The Biggest Box Office Bombs Of 2025 (So Far)

While 2025 has delivered its fair share of memorable movies so far, many are still crossing their fingers about the rest of the year — especially since the first three months of 2025 have been plagued by utterly disastrous box office results. Certain weekends in 2025 have even come up short compared to similar February or March frames in 2022, when many studios were still holding back movies over concerns of COVID-19 surges.

Part of that slump has been the lack of major must-see movies like "Zootopia" or "Captain Marvel" that buoyed the first three months of years past. However, 2025's box office woes have also been accentuated by the presence of countless financial misfires from studios big and small. Some of these 2025 boondoggles are even destined to go down as some of the most expensive movie flops in history, despite significant marketing campaigns and today's high ticket prices.

There isn't one reason why these 2025 movies went belly-up at the box office. Some were hindered by terrible release strategies that no title could overcome. Others were simply rejected by the public outright, while still others were way too similar to competing motion pictures in the marketplace. Every box office flop has a different saga behind its financial shortcomings. The same is true of 2025's biggest box office bombs (so far), which encapsulate what a poor start this year's cinema scene has gotten off to.

Not too long ago, it would have been impossible to imagine a Blumhouse film costing over $5 million. This was the scrappy company, after all, that built its name off "Paranormal Activity," "The Purge," "Insidious," and other cost-efficient scarefests. Nowadays, however, Blumhouse has fully embraced the world of pre-existing properties and hefty budgets. 2025's "Wolf Man," Blumhouse's second stab at making a modern Universal Monsters movie following "The Invisible Man," was a great example of these escalating costs with its $25 million budget. 

Though "Wolf Man" was helmed by Leigh Whannell, who previously directed the lucrative "Invisible Man," this was one Blumhouse title that moviegoers had no patience for. In its worldwide box office run, "Wolf Man" only grossed $34.9 million, including $20 million from domestic moviegoers.

These anemic results reflected a perfect storm of bad elements converging on "Wolf Man." For starters, werewolf movies have a mixed box office track record already. The marketing wasn't as distinctive as that of "The Invisible Man." On top of all that, the excessive $25 million budget made it difficult for this R-rated horror film to break even under the best of circumstances. Poor reviews from audiences and critics alike only solidified its eventual fate, becoming another 2020s Blumhouse movie to miss the mark financially. Perhaps it's time for the production company behind "Get Out" to go back to the days of more restrained budgets and original titles.

It's doubtful that 2025 will produce a more bizarre major studio release than "The Alto Knights." This gangster movie directed by Barry Levinson saw Robert De Niro playing two famous 1950s mafia bosses, Frank Costello and Vito Genovese. Co-starring Debra Messing and Cosmo Jarvis, "The Alto Knights" cost $45 million to make and had few elements to appeal to younger moviegoers. 

For starters, the gangster genre has always been flaky at the box office, even in the best of times. In recent years, it's been tough for any gangster movie that isn't also a mega-budgeted tentpole to make a lot of money. In the late 2010s alone, "The Kitchen," "Gotti," and "White Boy Ricky" (among many others) all failed to leave an impression. What hope did "The Alto Knights" have in scoring box office glory?

Still, few could have predicted just how badly "The Alto Knights" would do over its opening domestic weekend, with this title barely clearing $3 million during its first few days of release in North America. It was a dismal haul and downright embarrassing figure for a Warner Bros. movie playing in over 2,600 theaters. Allegations of WarnerDiscovery CEO David Zaslav insisting that the studio greenlight the movie only exacerbated criticisms over all the money lost on "The Alto Knights." A relic from a past era somehow excavated in the 21st century, "The Alto Knights" is destined to remain one of 2025's biggest money losers.

For years, director Paul W.S. Anderson was almost exclusively entrenched in "Resident Evil" movies. This focus led to him scoring consistent worldwide box office hits, with "Resident Evil: The Final Chapter" alone securing $314.1 million worldwide. Cut to the year 2025 and Anderson's latest movie with Milla Jovovich, "In the Lost Lands," couldn't achieve even a fraction of that level of box office success.

