Obviously, Money Does Not Equal Value

King Kong will no doubt lead the box offices this weekend. And with the money spent on it, it really should. Kong cost 207 million dollars to produce ranking it 5th among the most expensive movies all time. But I wonder how it will compare in terms of movie-goer value with the other high-priced refuse. Here’s a look at the list:

Titanic - 1997 (247 mill): The actual Titanic took only 2 hours and 40 minutes to sink, the movie Titanic, took over 3 yawn-filled hours to sink.

Waterworld - 1995 (229 mill): This movie was not as bad as everyone says. And it’s actually an interesting premise, but it’s still wasn’t worth the 229 million it took to make this film, or the $6 it cost to see it.

Terminator 3 - 2003 (216 mill): Schwarzenegger, better at acting or governing?

Spider-Man 2 - 2004 (210 mill): I honestly can’t remember if I saw this or not. I’m pretty sure I did, but I can’t remember a single thing about it. Guess the movie made an impression.

Wild Wild West - 1999 (203.8 mill): This was a very enjoyable movie, if you don’t mind poorly written dialogue. Really this is a pretty forgettable movie as well, I can’t believe it cost that much.

Speed 2: Cruise Control - 1997 (198.8 mill): The title should be an indication of the quality of this movie. It’s really just bad. What a waste of money. And Sandra Bullock is one of the most overrated actresses ever.

Cleopatra (1963) is listed as the most expensive movie ever made (286.4 mill), if you translate the budget into what it would have cost to produce that today. But I refuse to do that. Mainly because Cleopatra, starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, doesn’t deserve to be ranked among these other titles. Well, I suppose you could rank it with Titanic, but not any of the others.