Box Office Poison: Hollywood's Story in a Century of Flops

by Tim Robey

From grand follies to misunderstood masterpieces, disastrous sequels to catastrophic literary adaptations, Tim Robey's hugely entertaining Box Office Poison tells an alternative history of Hollywood, through a century of its most notable flops.

Freaks, Land of the Pharaohs, Dune, Speed 2, Catwoman, what can these films tell us about the Hollywood system, the public's appetite -- or lack of it -- and the circumstances that saw such box office disasters actually made? Away from the canon, here is the definitive take on these ill-fated, but essential celluloid failures.

Genres: Nonfiction, Film, History, Media Tie In, Audiobook, Pop Culture, Business

387 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 5, 2024

Reviews

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars

"There were few vertebrates on set which [actor Rex] Harrison did not lock horns. The problem with picking live sheep, not singing cast members, as his preferred co-stars was their tendency to force retakes by urinating on him. A mutinous goat at one point broke loose and ate [director Richard] Fleischer's script, and a giraffe - who hardly appears in the film - held up shooting for days when it reportedly stepped on its own [genitalia]." -- the woes of filming 1967's musical misfire Doctor Dolittle, on page 77

It takes a few chapters, but film-based journalist Robey's Box Office Poison hits its stride to become an informative and occasionally humorous look at twenty-six silver-screen failures and debacles from 100+ years, ranging from the silent epic Intolerance (1916) up to the maudlin musical Cats (2019). Interestingly, he doesn't choose simply easy targets or known quantities - such as Cleopatra (which nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox, but eventually made a profit) or Heaven's Gate (which arguably killed Hollywood's second 'Golden Age' at the conclusion of the 1970's, but has received much page time elsewhere) - but offers an eclectic list of movies, most of which took a critical drubbing in addition to not making the necessary box office plenty. Notably, the snappy lines start becoming much more prevalent in the later chapters featuring some of the more recent cinematic catastrophes like the remake of the cult classic Rollerball, the romantic non-starter known as Gigli (unleashing 'Benifer' on the world, to our everlasting regret), and the super-heroine slump Catwoman (which helped claw a wound into actress Halle Berry's newly-established leading lady stardom). It was increasingly mind-boggling that various power-brokers pushed some of these dubious scripts or ideas into production - to wit, the sci-fi strikeouts Supernova and/or The Adventures of Pluto Nash - as it seemed preordained that they would not achieve any sort of critical or commercial success.

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 Stars

Pan(2015)= Wait! This is a musical??

Cats(2019)= Release the butthole cut


It's hard to describe why I didn't enjoy this book more. It's a well researched book but it was also kinda boring. I'm happy I read this book though because I learned about some movies I've never heard of and I found a few I plan on watching.

I still recommend this book because I can see others enjoying it more than me. If you love movies or love learning about what makes Hollywood tick.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do enjoy a decent book about cinematic history or an interesting biography from Hollywood in the old days, those modern actors somehow are less attractive to me. Sadly the older movies are less represented in this what is essentialy a collection short stories about various movies who clearly failed to live up to what was meant to be a great potential.
The books chapters on the various cinematic flops shower me clearly that I somehow managed to watch quite a few of the books covered. And too be honest most of the time while watching these movies you know that they are not the greatest in cinematic art. But I love pulp in my books so what a surprise that this applies to my taste in movies too.
Some movies like the recent Cats movie consisting of a well loved musical and a great ensemble of actors should have been a succes but everybody seems to be stuck on the CGI and the writer also about the script which in the musical is just as not excisting. Still I would watch the musical in a heartbeat in the theater without any question. The movie feels somehow off but I cannot for the life of me tell you why.
So what makes a movie succesfull, one should ask James Cameron who has the habit to turn out well loved movies where the crazy fanboys breath fire when it comes to the Cameron movies, but have been proved wrong so far everytime.
I missed a chapter about socalled flops who turn out to be nothing of the sort even if popular sentiment thinks they are. The writer touched upon some of them but they actually deserve a chapter of their own and would have been a wee bit different a chapter
Anyhow for film enthousiasts this is a nice book to meander through it is no fun reading it in one sitting. I enjoyed it actually for a few weeks in small breaks.
Enjoyable reading if the subject is something you enjoy.

