Every year, moviegoers eagerly anticipate the next round of blockbusters, hoping for a blend of jaw-dropping action, innovative storytelling, and unforgettable characters. Unfortunately, 2025’s lineup has struggled to live up to these hopes and dreams. This year brought some of the biggest names and franchises back to the big screen, but many of these highly-publicized films fell short of audience expectations. Whether it was weak storytelling, an over-reliance on nostalgia, or a failure to innovate, this year's blockbusters left more to be desired than they delivered.

Here’s a closer look at why some of 2025’s most hyped releases ended up feeling more lackluster than legendary.

Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning

The Mission: Impossible franchise has built a legacy on heart-pounding stunts, masterful plot twists, and Tom Cruise’s death-defying dedication to his craft. While The Final Reckoning was poised to finish the series on a high note, it stumbled under the weight of bloated expectations and an unnecessarily convoluted plot.

Where It Fell Short

What was once a spy-thriller masterpiece has arguably turned into a glorified action montage set to a familiar score. The film tried to deliver an emotional conclusion to Ethan Hunt's story but instead got bogged down by too many characters vying for screen time and an overcomplicated villain. The AI threat might have seemed timely, but it lacked the originality viewers craved, serving instead as a generic antagonist.

Audience Response

While Cruise’s stunts—including the much-publicized paragliding sequence—were breathtaking, they couldn’t salvage the drawn-out pacing and predictable story beats. Fans lamented that The Final Reckoning felt more like a forgettable epilogue than the electrifying finale it promised to be.

Lilo & Stitch (Live-Action)

Disney’s live-action adaptations have been polarizing at best, and Lilo & Stitch continued the trend of offering little more than a high-budget rehash of the original. With the charm and quirk of the animated classic stripped away, this live-action remake felt hollow and unsatisfying.

What Went Wrong

Where the animated version delivered warmth and heart through its quirky animation and vibrant Hawaiian culture, the live-action version felt sterile by comparison. While the reconstructed CGI Stitch may have been visually impressive, his on-screen antics lacked the chaotic hilarity that defined his original character. And while the cast gave sincere performances, they were unable to capture the magic of the deeply emotional bond between Lilo, her sister Nani, and their mischievous alien companion.

More Nostalgia Than Substance

Many critics accused Disney of once again relying on nostalgia to carry a film that lacked fresh ideas. Instead of adding new depth or exploring unexplored aspects of the story, the film played it safe, which left it feeling like a watered-down shadow of its predecessor.

Jurassic World Rebirth

The Jurassic Park franchise has always walked a fine line between wonder and disaster, and Jurassic World Rebirth tipped too far toward the latter. Audiences hoped this installment would restore balance to the franchise, blending the awe of dinosaurs with meaningful storytelling. Instead, we got another formulaic action flick filled with clichés and recycled ideas.

Uninspired Plot

The plot centered on scientists attempting to understand and live alongside dinosaurs, but it failed to tread new ground. It recycled the same themes of corporate greed and human hubris that have been overplayed in earlier films. And, as expected, the dinosaurs escaped, chaos ensued, and the film boiled down to another round of humans sprinting through the jungle.

Lack of Awe

The original Jurassic Park (1993) became iconic because it elicited awe and fear in equal measure, but Rebirth leaned solely on mindless action. While Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali’s performances brought some gravitas to the film, they couldn’t compensate for the absence of compelling storytelling or the lack of any true emotional stakes.

How to Train Your Dragon (Live-Action)

Adapting beloved animated properties into live action is always a risky endeavor, and DreamWorks’ attempt to recreate How to Train Your Dragon in this format has proven divisive. While the heartfelt relationship between Hiccup and Toothless remained intact, much of the magic was lost in translation.

Lost in Translation

The animation in the original trilogy allowed for the creation of fantastical, vividly colorful worlds and deeply expressive characters. The live-action version, despite its high production value, failed to fully capture this whimsy. Toothless, rendered in CGI, felt less emotive and far less endearing without the expressive eyes and playful demeanor that originally won hearts.

Unmet Expectations

Though Mason Thames gave an earnest performance as Hiccup, much of the supporting cast fell flat, leaving critics and fans feeling lukewarm about the final product. Worse still, the film leaned heavily on moments from the animated series without introducing a new spark to set it apart. For many, it was a loyal, yet uninspired, copy-and-paste effort.

F1

High-speed dramas centered on motorsports have huge potential to electrify audiences (Ford v Ferrari, anyone?), but F1 somehow missed the finish line. Despite Brad Pitt’s star power and the promise of heart-pounding racing sequences, F1 failed to bring anything new to the genre.

A Formulaic Formula

The film tells the story of a retired Formula One driver (Pitt) returning to the sport to mentor a young prodigy, played by Damson Idris. However, the plot followed a predictable arc that felt stale, offering few emotional stakes or surprises. The racing scenes, though skillfully shot, lacked the visceral excitement necessary to captivate audiences.

Mediocre Character Development

Critics pointed out that Pitt’s character felt one-dimensional, while the mentorship dynamic lacked the depth audiences expected. With a generic script and uninspired dialogue, characters felt more like archetypes than fully fleshed-out individuals.