‘King Arthur’ bombed: it cost $175 million to make & it made $14.7 million

'King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword' UK Premiere - Arrivals

I’ll give Charlie Hunnam some credit: he did his job well this month and it’s not exactly his fault that King Arthur: Legend of the Sword sh-t the bed. For weeks now, Charlie has been out there, trying to make headlines (“Charlie Hunnam cooks for his girlfriend!”) and sell himself as a movie star. In a Sliding Doors situation, it would have been funny to see him try to sell Fifty Shades of Grey with the same attitude of grim determination, like he was forcing himself to be light and happy when really he just wants to go home and cry about the awful reviews.

King Arthur was never going to be a hit though. We knew that as soon as we saw the first trailer. We knew it when the film’s release kept getting pushed back. I think the studio – Warner Bros, because of course – really hoped that the North American release would be so-so and then they could just sell the sh-t out of it in Asia. The problem is that King Arthur bombed like crazy in North America and Charlie’s still not a movie star, so the chances of this film being “sold” in Asia is probably a pipe dream. If it was Tom Cruise as King Arthur, then yeah, you could sell that in China and Japan. But not Charlie Hunnam.

So just how badly did King Arthur do? Well, it cost $175 million to make, which IS INSANE. It is literally insane that Warner Bros gave Guy Ritchie $175 million to make this movie, and I doubt that figure takes into account the promotion, let’s be real. I heard they were hoping for a $30 million American opening. And then the movie opened with (sad clown noise)… $14.5 million.

The second weekend of summer at the North American box office is taking no prisoners. Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a flop of epic proportions. The movie opened to an estimated $5.3 million Friday from 3,702 locations for a projected $14.5 million weekend after costing $175 million to make before a major marketing spend. It also appears to be falling on its sword overseas, where it only grossed $6.8 million on Friday from 51 markets for an early three-day foreign total of $11.6 million. In China, it opened to a mere $1.8 million to place No. 3.

Piling on more bad news, King Arthur looks to be beat in the U.S. by Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn’s Snatched in a surprise upset. The Mother’s Day action-comedy earned an estimated $5 million Friday from 3,501 theaters for a $16 million-plus opening. Fox spent a relatively modest $42 million to make the R-rated movie, but was certainly hoping for more, considering Schumer’s Trainwreck debuted to $30 million in summer 2015.

[From THR]

As our emperor would say: SAD! Sad but not surprising in the least.

Oh, and Charlie even did Us Weekly’s “25 Things You Don’t About…” feature. He actually says “I’m too old for fairy tales,” (says the guy in a King Arthur movie!) and “The biggest compliment to my looks is that my girlfriend still sleeps with me.” Er… nope. And here’s a clip of Charlie on Graham Norton this weekend:

'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' film premiere - Arrivals

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

94 Responses to “‘King Arthur’ bombed: it cost $175 million to make & it made $14.7 million”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snazzy says:

    I have a friend who saw it this weekend – she texted me to say it was terrible. Looks like a good one to avoid, even if I love the Arthur story.

    • DystopianDance says:

      I just saw it for mother’s day w a group of friends. I love the King Arthur legend, and have been to all the sites in England. Surprisingly, this was an extremely relevant version, because Arthur was raised in the streets of London and became a bit of a pimp (he was rescued by a brothel- not a farmer’s wife). It really defended the resilience of “street smarts”, and the compassion of “fallen women”. I quite loved this version, not just because of this unique prospective, but also the acting and special effects unique to Guy Ritchie’s direction. This for me was a favorite- second to Fury Road.

    • Ss11 says:

      I really liked it. Would want to see ch. 2 actually but I seem to have no luck.

    • Lex says:

      Male led films like this are a niche and will never gain mainstream success.. the little chaps should stick to boyfriend/husband or friend roles where they know they can succeed… stuff like this just proves men shouldn’t get movies of their own! When will studios stop with this political correctness and just acknowledge men aren’t our equals?

  2. Talie says:

    People have been disagreeing with me, but I do think it was a mistake for him to back out of 50 Shades…at the very least his name recognition would’ve been much improved. And if you’re a good actor, people give you a pass on it — Dakota Johnson certainly gets one.

    • Jegede says:


      Regardless of merit the box office success would have given him some value (or even good reviews!!)

      And Dakota Johnson has springboarded a so far decent career from it.

