Tag Archives: hunger-games

New Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 Teaser: Bella’s Gonna Get You

Run, little deer! Run from the sultry, nubile vampire on your bushy tail! Taylor Lautner may attempt to fool you into thinking she’s normal, but you can see past that in her swift stride and blood-red, undead gaze. She’s right around that tree, little deer! Run for your life! Also: “We’re the same temperature now”? Run, Robert Pattinson! Run to Cosmopolis ! Follow S.T. VanAirsdale on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Go here to see the original:
New Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 Teaser: Bella’s Gonna Get You

Weekend Receipts: Hunger Games Claims Insane $155 Million

Lionsgate needed it, and Lionsgate got it: The beleaguered studio’s Hunger Games gamble paid off in record-shattering fashion over the weekend, milking smart social-media strategy with old-fashioned saturation marketing — not to mention an honest-to-goodness good film — on the way to $155 million in three days. $155 million . As in the third biggest opening ever . You weekend receipts are here. 1. The Hunger Games Gross: $155,000,000 (new) Screens: 4,137 (PSA $37,467) Weeks: 1 And let’s not forget the nearly $60 million pulled in abroad, bringing the first adaptation of Suzanne Collins’s dystopian bestsellers to an early $215 million tally overall. I have a few things to say about this a little later in the day, but for now let’s just tip our caps and/or stew jealously at the volume of the numbers here — the third-largest opening ever behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 and The Dark Knight and the runaway biggest opening for a non-sequel. All that’s left now is to predict the week-two drop. 55 percent? 60 percent? Less? Take your best shot in the comments. 2. 21 Jump Street Gross: $21,300,000 ($71,051,000) Screens: 3,121 (PSA $6,825) Weeks: 2 (Change: -41.3%) In other, vastly secondary but still-intriguing box-office news, how about 21 Jump Street holding on with a decent week-two score against outrageous competition? Watch them wind up counterprogramming sequels against Hunger Games films through at least 2016. 3. Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax Gross: $13,100,000 ($177,300,000) Screens: 3,677 (PSA: $3,563) Weeks: 4 (Change: -42.5%) Another solid week. Now pinch your nose, because… 4. John Carter Gross: $5,014,000 ($62,347,000) Screens: 3,212 (PSA $1,561) Weeks: 3 (Change: -63.1%) Money hemorrhaging aside, I had every confidence after week one that Disney could muscle this to $100 million in the States. At this rate, however — I mean, a 63 percent drop ? Even against Hunger Games that’s outrageous — John Carter will be lucky to make it to $90 million. On the bright side, Disney is doing nearly triple the business overseas, enough to make $325 million overall a possibility. Feel free to bet on that while you’re at it. 5. Act of Valor Gross: $2,062,000 ($65,942,000) Screens: 2,922 (PSA $931) Weeks: 5 (Change: -44.8%) I went back a couple years before essentially losing interest in the previous film to finish in the weekend top five with a PSA under $1,000. It’s rare! Congrats to Relativity as well, I guess. [Figures via Box Office Mojo ] Follow S.T. VanAirsdale on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

See the rest here:
Weekend Receipts: Hunger Games Claims Insane $155 Million

The Hunger Games Earns Third-Biggest Opening of All-Time

The world was most definitely watching. Following astounding takes at both midnight showings and overall on opening day , The Hunger Games has shocked even its most ardent followers by earning $155 million between Friday and Sunday, the third biggest opening of all-time in Hollywood. “It was the perfect storm. Having the first film in a franchise to be so gigantic is amazing. We had a great book and a great director in Gary Ross,” said Lionsgate president of marketing Tim Palen. Last year, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 set the mark for best debut with $169.2 million; while The Dark Knigh t took in $158.4 million in 2008. But The Hunger Games is now the record-holder for opening weekends in terms of non-summer films and non-sequels. It shot past Spider-Man 3 ($151.1 million in 2007), The Twilight Saga: New Moon ($142.8 million in 2009) and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 ($138.1 million last year) late on Saturday. Yes, Katniss Everdeen may be The Girl on Fire. But she’s also starring in The Movie on Fire, that’s for sure. Here’s a look at the top 10 box office results from an incredible weekend: The Hunger Games : $155 million. 21 Jump Street : $21.3 million. Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax : $13.1 million John Carter : $5 million

After $68 Million Friday, Hunger Games En Route to $140 Million Opening

The industry seers pretty much nailed it : ” The Hunger Games opened with $68.25M grosses for Friday’s North American box office, including $19.75M in record-setting midnights. That should make for a first weekend of $140M with upside. This is the highest non-sequel opening weekend ever, and the highest debut single day for a non-sequel ever, and the highest March opening ever, and the 5th highest opening day ever.” Read Nikki Finke’s full report at our sister site Deadline .

