X
Comments to #20 All comments (10)
3
1.
Fenrisulven 11 year s ago
#9 I liked this one.
#21 Isn't this one still in the cinemas?
       
Reply
1
2.
hbmaciel 11 year s ago
#1 #3 #8 #9 #20
I like those.
       
Reply
1
3.
Whiskey_Drunk 11 year s ago
I don't get it #3 Waterworld made more then it cost. Budget, 175 million. Box office 264,218,220$
       
Reply
0
4.
Johny 11 year s ago
Exactly my thoughts. Why is it considered a disaster when it earned more than 50 % of the allocated budget?

I liked that final fantasy movie, too.
       
Reply
0
5.
Khysiek 11 year s ago
It did not covered costs of promotion.
       
Reply
0
6.
fish.b.head 11 year s ago
I saw a movie called "The Bone Ranger" in the 80's
       
Reply
0
7.
rikki_doxx 11 year s ago
I think Waterworld made 26 million on a budget of 175 million.
       
Reply
1
8.
bertha_2_2 11 year s ago
The asterisks are confusing. What are they representing?
       
Reply
0
9.
Khysiek 11 year s ago
#7 was quite good movie.
This numbers are wrong, according to IMDB - costs were 85mln., revenues - 59mln.
Other numbers seem also not quite right.
       
Reply
0
10.
jeskris 11 year s ago
#21 OT but who the fuck calls himself Armie Hammer????
       
Reply
random avatar
27353641acute
belayclappingdance3dashdirol
drinksfoolgirl_craygirl_devilgirl_witch
goodgreenheartJC-LOLJC_doubledown
JC_OMG_signkisslaughingman_in_lmocking
mr47_04musicokroflsarcastic
sm_80tonguevishenka_33vomitwassat
yahooshoot
X
20 Years of Hollywood Box-Office Disasters That Failed Miserably
>
20/21
<