      It’s the same with Kristen Stewart. She stars in (some) critically acclaimed small movies and can still get bigger projects greenlit, due to the crappy Twilight series.

    • rachel says:

      I agree. Fifty shades might be an horrendous, ridiculous mess, but it could have put him on the map and give him a great paycheck. Dakota johnson has one of the most interesting line up in terms of indie films and Jamie Dornan is perfectly fine.

    • laulau says:

      I agree. as bad as 50 shades looked, it was probably this guy’s shot at blockbuster success. Now he’s got two underperformers and a string of dully obnoxious interviews… It might be over as a movie star. Maybe another good tv role.

      If you combined the best attributes, looks and charisma, of this guy and the one who played Jesse on Breaking Bad… That would sell.

    • Talie says:

      I’m glad I’m not alone on this. I do think he’s heading for Taylor Kitsch territory…but you know what, big screen success is not for every TV star. And anyway, TV is where it’s at these days.

      • supposedtobeworking says:

        I wish Taylor Kitsch had done some small character roles first, because he is a pretty good actor for the tender moments. I think the challenge is that so many of these guys are so interchangeable that maybe you need a really incredible script and story line to set your self apart? It must be so hard to resist the machine that makes you feel you’re able to carry big budget movies. And Charlie and Taylor both seem to feel the need to be macho strong men in their hits.

    • Mia4s says:

      It’s really hard to say, it’s sliding doors. Jaimie Dornan is certainly working more but he’s not a star and certainly not a green light name for a large project. The smaller films he has done (I don’t know if these are the offers he gets or if it is deliberate) don’t rest on him and he is smart to stick to ensemble work for now. No one was impressed with his acting in 50 Shades and most people haven’t seen The Fall. He’d be crazy to front himself as a big deal and he seems to know that. Again, that’s smart.

      Hunnam fell into the Taylor Kitsch trap; original properties trying to be blockbusters before you’ve made your name elsewhere. VERY rare to succeed these days. The only example I can think of right off is Kingsmen and Taron Edgerton (whose next film bombed miserably…but, perception)…but we will see how the sequel does.

      The safer route if you want to boost your names in blockbusters is simple: Comicbook movies, Harry Potter, Star Wars. Do (for example) Daisy Ridley and John Boyega deserve the credit for Force Awakens box office success. Nope!! Do they get it? Well…some if it…enough to use it for other projects. That’s the key.

      • Craven says:

        To be fair, this was a King Arthur movie. Its hardly an original property. WB viewed it more as a reboot movie with a ready audience in the way of GoT starved fans. Hunnam being a proper c**k very smugly told interviewers that he had beat Henry Carvill and Michael Fassbender for Arthur. So there was a point when franchise heavy actors and in Fassbenders case, a franchise actor with Oscar potential in his future, were being considered. Hunnam, the c**k, then spent a bunch of interviews talking macho about how he had won the role by telling Guy Ritchie to set up a cage fight with other contenders so he can prove himself. I of course assumed that Hunnam is just an epic c**k who probably got the part because he was more desperate and willing to take a smaller payday for a movie that would sink or swim, with or without him.

        I suspect he would have been as wooden as Jamie Dornan in Fifty Shades anyway. I saw him on Queer As Folk and wanted to cry at how terrible an actor he was. And he would probably have clashed with someone on that set. Ritchie doesnt seem to particularly like him, he clashed with Pattinson in Lost City of Z and admittedly clashed with Ron Perlman on SOA. I think between that and the back to back mega flops, the studios are done with him as a leading man.

      • Miles says:

        Kingsman is not an original blockbuster. Its based off of a comic book. It’s very rare for any original blockbuster to make any money unless you’ve get legit box office draws like Leo, Denzel, Sandra Bullock etc. Even franchise films aren’t always successful. Being in any successful film is honestly luck. All the pieces need to fall right into place. You could have a great movie but if the marketing isn’t good then the movie is a failure financially. Again all luck.

      • Mia4s says:

        I forgot Kingsmen was a comic book! Well there goes that example of original content.
        Hollywood has done remakes and sequels since the beginning to reasonable success at least, but I wonder if it feels worse now because we are getting less and less original content.

    • minx says:

      I agree. It’s so ironic that he backed off from 50 Shades, which ended up being successful.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      I think he regrets walking away from it, esp after seeing how well it did and how it propelled the career’s of Jamie and Dakota – lets be honest we know it was sh!t but it did help their careers.

