There was no doubt heading into Mother’s Day weekend that “King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword” was going to underperform; the question was just how badly it would do. Warner Bros. tried to stir up excitement for the picture with a splashy trailer at last summer’s San Diego Comic-Con, but only Charlie Hunnam from the cast showed up, and audiences could smell the stink off a movie that had already seen its release bumped around a few times. So it’s not a shock that cinemas showing the movie stayed largely empty this weekend.
Despite estimates putting the opening of the film between $15-20 million, ‘King Arthur’ earned a dismal $14.7 million. It’s the second straight bomb for a Guy Ritchie film at Warner Bros., following 2015’s “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.,” which debuted with even less, but has since grown a cult following of sorts. Yet the director seems to face zero repercussions in Hollywood for his big-budget misfires, as he’s already been lined up to helm Disney‘s live-action “Aladdin.” He must have one helluva agent. If there is any small silver lining WB can take from this weekend, it’s that ‘King Arthur’ actually scored well with the audiences who did see it, earning a B+ Cinemascore. Huh.
Also opening wide release, the latest comedy vehicle for Amy Schumer, “Snatched,” which also marked the return to the big screen for Goldie Hawn, earned a respectable $17 million. The R-rated comedy didn’t fare well with critics, but it seems the pull of the raunchy comedy got audiences out into cinemas. All that being said, it’s well off the mark of the $30 million opening for “Trainwreck” two years ago, and I’d imagine that 20th Century Fox were hoping for numbers a little closer to that, especially with a budget of $42 million.
The poor showing from ‘King Arthur’ left plenty of room for Marvel‘s “Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2” to have another commanding weekend, taking $63 million domestic, $52 million international, for a total global haul right now of $630.5 million. Consider this: the original “Guardians Of The Galaxy” grossed $773 million after a whopping 25 weeks of release in 2014. ‘Vol. 2’ is already 81% of the way to that figure and it’s only been in theaters for 17 days — only 10 North American days to be exact (it opened up a week early in some international territories). The film opened to nearly $50 million in China this weekend and given its trajectory right now, $1 billion seems viable. The only issue will be the rash of summer blockbusters it will compete against all summer long. It’ll be interesting to see how it fares next week with the arrival of the R-rated “Alien: Covenant,” and whether it can hang on top for a third straight weekend at home.
In limited release, there are two pretty remarkable stories behind a couple of films that have been flying under the radar. Eleanor Coppola‘s “Paris Can Wait” earned an impressive $25,456 per-screen average in four cinemas, to take home $101,825 this weekend. Meanwhile, “Lowriders” found its Hispanic audience, and landed in the top ten, despite playing on under 300 screens, with $2.4 million. As for Doug Liman‘s lean, single location thriller “The Wall,” the picture could only manage $891,590 from 541 screens.
1. “Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2” — $63 million ($246.1 mil.)
2. “Snatched” — $17.5 million
3. “King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword” — $14.7 million
4. “The Fate Of The Furious” — $5.3 million ($215 mil.)
5. “The Boss Baby” — $4.6 million ($162.3 mil.)
6. “Beauty And The Beast” — $3.8 million ($493.1 mil.)
7. “How To Be A Latin Lover” — $3.7 million ($26.1 mil.)
8. “Lowriders” — $2.4 million
9. “The Circle” — $1.7 million ($18.9 mil.)
10. “Baahubali 2: The Conclusion” — $1.5 million ($18.9 mil.)
” Yet the director seems to face zero repercussions in Hollywood for his big-budget misfires, as he’s already been lined up to helm Disney‘s live-action “Aladdin.”
Is this line really necessary, why root for someone to lose their job? Does it seem a moral thing to do?
I saw the movie this weekend and was really surprised how much I loved it. It’s a fun movie and your own review grudgingly admitted as much. The one thing that is consistent about movie sites and critics is that you guys always come off as bitter.
Miles, the implication is let’s see a female or non-white male director make back-to-back hundred million dollar bombs based on known properties with huge marketing budgets and then have zero problem lining up their next mega-project.
Again why root for him to lose his job? I can totally agree that the system is unfair without wishing ill on people. And all though the movie flopped, that happens to every filmmaker on a long enough timeline. The other thing that has to be said is, the movie is not terrible, it’s not the work of an hack who doesn’t know what he is doing. I saw it with a half packed theater on Friday night and people applauded at the end. So it’s not like Richie is a terrible filmmaker and deserves to never be able to make another film because he’s made a few films that didn’t light the world on fire, it’s still a pretty petty thing to write.
[Sigh]
Ok.Thanks.
not that i’m for whomever losing a job,but again sometimes seems the same name people keep getting the big jobs regardless of if the film(s) do good or bad. *sigh*
yeah i’d rather more chances go to females/non whites or non name directors getting a break than the usuals cashing in regardless if box office or reviews are crap.
it’s not so much i think he should lose a job. it’s after two flops i’m a little *arrgh* that he gets one of the bigger directing jobs. that’s almost gonna be bomb proof regardless of who directs it. ha ha…
just feel he’s next job should be one that’s smaller/scale/budget.not hey, have another go a blockbuster.
note:nope, i have zero interest in richie nor arthur nor the disney remake. i’d feel the same regardless of who was in this situation. hell, if it’s gonna come across like failure gonna be rewarded. i’m finally gonna be a success in life. so i guess i should support richie too… 😉