Blair Witch (2016) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
257 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ashley?... Ashley! .... Ashley!!!
pazu76 January 2017
Shhh.... Did you hear that?... Peter?... Peter?!... Peter!... Peeeter!!... Ashley!...Ashley?... Ashley!....ASHLEY!... Aaaashleeey!!... Aaashleeey!....James?... Jaaames!...Lisa!... Liiisaaaa!... Peter?... Peter!!!.... Lane?... Laaane?.... Talia?... Talia!.... Ashley?... James???... Lisa? ... Liiisaaaa!... HEY! All of you just shut the f**k up! It's over! OK? Take it down a notch. It's finally done. What started in 1999 with a unique low-budget, cleverly executed and promoted, and genuinely creepy little indie film, finally ended in 2016 with a ridiculous corporate big-budget hackneyed piece of shhhh...did you hear that?... Ashley?... Ashley?.... ASHLEY!
465 out of 572 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Two Major Warnings
agispir2 January 2017
Guys, I saw that movie yesterday. I think that I have to warn you (people who have not seen that and are planning to watch it some time in the future) about two major things:

Warning 1: 95% of the movie is night close shots with a shaking camera to either persons or tree leaves and bushes, shots that will not make you understand anything.

Warning 2: 95% of the movie script is just calling out loud the names of the heroes: PETER! JAMES! LISA! etc.

I would like to write more but I think there is everything included in the two warnings above.

Conclusion: It seems that I eventually lost one and a half hour of my life... pointlessly... meaningless things... better be more cautious next time.
89 out of 135 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
olovsimonsson9 June 2017
Remember the first Blair witch movie? Yeah, then you don't need to see this. It's an updated version, but without the hype and sound design (oh, there are creepy sounds in this one too, so many in fact that they stop being creepy after a short while) that made the first one successful although not good, and slightly frightening. But sure, if you like to hear people scream names of people you don't really care about, and enjoy the tiresome jump-scares, and shaky cameras, and annoying frightened breathing noises, then you might enjoy this movie. I did not.
53 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent enough
sm_ouch2 October 2016
A lot of hate for this movie, its not really that bad. Yeah most people are right, there are a lot of jump scares which are annoying, and a lot of the suspense of the first movie has been replaced by loud banging noises, but still, I found it fairly enjoyable. Plenty of suspense, and plenty of scenes where I was shaking my head, thinking "dont go in there" or "dont do that" with uncomfortable laughs followed. All up, if you liked The Blair Witch then you will like this one as well, if you hated the Blair Witch, then there is no point seeing this movie.(which baffled me in a lot of reviews, people saying they hated the first one and then hated this one???? Why would you bother, of course you wont like this one)
70 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the most over-hyped letdowns of 2016.
recklesscow15 September 2016
So much for months of hype starting with The Woods trailer months ago which was eventually revealed to be this film.

You want scary? You won't find it here unless you've never seen one of the Insiduous/Paranormal Activity/Conjuring clones to come out in the past 5 years. It uses the exact same scare tactics that made those films so successful, bringing nothing but a completely derivative experience to the table.

This completely failed to capture anything that made the original such a disturbing experience. They replaced subtlety and dread with loud sound effects, jump scares, and video game glimpses of cliché figures.

Did you see VHS? Did you handle it well? Congrats, you'll have zero problems sitting through Blair Witch. The first segment of VHS and the religious cult segment of part 2 are both scarier than the entirety of this film.

The worst part is Wingard and his crew don't even attempt to bring any original story elements to the table. This is literally a rehash of the original story with more characters and a flying drone with updated cameras. And don't expect to have the experience enhanced by any of these.

It's funny that even with the new expanses in technology they still couldn't make this thing more interesting than something that was filmed with 1999 equipment.

This isn't a spiritual successor to The Blair Witch Project, it's a found footage jump scare film for millennials who loved VHS and Paranormal Activity. I'm stumped as to who this was even made for. Certainly not people who saw the original in 1999 like me. We're a little too old to fall for this shtick.
207 out of 364 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Well I personally loved it.
Necrotard20 September 2016
It's 16 years too late for most people, but this was EXACTLY what I wanted from a Blair Witch sequel.

I found it very effective and I loved the story. With the exception of the unethical marketing campaign, it has everything that made the first movie effective and then some. (Yes, I know the marketing is MOSTLY what people found effective about the first film, but that magic can never be captured again, so let it go.)