[Chrissie Whitley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Box Office Poison is a look at a century’s worth of box office failures from Hollywood. Robey, a film critic, has pulled together some incredible research from movie history to share some stunning cinematic flops, including, but not limited to: Sylvia Scarlett (1935); Doctor Dolittle (1967); Dune (1984); Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997); The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002); and Cats (2019).

If you’re unfamiliar, the phrase “box office poison” comes from a 1938 ad in The Hollywood Reporter by the Independent Theatre Owners Association where the group’s president and author, Harry Brandt, named many actors and actresses from the time as “poison at the box office,” stating that they were a burden to their studios because of their huge salaries, and, when factoring in their lagging public appeal, were not able to draw the crowds that were needed to the box office to make their movies profitable, for either the studios or the movie theaters. Famously, Brandt named: Mae West, Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, and Katharine Hepburn, among others. The association was practically begging the studios to use these talented stars more wisely and to follow the apparent leaning of the public for quality over star power.

Robey, whose film analysis I’m unfamiliar with (he writes for the Daily Telegraph), delivers all his facts and criticisms with a wonderful balance of straightforwardness and wry humor. He’s critical but not offensive, pointed but not pedantic.

I will say, this is a very particular book for a niche audience. It has facts and figures, a breakdown generally of what lead to the film being made, the various catastrophes that befell each movie, leading to its failure, and (this part I really liked) the impact on the human level involvement—like whose career was most affected post-flop…the director, the writer, a leading actor, etc. It’s methodical in its small way and, most importantly, Robey doesn’t spoon feed you. This is not a book for a film noob, someone without a fair modicum of Hollywood history, and the bigger names throughout. This is in no way a “how movies get made” book, instead this is a “you know how movies get made and some of those tanked” book.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was not familiar with Robey's film criticism work prior to getting into this book to start the year but on the whole I found it both informative and deeply amusing. The depth of knowledge about the shady financial wheeling and dealing of "The Biz" that goes all the way back to its earliest days in the Silent Era was particularly useful as it kept this from becoming a, "Can you remember how bad [X] was?"* and more of a business case post mortem.


Apologies Dear Baron, I will always love your movie (even if the revelations of how traumatic it was for wee Sarah Polley and underage Uma Thurman as unsavoury to say the least)

The choice of flops, of course, was always at the discretion of the author but I felt he included perhaps one or two too many from recent years but at the same time I already want a revised and expanded edition that may include such recent big budget follies as Megalopolis, Argylle or Horizon: An American Saga Chapter 1. Highly recommended for film buffs of all stripes!


*The exception being, naturally, Cats, which deserves to be remembered for being Bad even had it made money (which it didn't).

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a wonderful book this is. Brimming with humour and wry erudition, Tim Robey’s debut book chronicles the history of film through the industry’s most catastrophic failures.

Robey writes persuasively with wit, clarity and, on a couple of occasions, schadenfreude, as he takes in movie calamities such as 1916’s Intolerance, a three-and-a-half-hour silent feature, and Cats, the 2019 dud to which he famously awarded zero stars in The Daily Telegraph, where he’s been a film critic for more than 20 years. There are tales of hubris, of course, but also of pure bad luck. Just as Robey revels in the dysfunction of, say, Speed 2: Cruise Control, so, too, he passionately defends the likes of Babe: Pig in the City, a film so surprisingly savage that it killed the franchise dead in its tracks.

Revisiting 26 films, Box Office Poison is full of fascinating insights, cogent analysis and the odd revelation: for example, Waterwold (1995), the mega-budget dystopian sci-fi starring Kevin Costner, wasn’t quite the washout we all thought it was, actually turning a profit. For a book about flops, Box Office Poison is anything but.

[Peacegal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Obviously, for there to be blockbusters, there also have to be box office flops. This is the story of movies that many would like to forget--from the earliest days of cinema into the new millennium. This one is a lot of fun, with occasional sobering or sad asides.