    • Bridget says:

      Jamie Dornan would disagree that it was a big springboard.

      • Lucy2 says:

        Yeah all I think he got out of it was a large collection of people calling his acting wooden.

    • Shijel says:

      I don’t think he backed out out of 50 Shades. Wasn’t it the producer or the producer’s wife or someone involved in the financing of it that didn’t want him, and got really happy and vague-tweety on twitter when her fave, Dornan, was announced instead?

      I think he was asked to leave.

      • Bridget says:

        He butted heads with EL James – he thought he was going to be able to give input into the script (apparently he’s a bourgeoning writer)

    • Forestlass says:

      No way… Dornan is more famous but he’s a joke!

      • Paige says:

        IMO he’s hotter and he seems down to earth. Charlie sounds like a big headed douche. Way too off putting. Plus I loved him as Paul Spector.

      • third ginger says:

        Dornan is headed to HBO, a good move. His credibility as an actor was hit hard by reviews for 50 SHADES. They weren’t just bad; they were scathing. I am not sure any actor could have risen above the awful source material.

      • Forestlass says:

        I don’t find them hot and seriously his fans needs something other than the fall (Gillian steals The shows). he’s been acting for more than a decade now! Maybe the new HBO.

  3. Maria F. says:

    i saw it and yes, the story is so so, but I love these historical movies and it was very entertaining. The cinematography, the locations, the costumes – it was visually very pleasing. Not to mention all the men candy.

    I agree that David Beckham’s scene was horrific, they needed somebody with gravitas in his voice. Guy Ritchie must not have been thinking straight to use a lay man for such important 2 sentences. Especially considering, that there were tons of possible scenes to give to his buddy.

    And last but not least. I am a big fan of Charlie Hunman, but I so wish he would have shut up a bit. His interviews are cringeworthy and mess with my day dreaming about his upper body.

    • Rocknrust says:

      I saw it too and enjoyed it. It wasn’t great but it wasn’t as horrific as everyone is making it out to be.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      I saw the clip of Beckham’s scene and his squeaky (I’m a bit thick) voice really ruined it – esp as his ‘acting’ was just god awful. He’s used pro footballers before but at least Eric Cantona did have some talent at acting off the pitch.

    • JenB says:

      I enjoyed it and thought it was entertaining. I liked 2004 King Arthur and 1995(?) First Knight better but I didn’t feel the need to walk out or anything.
      I recently saw the trailer for “The Big Sick” and can’t wait for that now. We need to have a celebitchy movie group and book club!

      • DystopianDance says:

        I really had fun with his version and loved the “camp” of David Beck’s inclusion. My cup of tea is anything “masterpiece theatre”, and this was wildly entertaining. I didn’t realize how much I miss Guy Ritchie, he’s both shocking and hilarious. I can’t WAIT for the sequel!!

    • LadyT says:

      Historical movies are my favorite. I’ll be seeing it for the reasons you listed, not because it’s King Arthur, again.

  4. Oatmeal says:

    Right, because everyone is clamoring for a new King Arthur movie

    Did no one check the BO of the last KA movie from 2004 with Kiera Knightley

  5. grabbyhands says:

    Why they thought it was a good idea to open less than a week after the latest Marvel release, I don’t know. I mean, it is likely that it wouldn’t have helped a ton to open later anyway, but damn-that is really stacking the deck against yourself when you don’t have a major, major name attached to it and Jude Law doesn’t count.

    Having said that, I’ll probably go see it because it will be a good distraction from life.

    • Ss11 says:

      It is enjoyable and you see a lot of work on screen. It is not terrible like it is morose, lazy or crappy. It is just very busy.

  6. Jenns says:

    Why would you give Guy Ritchie 175 million to make this movie? This is just insane. And clearly, Ritchie can’t deliver. But, like all other mediocre white men, his career will be just fine.

  7. Jamie42 says:

    There is simply no call, at least at the moment, for a new King Arthur movie. Excalibur still holds up. I highly recommend it.

    • tigerlily says:

      I was just going to comment the same. Excalibur was so awesome. Helen Mirren as Morgana, Nicol Williamson as an amazing Merlin, Gabriel Byrne as Uther, Liam Neeson as Gawain, Corin Redgrave as Cornwall, plus Patrick Stewart, Ciaran Hinds… just an amazing movie. I don’t recall it being a huge hit in 1981 but it is frequently on tv and I watch it over and over…

    • Oriane says:

      Yup, Wagner, Carl Orff, and a embarrassed Patrick Stewart! A cheesy masterpiece! :)

  8. AnotherDirtyMartini says:

    It looked pretty terrible. But lately most of the movies look bad to me.