My only complaint is that there were too many false jump scares.

If you're not burnt out on found footage and you're open to the idea of a Blair Witch sequel, give it a shot.

There's not much else to say without spoilers. I just wanted to stop by and offset some of the hate.
141 out of 256 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
You can't win either way, Blair Witch
AdrenalinDragon16 September 2016
What were people expecting? The same movie as the original, or something extremely different? As for me, I thought Blair Witch was a pretty good modern take on the series. Is it perfect? No. Is it the same as the original? Well, they become quite tonally different halfway. In the second half, the new one tries something different at the cost of people moaning about it revealing too much now.

I personally am glad the new Blair Witch is not exactly the same. I thought it was logical for the sequel to build up from its simplicity to something more intense. The last 20 minutes in particular was quite nerve-wracking, and the ending is no worse than what the original Blair Witch Project did. I think the problem is that when The Blair Witch Project came out, it was a groundbreaking low budget film that made its scariness effective though simplicity.

The new Blair Witch didn't want to retread the "exact" same ground the entire time, so they tried to make the second half different to try and appease the people who found the first film boring as hell. The result is mixed on people saying it's too different from the original, or too similar to other found footage films. I think they got the balance just right here, and the characters for the majority of the time made reasonable decisions and had good equipment with them to justify all of the recording and situations they were in.

If there's a significant flaw I can point out with it, then the "jump scares" were maybe done too much to the point where a character says to stop doing that. However, make no mistake, this movie is pretty terrifying. I still prefer the original though, but of all the found footage movies I've seen, Blair Witch has quite a significant amount of effort put into it.

117 out of 217 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
Platypuschow2 December 2016
I was surprised when the mysterious woods movie turned out to be a direct Blair Witch Project sequel and this excited me. After literally starting a genre with the original on no budget I figured they'd perform miracles with 5 million dollars! Trouble is, they really didn't. In fact I'd say they really really really REALLY didn't. Blair Witch follows the same formula as the original, in that the movie is 90 minutes of found footage, poor character development, thinly veiled storyline, shaky camera fleeing and lots and lots of screaming.

If you are expecting further additions to the Blair Witch mythology you will be sorely let down as this is essentially more like a higher budget remake of the original than a sequel and damn near nothing happens yet again.

I figured that regardless this could never be as bad as Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows but incredibly I was wrong as this is truly unconditionally dire.
86 out of 159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A very short review of "Blair Witch" (2016)
ericrnolan20 December 2016
I fully understand the reasonable popular criticisms of "Blair Witch" (2016). But I'd be lying if I said I didn't really enjoy it — I'd give it an 8 out of 10.

Yes, it's largely a retread of the first film in 1999. This putative sequel is effectively a remake, given how closely it parallels the original. (And there are a lot of people who hated that movie to start with.)

There are other problems too. A subplot's non sequitur segue into body horror is entirely out of place, for example, and we have at least two characters who are so irritating that we can't care much about their fate. And then there are some missed opportunities involving technology. (Much attention is paid to a drone that the ill-fated protagonists bring along in their trek into the woods, but it is underused later in the story.)

Still … this still worked for me. I have always really liked found- footage horror movies, and I also like stories featuring local legends. (They're just more engaging to me than yet another slasher film or third-rate, no-budget zombie movie.) And there are a couple of moments of brilliance. The scariest has already been spoiled by the film's trailer (seriously, f*** you, Lionsgate marketing department). But there are other nice touches … one is the dread- inducing, reality-bending story arc of the two locals who accompany the main protagonists. (And weren't these two supporting characters the most fun and interesting, anyway?)

And we indeed finally get glimpses of the titular Blair Witch! They are brief and few, but they're a damned effective, scary payoff.

All in all, this is still an offbeat horror outing in the same vein as the original, and I think the better parts made it a decent viewing.
58 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Solid sequel, and nail-biting stand-alone film
zrammedia17 September 2016
Blair Witch took the right approach as a follow-up to the original Blair Witch Project. It continues the story as Heather's younger brother, who was four at the time of his sister's disappearance, sets out with a larger search party to find some answers. You don't need to have seen the first film to enjoy this one though: all the backstory is summed up in the first few minutes.

