Blair Witch (2016)

Mr E

Sequel to the 1999 movie, and this looks damn good. Out on September 16th.

Directed by Adam Wingard (You're Next, The Guest) so it's in good hands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=girSv9UH_V8

Basq

Yep, been following "The Woods" for a few months now.. little did I know!

Wingard is talented.. and any excuse to try and wipe the horrific "Book Of Shadows" from my memory.

S.M.B.

Interesting...

Goldstein

Mr E wrote: »

Sequel to the 1999 movie, and this looks damn good. Out on September 16th.

Directed by Adam Wingard (You're Next, The Guest) so it's in good hands.

I have never gone from sighing upon reading a title to wide eyed eagerness after seeing the Director's name. In VERY good hands. Won't watch the trailer, will just go to it based on how much I enjoyed his previous work.

Decuc500

Pretty cool that no one knew The Woods was a Blair Witch sequel until after its first screening. Looking forward to this.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Goldstein wrote: »

I have never gone from sighing upon reading a title to wide eyed eagerness after seeing the Director's name. In VERY good hands. Won't watch the trailer, will just go to it based on how much I enjoyed his previous work.

Same here.

The trailer looks terrible though, but I'd definitely give Wingard the benefit of the doubt

Dair76

Yeah, Wingard raises the interest levels alright. Must give the original a rewatch soon.

Outlaw Pete

Looks good.

The original is being screened (BLU-RAY) in the IFI, Screen 2, next Saturday night (31st) @ 8:30PM.

Mr Freeze

Definitely looks interesting, hope it doesn't do a copy cat ending as the first though, I know its only a trailer, but kinda got that vibe off it that we would just get the same standing in the corner ending.

Banjaxed82

Wingard definitely peaks the interest, but if I was to watch that trailer of a film called "The Woods" directed by Jonny Nobody, then I have to say, it didn't do much.

Will be interesting to see what Wingard does, but found footage will restrict what he can do.

Chain Smoker

Meh, the original worked because of how well it used its pretty big limitations (the balancing of ****ty video and monochromatic 16mm, low-rent actors that they could treat like ****). I'm sure Winguard won't **** the bed but it's not going to be at all comparable.

Bergmann

Looking forward to this, enjoyed the original back in the day but feel like this will go one better! Interested to see where they go with it.

Wailin

Decuc500 wrote: »

Pretty cool that no one knew The Woods was a Blair Witch sequel until after its first screening. Looking forward to this.

Can you post a link to this movie 'The Woods' that's apparently a sequel to Blair Witch Project? Can't find anything on it.

El Duda

This does not look very appealing. Just lots of screaming!

Mr E

Wailin wrote: »

Can you post a link to this movie 'The Woods' that's apparently a sequel to Blair Witch Project? Can't find anything on it.

It was made with a fake title to throw people off the scent. It only became Blair Witch a few weeks ago.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1540011/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv

Originally promoted under the faux-title The Woods. Was then revealed as the third Blair Witch movie at the 2016 San Diego Comic Con.

Keplar240B

Basq wrote: »

Yep, been following "The Woods" for a few months now.. little did I know!

Wingard is talented.. and any excuse to try and wipe the horrific "Book Of Shadows" from my memory.

Never released there was a "blair witch 2 " until I read this thread :pac:
I assume its not worth watching right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Shadows:_Blair_Witch_2

there should really do a prequel set at beginning of legend back in 1785.

Myrddin

Keplar240B wrote: »

I assume its not worth watching right?

Book of Shadows....it's horrendous, avoid at all costs.

ScottScott

I'm easily scared, not a horror films enthusiast. But The Blair Witch Project, saw on big screen, left me cold, completely. For me remains an unsolved mistery :-)

Mr E

New extended trailer. If you're claustrophobic, look away now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwWoOz3mDlE

super_furry

Myrddin wrote: »

Book of Shadows....it's horrendous, avoid at all costs.

I have a soft spot for it. It's a film very much of it's time and wasn't thought well of at release. They at least tried something different than just remaking the original.

Zero-Cool

Saw it last night in Odeon as part of their Scream Unseen feature. Pay a fiver to see an upcoming horror film but won't know which one til it starts. Was really hoping it was Blair Witch as was gonna go to it anyway. Absolutely loved the 1st one...