  9. Bridget says:

    The previews looked so, so bad. Guy Ritchie at his very worst.

    • WhichWitch says:

      The trailer was completely awful, and I only saw it recently – whoever was doing the marketing for this one was asleep. Also the film looks camp and soooo 2005

  10. Jegede says:

    Jude Law is a tremendous actor and I feel bad for him rather than Charlie.

    • ria says:

      Jude was the only good actor in this movie.
      Hubby liked the sword fighting and nearly had fallen out of his seat howling with laughter because of David Boringham.

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      Is he good in it? I love Jude as an actor (as a person maybe not) and his role looked great and like he was having a lot of fun with it. I need to watch The Young Pope – have heard sooo many good things about it and his performance.

      • Jegede says:

        Well Law’s the one good thing in this mess of a film, the critics were right about that.

        I also caught his early turn as Hamlet, and he did it!
        He’s also done good stuff in recent productions like the film – Black Sea and TV – The Young Pope.

        Jude’s got real talent.

      • ABC says:

        Jude Law has been my secret crush for many a year. Secret as I know I’m not supposed to like him but hot damn he’s a sexy Young Pope… Oh my.

  11. rachel says:

    No one knows how to make a budget in hollywood anymore. 175 millions on this!!? Seriously, who told them that the public was asking for 6 movies franchise?

    • third ginger says:

      I read that this movie in various forms has been around for 9 years. Boorman’s EXCALIBUR remains the only good King Arthur movie.

      • SusanneToo says:

        Yes on Excalibur. As a kid in the fifties, I loved all those sword ‘n’ sandal movies that were pouring out. I bet their budgets didn’t get to even a million dollars.
        I won’t be going to King Arthur. The name Guy Ritchie is the only review I need to warn me to stay away.

      • justme says:

        EXCALIBUR is a wonderful film and not “dated” at all. Boorman realized that part of what has drawn people back to Arthurian tales generation after generation is the magic and also that feeling of a half-remembered pagan past. He captures it marvelously. He is also not afraid to bring in elements of Victorian Pre-Raphaelite painting which still inform our visualization of King Arthur (I’m thinking of that end scene when Arthur’s body is borne off by the three females on the ship – he is the king and will return when needed. – “You (Arthur) and the land are one” I’ve never been sure why a street-smart Arthur is needed.

      • callmeishmael says:

        Lovely comment, justme. Excalibur is etched into my brain because I was besotted with it and watched it to death when I was growing up. Still love it, and it still holds up. It has this wonderfully odd, otherworldly quality, and Boorman realises his vision of a mythical world with such flair and boldness that moments which would seem florid or outrageous in another film, feel right here. And visually, it’s drop dead gorgeous. A work of art.

        With Ritchie at the helm, I can well imagine how crass and soulless this new film is. Zero chivalric f–ks given.

  12. Nicole says:

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. And Amy’s movie bombed too? Awesome. Can they go away now or…?
    Cannot believe Goldie Hawn came out of retirement for this crap movie

    • Rice says:

      I’ll add that Charlie was interviewed recently and basically trashed the movie calling it boring and tedious. But guess what, unlike Katherine Heigl, he’ll still get roles. Yay equality in Hollywood.

  13. third ginger says:

    Those saying no one wanted a King Arthur reboot are making the most important point. These days, concepts rule at the BO, not stars. We have essentially 2 movie seasons: blockbuster and award contenders. Every now and then, there is a breakout hit like GET OUT, but it’s rare. My contention is that it really does not matter what actors are cast in a film no one cares to see.

    • rachel says:

      Exactly. Instead of trying (and failing) to find the new movie star, Hollywood should try to find new and great screenwriters.

      • vauvert says:

        There are great scriptwriters out there but HW does not care. They all want the same thing – big hero who can do everything, flawless, women throw themselves at him, he can beat everybody. Ugh.
        Talking about the movie I am most excited this year, completely off radar for non Quebecers, the sequel to the fantastic Bon Cop Bad Cop. The first was an absolute delight – talk about a great cop buddy movie!! But it’s a small budget, no big names movie so it won’t get seen outside of Canada – and even here it will mostly be seen in Quebec, which is a pity. If you can find the first one online or Netflix, it is worth it. Yes, some jokes are only relevant if you are French Canadian, but it is such a well dine movie overall – script, acting, the works.