As a stand-alone movie, Blair Witch is superior to most mainstream horror being released today and as a sequel, it carries the torch well, offering fans new insight into the hauntings in the Black Hills. Intriguing elements open up more discussion whether the Witch is real, imagined, or something altogether different. The film even touches on a weird mind-bending alternative that I was not expecting. Like the the original, nothing is blatantly explained, but left to audiences to interpret. We had a fun and lively discussion after the movie tossing about various theories.

Cons: Blair Witch didn't build a sense of dread the way the original did with its interviews of local townsfolk. After introducing the cast, this story gets us right to the woods. Plus, with a larger cast this time, it was harder to identify with the characters.

Overall, this is an outstanding film to get your heart racing. The last half hour is intense, scary, and should have you on the edge of your seat. It was a lot of fun!
56 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A true feast for scare lovers
Sleepin_Dragon23 September 2016
I went to see this with reservations, after the first ten minutes I thought I was going to get what I'd expected, but as it opened up I was very surprised, a film full of real scares and some truly dark moments. The first film was very unique, and also full of scares, at least until French and Saunders spoofed it that is. This long overdue follow-up built on the successes of the first and even managed to take the franchise up a notch. I felt they did a great job at not going over the top, the fact that the witch wasn't fully observed was a great idea, it helped maintain a level of suspense and allow for more in the future. The acting was good, and some great special effects, particularly those scenes set in the house. The thing in the foot scene has us all squirming as if we hadn't enough scares to deal with. Some will argue I'm sure that there were the usual horror stereotypes, but aren't they the reason we all love the genre. The latter part of the film was truly relentless, a must for horror fans. 8/10
61 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hated Original, Loved This Version
nickmorenz23 September 2016
I've never written a review on IMDb before so it says something that I am for this movie b/c i've seen lots of negative reviews. First off, I can't guarantee you'll like it, duh. Like the original, it's all subjective. Some people like to pick this movie apart. I personally hated the original because it was hard to watch and boring. This one is more "Hollywood" in that there's better cameras and actors and more visuals. I loved it. It was far from perfect but I got such a feeling of anxiety and unease unlike any movie has done to me. That's no B.S. I almost walked out at one scene b/c it was giving me such unease but I'm glad i didn't. I've never wanted a movie to end so that my brain could stop watching the honorific scenario I was presented. The last thirty minutes, in my opinion, are absolutely hellish. If you love horror you may hate it, but you also may love it. I give it a 9 b/c no movie has made me so uncomfortable. My girlfriend thought Don't Breath was more horrific so it depends on what you personally find hellish. Give it a shot if you like horror.
58 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Really creative and still as horrifying as the first
austinkunkle14 November 2016
When i first saw the first Blair witch project that was made in 1999,I was kinda shaky around the time when they were getting to the scary parts,like whatever it is the Blair witch does. But I have to be honest,I honestly thought they were rushing through the ending a little bit,but it was still good. However,for the 2016 version,I thought they were really getting to the point to where they wanted to make it scary and spine tingling,especially with the effects they can afford now,because the first one was low budget and I can understand why it was a little lack of horror and effects. But you actually don't need effects if you're making a horror film in the woods,because being in the woods is just scary period. Even when you spend the night.1999 was really good,2016 just added on to the original with extra more scares. 2016's Blair witch was just really terrifying,and the more terrifying thing about it is there's no soundtrack,it's all music free,and the effects just make it sound so real and that's why I thought these movies were pretty scary.
37 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Witch Is Back
owenwarburton19 September 2016
Set 20 years after the events of the first film, Lisa; a film maker, is making a documentary on ambiguous loss where one of her subjects is James who's older sister Heather went missing along with two of her friends while camping in the woods. James comes across some footage on YouTube that has been recently found in the woods which he believes shows his sister. Lisa and James along with two other friends go into the woods hoping to find more clues related to what happened to Heather...

The announcement of Blair Witch came as a shock to many horror fans, especially the ones who had been following the developments of Adam Wingard's new film The Woods which was revealed as Blair Witch at it's first screening at Comic Con. This is a direct sequel to the first movie and rightfully ignores The Book of Shadows. I got to see this as a mystery movie at the cinema. I was so happy when I saw the title as you may know I loved the first film and been looking forward to seeing this since it's announcement. I have to say I wasn't disappointed with this sequel however I wasn't blown away either.