[Korcan Derinsu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Her zaman başarı hikayelerini okumaya alıştığımız Hollywood’un gişede iki seksen yatan filmlerini çok eğlenceli bir dille anlatan harika bir çalışma. İş yapma şekillerinin profesyonellik anlamında çok farklı olsa da bir yandan her ülkede aynı olduğunu da görmek hayli ilginçti. Özellikle yaratıcıların kendi işlerine dair beklentileri ve bir yalana sonuna kadar inanmaları beni her zaman çok eğlendiriyor. Adı geçen filmleri de izlediğim için (ağırlıklı olarak 80’ler ve 90’lar filmleri) bayağı zevk alarak okudum. Meraklısı kaçırmasın.

[John Schorg · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I question the inclusion of some of these films as representative of Hollywood history, and the author's snark toward several entries gets a little tiresome, the idea behind this book makes sense, and it's worth a look.

[Alex Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Always fun to crack open some schadenfreude and look at the great flops from history. My only complaint is the title, which seems a blatant attempt to capitalize on other, more popular, works with the same title.

[Emily St. James]

I would have loved this book when I was 16. Make of that what you will.

[Douglas Gibson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ya’ll know I love a behind-the-scenes Hollywood movie story, and you know I’m obsessed with “underappreciated movies,” so this book was a MUST READ for me- and it did not disappoint!
There are so many things about Robey’s book to enjoy. First, his depth of knowledge and research here is impressive. Each chapter focuses on one particular flop, but what Robey does so impressively is give you information about other movies of that genre, background on that movies’ actors, writers. director, and producers- giving you extensive knowledge.
Secondly, Robey’s writing style is didactic, yet is informal and humorous. Robey will make a pun or take a jab when there’s a laugh to be mined, but he is never mean spirited or vicious. I literally laughed out loud many times while reading this one. He appreciates all the hard work that goes into making a movie, and the first sentences of his acknowledgements in the back of the book is to all the people who worked on the movies in this book.
Thirdly- I now have a great list of underappreciated movies to watch, and I highly recommend this one to lovers of these types of movies!
Five out of five stars.

[Gabrielle Anagnostopoulos · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would give this ten thousand stars if I could. This book takes you through 100 years of the biggest flops in Hollywood.

Reading the movies it covers, I felt immediately like there were some obvious ones left out. In the introduction, the author has solid rationale on how he picks the ones included - nothing that has already been discussed to death.

With him setting the tone in the first chapter, it's a delightfully funny and insightful look at how Hollywood functions, how it's changed over the years and some of the best and worst parts of making a movie. I enjoyed it so much, I apologize to my family who were inundated with fun facts as I read this.

Sponsored by Tori and Lindsay, thank you for the gift <3

[CatReader · Rating 3 out of 5]

In what was likely a passion project book, Box Office Poison, film critic Tim Robey recaps a century of flop films, totaling 26 and spanning from 1916's Intolerance to 2019's Cats. Robey provides entertaining commentary about why each film flopped, which generally had more to do with directors, producers, writers, budgets, and misaligned ambitions, and less to do with the actors (though actors often take the fall). I'm not a film person and don't think I've seen any of the films Robey (justly) maligns, though I think film fans will enjoy this book. I listened to the audiobook from start to finish, though others may enjoy it more as a reference book, picking out topical chapters here and there.

My statistics:
Book 281 for 2024
Book 1884 cumulatively

[Sam Levy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched and snappily written, chapters breezing along as each film is allocated 15-20 pages, then we’re on to the next. The book is at its strongest when one film can be used as an example of a broader theme of what was going on in Hollywood at the time - for example, the 2019 Cats write-up addresses the broader point of crunch and mistreatment in CGI effects houses, and the Sorcerer chapter is indicative of the new 70s Hollywood being out of date the moment Star Wars rolled into town.

There’s a real passion behind the writing and the author comes through in their love - or lack thereof - of the flops being discussed. The enthusiasm can be infectious, for example he makes such a passionate case for Cutthroat Island I might actually watch it. There’s also a smart selection in the older films that present movies that were too ahead of their time. A statistic that 1932’s Freaks is still the only studio Hollywood film to have over half its cast be disabled actors is shocking, and 1935’s Sylvia Scarlet is hailed as a film in conversation with gender politics made about 70 years too early.