Continued here:
After $68 Million Friday, Hunger Games En Route to $140 Million Opening

The Hunger Games Tallies $68.3 Million Opening Day

Fans around the country enjoyed a very happy opening day of The Hunger Games yesterday. In its first 24 hours of release, the very well-received Jennifer Lawrence blockbuster earned $68.3 million, taking fifth place on the all-time single day revenue chart. It actually ranks first, however, for all non-sequels. What grade would you give The Hunger Games ? In fact, The Hunger Games is the only non-sequel to occupy a spot in the top 10 opening days in history, as you can see below: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 , $91.1 million The Twilight Saga: New Moon , $72.7 million The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 , $71.6 million The Twilight Saga: Eclipse , $68.5 million The Hunger Games , $68.3 million The Dark Knight , $67.2 million Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen , $62 million Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 , $61.7 million Spider-Man 3 , $60 million Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince , $58.2 million

See the article here:
The Hunger Games Tallies $68.3 Million Opening Day

Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth: Engaged?!?

Is there something you would like to tell us, Miley Cyrus? Yesterday, the young singer/actress Tweeted a photo of her hand in support of a nail foundation – but talk surrounding the image had a lot more to do with diamonds than polish. How come? See for yourself: Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth have been going strong for awhile, of course, with an insider recently telling OK! Weekly : “They’re still keeping it a big secret, but they’re seriously talking marriage. Liam is crazy about her! Miley wants the whole nine yards as far as a big wedding goes.” And she’d be smart to lock Liam down ASAP. With The Hunger Games blowing up at the box office, he’ll only become a bigger and bigger draw to other women out there. No word yet from anyone in either Miley or Liam’s camp confirming or denying this rumor.

Visit link:
Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth: Engaged?!?

Can ‘Dark Shadows’ Be A Franchise?

‘Hunger Games’ fever has us wondering about the prospects for Tim Burton’s adaptation. By John Mitchell Johnny Depp in “Dark Shadows” Photo: Warner Bros Everyone has “Hunger Games” fever , and it’s understandable; the film is absolutely everywhere, critics are saying it’s pretty good and star Jennifer Lawrence’s candid, funny interviews are a welcome change from the uncomfortable sit-downs granted by, um, some other YA adaptation stars when their films hit the big screen. Anyway, “Games” just crept into theaters, and talk of the sequel is already ramping up. Filming on “Catching Fire” is set to begin later this year, and a November 22, 2013, release date is already in the books. That got us thinking about our own little mini-obsession: “Dark Shadows.” While it’s nowhere near as fervent or large as “Games,” “Shadows” has a devout following too, and if the film is a hit at the box office, which seems quite possible if not bet-on-it likely, at least one sequel would be justified. And with an extensive catalog of 1,225 episodes, there is plenty of plot for, well, as many follow-ups as Tim Burton could come up with. But the approach the director has taken with the film makes us wonder if it’s the sort of thing that could sustain a franchise. Let’s talk this out. First, the direction Burton has chosen to take with the film has already divided fans . Over on MTV Movies Blog, we asked readers whether they liked the “Shadows” trailer , and the reaction was pretty much split down the middle. Just over half of those who voted (52.35 percent) were into the trailer, checking our “Love it! Burton knows what he’s doing” box. That leaves 47.65 percent of respondents who instead “Hated it! Burton is ruining everything!” It’s a pretty radical reinvention, to be sure, and the trailer reminds us most of the big-screen version of “The Addams Family.” “Addams,” of course, was a sitcom to start with, and all director Barry Sonnenfeld really did was turn up the volume on the weird. Much of the humor derived from people reacting to the macabre-but-good-natured family of weirdos, and the film was a hit — a big enough hit to merit a sequel. The “Addams” sequel didn’t connect quite the way the first film did, perhaps because the shtick that was so fresh the first time around had worn out its welcome. So even if it’s a hit, will people really want multiple “Shadows” films once the novelty has worn thin? The thing about (good) sequels is that they generally require emotional investment from the audience to be successful. We want to know what happens next with Katniss in “The Hunger Games.” There’s an entire mythology attached to Bruce Wayne in the “Batman” films. It’s hard to form that connection when the characters are hyper-realized and a little bit caricatured. And though there is a definite mythology to “Shadows,” Burton has opted to ignore it in favor of some brave, maybe even fun, stylistic choices he no doubt hopes will make the film unique and set it apart, both from the series itself and from anything else hitting the big screen this summer. But zany absurdity is hard to maintain across multiple films. By the time the second “Addams” movie came around, the crux of the joke — playing off other people’s reactions to the goth family — was a bit tired, so they had to put Wednesday and Pugsley into an awkward situation (summer camp) to try and keep it fresh. Had Burton hewed a little closer to his source material, this wouldn’t be a concern, but in taking such liberties with the style of “Shadows” he kind of backs himself into a corner when it comes to whatever comes next. He’d have to up the ante in some way for a sequel, but since he’s already operating so over the top, is that even possible? We’re super excited for “Shadows” but we’re just curious if — unlike “Hunger Games” fans — we should learn to quell our excitement that there may be more films coming. After all, maybe there’s a reason we only ever got one “Beetlejuice” ( hey, wait a minute … ). What do you think, “Shadows” fans? Did Tim Burton blow his shot at a franchise by making his “Shadows” so niche? Let us know in the comments below and tweet me @JohnMitchell83 with your thoughts and suggestions for future columns! Check out everything we’ve got on “Dark Shadows.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

See the rest here:
Can ‘Dark Shadows’ Be A Franchise?