The movie has some faults and the biggest problem I had was with the acting at the beginning of the movie. It felt like the actors was acting and not giving a natural improvised performance which was done so well in the first movie. I will point out that the acting got better as the film went on but I would have liked the characters to be believable from the start. My other problem was that there was also a large amount of unnecessary jump scares. I'm a sucker for jump scares, they get me every time and I don't mind them but this movie had many of times when it was just the main characters coming out of a bush or just standing there when a swinging camera locks on to them.

There are many positives about the film which I won't go into to keep it spoiler free but I will say where this film succeeds and will be remembered for is the final 30 minutes. You will witness one of the most intense sequences that lasts for half an hour without a break for a breather. You will be begging for the movie to end just to get your heart rate down to an acceptable rhythm again.

If you are a fan of the first movie then you should enjoy this. It goes over territory which you will be familiar with from the first film and expands on the myths. If you didn't like the first film and I appreciate The Blair Witch Project is the Marmite of horror movies then there is nothing here for you.
43 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Legitimately terrifying sequel
bartonj241011 September 2016
You know when a horror movie has a quote saying "One of the scariest movies ever made" attached to its trailer and then you see it and feel as if you were cheated by that movie because it wasn't actually scary at all? Well, that's so not the case with Blair Witch, the surprise sequel to The Blair Witch Project, a movie that redefined the horror genre back in 1999. Now, I'm no horror aficionado but Blair Witch is one of the most terrifying experiences I've had in the cinema.

Twenty-two years after his sister and friends disappeared while documenting their trip to investigate the Blair Witch legend, James Donahue (James Allen McCune) plus three of his college friends and two local residents venture into the same woods to try and find them.

Strange occurrences and a strong supernatural presence makes them come to the realisation that the legend of the Blair Witch is true and their lives are now the ones in danger.

First things first, I love how nobody knew anything about this being a sequel to The Blair Witch Project until barely two months ago at San Diego Comic-Con, having been filmed and marketed under the name The Woods, leading to a lot of talk and buzz about Blair Witch prior to release.

It's great to see a director like Adam Wingard take on the challenge of making a sequel that isn't just a carbon copy of its predecessor, instead choosing to take elements and build upon them to create a sequel that, I think, surpasses the original.

Blair Witch once again plays out in the found footage style that the original made so popular however, with the advancements in technology, there are more devices the filmmakers could use such as drones and go pro cameras rather than just the hand-held models.

It makes for a much more intense and fear inducing experience when the cameras used to capture the footage offer more stability. There are a few really good sequences throughout because of this, including a few nailbiting first person shots that will leave you on the edge of your seat.

The use of sound too plays a pivotal part in building the audience's fear, Wingard showcasing that he knows how to make an effective horror flick, the moments of silence proving unbearable at times.

The performances and script are always key in the difference between a good and bad horror movie. In Blair Witch, both are good enough for the audience to buy into the story. The stand-outs for me were either James Allen McCune or Callie Hernandez as Lisa, who has to do a lot of terrified close-ups in her role.

Blair Witch's strongest asset, like its predecessor, is the fear of the unknown. I said it about The Blair Witch Project and I'll say the same about Blair Witch; it's so good to see a horror movie willing to not blow its load early and keep the audience in the dark as much as the characters.
61 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wingard and Barrett are becoming sure-fire signs of a quality film
jtindahouse17 September 2016
There are very few filmmakers in Hollywood who can be considered a sure thing. Even some of the best, like Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino, can have their off moments and deliver a mundane experience. Christopher Nolan is the only one that comes to mind for me, who is just certain to succeed in everything he puts out there. Now it's still far too early in the careers of Simon Barrett and Adam Wingard to put them in that kind of a category, but the fact remains they are making fantastic films time and again. 'Blair Witch' is no exception.

We all remember the original 'The Blair Witch Project' back in 1999. It was an astounding success that made a ton of money. It really had the potential to be the first of the multi-sequel series that are all too common today ('Saw' and 'Paranormal Activity'), but unfortunately the first sequel 'Book of Shadows' bombed, and that was that. Until today that is. 'Blair Witch' really snuck up on everybody. It was made in secret and not even announced until two months prior to being released. With an effective trailer though the hype was immediate and abundant.

