Top Ten Most Disappointing Movies of 2003BKAllmighty Remember? Remember how much these movies hurt you, because they were so disappointing? Well, I do. And everyone who is old enough to remember 2003 at all remembers these movies too. We will not go out quietly in the night. No, we are angry. And we will let our anger be known, gosh darn it.
The Top Ten
Oh hell. Burn it. Burn this movie. Send it back to the dark abyss from whence it came. Send it back to hell. Kill it with a stick... no... a flamethrower. Doesn't matter. Just end it. Put it down like a sick dog. Take it out behind the shed and shoot it. Shoot it with whatever will make it suffer most. After all the hardship it has put us all through, just waste it. I don't care how and where you do it, just do it. Look, I'll give you my car. Put it in my trunk, I'll give you the keys. You can drive it as far away as you feel necessary. Just as long as it's dead. I'll even pay for the gas. Just make sure it is destroyed. Or, at least, bury it so very deep below the surface so that no living creature, not even bacteria, will ever find it and be maimed by it. Go. Go now. I beg you. Just go. Take plenty of painkillers with you, just in case it comes into contact with your skin at any point. Be careful, but make sure you get it done, and done right. - BKAllmighty
They need to stop trying with Dr. Seuss movies. I dunno if you've noticed a pattern, but there's a reason a 20-page book is a classic piece of literature and not a classic 1h30 movie.
Oh my goodness, the part when the cat breaks the fourth wall to advertise for Univerasal Studios - there is no shortage of cringe worthy moment in this movie - but that was absolutely horrendous. I echo BKA, kill it with fire! - keycha1n
I remember how it was when the original movie was released. Mind you, I was not at the required age to see the film in theatres, and was all but allowed to watch the movie when it was immediately released on VHS (and DVD, but we bought VHS tapes back in 1999), but I remember the hype. All of my older cousins were talking about it and my friends had older family members who were telling them about it. It was the talk of the playground (mainly, everyone was doing "the Matrix" move - you know it). Then 2003 came along. People were excited. The movie came out and... nothing. Not a whisper of attention. Once I finally got around to seeing it I mostly understood why. Mind you, the movie wasn't a disaster like some of the other additions to this list, but it was a disappointing follow-up to a very awesome first installment. Well, at least we had "The Matrix Revolutions" to look forward to. Right? - BKAllmighty
I agree, I remember being super excited for this movie once I got it on DVD, after the first one and the awesome trailers and...it was a huge letdown. Neo is never challenged in this movie, he doesn't feel like a character and I was not intersted in the whole Zion aspect (which I was excited to see), the script was redundant and the characters feel more like plot devices instead of characters- hence the stakes never felt high and the CGI and green/blue screen was painfully obvious, the finale was completely ridiculous, I mean Neo turns into a Sith and that character Bane or whatever his name was just comes out of nowhere. There were some cool action scenes and the acting is fine, but overall a big disappointment - idontknow
When you have a character list as impressive and as well-known as this (you can look it up), you should be able to make them interesting on screen. You should also be able to make the story interesting, seeing as you have a brilliant story from the pages of a brilliant first volume of a brilliant graphic novel (I have read it), but that wasn't accomplished either. And Sean Connery, one of the world's most iconic living legends of the big screen, decided to retire after THIS movie. That, by itself, may be just as disappointing as the actual movie. - BKAllmighty
"Thanks" for the memories, BK! I didn't realize what an incredibly horrible year that was until I scrolled thru your list and it hit me with increasing intensity. I NEED at least six first-place votes. I decided to go with this (partially due to "extraordinairy" in the title) by considering candidates within their genres. I think we've seen disastrous comedies, horrible superheroes and futuristic sci-fi often, but in epic action-adventure (ie. Indiana Jones, Bond-flicks, etc) this fails so miserably in look, feel, script, execution that it even pales as a direct to video or past-era "B" flick movies, just cranked out with no expectation or attempt to be good or taken seriously. And I tried so hard to like it for Connery. - Billyv
When a man as legendary as Sean Connery ends his career on such a low note, you can't blame anybody for trying to dig for reasons to like the movie. Imagine if De Niro decided to retire after 'Dirty Grandpa'. I'd do my best to like it, then. - BKAllmighty