My only real complaint is that the write-ups being so short means that the detail in some of the individual films is lacking, and can assume knowledge that the reader has already watched the films in question. I have absolutely no idea what the story of Nothing But Trouble is despite reading a chapter that is intended to delve into how insane it is, and I was desperate for details on Cats of how the actors felt filming the ridiculous scenes, rather than a focus exclusively on the fx.

Still recommended, and I tore through it in a day so it’s an easy read that comfortably swells a watchlist of disasters.

[Alex MacMillan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am someone who ironically saw Cats in theaters. This book was made for people like me, connoisseurs of bombs. I appreciate great films better by appreciating the risks filmmakers have to take to create great art. And watching a truly bad film is a fun intellectual puzzle, a puzzle where you attempt to fix the movie in real-time, or try to guess at why the producers seriously thought this was going to work.

Box Office Poison selects from a potpourri of trash, where the box office gross is hopelessly short of the production and marketing budgets. People repeatedly lose their careers from these films. The book counteracts our hindsight bias as to that outcome, which initially prevents an understanding of how the people involved saw these films as good bets to make. The book is excellent at describing the mileu when the movie was made, such as what kinds of similar movies were coming out from the studio system of that time. And in order to bomb, you first need to have had some major successes as a filmmaker. The author does a great job of highlighting successes that led a producer to hand over their money for wipeout on the next project.

Common patterns: failure to cast the actors envisioned for crucial parts; production delays due to setting or location (or serious injuries to actors); releasing the film to compete for an audience at the same time as a massive hit (William Friedkin's "Sorceror" releasing at the same time as Star Wars IV, for example); a screenplay that misunderstands the appeal of previous box office hits the bomb tried to copy as its formula; and plain bad luck.

Studying bombs gives an appreciation of how original box office hits are truly no different from alchemy, and why so much of the industry today consists of remakes, sequels, or reboots of old IP. - 2/12/25

[Dave Stone · Rating 3 out of 5]

Less interesting than I thought it would be
Although cleverly written, I'm just not in the right head space for this.
Despite how witty Tim Robey's snarky comments are, this is a book almost entirely about failure. Whether self inflicted or undeserved, or as part of a campaign to destroy a rival each story here is about failure. One after the other.
When they got to movies I liked and had no idea were considered failures the last wheel came off this bus.
One interesting thing, the stories chosen here are rich in irony. A recurring theme through this book is the failure of the movie often echos the theme of the movie. Example: a movie about hubris is undone by hubris, a movie about clashing egos is undone by clashing egos ect.
-The rest is just kinda sad

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good when discussing the older films and things the author likes, really bad when dealing with the 1 star films, where the writing style morphs into this weird, cringe-y hyper-sarcasm and use of (!?!) after explaining baffling plot points. These bits are like reading someone’s shit blog in the ‘00s and I wished the author would get out of the way.* Write a book about the making of old films you enjoy and I will happily read.

*I am reading this mainly to find films for my podcast, so we are all part of the problem

[James S. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting idea, poor execution. The writing is confusing and inelegant. And the critical judgments are boilerplate. Overall, it reads like someone printed out a buzzfeed article and slapped it into a book. Unfortunate.

[John Lutz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book. Robey does an excellent job taking you through each film, from its production to its release, as well as the circumstances of Hollywood and society at the time. The focus is firmly on what caused each film to flop, and it’s interesting to uncover what happened. I also appreciated the reverence he gives to each film, even those amongst the worst of the worst.

[Danger]

Very well-researched and expressed in an entertaining way. If this is a topic that interests you, then this book is well worth your time.

[Yvonne · Rating 4 out of 5]

such a fun read! really liked that it spanned a whole decade of flops. the amount of times male egos made everything so much worse was not surprising at all.

[Sophie · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. Who knew a book about movies could be so boring? The writing is super dry, and the author’s narration is not great either. Plus he kept going on tangents, to the point that I couldn’t tell which movie he was talking about anymore.

