scene during the fight near the end between Will and Elizabeth was irrelevant and pathetic!
4. It could've been like 20 minute shorter so dragged on a bit.
5. Tom Hollander as Lord Beckett is one lousy villain.

This was perhaps one of the most anticipating films of 2009 (expected more from Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Up and The Hurt Locker) seeing as it has been postponed for release since the sudden death of Heath Ledger. Heath shocked the world with his amazing Oscar winning performance as the Joker and he died half way through filming of this one.
So did we get a masterpiece or a disappointment? I'm going to have to go with the latter. I enjoyed this one the first time I saw it at the cinema despite the flaws it has but really went off it after re-watch and realised that it is rubbish. Gotta give Gilliam some credit to still be able to release it despite the events.

Reasons:
1. Why did THREE actors have to replace one guy? Why not one just to make people more interested in the character of Tony?
2. Well, the story was just an absolute mess. It was all over the place and wasn't really leading anywhere.
3. Hmmmm... I know this isn't a fault but it's weird because we see Tony for the first time almost dead and Heath Ledger died.
4. Was very unrealistic and it just didn't work how they mixed the modern world with a fantasy world.
5. Not enough Johnny Depp! He's usually a leading actor!
6. Despite I did and still do have a lot of respect for Heath Ledger, this was just like a tribute to him more than an individual film by someone else (a bit like The Hurt Locker is to the American/British troops in Iraq/Afghanistan).

Well, I find X-Men: The Last Stand as much of a disappointment to the X-Men series as Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End in that series and Spider-Man 3 in that series but I still managed to enjoy it. Obviously it had tremendous action and effects but its flaws still made it a disappointment.
The acting from most of the cast's performances (especially Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart) were good but best thing was seeing new characters with different kinds of powers. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was disappointing too but the X-Men series really needs a breakthrough film BAD!

Reasons:
1. Too many seperate stories going on at the same time.
2. Too many characters were killed off.
3. The film actually isn't 'The Last Stand'. It ends like there's going to be another X-Men sequel to the trilogy.
4. Ending in X-Men 2 with Jean's death and her return was ruined because we all knew that she was going to return seeing as the makers of The Last Stand revealed so.

I was so obsessed with this like I was with Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street and The Dark Knight and my expectations were so high but I really don't think Tim Burton should have changed the story because it became an almost heartless and plain story although I did find it quite enjoyable so, I guess it could've been a lot worse.
As for the effects, they are just stunning so it is a masterpiece in the animation effects side of things but not a masterpiece with story, directing and acting.

Reasons:
1. Confusing and rather chaotic story.
2. Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter wasn't anything new so was like Jack Sparrow mixed with Willy Wonka.
3. Alice wasn't a very strong character.
4. Quite a cheesy script.

Despite that I did like this Star Wars film, I have to admit that it is quite a disappointment to the saga. I mean, no the prequels didn't HAVE to be made but they were so we needed them to be as original as the first three but personally I think Attack Of The Clones was the one that did that the least.

Reasons:
1. Romance between Anakin and Padmé almost killed the film.
2. Yoda's duel fight with Count Dooku was too short. In fact, it was crap! Yoda is the most powerful Jedi in the galaxy and we don't really need to see him fighting in a lightsaber duel. Besides, most of the time, he was leaping up and down and round in circles!
3. Hayden Christensen was laughably awful as Anakin Skywalker. Hard to believe that is Darth Vader as a young man.
4. Took a while to get going so was quite slow.

Having loving it’s predecessor The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe, my expectations for the sequel were pretty high! When I watched it, I did enjoy it but there were some disappointments where it could have been a lot better.
I mean, yeah I enjoyed it in the cinema and do own it on DVD but I wouldn’t watch it on a regular basis like the first film but there are disappointments that almost did take great effects (acting DEFINITELY did hence why it is in top 10 on top disappointments). Hope Voyage Of The Dawn Treader will be an epic film!