I won't post any spoiler info about what happens in the film at all since its not out yet but i will spoiler if i thought it was good or not.

soooo disapointing. Everything that made the 1st film so good was just thrown out the window in this one and they decided stupid jump scares was the way to go. Way too overhyped about being a return to true horror. Just cack

Wailin

Such a shame, was really looking forward to this:(

Ben Gadot

Reviews seem mixed while slightly teetering to positive.

To be fair I understand what the positive reviews are saying in that it's difficult to replicate something that was in a way, lightning in a bottle. So it's good to try and trail a different blaze.

That being doesn't mean however that what they've actually done in this film is any good. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Fysh

I remember enjoying TBWP the first time I saw it, but it didn't hold up to rewatching for me because there wasn't a whole lot to any of the characters. The spookiness of certain segments still works, but a lot of the rest of it felt like a chore once you already knew where it was headed.

I'm sort of curious about what'll be done with this new one, but I'm less won over by Wingard's attachment. A Horrible Way To Die and You're Next were both good (though not exactly revolutionary), but I thought The Guest was some dreadful arsegravy. And none of them really suggest that Wingard specifically has good ideas on how to tackle something like a Blair Witch Project sequel effectively. (By contrast, look at the inventiveness on display in something like Unfriended - that's the kind of approach I'd want to see, ideally coupled with a script worth a damn as far as characters are concerned...)

Banjaxed82

The original Blair Witch worked much better in the age of dial up internet and the mystery that still surrounded the web. The fact that you couldn't get the full information on the film added to the experience. Now you can find out who did the catering on a film.

Incidentally, this looks like a disappointment. Strip away the title and we've seen it before.

MrStuffins

Just out of this.

It throws absolutely everything they made the original great out the window.

However, for my money it ends strongly. So I came out of it having enjoyed it.

I'll be watching the original again this weekend.

Chain Smoker

Fysh wrote: »

I remember enjoying TBWP the first time I saw it, but it didn't hold up to rewatching for me because there wasn't a whole lot to any of the characters. The spookiness of certain segments still works, but a lot of the rest of it felt like a chore once you already knew where it was headed.

Can see how someone would find the whole thing a chore, **** all happens in it overall. I think the characters are strong point though, it's so heavily improv'd that working from a very basic idea of what each character is is the best way to make them feel more lived in.


Would love to have seen it in a cinema.

Ben Gadot

I liked the impending doom and claustrophobic feel of the original. I'd say it would have been a great cinematic experience as well.

Ben Gadot

Saw it this morning and have to say I thought it was poor enough. The idea of modern technology was totally wasted and the supposed mythology that a few reviews stated was touched upon was non existent.

Really disappointed to be honest, the cinematic equivalent of watching sitting ducks.

Banjaxed82

Ben Gadot wrote: »

I liked the impending doom and claustrophobic feel of the original. I'd say it would have been a great cinematic experience as well.

I felt it was, especially considering the idea of found footage was not remotely in the mainstream. Cannibal Holocaust and a few others had done it some years earlier.

Regardless of how people retrospectively analyse the film, it felt very fresh and novel for the time, especially as cheap video camera were becoming more common place around then. It was just a film that captured the many evolving technologies all at once.

Banjaxed82

The final third of the film was relatively good, and fairly creepy, but the first two thirds was a pile of balls really, and by the time the final act arrived, I'd long disengaged.

briany

Pretty lacklustre. The original film holds a special place for me, and this new installment is basically a retelling, albeit a soulless one. A soulless one with predictable jump scares, OTT special effects and characters you don't really care about.

Firstly, the premise is silly. Heather was 24 when she went missing 22 years ago (in the story of the franchise), and now here comes her brother looking barely out of this early 20s, if that, with a desperate desire to find her. Not only is the massive age gap pushing the realm of plausibility, but his connection to her seems disproportionate given they would have had no real relationship. Have her dad, cousin or best friend go looking for her.

Also, in the first film, the grizzly stories that came out of the woods seemed like a long time ago and not with so much of a personal resonance to Heather, Mike and Josh. In this one, there's a very real connection, yet several of the party go into the woods with that cocky blithe attitude that's so in vogue when it comes to found footage.

