Those awful Friedberg, Friedberg & Seltzer "comedies." Some of the very worst movies ever made, yet all of them make money.
Ehhhh every major release nowadays has a 3D release and multiple high value time showings in 3D. There were multiple times when movies did have 3D fads where for a year or so a bunch of 3D films would be released. Especially in the 80's. In the decade since Avatar every major summer blockbuster release has a 3D showing attached. It's more than a fad now
Scary Movie did really well and it's sequels. Also Not Another Teen Movie was pretty popular. So they just kind ripped that off and made bank for awhile until people caught on that these were all trash and it eventually died out. They were also incredibly cheaply made films. It was pretty easy for them to turn a profit with a major release. They've never made more than 100 million at the box office but when you never make a film more than 20-30 million that doesn't matter.
I have to agree. It's so mediocre. Nothing, and I mean nothing, about it is special. Nothing stands out. Visuals are ok, set pieces are ok, action is ok, acting is passable to terrible, dialogues are... "I didn't sign up for this shit."... world's highest grossing movie, people.
No, even back then I was not impressed with its CGI at all. Freaking Transformers had me impressed. Most stuff in Avatar looked cartoonish, felt like watching a really well made animated movie than a live-action one.
Alice in Wonderland(Tim Burton). How the hell did this movie managed to make $1 Billion, I will never understand.
It's funny, but some films just don't stand the test of time - they seem great when you first watch them, but rewatch years later and the seem dire. I found that out with the Warriors, yet John Carpenter's films are still great today. I wonder what the reception Thor Ragnarok, which everyone seemed to love, and The Last Jedi, which so many hate, will get years from now.
The thing about Avatar, is that many of the criticisms were absolutely true. The story is banal, the script crashingly obvious, the performances (apart from Ribisi and Lang) workmanlike....and yet, at the same time, Cameron is a brilliant craftsman. When I saw the final battle in the cinema I was astonished, not just by the profusion of images at the time, but how clear everything was. You could follow the exact pattern of what was happening. Cameron can compose the hell out of an action scene. Contrast that with Transformers 2, which I saw near to the same time, where vast machines were beating each other in utterly confusing ways.
The banality and brilliance can also be seen in a film like Titanic. I tend to echo the Plinkett review that Cameron may be simultaneously both great and terrible.
So far as my own choice, I never much liked The Piano, but I’m not going to try to justify that. It was one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time, so perhaps it was just me
Well, the transformers movies are an obvious answer. (even if the "why" is quite easy to answer really)
I would add Signs (2002), Pearl Harbor (2001) and Armageddon (1998).
Yeah, i know. Micheal Bay....what can i say? Not my fault if so many people are enjoying his movies.