The Real Reasons These A24 Movies Flopped

Despite having only been in the distribution game since 2013, A24 has cultivated a tremendous cultural reputation. Famous for releases such as “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” “The VVitch,” “Moonlight,” “Talk to Me,” and countless others, this outfit’s library includes everything from tiny indies to more expensive blockbuster affairs. In a time when theatrical cinema is constantly challenged, A24 has crusaded to deliver idiosyncratic filmmaking visions to the masses.

However, not every title released under the A24 banner has become a success. If there are Marvel movies that completely bombed at the box office, then you can be sure a distributor like A24 that puts out 12+ movies annually has some money losers in its library. In particular, 11 A24 flops stand out, with each reflecting the various obstacles facing the indie scene. Some of these bombed simply because of poor marketing campaigns. Others were way too expensive given the material they were tackling. Still others suffered from tones too grim to resonate with a wide enough audience.

These financial duds have certainly not stopped A24’s impressive cultural momentum. Nevertheless, they reflect the reality that no studio has a spotless financial track record.

Three weeks before its North American debut, “The Smashing Machine” was tracking for a highly respectable $17 to $20 million launch. While far from the typical $35+ million bows of Johnson’s more mainstream vehicles, this would’ve given “Machine” one of the biggest A24 opening weekends ever. Once the film’s release date rolled around, though, “The Smashing Machine” fell vastly short of expectations. It only mustered up a little over $11 million in North America and $20 million worldwide. On a $50 million budget, that wasn’t nearly enough to make it profitable.

Domestically, “The Smashing Machine’s” lifetime gross is lower than significantly cheaper A24 productions like “X,” “Eighth Grade,” and “Room.” Part of the problem was simply selling an artsy MMA/UFC movie. Arthouse fans aren’t innately drawn to the sport, while folks who tune into every UFC fight would likely want something more commercial. The film’s central subject, Mark Kerr, not being a household name also didn’t help. Nor did reviews which, while generally fine, failed to match the euphoric reception greeting past movies helmed by Benny Safdie.

In the end, the novelty of Dwayne Johnson playing a sad fighter wasn’t enough to turn “The Smashing Machine” into a smash hit or even get the film close to its promising box office tracking figures.

Although “Free Fire” wouldn’t hit theaters until April 2017, its domestic marketing campaign began all the way back in late summer 2016. A lengthy promotional blitz like that is understandable for big-budget tentpoles, but a little more puzzling for a small-scaled, offbeat British crime drama. Even more baffling was that the advertising began months before A24 officially settled on a release date. The peculiar situation ended up preceding a poor box office showing.

One of the first A24 titles (following features like “Tusk”) to open immediately into wide release, “Free Fire” narrowly missed out on opening to $1+ million in North America, despite debuting in 1,070 theaters. That was also despite the feature premiering only a little over a year after leading lady Brie Larson won her best actress Oscar for her earlier A24 effort, “Room.” While “Free Fire” got some major buzz thanks to its flashy presence at various 2016 international film festivals, the bruhaha surrounding those screenings had long since vanished by the time April 2017 rolled around.

There wasn’t enough of a marketing effort nor positive online buzz to put “Free Fire” on people’s radar. Thus, this title ended up firing blanks at the domestic box office, where it only amassed $1.79 million.

Just before the Matthew McConaughey-starring “The Sea of Trees” premiered at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival, indie distributor Roadside Attractions scooped up domestic rights to the title. Given that this label previously distributed McConaughey’s “Mud” to sleeper success in 2013, there was hope that this picture would mimic such an outcome. Then the first Cannes reviews arrived, and any ambitions of this film becoming a mainstream hit went up in smoke. This grim story about loss was lambasted as a tedious slog that wasted the talents of many good artists, including McConaughey and Ken Watanabe.

A little over a year after its disastrous Cannes debut, A24 picked up the North American rights to the film and quietly dropped it onto premium video-on-demand services and a handful of theaters. This ensured “Sea of Trees” could only do so well domestically, since most American theaters won’t play films simultaneously available on iTunes. Inevitably, “Sea of Trees” played in a peak theater count of 101 locations in North America and grossed only $20,444 in this territory. 

Meanwhile, the atrocious reviews scared away anyone from giving this a shot. Of course “The Sea of Trees” flopped, the natural outcome for a film seemingly cursed beyond its initial Roadside Attractions acquisition. 

“Death of a Unicorn” was a microcosm of the more “mainstream” projects A24 executives wanted to cultivate in the wake of “Everything Everywhere All At Once’s” enormous success. In contrast to earlier arthouse output like “Under the Skin” and “Moonlight,” “Death of a Unicorn” was a fantasy dark comedy aimed squarely at mainstream sensibilities. It had tons of visual effects work, broad comedic beats, and was headlined by major actors Jenna Ortega and Paul Rudd. The film also cost $15 million to produce, meaning a tidy pile of cash was at risk if the project didn’t work.

