Blair Witch movie review: more like blah witch…

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Blair Witch red light

MaryAnn’s quick take…

An entirely superfluous attempt to recapture the magic of the original film. A remake masquerading as a sequel that goes nowhere and has nothing new to say.tweet
I’m “biast” (pro): liked the first film…
I’m “biast” (con): …but found footage is over
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

Gather round, kiddies, and hear the tale of The Blair Witch Project. Oh, not the story in the film but the story of the film.

Way back in the 20th century — 1999, to be precise — a couple of indie filmmakers called Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez came up with the truly brilliant idea to make a movie on an ultra-low budget by giving cameras to three actors and setting them loose in the Maryland woods to improvise a “documentary” around an invented backstory about a search for the “true” story of a legendary local witch. The effect was so convincing that millions of people actually believed that it was a real documentary about an authentic legend, that the three young people had gone missing in the woods, and that their equipment and the footage depicting the horrors that befell them (the witch ain’t no legend!) had been found a year later. This illusion was aided by the movie’s Web site, which featured “evidence” such as police reports (which were fake but plausible), and by clever marketing that included missing-person posters of the three “filmmakers.”

It’s almost impossible in the era of Google to foster a “Could it be real?” uncertainty like The Blair Witch Project did…

The Blair Witch Project truly looked like it was what it purported to be, and — difficult as this may be to believe, my lovelies — the Internet had not yet become the repository of all human knowledge that it is today. There was no Wikipedia, and if you wanted to search, you Asked Jeeves, and he wouldn’t have found much to help you authenticate or debunk a maybe-fake, maybe-real “documentary.”

Now, this movie was not the first to utilize faux found-footage, but its enormous mainstream success ensured that the conceit would be imitated. And boy howdy, was it ever. After 2007’s Paranormal Activity — another indie that found wide appeal — and 2008’s Cloverfield, when found-footage colonized studio filmmaking, the technique began to descend into trope-hood, then cliché, and has now infected many a movie that has mistakenly believed that technique is story. Found-footage has, by 2016, become a cheattweet, a shortcut, a cost-cutting dodge, a way to replace a good tale well told with some shaky camerawork and a pretense of reality… a pretense that no longer holds up in the age of “just Google it” and a movie-nerd Net that exhaustively chronicles every step of the filmmaking and marketing process on any film of geek interest.

How would MacGyver use this stick to escape from this movie?
How would MacGyver use this stick to escape from this movie?tweet

Enter director Adam Wingard and screenwriter Simon Barrett. They’ve made names for themselves snarking on 80s action movies with The Guest and 70s slasher flicks with You’re Next. They don’t make their own movies so much as remake everyone else’s. So who better to give us Blair Witch, which isn’t only an entirely superfluous attempt to recapture the magic of the original film — not possible now that the found-footage conceit is long since played out — but is also a remake masquerading as a sequeltweet. (That’s another pit Hollywood keeps falling into lately: calling movies sequels when they’re just regurgitating what’s come before. See also Jurassic World and Independence Day: Resurgence.)

This time out, it’s Lisa (Callie Hernandez: Sin City: A Dame to Kill For) heading into the Maryland woods with her friend Peter (Brandon Scott: Walk of Shame, Wreck-It Ralph) and Peter’s girlfriend Ashley (Corbin Reid) to make a documentary about their pal James (James Allen McCune) and his quest to find out what happened to his sister, Heather… the documentary director from the 1999 movie. James is heartened by the fact that locals Lane (Wes Robinson) and Talia (Valorie Curry: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2) discovered what Lane believes is more of Heather’s missing footage, which doesn’t offer him any new evidence of anything; he already knew Heather had been out in those woods. But James is obsessed with finding Heather, because if he weren’t there would be no movie. It could have been a potentially interesting twist on a horror trope if James and his friends weren’t young twentysomethings (James was only 4 years old when Heather went missing, so he never even really knew her). But old people don’t buy tickets for found-footage horror movies, and young people don’t want to watch old people running around in the wood screaming, I guess. Probably more seasoned adults would have just turned around and gone home rather than delving deeper into stupidity like James and his friends do, and again, there would be no movie. Which would have been a good thing, actually.