        As for this – I can’t stand Charlie and every time he says words, my dislike grows. He’ll still be fine – muscled white actor.

  14. Mia4s says:

    Not only did it bomb domestically, it bombed internationally where they normally hope to make up a bit of ground for these blockbusters. That’s bad…extremely bad…disaster bad…like people are going to get fired bad.

    Ritchie I suppose will be fine as long as he gets to keep Aladdin if he messes that up he’s dead in the water except for movies with the words “Sherlock Holmes 3″ in the title. He’s on serious probation.

    Hunnam needs to stick to indies and supporting roles for awhile and build a name and at least modest success at the box office. Yes Lost City of Z was well-reviewed but box office was OK st best. It’s not a breakout and not a hit. If he’s serious about wanting to lead blockbusters he better hope that some comic book or whatever genre franchise is interested. Otherwise, he’s done in blockbusters for now. See also: Kitsch, Taylor.

    • rachel says:

      I forgot that Hollywood tried to make Taylor Kitsch happened.

      • Mia4s says:

        And the thing is…Taylor Kitsch still works. He works a fair bit. He was in Lone Survivor which was a big hit. But he’s not working as a movie lead and likely won’t. You have to be soooo careful when you take that leap. As I said in my comment above; if it’s not comic book based, Star Wars or Harry Potter? Be careful!

  15. browniecakes says:

    I saw it and loved it. If it suffers from anything it is that you know the story already.

  16. OhDear says:

    It seems like one of those movies that’s rent-worthy, but not to pay $15+ or so to see in a theater.

  17. Gaby says:

    This guy is a black hole of charisma, IMO.

    • minx says:

      Yeah, he does nothing for me.

    • Anitas says:

      Same with me. I don’t understand the fascination with him. And I saw that Graham Norton episode and thought he came off like a total jerk.

    • Lucy2 says:

      I agree. I always found him annoying on SOA, and off putting in interviews- even lengthy podcasts, which usually make me like a person more.
      I feel like he takes himself way too seriously or something.

  18. Guesto says:

    Oh the irony. Still remember those Crimson Peak days. Everyone made a huge deal about the Box Office. Well guess what? The great wall flopped. Passengers flopped. King Arthur flopped. I guess nowadays almost every movie flops.

    • third ginger says:

      The difference with CRIMSON PEAK is that it got decent reviews and has become something of a cult classic for horror-Gothic fans. No denying though, a box office bomb is a bomb. That’s show business. It is true though that most non-brand [not Marvel or Star Wars or Harry Potter,etc.] movies do bomb. What has a chance? Highly acclaimed Oscar contenders. Otherwise, it is feast or famine.

    • slowsnow says:

      I’m not sure every movie flops.
      It’s a production/box office rating ratio and there seems to be a huge misconception of what films work on a wide level and what works on a niche level. There also seems to be a misconception of what the public expects from films both blockbusters and small indie films. Ghost in the Shell is a great example – I am sure that, had it been a good film (with an original story/original special effects/humour/terrible good drama), it would have worked.
      I don’t think the female lead would have been a problem at all (look at Hunger Games, for example) as many seem to think.
      I usually find that it’s the incredibly dumb films that work or the incredibly intelligent ones. People aren’t so stupid as the production houses seems to think. We either want to have a good time and be entertained by some sort of novelty on some level (dumb films like Jurassic Park, Titanic etc) or we want a damn good story (Memento, Lost in Translation, etc).

      EDIT Also, I don’t know how it is in other countries, but going to the movies is incredibly expensive in the UK. I would go once a week for sure if it cost £3/person. Otherwise I wait and rent them on Apple TV. Which means that sometimes I loose enthousiasm and end up renting just the very good ones (usually indies).

    • Bridget says:

      When every movie costs a couple hundred million dollars to make and needs to be a complete homerun to make money, yeah we’re going to have a lot of bombs.