The film couldn't be further really from the original in terms of style, but all that shows is that Barrett and Wingard are moving with the evolution of horror. The original got by with the intensity that 'found footage' can create, but due to the popularity of this genre today (ironically caused by the original 'Blair Witch') audiences are all too used to it and need something more. So the intensity is ramped up about ten notches throughout. The big finale (which was very brief in the original) is much more drawn out this time around and creates a quite amazing sequence in the film.

It's very rare that I feel any emotion whatsoever in horror films today, possibly because I have simply seen so many of them, so when a film does give me an uneasy feel, not only do I welcome it with open arms, but I commend that film immensely as well. That was certainly the case here with 'Blair Witch'. Another brilliant showing from Barrett and WIngard and as I always seem to be saying about them, I can't wait to see what they do next.
65 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I was not let down
FirstLastGunslinger17 September 2016
I'm not the biggest fan of the original "The Blair Witch Project," but I'm enough of one to have had some specific hopes and expectations for this film. I don't know what other reviewers were expecting, but I had three requirements (aside from general quality of direction):

  • We see just a little more - What we see is weirder - When it's over, we still have questions

I was not let down on any of those counts. The fact that the plot mirrors the plot of the original isn't really a detriment to me, because these films aren't about the plot. They're about the process of investigating something that doesn't make sense.

The found footage sub-genre has come to mean any film made up of characters recording each other, but both "The Blair Witch Project" and "Blair Witch" are a little more than that; they're the film equivalent of anthropological digs. The original film set the precedent, and uncovered just enough evidence to scare us and set our minds wondering. The new film retraces its path with a fresh set of investigators, and they dig a little further below the surface, to uncover something even nastier. Both are about what happens when the work--the body of knowledge you've painstakingly assembled--turns on you, and refuses to let you back out.

If this logical progression isn't enough to drive a faithful sequel, then what would be? "Book of Shadows" tried to be a meta-fictional commentary on the first film, which would be the *cool* thing to do, except that it received far more criticism. It could avoid the found footage format completely and be a traditional horror film, but it would have to work even harder to distinguish itself, let alone keep that Blair Witch feel. The filmmakers wanted to go back to the things that worked in the original, removed from the Internet and word of mouth, and to do that they needed to get people in those woods, and to give them video cameras. There are only so many plausible ways to go about that.

There were flaws to the film, the biggest being the unnecessary amount of jump scares. I think given what the whole "Blair Witch" concept is, though, they made just about the best film they could.
53 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Awful, abhorrent and wholly embarrassing for everyone involved
manuelasaez26 December 2016
I am not a huge fan of the original, but I can still appreciate what it did for cinema when it was released. It brought back horror to horror films, and its influence can still be felt to this day. This film, however was so awful, it has completely tarnished its legacy, and ruined what could have been one of the most successful reboots inn horror movie history.

The worst offender was the cast; what a sorry collection of unlikable idiots. All three couples were awful and completely ruined whatever sympathy you might have had for them as a group. You have the clueless and simple-minded lead male character, his unnecessary and ANNOYING black friend, his useless and annoying girlfriend, and the even more useless fourth wheel female lead. Then they bring in two podunk Hicks from some state no one cares about, and the movie just gets worse from there (if that were even possible). I don't know if it was the fact that the film rarely showed anything that was truly scary, and was so tame compared to the original, but it was just so sophomoric, like it was aiming to entertain children aged 13-25. These are the worst types of films; movies made and aimed at the lowest hanging fruit of movie go'er.

Overall, this movie will be forgotten like the dreck it is, and no one will miss it. It is awful, embarrassing, and an insult to anyone who has a remotely passing interest in horror films. Avoid this completely, and do not let anyone trick you into seeing it. It is dreadful. What an awful crock of S#!t.
51 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This was fun
bhaaseh-11 October 2016
I watched this at a Saturday mid-morning matinée, with maybe 2 other people in the back of the audience seats. Brought me back to my childhood matinees, complete with 1,000+ seats cinemas and chicle vendors for the interactive scary movies where someone would be saying "...don't go in there.."; because this movie is the ultimate in that department. Just with the premise of the little brother going on this search to "find closure" where, ostensibly, there would be infelicities, and friends who,for reasons unknown, went along. I was not impressed by the many jump scares, but by a detail that, even as I was watching didn't stand logic, but it was the crown of exasperation. A drone had been lost earlier, landing God knows where, and sometime in the very dark night, one of the heroines sees it stuck in the branches of a tree. After what you could with confidence, describe somewhere in the spectrum of having had a sub-optimal walk in the woods, to a seriously malignant day, she decides to climb the tree to get it. Maybe saving a few bucks was in her mind when she did it. I was sitting there seeing the absurdity of the situation and absolutely scared.
26 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Honest Review
generationofswine30 December 2017
It's one of those crap remakes, where they take an original that everyone loves, then they dumb it down to reach the Millennial Generation, and then they make it worse.

