Moviefone Editorial

Tag: blair-witch

  • 11 Things You Never Knew About ‘The Blair Witch Project’

    11 Things You Never Knew About ‘The Blair Witch Project’

    Artisan Entertainment

    If “The Blair Witch Project” taught us anything, it’s that you don’t need big budgets or elaborate gore effects to make a great, utterly unforgettable horror movie. You just need a strong premise and a cast dedicated enough to pull off the illusion. Celebrate the 20th anniversary of this found footage classic by learning more about the making of “The Blair Witch Project.”

    1. Part of the reason “The Blair Witch Project” is so effective is that the actors’ reactions of fear are often genuine. For example, directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez would sneak up on their tent at night and shake it suddenly.

    2. The actors agreed to remain in-character as much as possible during filming. They used the safe word “taco” for those moments when they needed a break.

    Artisan Entertainment

    3. The movie’s ad campaign was notorious for convincing many moviegoers it was actually a factual documentary, to the point that many fans sent sympathy cards to actress Heather Donahue‘s mother.

    4. Much of the material for the ad campaign was taken from deleted scenes from the movie. Originally, the movie was intended to include a closing sequence where a news crew investigates the disappearance of the main characters.

    Artisan Entertainment

    5. Even the actors were led to believe the Blair Witch legend was true during filming. They were only told afterward that it was entirely made up for the movie.

    6. “The Blair Witch Project” set a Guinness world record for the highest box office to budget ratio, with the movie earning roughly $248 million on a budget of $60,000.

    7. One way the production saved money was by purchasing a video camera at Circuit City and returning it for a refund after filming was complete.

    Artisan Entertainment

    8. Approximately 20 hours of footage was shot in total, with the final film being whittled down to a lean 82 minutes.

    9. Maryland-based hunters complained about the 1999-2000 season being ruined because so many fans of the movie were traipsing about the wilderness and scaring away game.

    Lionsgate

    10. In addition to two movie sequels (2000’s “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2” and 2016’s “Blair Witch“), the series’ mythology has been expanded in the form of comic books, novels and PC games.

    11. A spinoff TV series is currently being developed for Lionsgate’s Studio L platform.

  • Exclusive: Director Adam Wingard on the Status of His ‘I Saw the Devil’ Remake

    Late last week, we chatted with director Adam Wingard, the talented genre titan behind “The Guest,” “You’re Next” and last year’s underrated “Blair Witch” reboot. While the main focus of our chat was “Death Note,” his super fun adaptation of the popular Japanese manga that premieres on Netflix Friday, we had to ask about another project that was (at one point at least) on his radar — an American remake of Kim Jee-woon‘s modern classic “I Saw the Devil.”

    For those of you unfamiliar with the original, it is easily classifiable as a horror epic (with a runtime of 141 minutes, it is definitely fitting). “I Saw the Devil” is the tale of a malicious serial killer whose latest victim is the beautiful young wife of a Korean secret service agent. Instead of just arresting him, the agent decides to play with the killer and, as you can imagine, things get incredibly out of hand. The movie is intense and visceral (it’s the only screening invitation I ever got that actually warned viewers who are sensitive to the material that it might be best to stay home) but it’s also beautiful and boldly told. For those who can handle the extreme levels of violence, it’s something of a masterpiece — operatic and assured. It’s also scary as hell.

    So it’s understandable by Wingard and his writing partner Simon Barrett would be drawn to the material. But with Wingard relegated to duties on Legendary and Warner Bros’ monster mash “Godzilla vs. Kong” (scheduled for a Memorial Day, 2020 release), we had to ask the status of the remake.

    “‘I Saw the Devil’ is on hold for now until we figure out what’s going on. Because ‘Godzilla vs. Kong’ just took precedence,” Wingard said diplomatically. He says that “Godzilla vs. Kong” could take a while. “That’s going to be a solid two-and-a-half years before I’m done with that,” Wingard said. So, obviously, the project could go to another filmmaker.