Reasons:
1. The acting from Ben Barnes, William Moseley and Anna Popplewell was so wooden! They were just like they didn’t even want to be in the film!
2. Andrew Adamson produced it well but again… tries to make as epic as Lord Of The Rings but fails.
3. That mouse called Reepicheep (voiced by Eddie Izzard) was really annoying and almost killed the spirit of the Narnians.
4. Aslan wasn’t in it long enough.

Despite the idea of a fourth Pirates Of The Caribbean was a bad idea in my eyes, I did expect something good to come out of it especially after how At World's End turned out. I loved Curse Of The Black Pearl and Dead Man's Chest but I never thought I'd say this: as much of a disappointment At World's End turned out to be, On A Stranger Tides made it the worst of the series.
However, I expected more from At World's End so that was more disappointing than this fourth one was. There were a few good qualities in On Stranger Tides but there was more bad within.

Reasons:
1. Way too many unnecessary stops! *Action*, *stop and talk*, *action*.
2. What the hell has happened to Barbossa?! You know, the evil, cold-blooded, cursed pirate captain who we saw in Curse Of The Black Pearl?!
3. Annoying love scenes between that priest dude and the mermaid. The priest felt like the protagonist instead of Jack at times.
4. One minute Blackbeard was a villain, then he had a soft side, then the audience felt sorry for him. So, he wasn't as evil as suggested in the plot synopsis and trailer.
5. The plot was as much of a muddle as At World's End.
6. What's with the heart-to-heart conversations between Jack and Barbossa?! They were enemies who took everything from each other and have tried to kill each other many times!

Being a huge fan of Shaun Of The Dead and especially Hot Fuzz, I was tingling with anticipation for The World's End. It was going through production delays and after 6 years of waiting, we finally have it. And you know what? It really was not the finale in the Cornetto trilogy as it should have been and below will tell you why:

Reasons:
1. Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz are two of the funniest films I've ever seen but The World's End was not funny. Like at all.
2. More a straightforward sci-fi than a creative sci-fi comedy parodying the genre.
3. How can the five guys maintain the physical agility to fight these agile robots when they're continuously drinking alcohol?
4. The 'robots' were a weak threat against Gary and co, especially when the zombies in Shaun and the black-cloaked person (revealed to be the entire NWA) in Hot Fuzz. In fact, the robots were the opposite and appeared more like aliens.
5. Cardboard characters that lacked chemistry and had no background stories. Not even the protagonist.
6. The ending was random and made absolutely no sense to what was in the rest of the film.

Well, I'm just gonna say that this was a disappointment in comparison to the original trilogy but I do still like it and it remains one of my childhood favourite films. As I was growing up, I started to notice what some of the flaws were in Phantom Menace.
There are some really good moments of the film that I did like (read my review to find out).

Reasons:
1. Jar-Jar Binks!! Annoying, pointless character who almost killed the film.
2. Jake Lloyd was lousy as Anakin! I mean, I think it would've been better if Anakin was a teenager, not an innocent boy! It's Darth Vader in the future at the end of the day. Also, 'Ani' was ridiculous!
3. George Lucas should've hired someone else to write the script for him and directed it for him too. The editing was poor. It didn't just feel incomplete, it just felt abandoned.
4. On Tatooine, pretty much every character speaks the normal language whereas in the originals, they spoke in Huttese.
5. We hear the Force in scientific terms whereas we never do in the originals.

After two hilarious predecessors Meet The Parents and especially Meet The Fockers, expectations were high although I didn't think that this film was exactly necessary. Despite this, I did think that there needed to be some good laughs out of this film but it wasn't to be, and here's why:

Reasons:
1. The "Godfocker"? The "Bobfather"? What the f**k?
2. Two actors who I despise ruined it for me! Owen Wilson appearing was bad enough but... Jessica Alba! Can't act for the world!
3. Acting was incredibly weak from everybody (even Robert De Niro).
4. Dialogue was crazy and was a mess so just went really flat.
5. Only laughed once (when Greg stabs Jack's penis in front of his son (and Jack's grandson).)
6. I'm glad those kids aren't mine! They were just annoying from start to finish. Yes, I'm referring to the actors as well as the characters.