Heck, "Lost Lands" has even struggled to gross 10% of what Anderson and Jovovich's 2020 bomb "Monster Hunter" made worldwide. On a hefty $55 million budget, "In the Lost Lands" has only grossed $3.22 million worldwide, including just $1.8 million domestically. While "Lands" could make up ground in the handful of international territories it's yet to launch in, it would need to utterly shatter records to make up for its current dismal box office performance.

Part of why "In the Lost Lands" made so much less than other Paul W.S. Anderson movies was simply because of its domestic distributor. While the "Resident Evil" movies were handled by Sony/Screen Gems, "Lost Lands" was put into 1,370 North American theaters courtesy of Vertical Entertainment. The lack of the Sony marketing machine alone put "In the Lost Lands" at a disadvantage. The obscurity of its source material (even though it was penned by "Game of Thrones" mastermind George R.R. Martin) only compounded its inability to stand out in the marketplace. Perhaps Anderson and Jovovich should have stayed in their "Resident Evil" box office comfort zone.

That famous tune is true: love indeed can hurt. But what's sometimes even more painful is sitting through a movie that wastes so much potential (not to mention the talents of actors such as Ke Huy Quan) like "Love Hurts." A tepid "John Wick" pastiche tied into Valentine's Day, "Love Hurts" was a terrible movie and had a box office run to match. 

Even on a small $17 million budget, this action feature utterly cratered at the box office. In North America alone, "Love Hurts" grossed just $17.5 million, only a smidge above what the first "John Wick"  scored in its first three days of domestic release. There was no salvation for the title internationally, with "Love Hurts" only earning a meager $1.9 million from overseas territories. No matter what country you lived in, audiences simply had no interest in "Love Hurts."

Part of what hurt "Love Hurts," beyond its quality, was timing. "Love Hurts" opened in early February 2025, right alongside two other R-rated features, "Companion" and "Heart Eyes," with romantic-themed marketing meant to channel a Valentine's Day vibe. But not being the only gory and violent "romantic" film in the marketplace instantly diluted a lot of the box office potential of "Love Hurts." January 2025's heavy slate of action movies like "Den of Thieves 2: Pantera" and "Flight Risk" further diminished this Ke Huy Quan vehicle's potential, only adding to the reasons why "Love Hurts" had a painful box office run.

Early 2025 has not been an ideal time for R-rated action movies. Case in point: "Novocaine," an $18 million feature starring Jack Quaid as a man who can't feel pain trying to rescue his crush. Paramount Pictures pushed "Novocaine" hard, including shelling out lots of money for a Super Bowl commercial and sending Quaid to all kinds of sports events in bandages and a neck brace. The clear hopes of getting some of that sweet "John Wick" and "Deadpool" money, though, never panned out. 

"Novocaine" only grossed $8.8 million over its North American opening weekend and has failed to show much in the way of legs in this market. With only $22.4 million worldwide, it's unlikely "Novocaine" will break even in its theatrical run even with its restrained budget. "Novocaine" isn't the only R-rated action movie to fall short of expectations in early 2025, as "Love Hurts," "Flight Risk," and other titles can attest. However, this well-reviewed movie seemed to have enough going for it that avoiding a grisly box office fate appeared reasonably possible. 

One problem may have been this film's leading man. Even with "The Boys" and an "Oppenheimer" role under his belt, Jack Quaid isn't a bankable big-screen name just yet. Hinging the box office fortunes of "Novocaine" on this actor didn't quite pan out. Competition from other 2025 R-rated movies and the deluge of "Deadpool" knock-offs in recent years further sealed the film's fate as a grueling box office misfire.