There was story left untold from the 1999 film. And it remains untold.

Wingard and Barrett try to expand the found-footage conceit, but all they do is break it. The Scooby gang heads into the woods with a drone that allows them to get aerial footage, and each of them has an ear-fitted camera that gives us POV shots, and material from these sources plus handheld cameras has been edited together into something that more closely approximates a traditional narrative movie than anything allegedly found-footage has any right to be. It also raises the question of who edited the footage, and to what end.

That question remains unanswered, as does the really obvious unspoken big one: Why make this movie at all? There was story left untold from 1999, like who or what the witch is and what, precisely, happened to Heather and her fellow filmmakers all those years ago. And it remains untold. Blair Witch seems to be setting up a particularly trippy solution to the mystery of Heather’s disappearance, but after a lot of tromping around in the woods, some familiar horror-flick jump scares, and fresher but ultimately dead-end hints that the fabric of the physical world has been messed with, Blair Witch ends up in the same place the first film ended up in. It goes nowhere and says nothing we hadn’t already heard 17 years ago.tweet And it does so in a way that is no longer even the least bit unexpected or engaging.

share and enjoy
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
notify of
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Wed, Sep 14, 2016 2:26pm

As far as I remember, found-footage horror had become a genre by 2005 or so – a film would be introduced as “a found-footage horror movie”.

The remake/sequel thing: it’s marketing again. They find that they get 0.2% fewer ticket sales when something’s called a “remake” (after clumsy and inaccurate corrections for everything else), so for the next year the word “remake” is banned, just as the failure of Mars Needs Moms got John Carter of Mars retitled.

I gather that in 17 years the Expendable Meat still hasn’t learned that if you’re lost in the woods you can follow a stream to make sure you’re not walking in circles.

Fri, Sep 16, 2016 6:38am

You know, I had heard at the time that Blair Witch claimed to be real found footage, but I never believed that toss. Who finds footage of the probable kidnap/murder of some students and releases it as a movie in theaters? And isn’t sued out of existence before that happens?

Nevertheless I found the movie effective. Part was that it was a fairly novel idea. But a bigger reason being that they threw themselves so fully into the conceit. 99% of “found footage” is way too clean, and you can practically hear the director reminding the cameraman to shake a bit so it seems “real”, but there’s always a shot that’s too perfect, a vantage point it doesn’t make sense for them to have except that it frames some action perfectly and there some inexplicable light that makes it visible and cinematic. Not in Blair Witch! The camera is always a bit too slow, or it’s too dark, or the angle is bad, and it looks nothing like what a traditional movie would put on screen. As if it was really a camera being carried by a young person lost in the woods and being tormented — which is pretty much how they made the movie, so props for that level of verisimilitude. Basically they worked really hard selling it.

I feel like now they don’t try. “This is found footage, got it? Okay. Keep that in mind, because the rest of the movie looks just like a movie made with no budget or talent, so you might forget.”

So while I had no intention of seeing this couldn’t-possibly-recapture-the-magic re-sequel… I at least was hoping it would do the ‘found footage’ thing correctly.

reply to  CB
Mon, Sep 26, 2016 9:54pm

Follow up: Now I find out that not only did they not do found footage correctly (as in, authentically), they went back and ruined the original. They replay the footage from the absolutely perfectly scary and ambiguous ending of Blair Witch Project, and added in a monstrous roar over the main character being knocked down from behind. Awesome.

Mon, Sep 19, 2016 3:21pm

The wife and I saw this on Saturday. I knew about the bad reviews, but we like our horror movies, so went anyway.
My thoughts:
This was WAY too much like the first. If this was done without the first
one ever existing, it would have been a lot creepier and unnerving. As
it is, it just felt like a rehash of the original, with only a few minor
tweaks to make it slightly more modern.
Plus, as usual with these
types of films, it’s hard as hell to tell what;’s going on when the shit
hits the fan. It’s truly confusing. Confusion and dizziness =/= scary.