The inclusion of the black couple in their party felt like blatant tokenism to me, as did the inclusion of the other couple besides the main pair. That guy was only in there as a way to expound on the lore of the Blair Witch. About as obvious a writing device as when a character says, "Hey, big sister!". Six people in the party makes each individual feel a lot more expendable.

I feel like the noises the witch made were just some generic growls and snarls that come out of the mouths of many a CGI Hollywood monster these days. An overused trope much like the demon face thing from films like Paranormal Activity. Not scary and quite thoughtless.

Really, just a thing that was made to please the studios, and they had the wrong people making it. You'd need the original film makers at the helm, writing & directing, but I feel like a large part of why they never did a true sequel was because they never had an idea as good, and they left well enough alone.

Imnotthehulk

2 - 2.5 stars out of 5

There were some things i quite liked about this sequel, it was a vast improvement on the previous sequel at least. The idea about time being manipulated/warped was something I could get behind.

Overall problem I had was how rushed the film felt. The original, despite being only 80 minutes long felt like it built up properly to a climax. This film felt like it cut out most of the middle act, sped to the third act and then drew out what should have been 10 minutes of anarchy into 40 minutes.

I liked Lane and his girlfriend turning up in the evening claiming to have been wandering for 5 days, but thought a lot more could have been done with the time warping. Lane's (if that's his name) later appearances felt like they could have come directly out of a parody film.

yerwanthere123

Just watched this, thought it was alright actually. Obviously nowhere near as good as the original, and adds nothing new to the horror genre, but I thought it was enjoyable enough anyway.

6/10.

TerrorFirmer

I thought this was incredibly disappointing considering who's behind it, expected so much more. It has some good aspects, particularly the time anomalies, that could have been used to much, much better effect. That was the only part that sort of 'got' to me, and felt somewhat unnerving. The effects as people have mentioned are overdone and rather generic and it totally lacks the terrifying subtly that made the original so creepy (aforementioned time oddities being the only truly effective dread technique in my opinion). It's not terrible, but it's not particularly good either and hugely disappointing, largely a re-thread of the original film with tacked on hollywood bells and whistles that shouldn't really belong in either a Blair Witch or Adam Wingard film.

Wailin

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I thought this was incredibly disappointing considering who's behind it, expected so much more.

This director is overrated, seriously. What has he done that was actually decent? The Guest maybe but even that turned into a joke towards the end.

Saw it last night and agree with most others, poor enough but watchable. Such a wasted opportunity really, in the hands of a decent director it could have been enjoyable.

TerrorFirmer

I thought The Guest was stellar, and while I thought You're Next is indeed over-rated, it's a good film too - but at least both, whatever your opinion of them, are well put together and have some unique flair on display. Blair Witch is not only a poor film.... it's your straight-up, predictable and largely soul-less Hollywood generic horror. I did not expect that from Wingard, is all.

briany

Reason why the original was so effective was, well, there was more than one reason, really. What made it particularly effective at the time was that it pioneered, or was a pioneer of a new kind of viral marketing that made it seem like a real event, and it was even treated as one by the producers of the film for a short time. This was also what significantly contributed to the backlash to the film.

What continues to make it an effective and memorable film is that it was shot in such a real, raw, gritty style. The events of the film you could almost imagine really happening. You can put yourself in their shoes and what's not shown allows your imagination to fill in the blanks. Was it a witch? Was it psychos/rednecks in the woods f*cking with the protagonists? Nothing is totally conclusive and it wasn't a film that insulted your intelligence.

In contrast, where the original was about hearing branches breaking in the dead of night and the protagonists saying, "Did you hear that?", the update is like,

large unseen monster knocking down an entire tree to get at one of the party

, and the group going, "Did you hear that?". All that subtlety was pretty badly lost. Not to mention some awkward writing. For example, that guy in their party who was there to pretty much explain the Blair Witch mythos to the viewer. And the search party was too big. There was, what? Six people? To me, it's hard to care about that many and you almost knew going in that

the majority of them would end up as witch fodder

.

The original is like a nice craft beer. It's something made by an independent producer with love. This sequel was like Budweiser. Made by a large company, watered down and designed to sate the masses, and quite forgettable as a result.

LuckyLloyd

Excellent summation briany.