In my movie ROI database with over 2500 titles from 1924 to present, there are 34 titles with a budget between $1.4M and $1.6M.

These 34 movies paid $11.34 in revenue for each budget dollar, which is exceptional, >3x the ~$3.72 average of all 2500+ titles. Ratings-wise, they have an average rating here in TMDb of ~71%

This movie, with its $1.5M budget, has the lowest ROI of all these 34 movies, paying a pathetic $0.57 and it is also the lowest rated of them all, at 54%

One motive I had for wanting to build my ROI database was to learn more about the business side of the movie industry, and to better quantify the relative financial performance of "good movies" vs. "bad movies" (or, according to the movie The Player, "movies" vs. "films").

We all know that great movies don't always do well at the box office; and some silly movies have indeed made a crapton of money; but, once in a while, the numbers are bang on, and crap is crap.

Most people who would decide to allow the images of a Rob Zombie movie into their minds are likely to be fans who know what they're getting into with this guy; and, as such, are more inclined to enjoy his stuff simply because they like this sort of thing. It's kinda like sports or politics - my team/"we" are always the good guys who do no wrong, and "they" are the bad guys who can do no right. And, I'm not judging, good on anyone who has the courage to be their authentic self and find their audience.

Clearly, however, there just aren't enough of them to have rated this movie as worth their time, or bought enough tickets to at least have this movie hit the $2 break-even target.

Disclaimer: I am not a fan of Rob Zombie, nor have I seen this movie, so I have no personal opinion worth sharing about this movie. My contribution to the conversation here is strictly an objective observation of some numbers, and a dispassionate interpretation thereof.