data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/679ed/679eda7f289932264ea03893c7b91ffb9591b30e" alt="Blair witch 2016 monster"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1dc6/f1dc66d79698c41c21d3da81c1ceee5394d87408" alt="blair witch 2016 monster blair witch 2016 monster"
Part of the terror of The Blair Witch Project was the unknown and that is completely stripped away by these two men. Why? Why would you do this? Why would you take away the mystery of the film away from the audience. What’s more, he even explains in the film why the witches victims stand in the corner. For example, rather than keep the mystery alive of who might still be haunting those woods, he reveals to the audience just exactly who that monster might exactly be. He did attempt to add his stamp to the plot but it only made matters worse. Barrett brings nothing fresh, but does regurgitate the same rough outline of what took place in the original film. Simon Barrett was brought in to help craft a screenplay and his “narrative” is part blatant rip-offs from the first film, part desecration of a brilliant film’s legacy.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/19ddb/19ddbbe8c19ebaa5fa9f022f5cf1d85160074479" alt="blair witch 2016 monster blair witch 2016 monster"
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?! Is the Blair Witch also the cinematographer? There is another scene where one of the female characters is trying to escape underground and manages to crawl through a dark tunnel and have just the perfect angle of her face. Who is the person shooting these two having a private conversation? Can’t be anyone in the group because they are “allegedly” by themselves and this is “allegedly” supposed to be found footage. There is actually a scene where two of the characters ask to talk in private and they just so happen to do this within range of another camera that actually zooms in closer to catch the conversation (I wish I was making this up). Instead of keeping the visual feel of the film authentic, he relies on perfectly aligned shots and refers to them as “found footage” shots. In Blair Witch, director Adam Wingard demonstrates no understanding of why the original film was such a smash hit and takes the opposite approach. We never got a shot at all of the witch in the original film, nor did we have any doubts about how scared Heather Donahue was and audiences were scared as hell along with her. The lack of perfection in each shot and the realistic discourse that the film students had only enhanced the levels of terror. None of the shots were “perfectly aligned” and the dialogue was entirely conversational, far from seeming scripted (they used a rough outline). Part of what made the original film so brilliant was the authenticity it conveyed both on screen and in its dialogue. So of course they venture into the very same woods in hopes of their luck somehow being much different than everyone else who’s trudged through that part of the woods and meet their untimely demise (eye roll). This time the young filmmakers feel like they’re better prepared than the last bunch because their cameras come with fancy earpieces and they have an aerial drone.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/afc0c/afc0ce21907ae6c7ce582212fac1df1e1007526c" alt="blair witch 2016 monster blair witch 2016 monster"
Because if they survived surely they’ve been living in the woods for 17 years. However, a grainy bit of footage was found that maps out the events of their untimely demise.įast-Forward to the present and we have another group of young aspiring filmmakers (sound familiar) not only venture in the woods to try and prove if this legend is real but perhaps find any survivors from the last crew that went in 1999. None of them make it out of the forest alive and their bodies are never recovered. In the original, three film students ventured into the woods to see if the legend was actually true.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/055d9/055d9bdea847594223568052d04f2d20ebf1ff4a" alt="blair witch 2016 monster blair witch 2016 monster"
Blair Witch is destined to do far less than its predecessor because word will quickly spread that this film is EXACTLY like the first one except for little things like it’s not nearly as frightening as the first film and it’s nowhere near as groundbreaking.įor those who aren’t familiar with the franchise: according to legend, a witch haunts the Black Hills Forest in Maryland that is so scary that anyone dies when they gaze upon her. The Blair Witch Project raked in $250 million during its initial run and blazed a trail for a new brand of “found footage” horror films. At least if you are going to rehash an old topic, find a way to freshen up the narrative. This “film” (consider that term used extremely loosely) is yet another example of Hollywood regurgitating old idea after old idea and not doing a single thing to improve upon the final product. Blair Witch is so uninspired and lacking in originality, that for the first time in five years of being a film critic, I almost left a screening.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/679ed/679eda7f289932264ea03893c7b91ffb9591b30e" alt="Blair witch 2016 monster"