The original was more psychological and made to seem realistic. This one seemed more like a slasher film. But I guess that is what happens when you start remaking shows to appeal to people that don't want to think at all.

In the original, it was really your imagine that created the scares. In this one its made for people with no imagination to run wild and the difference is self apparent.

Stay away. The premise just doesn't work for the new generation's tastes.
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Even Drunk at 3am, this movie sucks!
publisher-354 February 2017
Watching the new version of Blair Witch. . . . . major YAWN. . The build up of the original setup the scare for the rest of the movie. . YAWN again. This movie has no build up and is comprised of "scares" derived from AHS "Roanoke"and adds a touch of 80's horrors like Nightmare on Elm Street or Hallowe'en or Friday 13th by adding college-age hotties making out in tents. . YAWN again . . . and none of that is even done well. If you're looking for a good scare with less than great-action. . . I'd still suggest you. . . . YAWN again SKIP THIS MOVIE! Or don't but please, please, don't pay to see this. It's drivel for the sake of drivel and does not even come close to the original. It comes off like a college-thesis-remake movie and I can't believe any major movie company PAID to have this crap made. The sound effects are dead-awful, including some really bad two-way radio static that was louder than any of the voices "communicated." This movie was bad on all levels from sound to cinematography. If there is a REAL Blair Witch, let's hope she "takes care of" anyone associated with this waste of time!
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't waste your time
xboxuserunfriendly21 December 2016
this was bad, just plain bad... if you want to hear people screaming erratically for an hour, or bad acting or completely moronic character then this movie is for you... literally nothing in this movie makes sense at all its all just a mystery blame on a "witch", when there's no damned witch in the whole movie ... should be called the "Blair Monster and whiny kids", the characters by and large aren't even as intelligent as kids... the first Blair Witch wasn't great but its at least worth a second watch and cost 100x less to make, had better acting, a better story and was made by people we never made a movie before and weren't even actor, they were film students, even the second movie was fairly good, the Blair Witch was a modern cult classic... this... this was just bad.... a blatant cash grab by talentless hacks, exploiting the cult classic.

the only reason I didn't give this movie only a 1 was because the first 10 minutes were watchable and tolerable.... it all downhill from there.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Same old tricks again
asda-man15 September 2016
Love it or hate it, The Blair Witch Project is an essential piece of filmmaking and a masterpiece of movie marketing which popularised the found footage sub-genre. Personally, I'm not a fan of Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez's original film. Despite a creepy final ten seconds and an intriguing set-up of the Blair witch legend, the film is basically 80 minutes of people arguing in the woods over a lost map. There's no big payoff, nothing is ever shown and mostly I just find very boring and tedious.

So when Blair Witch was revealed, I wasn't exactly excited like a lot of people were. I love the Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett duo and so I was looking forward to their next project, The Woods which of course turned out to be a secret pseudonym for a sequel to The Blair Witch Project. Early Reviews came out and I suddenly became very excited. People were calling it a game changer for horror films and one even went so far as to say that the film will wreck you, so of course I was sold. I avoided all trailers and decided to pop over and see it on opening day, hoping to watch a genuinely scary found footage horror film. Unfortunately I came out extremely disappointed.

Blair Witch isn't a bad film, but it's certainly no game-changer. In fact, it's nothing much to write home about at all. It is simply an average horror film and in my opinion the worst offering from the directing/writing duo so far. One of the main problems is that it plays out almost exactly like the original Blair Witch Project, albeit a bit more souped up. Instead of having a group of characters going into the woods to investigate about the legend, we have a group of characters going into the woods to find Heather, the main character from the original, who happens to be our protagonist's sister. If there was no mention of Heather then Blair Witch would definitely be classed as a remake, rather than a sequel. Even fans of this film admit that it follows almost every beat of the original: there's the getting lost, finding twig men hanging outside the tent, running away in the dark from something that can't be seen and even the iconic old house finale.

