Did you really think that a handful of arrows would be enough to puncture the greatest suit of armor ever?
Robin Hood opened this weekend boasting two Oscar-winning stars, a $225 million budget and an enviable Hollywood pedigree. But its $37.1 million weekend take wasn’t nearly enough to poke holes in the high-flying Iron Man 2. The clanking colossus collected another $53 million, bringing its 10-day total to $212 million—making it already one of 2010’s biggest blockbusters. Letters to Juliet, another newcomer, sweetly spirited itself into third with $13.8 million.
All this is bad news for good sir Robin: While $37.1 mil is nothing to shake an arrow shaft at, it’s not a great start if the folks at Universal Pictures hope to make their money back. For me, the results—none too surprising to most box-office prognosticators—emphasize the strange, fickle nature of moviegoers and where they’re willing to spend their money.
Is it because the Iron Man franchise is a known entity? Is Russell Crowe past his box-office prime? Is it because we couldn’t help but snicker when we saw Cate Blanchett in the trailer, decked out in a suit of armor? Is Robin Hood (who, after all, has been portrayed onscreen by everyone from Errol Flynn to Kevin Costner to an anthropomorphic fox) a tired movie character who’s grown too long in the tooth?
Or is Iron Man 2 simply a better movie than Robin Hood?
Recent Comments