This record seems to be constantly changing. So, at different times, there are different answers. For instance, if you are looking at movies made before the 90s, the answer would be the epic 1963 Cleopatra. As of November 2005, the answer is Stealth. Other big losers are The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Town and Country, and Waterworld.

I think a good candidate would be the horrendous remake of "King Kong" produced by Dino de Laurentiis in 1976. "When my monkey die, people gonna cry" is apparently a quote from Mr. de Laurentiis. A classic dud. To quote Leonard Maltin (the Howie Meeker of the movies): "Addle-brained remake of 1933 classic has great potential but dispels all the mythic, larger-than-life qualities of the original with idiotic characters and campy approach." The film "Cleopatra", nominated by another poster, was also a dud, but I don't think it landed with as big a thud as de Laurentiis' "Kong". There are many truly terrible films out there (e.g., the entire output of director Ed Wood), but they are relatively inexpensive flops in the overall scheme of things. Some very expensive flops also never saw the light of day, because the plug was pulled on them before they ever finished filming. Unfortunately, some very good films have failed at the box office, including "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", and "1900". ---------------------------------------- Reply: The term "bomb" can refer to the quality of a fim. Although revenues are the most hyped indicator of a film's success these days, I consider critical analysis to be more valuable. Frankly, I care nothing for the amount a film grosses in its first weekend of release, an indicator that better reflects the amount spent on advertising a movie. Moviedom is full of turkeys that turn a substantial profit and critically-acclaimed films that don't. The remake of "King Kong" was a truly tacky film, one that added nothing to the charm of the original and failed in every manner except for the size of its budget. It was heavily promoted and did well when it was initially released. Well, until the critics saw it and came out with their reviews. "Cleopatra" grossed enough to turn a small profit - it didn't lose money. It was, however, another of those bloated sword and sandal epics that Hollywood studios kept making in an attempt to recapture the critical and financial success of a handful of such movies (e.g., Kubrick's "Spartacus"). It was a sad sight, but not as bad as some in that genre. It aspires to bomb-hood because of the amount of money spent on production and promotion, the critical shellacing it took, and the small profit it returned. "King Kong" stills strikes me as the greater bomb, for its critical drubbing and for the manner it which it trashed a good film. Why don't producers remake poor films to present something that is superior to the original, rather than making horrible remakes of good films.

Pluto Nash starring Eddie Murphy lost over 90 million dollars.