Blair Witch offers no new surprises and the first half of the film is almost as tedious as the original. We're not really made to care for any of the characters and none are properly developed. They're just your average group of young adults being lined up for the slaughterhouse, with the technicians from The Cabin in the Woods at the control panel watching it all play out. When a character dies, we don't really care which is sort of a problem when we're made to stay with them for 90 minutes. There are some nice moments of good humour, but for the most part not a great deal happens in the first half. It's just like watching some friends go on a camping trip. It would've been an ideal opportunity for some character development, but instead we just get the usual arguing and banal banter.

Once we hit around the midway point, spooky stuff starts happening but it's all stuff we've seen before. There are some tense moments when characters go off on their own and hear strange noises deep in the woods, but there's never any payoff. A good scare is like a good joke. There has to be an extended moment of suspense and then an explosive punchline, but Blair Witch seems to always miss the punchline. I was always on edge and waiting for something scary to happen in the woods, but nothing really ever does. I did like the real sense of panic and distress though as we realise that these characters are going to end up lost in these woods for what could be an eternity. But whilst the atmosphere is good, the scares are too uninspired to be effective.

Things do start to pick up in the last twenty minutes though. After what feels like endless screaming and running in the woods, we come across the dreaded old house from the first film. This is when things start to become intense and genuinely horrifying at times. There's a huge sense of dread and unpredictability which had me on the edge of my seat. I thought, "finally! Maybe this is the part that's going to wreck me" but it wasn't. Despite a couple of effective jump scares and moments of intensity, the finale fails to live up to the expectations which it promised. It did a good job of building up tension, but just like the scenes in the woods, it failed to conjure up a truly scary punchline. In fact, the film ends with a very disappointing whimper which left me wanting a lot more.

I don't mind slow-burners but there has to be a payoff worth waiting for. In the end, it's a perfectly serviceable horror film. It uses the found footage aspect well and makes good use of utilising new filming technologies. It's also better and far more entertaining that the original, but that's not really high praise coming from a detractor of it. I suppose that I just fell for the hype and I don't want you to do the same. It has moments which are scarier than most mainstream horror films, but there's nothing that will shake you to your core here. Hardened horror nuts are not going to be impressed. It may be worth a quick look when it gets released on DVD but it's not worth seeing on the big screen. In a year full of great horror films, Blair Witch disappointingly seems to be the first hiccup.
21 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The best "found footage" movie in many moons
85122215 October 2016
Greetings from Lithuania.

"Blair Witch" (2016) surely won't become a classic as the first one become. But it does what it intends to do, it scares you, but you kinda have to love the genre itself to truly appreciate it.

"Found footage" horror genre is kinda simple yet tricky one. You know what to expect, you know all the rules and the new one "Blair Witch" doesn't brake new grounds, but it gives to genre fans what they expect from the flick - chills.

I did love performances in this movie - they are far better then in you usual genre flick as well as characters itself, but it doesn't go deep in that direction. The very talented director Adam Wingard (a great genre movies like "You're Next" or "The Guest" and even "V/H/S" series) does not reinvent the wheel with "Blair Witch" as he kinda did with previously mentioned titles, but he does a very good job here in creating a horror flick with great pacing, superbly solid settings (yes its just a woods!) and great chills. I loved the ending, found it just great for the whole flick. Cinematography of this movie is also not distracting - it is a "found footage" flick, but this won't give a headache, it is superbly shoot.

Overall, "Blair Witch" is a very solid flick which should be (as every movie) witnessed on a big screen for a better appreciating. It is not the best horror movie of the year ("The Conjuring 2" steals the crown), but it is a very solid horror flick for those whole love genre itself. Solid 8 out of 10.
23 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just a montage of cheap jump scares
isurukusumal3615 September 2016
This movie is nothing but a montage of cheap jump scares. There's so many jump scares of people scaring the f**k out of each other for no apparent reason (apparently everyone likes to breath down each other's necks). Seeing people just record themselves while sleeping is just dumb. Character development was super weak, and its not like they did anything interesting with the characters anyway, felt like they wanted to have some extras just to kill off. There was this Lane character whose story arch wast even explained properly. The worst thing about this movie is people screaming your ears off, it was just too much irritating to listen to, and the constant camera shake makes you nauseous within couple of minutes. Set design was awful and cheap location for shooting with no art direction. Just a cheap money grab.
60 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed