Year in and year out, new movies keep arriving and getting positioned as the next big thing. Naturally, audience expectations build up, and the buzz keeps growing right up until release day. But sometimes, some of these new releases end up falling short and becoming the target of a lot of criticism. Why exactly does that happen? In many cases, the marketing sells one movie, everyone buys into the idea, but the final result doesn’t live up to that promise. So what do you get? A bad movie that feels even worse because it seemed so much more interesting before it actually existed.
Ever stop to think about some examples? Here are 5 movies that came in with a certain level of audience confidence and left with a reputation for being completely wasted opportunities.
Before its release, there was a lot of buzz around Eddington, mainly because of its director. Ari Aster’s new project was being described as a modern study of social collapse, and it felt especially timely coming after the COVID-19 pandemic. The story itself is set during that period, in a small New Mexico town where Sheriff Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix) and the mayor, Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal), end up in conflict as conspiracy theories and political polarization start taking over. It’s basically the kind of environment that feels perfect for a sharp social thriller.
However, what Eddington does is stack ideas on top of each other more than actually building them into a cohesive narrative. It’s a film that wants to comment on a lot of things at once, but never really locks into a main dramatic thread to hold everything together. There are good moments, and the cast is totally strong, but it’s constantly weighed down by how overloaded it feels. It lacks focus, and that’s frustrating because you can see what it’s trying to say, but it just doesn’t find the clearest or most effective way to say it.
With Ridley Scott in the director’s chair, there was an expectation of something solid and even epic. Napoleon sets out to tell the story of the rise and fall of Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix), positioning him as a central figure while also focusing on his relationship with his wife, Joséphine (Vanessa Kirby). It’s the kind of combination that could deliver a sweeping war epic and a personal drama at the same time. The idea was already there, and everyone knew it even before a trailer or more concrete promotional material was released.
But the problem with the movie is that it never really finds a center. Napoleon keeps shifting between very well-directed battle sequences and a character study that never actually explores its own protagonist. The version of Napoleon we get feels more like a set of behavioral snapshots than a fully developed, complex figure, which leaves things feeling distant for viewers expecting a deep, biographical experience. It’s not that a different approach is inherently bad, but you end up not really feeling the weight of the events surrounding such a major historical figure. As a narrative, it just doesn’t land.
Borderlands had all the ingredients to work, since it’s based on a game franchise known for its chaotic tone, stylized violence, and heightened worldbuilding. The story follows Lilith (Cate Blanchett), a bounty hunter who returns to the planet Pandora to find the missing daughter of a powerful man. To pull that off, she teams up with a group of misfits. That’s a premise that should support a high-energy, bold, and pretty unhinged adventure. In theory, it feels like an easy adaptation to get right, but in practice, it does almost the opposite of what the source material is known for.
What makes it frustrating (especially for fans) is when an adaptation doesn’t just take liberties but completely flattens what made the original interesting. Here, instead of leaning into the chaos, Borderlands is something generic, with no real rhythm or identity. The jokes don’t land, the characters don’t have chemistry, and the entire world feels like a hollow backdrop instead of something lived-in. It fundamentally misses the tone, which is arguably the most important thing it needed to get right. And there was more than enough material here to build something sharp, fun, and distinctive.
When Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania was released, the Marvel Cinematic Universe was already going through a rough patch with a string of weaker entries. Still, this one felt like it mattered more than usual, because it was positioned as a key piece of the franchise’s future. The story sends Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) and his family into the Quantum Realm, where they end up trapped and forced to deal with forces far beyond anything they’ve faced before. So right from the start, the movie is carrying a lot of narrative weight and expectation.
So what’s the biggest issue? It never really knows how to handle that weight. The Quantum Realm is visually overloaded, but the storytelling doesn’t match that scale, and the focus keeps shifting without ever settling into something compelling. There’s very little that feels engaging in Quantumania, and it’s just like another MCU production that doesn’t understand what it’s doing wrong. Kang (Jonathan Majors), in particular, is supposed to be the centerpiece, but he doesn’t have enough impact to justify the level of importance the film is assigning to him. There was potential here, but the execution just doesn’t hold up.
Talking about Joker: Folie à Deux is tricky because even if you understand what it’s trying to do, it still feels like a very questionable creative decision. Joker had a huge impact, and making a sequel wasn’t necessarily a bad idea, but it’s also the classic case of not fixing what isn’t broken. The question that keeps coming up is: why change the structure so drastically? The story places Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) inside Arkham, where he meets Harley Quinn (Lady Gaga), and their relationship unfolds through a mix of psychological drama and musical numbers. It’s a major shift in tone and format right away.
The thing is that not everyone likes musical movies, and given how big the first film became, you’d expect a sequel to at least consider the broader audience — and it clearly doesn’t. Joker: Folie à Deux ends up fragmenting its own narrative, pulling focus away from what was originally the core of the franchise: Arthur’s internal psychological breakdown. Instead of deepening that character study, the movie turns more conceptual than dramatic, and that decision alienates a lot of viewers. It was a total miscalculation.
What do you think? Leave a comment below and join the conversation now in the ComicBook Forum!
