Blair Witch (Adam Wingard)

[TGM]

BLAIR WITCH

Director: Adam Wingard

imdb

[TGM]

Part of what made the original movie so effective was its simplicity. But hokey Hollywood effects and cheap jump scares ruin this newest movie, which shows way too much of its hand. :\

[Ezee E]

There's a lot of potential here, but the movie doesn't really seem to know where its strengths and weaknesses are before the final sequence. The use of time, map, and whether it's a prank or not is much more scary (and unfortunately underused) than the cheap jump scares, random effects, and the confusing leech(?)/muscle spasm that's never quite completed.

However, the final sequence was genuinely pretty frightful to me. Whether it's the claustrophobic tunnel crawl, or the attempt to see/not to see what's going on, and the house itself. There are some more jump scares and overdone effects, but I feel like the actress played it off so well that I was damn white-knuckled for that final twenty minutes.

[Henry Gale]

I'm really wondering now if the whole "The Woods" --> "Blair Witch" title-switcheroo marketing twist was a big mistake. Not just because I still saw posters for the original title up at more than one theatre before its release and there was never any way in this day and age to take down the endless re-posts of those trailers on YouTube (I even saw a pre-video ad on there from the Canadian distributor that said "Blair Witch" in the corner but still used the old "Woods" teaser), but also more than one person I know referred to it that way in conversation as something they were looking forward to, before I explained to them what it really was, which made them suddenly less excited for it.

I feel like had it been kept it under wraps until the day it came out, kept the title, skipped TIFF, and embargoed everyone else in between, then it could've done a hell of a lot better. Even if revealing it all in the film itself might've made audiences even more angry, they'd have already made that money.

I mean, there was no way I wasn't going to watch whatever Wingard's follow-up to The Guest was, and now even I haven't bothered to see it.

[Ivan Drago]

I went in with the lowest of expectations, and I actually really enjoyed this. While it does take the basic plot of the first one, hits similar beats in the plot and is still a found footage movie, everything within the plot of Blair Witch is all new, fresh and exciting. The characters are thin but have well-written banter, the scares are creative and implement a variety of tropes from the horror genre, and the digital filmmaking technology of today contributes to creative camerawork, unsettling set pieces, and awesome imagery. The original Blair Witch Project was and still holds up as everything a found footage movie should be, and a classic in the horror genre, but Blair Witch makes something new out of it and even builds more mythology to the Blair Witch legend itself. All in all, I had a blast with it.

[Gittes]

There are some scary elements here, but the film is softened by blandness. Superior characters and performances may have helped to ground the story in some kind of authentic human experience. Since James' search for his sister lacks developed pathos, the film's emotional basis is anemic. He doesn't amount to much besides anodyne virtue. It's there in nearly all of his lines and actions — the guy is all doe-eyed, guileless, inoffensive goodness. He is haunted by the loss of a sibling, but there's very little in his performance that actually suggests trauma. While Wingard admirably tries to append notes of self-destructive obsession and guilt near the end, they're scant and underdeveloped. The rest of the cast is more or less fine, but there are moments here and there where the performances feel self-consciously "authentic."

It's not just the casual chit-chat that occasionally feels strained, but also the moments of abject terror. As others have pointed out, the reliance on jump scares is monotonous, as are the accompanying cries of alarm. Genuine creepiness is achieved through other means, however. The temporal inconsistencies allow the film achieve actual, unnerving strangeness. While the ostensible shots of the eponymous witch have elicited hand-wringing from fans, it remains a terrifying sight, and is redolent of a recent, effective horror image: the tall pursuer from It Follows briskly emerging from within a shadowy hallway. Yet the moment in Mitchell's film felt carefully timed and deviously choreographed, whereas the glimpses that Wingard offers are of an inferior make: the overplayed "did you see that?" sideswipe scare. The scenes inside the house are adequate, but, like much of the film, there's something somnambulant about the trajectory of terror. The spookiness often feels more familiar than frightening. However, some borrowings from The Descent do allow the movie to effectively perturb during its last stretch, and the direction and the acting rise to that legitimately scary occasion.

[Dukefrukem]

Hit and miss with Adam Wingard and in the pseudo-sequel. I loved everything about the Guest but disliked You're Next. Make no mistake, this film references and takes place after the original Blair Witch Project. There's a lot of shaky cam / found footage elements, though they did use a steadicam through most of the first two acts. And it's 2016 now so of course we need to add in footage from a drone. Aside from one really cool voodoo trinket scene, there is very little novel ideas here. Noises at night. Camera moves fast into jump scare. Wake up. Walk in circles. Freak out. Can't find the path. Run through the woods. Rinse and repeat.