5 Spielberg 'Flops' That Time Turned Into Total Classics

The Comedy So Chaotic Even Kubrick Told Spielberg To Sell It As A Drama

<cite index="3-2,3-3">"1941" went on to become a modest box office success, taking in $94.9 million on a $35 million budget, but it was not well received, with critics mixed at best.</cite> <cite index="4-15,4-16,4-17">Stanley Kubrick himself told Spielberg point blank: "Saw your movie, 1941. It was great, but it wasn't funny. You should have sold it as a drama."</cite> Decades later, defenders now call it <cite index="5-3">"an unfairly maligned and misunderstood gem in the career of one of the most successful filmmakers of all time."</cite>

Critics Hated It. Millennials Made It A Religion.

Rotten Tomatoes' brutal consensus on "Hook" reads: <cite index="10-28">"The look of Hook is lively indeed, but Steven Spielberg directs on autopilot here, giving in too quickly to his sentimental, syrupy qualities."</cite> It still <cite index="10-13">became a commercial success and the fourth-highest-grossing film of 1991, though it failed to meet the studio's expectations</cite> because it got overshadowed by "Beauty and the Beast." Now? <cite index="11-23">Twenty-five years later, Hook is possibly the most beloved Spielberg movie among Millennials.</cite>

The War Epic Everyone Praised And Almost Nobody Bought Tickets For

"Empire of the Sun" got glowing reviews but <cite index="24-31,24-32,24-33,24-34">initially failed to recoup its lavish $25 million budget, falling $3 million short of breaking even domestically, though it was redeemed by over $44 million internationally.</cite> Rotten Tomatoes now calls it <cite index="21-18">"one of Steven Spielberg's most ambitious efforts of the 1980s" and "an underrated gem in the director's distinguished filmography."</cite> It also happened to launch a very young Christian Bale, whose performance is still called one of his best.

The Ending Everyone Argued About In 2001 Is Exactly Why Critics Love It Now

Reactions to "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" split hard at release — Roger Ebert called it <cite index="41-1">"audacious, technically masterful, challenging, sometimes moving, ceaselessly watchable,"</cite> while the original story's author, Brian Aldiss, simply said <cite index="41-1">"It's crap."</cite> It also <cite index="41-5">just missed earning back its $90 million budget domestically, though international audiences added $150 million to the worldwide total.</cite> The reassessment has been dramatic: Ebert later gave it a fourth star for his Great Movies archive, and <cite index="43-18">critic Mark Kermode publicly apologized to Spielberg in 2013 for "getting it wrong" when he first reviewed the film in 2001.</cite>

Spielberg's Own Version Of E.T. Somehow Became One Of His Biggest Bombs

Variety didn't hold back on "The BFG," writing that it <cite index="33-1">opened to an anemic $19.6 million and was shaping up to be one of the biggest flops of Spielberg's career, rivaling 1941.</cite> The final tally was rough: <cite index="39-17,39-18,39-19">it topped out at $55.8 million domestically and $178 million worldwide after costing $140 million to make, losing an estimated $90 million to $100 million for Disney, Amblin, and Participant Media.</cite> The reviews were actually decent at the time — it holds a respectable 74% on Rotten Tomatoes — and its warm, whimsical reputation has only grown since as a quieter, gentler entry in the Spielberg canon.