Top Ten Most Disappointing Movies of 2008

This was a movie people were begging for. They spend 19 years begging for it, in fact. And the hype for this film couldn't have gotten any larger than it did. So it was with great sadness that I condemned it for being the biggest disappointment ever in the history of the movie I've seen over the course of my entire life at that point. I was hoping that my opinion of the film would positively increase with time but it hasn't. Indy (Harrison Ford) is, perhaps, the only watchable thing on the screen for the entire thing (the CGI is cheesy, Shia LaBeouf is, well, Shia LaBeouf, and the whole "aliens" thing bugged me more than giant red ants ever could). The movie basically shook my confidence in the series right out of me (and you know I like Indiana Jones). I'll take that reboot with Chris Pratt now, thanks. It's got a better chance of being done right as long as it's brought back to it's roots.

But The Critics Gave It Positive Reviews

Similarly to 'Indy 5", 'Quantum of Solace' was a big thing for me. The series had just been brought back to life with 2006's 'Casino Royale' with Daniel Craig helming the reboot and was awaiting a second jolt of energy. Instead we got a few sparks and a power outage. The movie was either boring or nauseating from the moment it started to the second it ended. Remember that opening car chase? Well, for me it was like being thrashed around inside a man-sized laundry machine, the picture was so shaky. The movie should have had a disclaimer for people with motion sickness problems, honestly. Then we got a boring opening title sequence with dull animations of sand and a really lousy title song from Alicia Keys and Jack White. And that makes up probably the best moments of the film. The rest involves a boring and confusing evil scheme to... Claim land, and the man behind the scheme, Dominic Greene (wow, that name is dull), who is as unintimidating and dull as his name is. It's also a direct ...more

I actually never saw this one. I just know from everywhere that I hear about it that it was not what people were hoping for. Poor Wachowskis. These two just can't catch a break, can they?

The original 1951 sci-fi film is hailed today as a classic of the genre. The 2008 film, nobody remembers. Except me, because of how disappointing it was (of course, I can thank it for providing me with better entertainment than 'Twilight' (which I was supposed to see that night at the theatre before a friend and I ditched the rest of the group to see this movie - that sounds rude of me, I know - but, come on - it's 'Twilight'). Keanu Reeves is just as spaced out (no pun intended - seriously - total accident) as he always is, and Will Smith's son Jaden is about as convicted to his role as he's ever been to any role). Jennifer Connelly was the one high point of the film (she's as good an actress as she is gorgeous). The rest is blah.

The film had a very promising idea that, basically, went unrealized. We were given brief glimpses of promise during the first half of the movie, mind you. The character development was moving at an enjoyable and meaningful pace, the story was unique and entertaining, and the visual effects were very well-made. Unfortunately, the latter of those three positives was the only one to remain entirely for the second half of the film since Hancock's character stops moving forward and the story sort of ventures into generic territory.

This movie is just awful. Seriously. It's unwatchable. I would have made it #1 on the list but I figured it's not well-known enough to be considered the "most" disappointing movie of 2008, since bigger movies come with bigger expectations. Still, what a stink of a movie. Its humour is humourless, its special effects fall flat, the storytelling is weaker than my 90-year-old grandmother, and the acting is terrible (I expected more from Samuel L. Jackson).

The first 'Mummy' film (I am referring to the 1999 film, here) was originally written as a horror film (not unlike the VERY first film from 1932) and was altered to please a younger, more adventurous audience with its action sequences and CGI effects. And the first sequel, 'The Mummy Returns', while showcasing some of the worst special effects ever, managed to retain the fun look and feel of the first film. The third film (which was made a whopping seven years later) took place in China (instead of Egypt), featured a totally different (and uninteresting) actress as "Evie" (which ruined a character that was one of the series' highlights), and was incredibly dull, in general. What a poor way to end a trilogy.

'The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe' was a great way to start off what had the potential to be a terrific movie series. It was a great story, had a great cast (thinking mainly of Tilda Swinton and Liam Neeson, here), and looked brilliant! Then 'Prince Caspian' came around three years later and dulled everything down from a roar to a whimper in no time at all. So, what was the result? Well, Disney sold off the franchise to Fox and only one more additional film was produced before an indefinite hiatus fell upon the franchise (as of September 2015, anyways). Good job, guys. Not even Peter Dinklage was able to save this movie.

After a completely forgotten straight-to-video failure (1989's 'The Punisher) and a contemporary underachievement (2004's 'The Punisher'), we were given a third opportunity to see this awesome comic book character on the big screen. What we received was a uber-violent lobotomy of bullets, blood, bodies, and bad acting. Make no mistake, it's a good brainless action romp, but it had the potential to be better than that. Add a bit of intelligence and maybe some good taste and there could have been greatness.

I liked twilight and speed racer the disater movie was kinda funny

Why quantum of solace? Why hancock? Did you seen this movie? This is the second worst "romantic" movie than I seen in my life (the first isn't necessary tell what movie is)