[Samantha · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting concept, but as we’ve seen with other books that try to do something similar, it’s very hard to write a good book about stuff that’s bad.

I think of Rax King’s Tacky, a book about the love of things considered tasteless, and why that worked so well while this and most others like it don’t. I think it’s because King was celebrating the concept of “so bad it’s good,” and reveling in the idea that just because something is considered “bad” doesn’t mean you can’t like or enjoy it. It has humor and levity, and is worlds away from this book, which is essentially just a list of movies and a “this did poorly, here’s why it was bad” section about each.

There’s no fun to it at all, and while I think the research was good and the writing fine, there’s not much enjoyment to be taken in a list of failures and non-humorous analysis of why these things failed. Movies are entertainment, and I think that’s the lens you have to look through when you examine them critically, even the bad ones.

*I received an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.*

[Steven West · Rating 4 out of 5]

A hugely enjoyable (and, crucially, empathetic...to the right people) insight into the conception, production and release of some of Hollywood's biggest money losers - not all obvious choices by any means. Robey's witty, balanced writing lifts this way above Medved-style snark, capped by an equal parts hilarious / horrifying / mortifying analysis of Cats that crucially remembers the doomed VFX artists who worked 90 hour weeks for an unpleasant director to salvage a misbegotten production with an impossible deadline.

[Rick Moore · Rating 1 out of 5]

Great concept for a book that had great potential. Unfortunately, this author is one of the worst writers in the history of publishing. A tedious bore with focus on incredibly obscure movies and people.

[E G Melby · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was not familiar with all of the films and not like I’ll go out and see any of them. Also annoyed when he brings up other films in chapters saying they’ve had enough written about them and then talks about them anyway- not at length but just annoying to me.

[Sopath · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been listening to this one off and on via audio book for months. The early chapters that depict hollywood's early flops were incredibly informative and I feel like I learned a lot about cinema history. It's probably the strongest stretch in the whole book that felt over inclusive by the time the book reached the 90s and 2000s. I think all of the films listed are certainly flops but not all were terribly compelling stories about the flop.

Chapters about Cutthroat island, speed 2, and Babe 2, all felt like really interesting stories that outlined something about hollywood and cinema that feels relevant to this today. However, I can't recall anything about half the other movies listed between 1988 and 2004. I know ending on Cats is powerful but I think it would've enhanced the book to cut some of the films between 1988 and 2004 and dedicate a few chapters to talking about the post covid era of flops. I know it would ruin that incredible sense of finality that we get on when Robey talks about Cats but I feel like it would've been worth it.

Anyways, thanks for writing the book Robey. I'm looking forward to whatever you write next!

[Rossi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been waiting for a book of this kind to come along after the calamity of Cats (2019), so hallelujah for its arrival!

And whilst, I enjoyed listening to the audiobook version of this and found it fairly entertaining, it’s been about a week since I finished, and honestly I can’t really remember a thing about it?

I had issue with the structure and wish that the author had led each new film chapter with some form of plot synopsis as to what each film was actually about. Some films (especially in the earlier chapters) seemed to either never speak of the plot or was mentioned in very scant detail. This then made it really hard for me to gage a sense of what the film was actually trying to discuss amidst the behind-the-scenes dramas.

This felt like a great starting base covering the major flops, but I finished a little dissatisfied.

[Davey Peppers · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m less being harsh on Box Office Poison because it’s bad or poorly-written, especially as the book gets away from rote Wikipedia summaries in favor of showing a more personal, more cynical exploration of why films fail, but just because this thing isn’t for me. I think two of the films covered in the book were new to me, and the information within is treading upon ground well-traveled by both people more comprehensive and people not putting their information in a book. There are endless podcasts and videos and “disposable content” on this subject, so to find a similar depth between printed pages, or within the files of an audiobook, feels like a poor fit of subject to medium. I would like the book to know more than me, and while I didn’t have an unpleasant time with Box Office Poison, I rarely felt like I was learning anything. And that’s a genuine shame.