Thanks to Robert Pattinson's commitment to indie films after his days as Edward Cullen were finished, this acclaimed leading man hasn't had a lot of post-2012 major theatrical hits — even though movies like "The Lighthouse" and "Good Time" led to some of Robert Pattinson's best movie roles to date. However, this career detour did damage his box office prowess. "Tenet" and "The Batman" were his only post-2012 movies to play in over 2,000 theaters until "Mickey 17" came along in March 2025. 

This Bong Joon-ho directorial effort blanketed its promotional campaign with the conceit that this movie would let audiences get two Robert Pattinsons for the price of one movie ticket. Unfortunately, Pattinson's not quite as much of a box office draw as he is a profoundly talented indie movie darling. 

Costing $118 million to make, "Mickey 17" only grossed a paltry $111.2 million worldwide, including a $41.4 million domestic run. That put "Mickey 17" beneath the lifetime North American haul of Bong Joon-ho's "Parasite." Shortly into its theatrical run, it was estimated that this movie could lose as much as $75 million for Warner Bros., a dire result. Beyond Pattinson not being an A-list movie star, "Mickey 17" was also hindered by how audiences tend to give non-Marvel/James Cameron/"Star Wars" sci-fi movies the cold shoulder. Even with the artistic pedigree of Bong and multiple Pattinson clones, "Mickey 17" couldn't evade the box office fate that plagued other notorious sci-fi flops like "John Carter" and "Battleship."

Though it started shooting in November 2020 and was originally set for a March 2022 theatrical debut, "The Unbreakable Boy" didn't hit theaters until late February 2025. These excessive delays proved the most notable part of the pre-release hype for this inspirational drama about father Scott LaRette's (Zachary Levi) experiences raising autistic son Austin (Jacob Laval). Based on a true story, this was yet another faith-based tearjerker from director Jon Gunn of "Ordinary Angels" and "The Case for Christ" fame. 

"Unbreakable Boy" production label Kingdom Story Company has had many hits in the past, but "Unbreakable boy" was most certainly not one of them. Its domestic box office run only amounted to $6.4 million, noticeably less than 2020 Kingdom Story movie "I Still Believe," which only got to play in domestic theaters for seven days before COVID-19 shut down its theatrical run.

With a paltry North American sum even in the realm of faith-based family movies, "The Unbreakable Boy" was hurt by countless obstacles, including competition for family dollars from "Paddington in Peru" and "Dog Man." Its source material was also relatively obscure compared to, say, the text that inspired "Heaven is For Real." It didn't help that Levi was the face of the movie's marketing campaign, with "Boy" continuing the actor's losing box office streak from "Shazam! Fury of the Gods" and "Harold and the Purple Crayon." While it's clear that vaccines don't cause autism, Zachary Levi may transform your live-action family film into a box office dud.

"The Actor" started life with lots of potential as a new vehicle for Ryan Gosling, though the "Barbie" star later left the project, with acclaimed actor Andre Holland taking over the role instead. After years of radio silence on the movie, distributor Neon abruptly announced in February 2025 that the film would hit theaters in just a few weeks on March 14. But no splashy Sundance or South by Southwest premiere heralded this film adaptation of the Donald E. Westlake novel "Memory." Instead, "The Actor" opened in only 23 domestic theaters and never expanded further than that. To date, its North American gross has only reached $39,214, with no overseas box office numbers reported.

Though no official budget has been released, "The Actor" couldn't have come close to recouping the costs of its flashy production design and star-studded cast, which also included Gemma Chan, Toby Jones, and Joe Cole. You could chalk up these numbers to its oddball atmosphere, but the box office failure of "The Actor" is simply down entirely to Neon dumping the title in so few theaters with no promotional campaign. What movie could possibly break even with no real support or theatrical footprint? Compounding this strange release strategy was that reviews for the film were generally positive. Cratering at the box office with one of Neon's lowest North American grosses didn't have to be the outcome for "The Actor," even without Gosling in the lead role.