There’s a timeline out there where “Death of a Unicorn” took off as a box office phenomenon and A24 couldn’t keep its kooky unicorn-themed merchandise in stock. In our world, though, “Unicorn” was a flop, only opening to $5.8 million. It only grossed $15.96 million worldwide, much of that coming from its $12.51 million domestic total. A key problem here was the decidedly mixed critical response greeting this project. 

The A24 label is meant to accentuate a sense of “prestige” and inform viewers they’re in for a quality cinematic experience. “Death of a Unicorn” receiving a critical shrug didn’t instill confidence in general audiences, especially as its marketing made it look too similar to “The Menu” and “Blink Twice.” If A24 wants to deliver more mainstream cinema, they should avoid handling its releases like “Death of a Unicorn.”

Ranking all four current Ari Aster efforts reveals that the director’s greatest works came early in his career. His feature-length debuts, “Hereditary” and “Midsommar,” were lightning-in-a-bottle successes that his 2020s output has yet to match. However, at least 2023’s “Beau is Afraid” was admirable in its own right and went down swinging with ambition to spare. In contrast, 2025’s “Eddington” was a bizarrely lifeless snooze fest that didn’t challenge viewers in any way.

A24 executives clearly hoped Aster could work miracles from this COVID-19-centric dark comedy western, given that the studio provided him a $25 million budget. Given how much Aster’s “Hereditary” and “Midsommar” made, it’s understandable that A24 would take a chance on his riskier endeavors. However, neither Aster’s street cred nor the appeal of cast members Emma Stone and Pedro Pascal could transform this into a smash hit. Released in late July 2025, “Eddington” only grossed $12.7 million worldwide, roughly $10 million of which came from North American audiences.

While “Eddington” received perfectly serviceable if slightly divided critical reviews, the film’s overall atmosphere and subject matter were incredibly abrasive. It’s the opposite of a crowdpleaser, ensuring that its chances of box office glory were limited. Here’s hoping Aster experiences an eventual creative rebound and avoids future flops on the level of “Eddington.”

2025’s “The Legend of Ochi” marked A24’s inaugural foray into wholly live-action family movies, following 2022’s Oscar-nominated partially animated venture “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On.” While the PG-rated title from writer/director Isaiah Saxon didn’t skimp on heavier material, its cuddly titular protagonist was very much in the mold of Toothless, E.T., and other silent critters befriending troubled youngsters. The project also deployed a slew of practical effects work, including matte paintings and puppetry for the titular Ochi, harkening back to vintage family movies from the ’80s. If all went right, “Ochi” would introduce the A24 brand name to a new generation of moviegoers.

That never quite happened, partially because the film’s maximum theater count was only 1,153 locations. Typically, even smaller-scale family movies open in at least 2,000 theaters. This alone ensured “Ochi” could only go so high at the North American box office. Opening three weeks into “A Minecraft Movie’s” massive run also kept “Ochi” as a distant afterthought for young viewers. In the end, “Ochi” only grossed $3.67 million worldwide, $2.4 million of which came from its domestic run.

On a $10 million budget, this fantasy motion picture failed to turn a profit. May “Ochi” act as a reminder to A24 that if it wants to continue penetrating the family market, a bigger theatrical push and better timing are of utmost importance.

The musical is an expansive realm. Just looking at some of the best musical movies ever made, one can see a plethora of approaches exemplifying the genre’s versatility. But even in a category that includes everything from “The Apple” to “RRR,” few are comparable to “Dicks: The Musical.” This ribald take on the “Parent Trap” formula sees two oafish adults attempt to reunite their divorced parents, a quest that spans an extensive voyage to the sewer, Megan Thee Stallion crooning a tune, God, and incest. It elicits as many gasps as it does laughs, all par for the course for “Borat” and “The Dictator” director Larry Charles.

Though unique, “Dicks: The Musical” couldn’t parlay its distinctiveness into a lucrative box office run. This $8 million budgeted feature grossed $1.45 million domestically (its international haul amassed a paltry $19,016). The problem facing “Dicks” wasn’t its lewd material, but rather A24’s awkward rollout of the film. The “Dicks” marketing campaign kept hammering home that it would hit theaters “everywhere” on October 20, yet started out on 345 screens.

Even at its peak, the film was only shown in 635 theaters, barely qualifying under the 600 theater minimum needed to be considered a wide release. With such a bizarre release strategy and a limited theater count, “Dicks: The Musical” could only spray its lewd harmonies so far.