Horror Games: See Jennifer Lawrence in First Peek at House at the End of the Street

Because Jennifer Lawrence ‘s StarMeter is sky-high during this glorious Hunger Games weekend, why not take a look at her next venture, the indie horror pic House at the End of the Street ? Katniss Everdeen this ain’t; JLawr (JenLaw? JLa? Did we ever figure this one out?) stars as a teenager who befriends a new neighbor (Max Thierot) whose family was murdered years ago. In the first image from the pic, a tank topped Lawrence discovers something mysterious and, from the look on her face, probably horrifying. Where’s that bow and arrow when you really need it…? EW has the exclusive scoop on what exactly Lawrence is up to in the pic, from director Mark Tonderai ( Hush ): “She’s basically managed to get into Max’s house, waiting for his character, and she’s made a discovery there about his family and is trying to hide before her presence is detected,” he says. Thieriot plays a 21-year-old who lingers in the house against the wishes of the other neighbors, who would rather forget both him and his family’s horrific history. “Since he lives in this house and is driving down people’s home values, he’s very ostracized in this town,” Tonderai says. “The murder was committed by his sister, and she disappeared into the woods. There’s this rumor she still lives in the woods. People have seen her, and she’s insane. But is she out in the woods? And if she is, how does she feel about her brother getting involved with somebody else?” (Read more at EW .) Elisabeth Shue co-stars as Lawrence’s mother; Relativity will release House at the End of the Street on September 21. • Jennifer Lawrence moves in beside ‘House at the End of the Street’ — FIRST LOOK [EW]

See more here:
Horror Games: See Jennifer Lawrence in First Peek at House at the End of the Street

Does Jennifer Lawrence Show Skin in The Hunger Games?

In a word, no. Our Skin Skout saw a sneak preview of The Hunger Games earlier this week and says that the odds are not ever in favor of star Jennifer Lawrence showing skin in this sci-fi blockbuster. 37 minutes in Jennifer appears in a skin-tight black outfit as part of her presentation, and 42 minutes in she dons another tight workout outfit while practicing archery, but overall the PG-13 rated Hunger Games will leave you starved for nudity. And unfortunately Jennifer has yet to do a proper nude scene, though she went skin-tight for her role as Mystique in X-Men: First Class (2011), stripped to her bra in The Poker House (2008) and donned a bikini as a baby-faced 17-year-old on The Bill Engvall Show . But all is not lost, Skin fans: in a revealing interview with Esquire last month, Jennifer said that while she’s never done onscreen nudity, she’s open to the possibility: “ So far, I haven’t found a film I’d love to be naked in… But I certainly never look at an actress naked in a movie and judge her. It’s a human body, which is a beautiful thing, right? So stay tuned… ” See sexy pics and clips of The Hunger Games star Jennifer Lawrence right here at MrSkin.com

The rest is here:
Does Jennifer Lawrence Show Skin in The Hunger Games?

Does Jennifer Lawrence Show Skin in The Hunger Games?

In a word, no. Our Skin Skout saw a sneak preview of The Hunger Games earlier this week and says that the odds are not ever in favor of star Jennifer Lawrence showing skin in this sci-fi blockbuster. 37 minutes in Jennifer appears in a skin-tight black outfit as part of her presentation, and 42 minutes in she dons another tight workout outfit while practicing archery, but overall the PG-13 rated Hunger Games will leave you starved for nudity. And unfortunately Jennifer has yet to do a proper nude scene, though she went skin-tight for her role as Mystique in X-Men: First Class (2011), stripped to her bra in The Poker House (2008) and donned a bikini as a baby-faced 17-year-old on The Bill Engvall Show . But all is not lost, Skin fans: in a revealing interview with Esquire last month, Jennifer said that while she’s never done onscreen nudity, she’s open to the possibility: “ So far, I haven’t found a film I’d love to be naked in… But I certainly never look at an actress naked in a movie and judge her. It’s a human body, which is a beautiful thing, right? So stay tuned… ” See sexy pics and clips of The Hunger Games star Jennifer Lawrence right here at MrSkin.com

See the original post here:
Does Jennifer Lawrence Show Skin in The Hunger Games?