    “I’ve talked to my producer friends who are on board with ‘I Saw the Devil’ and left it with them. If they find somebody who is interested in doing it and they can match up with them, then they should do it,” Wingard explained. Not that he’s entirely ruled out the possibility of him directing it. “Never say never; there’s a chance that it could come back around [to me].”

    We asked how close he got to actually making the movie.

    “It’s one of those things where I was developing that for so many years and we had a great script. I even had the soundtrack picked out,” Wingard said. That’s pretty close. And while the filmmaker is upset if he doesn’t get to make the project, he’s just as thrilled to pit two of cinema’s most famous monsters against each other. Wingard said: “It’s really sad if it doesn’t happen. But it’s fine, too, because I’ve got pretty big things to deal with right now.”

    Wingard’s “Death Note” premieres on Netflix this Friday.

  • 6 Reasons ‘Blair Witch’ and ‘Bridget Jones’s Baby’ Bombed at the Box Office

    It was the Battle of the Long-Gestating Sequels That No One Asked For. It pitted “Blair Witch” against “Bridget Jones’s Baby,” the first new film in that franchise in 12 years. In the end, however, both new movies lost.

    Anticipation was high, since both franchises were huge in their day. “Blair Witch” was expected to come out on top, given its wider release (3,121 theaters, to 2,927 for “Bridget”) and the current vogue for horror. Analysts predicted a debut near or above $20 million. For “Bridget,” the long-awaited return of Renée Zellweger to the screen after a six-year absence and the recent dearth of romantic comedies at the multiplex were supposed to result in a weekend around $14 to $15 million.

    Instead, both movies launched with only about half the predicted ticket sales. “Blair Witch” opened with just an estimated $9.7 million, while “Bridget” debuted with only an estimated $8.2 million. Neither came close to “Sully,” which lost only 37 percent of last weekend’s business and easily finished in the top spot for a second week, with an estimated $22.0 million.

    Why didn’t audiences show for these supposedly sure-thing sequels? Here are six reasons.
    1. Hollywood Waited Too Long
    More than a decade between sequels isn’t an unbridgeable chasm; “Mad Max: Fury Road” did fine despite 30 years between installments. Still, it’s long enough for older viewers to have forgotten (or stopped caring) about the previous features, and it’s long enough for generations of new viewers to have come of age without ever seeing the originals or knowing what all the fuss was about. And for a Hollywood leading lady, six years between films is a career eternity. In Zellweger’s case, you might even argue that the gap is longer, since it’s been 11 years since her last live-action box office hit, “Cinderella Man.”

    2. ‘Blair Witch’ Backlash
    Longtime fans would have a lot more lingering fondness for these trilogies had the second installments been any good. But where 1999’s “The Blair Witch Project” was innovative and terrifying, 2000’s “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2” was conventional and dull. And where 2001’s “Bridget Jones’s Diary” was adorable and charming, 2004’s “Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason” was cartoonish and hackneyed. Audiences would be justifiably skeptical in wondering if the new films could recapture the mojo of the originals from 17 and 15 years ago.

    3. The Competition
    There was a third wide-release movie this weekend from which no one expected much: Oliver Stone‘s political biopic “Snowden.” It’s been a while since Stone was a box office draw, and star Joseph Gordon-Levitt isn’t one, either. Controversy over whether Edward Snowden is a heroic whistleblower or a traitorous leaker of intelligence secrets was sure to alienate many potential viewers, and the movie was expected to open somewhere around $6 million.
    Nonetheless, “Snowden” managed to grab an estimated $8.0 million, averaging $3,284 per screen, more than “Blair Witch ($3.092) or “Bridget ($2,815). But this marks the worst showing ever for a Stone film to open on more than 2000 screens. Reviews were largely negative (59 percent rotten on Rotten Tomatoes), but word-of-mouth was excellent (an A grade at CinemaScore). Given the (as predicted) modest decline of the still-soaring “Sully,” adult audiences bailed on “Snowden” in favor of Tom Hanks.

