Think of movies that just plain bombed at the box office and/or have the reputation for being box-office bombs. I don't think I need to further define this? Here's a quick list of movies that I don't just like but which I think were kind of awesome...
Sahara - Yes, it's big and dumb but truth be told this movie actually didn't do too terribly at the box office. It garnered $68M in 2005 ($110M worldwide), which is not terrific - that's 35th for the year - but still about there with movies like Sin City, The Aviator, Cinderella Man, and Fun with Dick and Jane. The reason it's remembered a bomb is that it cost a TON of money to make, if memory serves in the form of bribes to various African nations in order to film. It's still a spectacle and it's still fun to watch though. Sadly, the fact that it's widely recognized as perhaps the biggest flop in cinema history means that we're probably not going to see anymore Clive Cussler novels make it to the silver screen any time soon.
The Postman - Come on, what is there not to like about this? You've got Kevin Costner doing his Kevin Costner thing in a dystopian alternative universe. You've got that Mad Max-ish post-apocalyptic feel, only maybe just a little bit brighter. You've got Tom Petty playing... Tom Petty? (like I'm pretty sure he actually plays the rock musician Tom Petty, who, after the apocalypse started his own colony). IT HAS LITERALLY EVERYTHING.
Crank / Crank 2 - Don't even need to comment on these movies, which are basically the greatest movie ever filmed.
Heaven's Gate - It could have been a little bit faster paced but it's not a bad movie, just a really expensive one and ultimately not the blockbuster that UA needed in order to survive.
Jupiter Ascending - Okay, this was not a "good" movie by any stretch but it did a lot of very fun things and I feel like if you could just divorce yourself from the fact that the Wachowskis made it and concentrate on the spectacle itself, I think you'll find that it's... well, it's still more "bonkers" than "good", but it really is a lot of fun, too.
Hugo - I guess the knock on it is that it's too slow for kids? But come on, this movie is *beautiful*, sad, and funny, and even talks about a now completely forgotten figure in early cinema (yes, that weirdo toy store owner, Georges Melies? The story obviously is fictional but that was absolutely a real person, and the movie sums up his life up to World War I pretty damn well, actually).
Ghostbusters (2016 remake) - Well, I had a lot of fun at this movie. If you have been refusing to see it because you liked the original too much, let me say this about it: if anything its problem was that it was *too* reverential of the original. Yes, it's a franchise reboot, these things happen. I feel like the writers did to the original script basically the same thing that the writers did to A New Hope with Force Awakens, that is, they took it, ironed out the bad parts, and made sense of it. All of the original castmembers make an appearance of some sort, even the deceased ones (there's a bust of Harold Ramis in there) and it still has very much the same kind of "we're kooks but we just happened to be right about this" feel that the original had. *I* felt that it was also very funny - both Kate McKinnon and Melissa McCarthy were fantastic, and I'm glad to see that both of them are now getting their just dues (McCarthy has been recognized as funny as crap for years now but McKinnon I think just over the election got people to realize how great she is too). Kristen Wiig is good as she kind of always is and I thought Leslie Jones was pretty hilarious, too (and she was the recipient of *so much* undeserved crap). The biggest thing I wanted to see was another 90 minutes to 2 hours of these actors inhabiting these roles and interacting with each other, but sadly I don't think that's going to happen. I guess the silver lining is that this means that nobody will feel like they have to touch the abomination that is Ghostbusters II.