Though its title suggests a movie based on the penguin from the “Bloom County” comic strip, “Opus” is actually a thriller about aspiring journalist Ariel Ecton (Ayo Edebiri) being invited (along with a barrage of richer souls) to the compound of reclusive music legend Alfred Moretti (John Malkovich). Creepy shenanigans ensue, which only Ecton seems conscious of. It’s a standard 2020s thriller in the fashion of “The Menu,” “HIM,” and “Blink Twice” about characters traveling to an isolated, ritzy location run by an eccentric leader.

Some of these titles have made money before, so it wasn’t unthinkable that A24 could’ve profited off of “Opus” despite its $10 million price tag. However, the negative reception following the film’s Sundance debut sealed its box office fate, preceding “Opus” with poor buzz only weeks before general release. Eventually, A24 snuck “Opus” into 1,764 theaters over the second weekend of March 2025, and let it quietly flop. Grossing only $1.83 million domestically, “Opus” was further hurt by competing thrillers such as “The Monkey” and “Black Bag.” 

There are endless reasons this one went down in flames, including the lack of major stars in its cast (Malkovich hasn’t been a must-see element for ages). No wonder “Opus” hit such a sour note in its theatrical run.

Over his career, offbeat choices and weird accents have defined Tom Hardy’s acting. For his 2013 film “Locke,” though, Hardy took on his greatest challenge yet … deliver an engaging performance in a car. Writer/director Steven Knight confined all of “Locke” to protagonist Ivan Locke’s (Hardy) automobile as he receives a slew of transformative phone calls while driving. A deluge of famous British names, including Olivia Colman, Andrew Scott, Ruth Wilson, and Tom Holland lend their pipes to these conversations.

After its buzzy Venice International Film Festival premiere, “Locke” was acquired by A24 for $1.25 million. Given that Hardy was on an upswing following “Inception” and “The Dark Knight Rises,” A24 clearly hoped “Locke,” despite its limited amount of backdrops, could be a tiny breakout hit. That didn’t quite happen, though, as “Locke’s” $1.37 million domestic cume barely outgrossed how much the studio paid for its distribution rights. Both the film’s challenging form and A24’s refusal to expand “Locke” beyond 121 domestic locations kept its haul extremely contained.

Still, at least this project can hold its head high in terms of universally positive reviews. Unlike many A24 flops that quickly vanish from the cultural consciousness, “Locke’s” artistic prowess has kept it around.

What if that whole Y2K phenomenon (which posited that the shift from 1999 to 2000 would lead to all technology malfunctioning) had come true and inspired a robot uprising? These are the two intertwining concepts informing “Y2K,” the feature directorial debut of “Saturday Night Live” veteran Kyle Mooney. This story sees a group of high schoolers contend with electronic devices becoming bloodthirsty killers at the ushering of the new millennium.

This high-concept premise hit theaters on December 6, 2024 and was preceded by a strange marketing campaign. Before mid-November 2024 (just weeks before its debut), none of its posters showcased its human characters, leaving the movie with no discernible relatable anchor. Plus, “Y2K” opened a few weeks after another A24 horror film, “Heretic,” which received a way bigger marketing push. Then there were its middling reviews, which lamented all of the film’s wasted potential and poorly executed gags. Inevitably, “Y2K” failed to boot up properly, opening to only $2.11 million, despite debuting in a hefty 2,108 theaters. 

With a swarm of bigger releases hitting theaters shortly after, this effort quickly vanished and only grossed $3.76 million in North America. Costing $15 million to make, “Y2K” was a blunder that failed to grab moviegoers despite its potentially enticing starting conceit. 

Andrew Garfield is remembered for many things, including playing what many fans believe to be the most comic-accurate Spider-Man. For certain offbeat moviegoers, though, Garfield’s most memorable lead role was in the unorthodox trippy thriller “Under the Silver Lake” from “It Follows” writer/director David Robert Mitchell. It sees Garfield as Sam, a young Los Angeles denizen who becomes enamored by a bottomless conspiracy hiding in plain sight. It’s far from a movie you’d expect an Oscar-nominee to headline, but Garfield throws himself into this surreal endeavor with laudable gusto.

“Under the Silver Lake” premiered at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival, where it scored instant adulation from certain critics but garnered an overall mixed reception. Those so-so marks were pressing enough that Mitchell was even urged to re-edit the feature, which he staunchly refused. A24 got cold feet, as seen by how the film debuted in many foreign countries (including Russia and Estonia) months before its North American bow. A24 also kept shuffling “Silver Lake’s” domestic launch before an unceremonious theatrical-and-PVOD simultaneous release in April 2019.

No wonder “Under the Silver Lake” only grossed $46,083 domestically (it cost $8 million to make). Not even Andrew Garfield’s star power could counteract the troubled release strategy that doomed this unusual project.