    4. Horror Is Oversaturated
    Young women have made hits of several horror movies lately, particularly “Don’t Breathe.” But the market appears to be saturated. “Don’t Breathe” is still doing well (in its fourth weekend, it’s in fifth place, with an estimated $5.6 million, for a total of $75.3 million so far), but there’s been no room at the box office for last weekend’s horror flop “The Disappointments Room” or “Morgan” two weeks ago, and not much this weekend for “Blair Witch.”

    5. Word-of-Mouth Factor
    The opinions of critics weren’t going to matter much for either “Blair Witch” or “Bridget.” Horror audiences don’t read reviews, and “Bridget” fans who chose not to hold a grudge over “The Edge of Reason” weren’t going to be swayed by reviews this time, either. But word-of-mouth from paying customers was important, and it wasn’t strong for either film. In fact, CinemaScore graders gave “Bridget” a so-so B+ grade, and they gave “Blair Witch” a horrible D+. As it turned out, audiences did agree with critics this time, since “Bridget” scored a 78 percent “Fresh” rating at Rotten Tomatoes, while “Blair Witch” earned a “Rotten” 37.

    6. The Novelty Has Worn Off
    It’s easy to forget now how unprecedented “The Blair Witch Project” was. Not only did it practically invent the modern found-footage horror genre, but it was also the first movie to create a successful viral digital marketing campaign. As a result, a lot of people thought the Blair Witch legend was real, and that the movie was an actual document instead of scripted fiction shot shaky-cam style.

    Today, it’s hard to imagine that sort of thing could be as scary again because we’ve seen plenty of found-footage films. And the gimmick of shooting the new film under a false name and then revealing it at the last minute to be a third “Blair Witch” tale isn’t the same scope as the elaborate hoax behind the first movie’s marketing. We love to be tricked and fooled and shocked at the movies, but we can only see “The Blair Witch Project” for the first time once. It’s no longer a surprise, now that we live in the world that the original “Blair Witch” made.

    As for “Bridget,” back in 2001, it was still a surprise to see Texas-bred Zellweger pack on 17 pounds and assume a British accent to play the London singleton. In fact, it was considered such an astonishing transformation that Zellweger landed an Oscar nomination, a rare feat for a comic performance. It was also novel to see rom-com hero Hugh Grant play a cad. This time around, however, there’s no Grant, and Zellweger’s iconic role is old hat.

    Nostalgia usually mints money at the box office. But this weekend, audiences sat out the return of things they used to like in favor of seeing what is basically a TV movie on a studio budget starring the one Hollywood star audiences love more than days gone by.

  • Box Office: ‘Blair Witch’ and ‘Bridget Jones’s Baby’ No Match for ‘Sully’

    By Brent Lang

    LOS ANGELES, Sept 18 (Variety.com) – Some things aren’t worth the wait.

    “Blair Witch” and “Bridget Jones’s Baby,” sequels to films that first hit theaters a generation ago, both stumbled in their debuts this weekend, earning a meager $9.7 million and $8.2 million, respectively. They were easily overpowered by “Sully,” the Clint Eastwood drama about the so-called “Miracle on the Hudson” emergency plane landing that features Tom Hanks as Capt. Chesley Sullenberger. The Warner Bros. release topped the domestic box office for a second consecutive weekend, earning $22 million and pushing its stateside total to $70.5 million.

    “It’s just a well-made story,” said Jeff Goldstein, Warner Bros. distribution executive vice president. “The word-of-mouth is sensational.”

    The weekend’s other wide-release launch, Oliver Stone‘s “Snowden,” was also over-shadowed by the aeronautical heroics, picking up $8 million from 2,443 locations for a fourth-place finish. The look at Edward Snowden stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and got a warm reception at the Toronto International Film Festival, with some calling it a return to form for Stone, a director whose recent work such as “The Savages” has failed to capture the renown of earlier efforts like “Platoon” and “JFK.”

    However, the NSA leaker remains a controversial figure in American politics, a whistle blower to some and a traitor to others, which might have limited the picture’s appeal. Open Road is distributing the film domestically, and if it continues to attract some awards heat, it’s possible it could chug along to a respectable gross. “Snowden” cost a reported $50 million to produce.

    It’s a disappointing result for “Blair Witch,” which fell short of tracking. Heading into the weekend, some rival studios expected the film to earn $20 million, potentially toppling “Sully” from its throne. A lot went wrong, starting with some bad reviews and a D CinemaScore. Moreover, younger moviegoers may not have been familiar with the horror franchise. The first film in the series revolutionized theatrical distribution and kicked off the trend of “found footage” stories when it hit theaters in 1999. Made for a mere $60,000, it rode some eerie marketing to a $248.6 million global gross. A poorly received follow-up hit theaters in 2000, when it was pulverized by critics and made a fraction of the first film’s massive haul.

    Lionsgate produced the latest sequel for an economical $5 million and pushed it out over 3,121 locations. It debuted the film at Comic-Con to generate buzz, screening it under its working title “The Woods” and surprising fans who had no idea they were watching a new “Blair Witch.” But there are a lot of horror films in theaters, with “Don’t Breathe” and “When the Bough Breaks” already scratching the itch to be scared and leaving little room for “Blair Witch” to break through.

    At a corporate level, Lionsgate is undergoing a transition and could use some new film franchises. The studio has wrapped up its “Hunger Games” films and is moving the “Divergent” series to television. It also announced Friday that Rob Friedman, the motion picture group co-chair and one of the guiding forces behind the “Twilight” saga, is stepping down. The studio is earning strong buzz on “La La Land,” a musical that is expected to be an Oscar player, “Hacksaw Ridge,” a World War II drama from Mel Gibson, and “Deepwater Horizon,” a true-life action tale with Mark Wahlberg.

    “Bridget Jones’s Baby” is another exercise in diminishing returns. It has been 15 years since Jones (Renee Zellweger) first captured audiences’ attention in “Bridget Jones’s Diary” with her romantic travails and 12 years since “Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason” caught moviegoers up with her on-again, off-again relationship with dashing Mr. Darcy (Colin Firth). The romantic comedy is backed by Universal, Miramax, StudioCanal and Working Title, and cost $35 million to produce. It’s faring better overseas, where it opened in first place in 24 territories and racked up $29.9 million, but moviegoers probably shouldn’t expect a part four.

    Universal’s domestic distribution chief Nick Carpou said he thinks the film will fare well in the coming weeks as counter-programming. He noted that future films such as “The Magnificent Seven” and “Storks,” don’t cater to the female consumers who support “Bridget Jones’s Baby.”

    “We love these characters, we love the actors playing them, and we’re confident in how it will play out,” said Carpou.

    Sony’s “Don’t Breathe” rounded out the top five, nabbing $5.6 million to bring its domestic total to an impressive $75.3 million after three weeks.

    Among newcomers, Pure Flix courted the faith-based set with “Hillsong: Let Hope Rise,” a documentary about the Australian Christian group that made $1.3 million from 816 locations.

    “The Disappointments Room,” Relativity Media’s first release since the studio emerged from bankruptcy protection in April, continued to flounder. After debuting last weekend to an anemic $1.4 million, it plunged 71%, eking out $400,000 and pushing its gross to $2.2 million. The horror film about a house’s haunted past stars Kate Beckinsale and cost roughly $15 million to produce. Its release was frequently delayed as Relativity’s financial problems worsened. At one point, in Chapter 11 filings, the studio estimated that “The Disappointments Room” would earn $72.6 million over its lifetime, a figure that factors in estimated home entertainment revenue along with theatrical grosses.

    It’s failure is unwelcome news for Relativity, which still faces questions about its longterm viability. The studio has been trying to come up with a plan to service its debts and raise more working capital. It has announced plans to remake “High Noon” and will back “Hunter Killer,” an action film with Gerard Butler. Relativity has other films hitting theaters this year, including the comedy “Materminds” and the thriller “Kidnapped.”