'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' won over virtually everyone when it was released in 1991 and it took an astonishing 12 years for the next film to be made. You'd think that with all that prep time the final product would be deserving of such a fruitful franchise (that was before 'Salvation' and 'Genisys', remember). Well, it wasn't exactly the ray of apocalyptic sunshine that the fans were hoping for. Now, I don't consider it an absolute failure or even a failure in any major sense. What it is, however, is just an average film. And when you follow up two of the most acclaimed sci-fi action films of all-time with an "average" follow-up, you're going to consider it a disappointment. - BKAllmighty
It wasn't really bad, but it was pretty underwhelming in comparison to T1 and T2. - Jackamalio
Shrek as a superhero! So original(! )
And Lee has had a considerably successful career as a major movie director. He has directed a number of super-successful award winners and contenders, including 'Sense and Sensibility', 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon', 'Brokeback Mountain', and most recently, 'Life of Pi'. But, needless to say, 2003's 'Hulk' is not among them. Considering that the movie is based on a scientist who mutates himself into a giant, green, rage monster who has the destructive force of a dozen tanks, there is, incredibly, very little for us get excited about over the movies 138-minute running length. And if there's one thing worse than a cheesy action movie, is a no-action action movie. Only... it's also cheesy (thanks to the hokey comic book scene transitions and the cheap CGI effects). Nick Nolte's drug-induced performance boosts up the weird factor, too, I might add. - BKAllmighty
1994's 'Dumb and Dumber' is a modern classic, by most people's standards. It was playfully stupid, cleverly funny, and (with the help of 1994's earlier comedies, 'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective' and 'The Mask') launched the filmmaking career of Jim Carrey. So when the idea of a second movie came around, people were excited. Of course, the hype dropped when it was revealed to be a prequel. And it dropped further when Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels were shown to have no involvement with the project. So, by the time this unwanted child of a movie came around, it made less than $50 million at the box office (the original made almost five times that). And it's unfunny dumbness was, no doubt, a big reason for that too. Do yourself a favour. Don't watch this movie. It's a pure waste of precious time ('The Cat in the Hat' is too - in case my comment for that one wasn't clear enough). - BKAllmighty
I loved this movie when it came out. It had the playful spookiness of the Disney attraction, scared me just enough to make it fun, and was funny. Well, I've grown up now and I realize that what I thought, as a child, was scary is, in actuality, not. I also realize that what I thought, as a child, was funny is, in actuality, really not. Oh, and Eddie Murphy is borderline annoying. That was learned by me, also. The reviews that I did not realize existed back in the day further reinforced these realizations. - BKAllmighty
Oh boy, the Netflix original series version of Daredevil is ever so much better than this movie. No Ben Affleck, no awkward leather suit, no bulls eyes etched into bald men's foreheads, no boring story, no lack of originality, no Coolio (mind you, he was basically just in the director's cut). Nope, none of that in the MCU series, whatsoever. - BKAllmighty
Remaking the pioneering achievement of a film that was 1974's 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' was never going to be to everyone's delight, with many arguing that the original film is, possibly, the greatest slasher film ever made. And after a failed run of unsuccessful sequels and quasi-sequels (movies III and IV were barely, if at all, even relatable to the first two films), people were dreading the idea of having another installment to be disappointed with. And they were right to fear the inevitable. The movie was little more than gross-out gore scares with momentary lapses of actual terror (hardly a fair way of honoring the franchise). Of course, it made just enough money to warrant a follow-up film, a prequel, which was just as much of a letdown as this film was. - BKAllmighty
This one is much better than Texas Chainsaw 2013
There's not much to say here besides that the things that made 'The Matrix Reloaded' a disappointing sequel were cranked up to the max for the threequel (which, yes, was released later on during the SAME calendar year - weird, I know) with, perhaps, the only noticeable improvement being that this film decided to tone down the philosophical ambiguity. Nonetheless, it was a disappointing movie (albeit, less of a disappointment than its direct predecessor - simply because, this time, we expected it to be crap). - BKAllmighty
It's Not Disappointing Is One Of the most Amazing,Hart Warming,Funny,Awesome Movies Ever SEEN. Looks Of People I know Love This Movie. I Love All The Characters.
WHO PUT CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN ON HERE
I LOVE THIS MOVIE It's THE BEST MOVIE EVER BETTER THAN LION KING