  19. Miles says:

    The movie was green lit at $100 million. But because of reshoots and stuff the budget soared to $175 million. So I do feel bad for the person who originally green lit the film because I’m sure when they approved the first budget, they didn’t know the film itself would end up being a disaster and needing an extra $75 million for reshoots. The marketing for the film is $100 million. Which, yes, is nothing for this type of film but WB finally realized that they need to stop trying to save something that just wasn’t going to be saved. So roughly $300 million cost with marketing and the film won’t even make $100 million total including world wide box office.


    • third ginger says:

      Yes. I was just reading one of the trade papers, Hollywood Reporter. It seems they were trying to build a “universe” a la Marvel with this bomb. The article details how wrongheaded that was and how the film does not establish much of a world for sequels, as if there would be sequels!

      It was just back in March when Legendary was sweating over SKULL ISLAND. It made more than half a billion, more than GODZILLA and enough to establish a foundation for the GODZILLA sequel and the inevitable meeting between the two monsters. Silly films, to be sure, but that’s the minimum money for a “universe” KING ARTHUR is merely a blot on Ritchie’s and Hunnum’s careers.

  20. hogtowngooner says:

    I heard the editing was a big factor in the movie’s poor reviews. Basically, Guy Ritchie put together a 3 hour movie that was pretty good, but the studio obviously wanted it shorter so he had to edit out a lot of exposition scenes that gave the fight scenes more impact. If that’s true, I get it but it begs the question of why the studio didn’t keep a tighter leash on the project.

  21. Ozogirl says:

    I don’t think anyone is surprised by this… He should probably go back to TV as that’s where he is known.

  22. detritus says:

    Guy Ritchie is a twit.
    He had all that hot meat to work with, and this is it?
    He should have skipped the costuming budget and had them all prance about naked for 90 minutes. I’d pay to see that sword fighting.

  23. Libra girl says:

    Maybe for his next movie he should shut his yapper and not prove to the public how much of a d*** he is. I will NEVER see this movie.

  24. SM says:

    Since I always watch Graham Norton show (i only skipped a recent episode with Amy Schumer because the first 10 minutes of her was all that I could stomack) and in this episode with Charlie and Guy, actually it was Ritchie who came off as a total self absorbed prick. What I took away from what he said is that he makes movies for him self and that’s not a good thing for a director. A director should be concened not with himself but with serving the story to the best of their ability. No wonder it flopped.

  25. Parigo says:

    They need to turn Mists of Avalon into a proper film.

  26. Joanie says:

    For those of you who saw the film, how did Jude Law do?

  27. Lillian says:

    It really makes me mad that 50 Shades did so well at the box office. I am hoping people realize it’s trash and it bombs at the box office next year. Doubt it.
    Glad Charlie didn’t go through with it. He would have had a personality but it’s so awful and damaging relationship.

  28. IndifferentCat says:

    Apparently, the girl playing the lead was a total set nightmare. Everyone thought she was on drugs and Richie had a body double film a scene killing her off early so he could decide to axe her part without her knowing. My friends brother worked on this film and was vocal about it being rubbish.

    • Ss11 says:

      There was no girl in the lead. There was a girl, and yes she looked positively bereft and not cared for. She looked really horific tbh. Baffling imo.

      Charlie looked phenomenal.

  29. Ss11 says:

    I very much enjoyed it, but Arthur was not regal at all. I would want to see a few more chapters of it, but it won’t happen. I am a big fan of Charlie’s captivating beauty and talent, and he was the main reason I went to see it.

    Sad for him that this is such a bomb. He is a sweet guy and he deserves all the best imo. But this movie will always come off as a black stain on his resume.

    I bet more people will see it online in the upcoming months and will say it is not that bad. In fact, it is very enjoyable. One of those films.

    But that budget is bonkers. Nobofy should spend that much on ANY movie.

    • third ginger says:

      You sound like such a nice person. Charlie is fortunate to have you as a fan. I have been around a long time [64] and follow movies closely. It is not fun to see movies bomb because so many people work so hard on them.

  30. DesertReal says:

    …how could it not flop?
    Every King Arthur flick i can recall in the past 20 years has flailed in the box office. INCLUDING First Knight- which I’ve seen more times than I can count.
    And Charlie is no Sean or Richard.
    Just sayin’

    • Dee Kay says:

      Love First Knight! Solved the Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot love triangle in the only acceptable way (spoilers: Arthur is a much-older man than Guinevere, she loves him but obvs Lancelot is the young hot one, Arthur dies the noblest of deaths, leaving Lancelot and Guinevere to marry and maybe run Camelot together).