    In milestones, Illumination Entertainment and Universal’s “The Secret Life of Pets” crossed $800 million globally. It’s a huge hit; one that has already spurred a sequel. Illumination, the animation label behind the film and the “Despicable Me” series, also debuted “Sing,” its upcoming Christmas release about an “American Idol”-style talent competition, to strong reviews at Toronto.

    Overall ticket sales couldn’t compete with a year-ago period that saw the debuts of the Johnny Depp gangster film “Black Mass” and a sequel to “Maze Runner.” Revenues dropped 21% to just under $90 million.

    “This is what we typically see in September,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst with ComScore. “The summer movies have ended and this is the after-party.”

  • Stay Out of the Woods: A New ‘Blair Witch’ Trailer Is Here

    Blair WitchCancel your camping plans, because a new “Blair Witch” trailer is here to scare you away from the woods.

    Released today by Collider, the preview makes the upcoming horror flick look every bit as terrifying as its predecessors, 1999’s “The Blair Witch Project” and 2000’s “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.” The film follows James (played by James Allen McCune) and a group of fellow college students as they take a trip into Maryland’s Black Hills Forest to see what they can find out about the mysterious disappearance of his sister. There, they get more than they bargained for, and naturally, it is the stuff of nightmares. According to the film’s official synopsis, “the group is visited by a menacing presence,” and “they begin to realize the legend is all too real and more sinister than they could have imagined.”

    The footage is just as eerie as that sounds. A word to the wise? If you ever come upon the entrance to a creepy underground tunnel and you think, “I don’t want to go in there … let’s not go,” go with your gut.'Blair Witch' (2016) Trailer 3

    “Blair Witch” stars McCune, Callie Hernandez, Brandon Scott, Valorie Curry, Corbin Reid, and Wes Robinson. The film hits theaters on Sept. 16.

    [via: Collider]

  • Secret ‘Blair Witch’ Sequel Unveiled at Comic-Con 2016

    By Piya Sinha-Roy and Rollo Ross

    LOS ANGELES, July 25 (Reuters) – Participants at Comic-Con that went into a screening for upcoming horror movie “The Woods,” last week were surprised to come out from the movie having watched the sequel to the 1999 found-footage horror film hit, “The Blair Witch Project.”

    The subject and title of Lionsgate teaser film “The Woods” was kept under wraps since it began production but was unveiled at San Diego’s pop culture event as “Blair Witch,” the third installment of the franchise, in theaters on Sept. 16.

    “Blair Witch, it’s all about the mystery,” director Adam Wingard told Reuters. “I think the way we’re advertising it is in spirit of that.”

    The surprise reveal follows in the footsteps of J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot company, which unveiled “10 Cloverfield Lane,” sequel to 2008’s “Cloverfield,” in January, just two months before its release in theaters.

    The “Blair Witch Project” was a box office hit in 1999 and ushered in a new era of found-footage horror. The movie featured footage from video tapes found from three documentary filmmakers who went missing in a remote forest as they tried to uncover the local legend of the Blair Witch.

    The new “Blair Witch” film follows the brother of one of the missing filmmakers as he takes his friends out to the same forest to search for his sister. Events quickly go downhill when the group loses track of time and their location and get lost in the woods.

    “Blair Witch” skips over the events of the 2000 sequel “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2” that was derided by fans.

    “We’ve changed the mythology in a lot of ways just to kind of introduce new features and new ideas,” writer Simon Barrett said.

    The original “Blair Witch Project” filmmakers – writer-directors Eduardo Sanchez, Daniel Myrick and producer Gregg Hale – also disregarded the failed sequel and said they are on board with the latest film as executive producers.

    “The thing that we liked about this project when Lionsgate approached us, especially with Adam and Simon working on it, is that they really stuck to the original mythology,” Myrick told Reuters.

    “They came at it with a very authentic approach to the film which we felt was with love for the first movie so it was all done for the right reasons.” (Reporting by Piya Sinha-Roy and Reuters TV; Editing by Bernard Orr)