Angel Studios scored a massive win in 2023 with one of the biggest indie movies in history, "Sound of Freedom." Though that feature cleared $184 million in North America alone, the company has struggled to mimic that movie's success since. Despite consistently releasing further post-"Freedom" movies in over 2,000 theaters, Angel Studios has never launched another movie that's cracked $21 million domestically. More worryingly, the outfit keeps hitting new box office lows, with recent titles failing to crack $5 million domestically.

This problem was especially apparent with March 2025's "Rule Breakers." While Angel's October 2023 documentary "After Death" at least reached $11.47 million, "Rule Breakers" only grossed $2.93 million in its domestic run. That was despite opening in 2,044 theaters and securing a notable marketing campaign.

"Rule Breakers" was a rare PG-rated feature for Angel Studios, which typically embraces PG-13 faith-based movies. Trying and failing to figure out how to market to families really hindered this title, which looked like a knock-off of a 2000s inspirational Disney movie, plus the film didn't hold much appeal to the older action cinema fans fueling past Angel Studios efforts like "Sound of Freedom" or "Homestead." "Rule Breakers" also entered a marketplace rife with faith-based movie competition, including "The Last Supper." Furthermore, the film cost at least $8 million to make, a significant increase from, say, the $2 million price tag of "God's Not Dead." "Rule Breakers" was always going to struggle to be profitable, but few could have predicted it would flail this badly.

Most of the biggest A24 movies of all time have typically been very low-budget films that came from out of nowhere to take the world by storm. "Lady Bird," "Hereditary," "Talk to Me," and others weren't costly enterprises, but they still made a pretty penny at the box office. Nowadays, however, A24 is growing and taking on higher-profile productions like "Civil War" and "Marty Supreme." Even March 2025's "Opus" reflected the label's shift in priorities, as this satirical horror movie starring Ayo Edebiri cost $10 million to make.

A studio like Disney wouldn't blink at that price tag, but compared to the $4 million cost of "The Witch," "Opus" clearly reflected A24's desire to make bigger, and potentially even more lucrative, genre fare. Unfortunately, "Opus" didn't even come close to matching the box office heights of past A24 horror movie sensations. Despite launching in 1,764 theaters and having splashy pre-release promotional events like a Sundance Film Festival premiere, "Opus" only grossed $1.03 million over its domestic opening weekend. It ended up being incredibly frontloaded and totaled only $1.8 million in North America and just under $2 million worldwide.

Mixed reviews pretty much doomed "Opus" from the start, as the film lacked the acclaim previous A24 genre movie winners secured. A generic marketing campaign that failed to differentiate "Opus" from similar 2020s thrillers like "The Menu" further hurt its box office chances. If "Civil War" in 2024 showed that costlier A24 movies could succeed, "Opus" was a more cautionary tale in this studio's evolution.

Why did Disney's "Snow White" remake bomb? The truth is that this family movie was always going to be a long shot in securing profitability, simply given its $269 million budget. That staggeringly tall number meant that "Snow White" needed to secure "Maleficent"-sized grosses to even begin to show a profit for the Mouse House. Spending more on "Snow White" than Disney did on its 2019 "Lion King" remake was a foolhardy maneuver that already ensured director Marc Webb's film would have no chance of ever becoming a box office hit. 

It didn't help that audiences keep coming out largely to Disney remakes of 1990s animated musicals, with "The Lion King," "Beauty and the Beast," and "Aladdin" the most lucrative titles in this category. Something like "Dumbo," meanwhile, cratered in March 2019, seemingly proving that older Disney films just didn't have broad modern appeal. "Snow White," a remake of the very first Walt Disney Animation Studios title from nearly 90 years ago, was always going to struggle with this problem. 

Its innate issues were only compounded by Disney's poor marketing campaign for "Snow White," as well as loading up the film with unnerving imagery like the CG version of the Seven Dwarfs. Any time a "Snow White" trailer or commercial featured characters like Doc and Grumpy, they alienated rather than charmed potential moviegoers. There was just no end to the difficulties for "Snow White," which makes it unsurprising that it's on track to be a gigantic money-loser for Disney.