Just to defend Danny Dyer and Pimp for a second: £205 may seem a pitiful amount, and indeed it's not a strong run by any measure, but lets not get carried away by the low number.
From wikipedia: "Pimp was released as a multi-platform performer via Revolver UK; only intended to play at 6 independent cinemas across the country from the Friday of its release, with no money spent on advertising, before being released on dvd and VoD three days later. This system of release is popularly designed to assist low budget UK films via reduced P and A costs. PIMP has reportedly recouped extremely well on these formats"
The film was never intended to have a lengthy theatrical run, so the box office receipts were never going to bust blocks. This reality hasn't stopped critics spinning the number to fit their own agenda. I'm particularly thinking of Mark Kermode here, who is so keen to propagate his vendetta against Danny Dyer that he doesn't want to let pesky facts get in the way of what initially appears an entertaining instance of schadenfreude. If you read Kermode's book "The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex", when he's talking about exploitation films you'll find a whole section where he outlines the very method the "Pimp" distributor employed. Films that were intended as straight to video releases were often granted a very brief theatrical run in order to give them an air of cinematic legitimacy. These films NEVER made money at the box office, but did tend to reap the benefits on home video, which is what happened here. But Kermode conveniently forgets to mention this when it comes to the Danny Dyer film for a cheap laugh, hypocritically presenting the film as an abject failure to suit his own agenda.
This isn't a validation of the film in an artistic sense, rather a rationalisation of its box office performance. The point is, the film made money, so focusing on the £205 side of things is a bit disingenuous. Plus, you can't use a film on a very limited run that was only seen by 24 people as an indication that "the public is growing less and less fond of [Dyer's] shtick". That's just a wilful misinterpretation of the facts.
Bottom line: the film (apparently) made money and we shouldn't be too preoccupied by the box office figure. Artistically it may be a piece of *beep* but that's irrelevant if it a) made money and b) appealed to its target audience.
I have to get more pudding for this trip to Hawaii.
Thanks for that well put and objective breakdown, it's MUCH appreciated! While the movie was pretty bad, pointing out those numbers was a bit of hiding the facts, I agree. And Dyer was the least of this films problems by far. The terrible writing, boring characters, hackneyed pacing, and a lead pimp character who does no actual pimping all hurt this movie WAY more than Dyer's 15 minutes of screen time.
Anyway, I have nothing else to add, just wanted to say thanks...
"dude i dont care i just love this movie you guys have a realy taste in movies what wrong with you"