As much as I loved the first Predator, I didn't have very high expectations for this but still expected some good entertainment to come out of it. There were one or two good points such as Kevin Peter Hall returning as the Predator and good make-up and effects but that didn't save the film at all and here's why.

Reasons:
1. Acting was atrocious!
2. The Predator in a city?! Come on!
3. Didn't feel like anything new. Was just like a slasher film so that made it unrealistic.
4. Damn cheesy script.
5. Crap directing.
6. Danny Glover simply cannot act.

For me, the franchise was a great success and I wasn't too sure a fourth one was a good idea especially after how Rocky III ended. Many think that the sequels after the first and/or second film are irrelevant and I'm afraid to say that Rocky IV is the bad Rocky film but what really surprised me was that it was the only one out of all six that I didn't like.

Reasons:
1. Felt more like it was about Apollo Creed than Rocky himself.
2. The final fight against the Russian boxer was so predictable!
3. The blonde, Russian boxer had no personality and was like "I.. will.. break.. youuuu!" Just because one guy is taller and a bigger build than his opponent, doesn't make him a better fighter in terms of gameplay and tactics.
4. Throughout a lot of the time, it didn't feel like a boxing film or even a Rocky film for that matter.
5. Acting wasn't very good.

Batman & Robin has truly shown how much the Batman series has sunk! Like Shrek The Third it was always about money and bringing new characters into films but sometimes you don't always need that.
The series only just survived with Batman Forever because that was a bit of a disappointment as well. So, thank God for Chris Nolan directing Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (especially that one) for reviving this franchise!

Reasons:
1. George Clooney as Batman?! Awful performance!
2. I found Robin unnecessary in this film even though he‘s an irrelevant character anyway! Batman is a hero who works and fights off criminals alone! He doesn’t need back-up!
3. Joel Schumacher just cannot direct a film!
4. This felt like a random film done by college students (no offence to those students. I'm a media student myself but seeing as Batman is a very famous franchise, Batman & Robin just looked really cheap).
5. Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy were just stupid villains with just no character!

After watching this disaster of a film, I held my head in shame and thought "What was I thinking when I thought this film was going to be good?!" I couldn't believe that 10,000 B.C. didn't earn one single Razzie nomination when it really deserved it. I really can't stand Roland Emmerich because he tries too hard (like Michael Bay).
I saw 10,000 B.C. at the cinema and I couldn't wait to watch it but I now deeply regret even wanting to watch it. In fact, I was about 15 minutes into the film and felt like walking out of the cinema but wanted to see if it would get better but obviously got worse unfortunately. One of the worst films ever!!

Reasons:
1. The acting was painfully and laughably AWFUL!!
2. Directing was lame and didn't feel epic at all.
3. Felt very unrealistic!
4. Takes a lot from Mel Gibson's Apocalypto and Zack Snyder's 300 and I love both of those films!
5. The effects didn't even save the film! They were surprisingly quite cheesy in some scenes.

Expectations were high seeing as it's Frank Miller's new graphic novel after Sin City and I really like that film. Also, the cast is filled with a lot of famous and well-known actors such as Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Eva Mendes and Jaime King.
The Spirit is an absolute piece of crap in comparison to other graphic novel adapted comic-book films with those kinds of effects such as Sin City, 300 and most recently Watchmen. If Frank Miller wants to improve on his next film (hopefully Sin City 2), he really needs to work on it really hard! Obviously, the effects were awesome but that's about it.

Reasons:
1. It is pretty much another version of The Crow so took a lot from that.
2. Awful direction and flat script.
3. Felt very unrealistic.
4. Acting was bad! Surprisingly bad from Samuel L. Jackson.
5. The Spirit character just had no personality.

After 12 years without a Terminator film, this was released and expectations were high but it regrettably disappointed! Unusually I watched this one before the first two films but after watching those two, the third is a major disappointment in comparison.
To be honest, a 3rd Terminator film was irrelevant but Terminator Salvation slightly woke up the series again.

Reasons:
1. The female Terminator was stupid.
2. Never really knew THAT much about John Connor.
3. Why did the Terminator even return after what happened at the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day?