2016 has been a rebirth of horror with titles like The Conjuring 2, Lights Out, and Don’t Breathe not only doing solid financial business but also getting love from critics that tend to dismiss the genre. Blair Witch should’ve been another film added to this distinguished list of horror offerings but much like the 1999 film that started it all, it’s riddled with too many flaws to be truly successful. This is the first time in awhile where I saw a film, where initially I loved it but actually began to feel less enthused about it with each passing day. There is no denying that there are some truly tense moments but most of it feels like a retread that leaves the viewer with a sense of been there, done that.
The Blair Witch Project was polarizing back in 1999. It was much loved by critics and made a lot of money but once it left the art house circuit and opened wide, the reaction was very divisive. It’s a film that I appreciate because of what it did for the genre but I acknowledge that its flaws make it a bit of a mediocre film. Blair Witch comes with the same kind of hype. During San Diego Comic-Con International a rabid group of horror fans were getting pumped for a movie called The Woods and were pleasantly surprised by a clever bait and switch where it was revealed that The Woods was actually a third Blair Witch film. The reaction was said to be extremely positive and early reviews suggested a true horror classic (it was 100% on Rotten Tomatoes for weeks before crashing back to Earth with a now rotten score of 36%). The marketing suggested a return to form for the franchise that was quickly killed with a sequel to the original, the 2000 release of Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.
I can honestly say that Blair Witch is much better than its predecessor, although that’s a feat that should be relatively easy considering how bad that film was. Director Adam Wingard, who has dabbled with found footage horror before with V/H/S, has a love for the genre and it shows through some of his filmmaking techniques. Blair Witch is never a technical blunder. It generates scares through a strong visual style and moments of high tension (the last 20 minutes or so make me recommend it to horror fans despite the film’s overall flaws).
Despite the technical success of the film, it is held back a bit by the found footage hook. In 1999 this was a relatively new technique but we have been hit over the head with many films like this since The Blair Witch Project was a huge success. Part of that film’s success was that the marketing made many of us believe what we were seeing was real. This doesn’t work in 2016 and it takes you out of the film a bit. The title card, which announces that footage in the film was assembled from the remnants found in Burkittsville, MD, is a bit problematic because from the start we are aware this is a work of fiction. Most of the hook that made this concept work in 1999 isn’t much of a surprise here so it kills a certain amount of suspense from the start. By going in the direction of the original, we know we’re watching a bunch of dead men and women walking so how can we be invested in how this turns out for them since we basically already know that no one here is coming out of this a survivor?
The first half hour is mostly setup with the discovery of a video that shows James (James Allen McCune) that his sister Heather Donahue (from the first film) may be very much alive. Because of this, he recruits his filmmaker friend, Lisa (Callie Hernandez), and two other buddies, Peter (Brandon Scott) and Ashley (Corbin Reid), to tag along on his trek through the Black Hills Forest. They are all wired for sound and video with tiny ear cameras, more traditional handhelds, and even a drone to provide “helicopter shots” for Lisa’s planned documentary. Along the way, they meet up with Lane (Wes Robinson) and Talia (Valorie Curry), the couple who unearthed the YouTube footage. Of course, as they venture further into the woods, strange things begin to happen and the Blair Witch legend may be truer than they realized.
Things do get creepy pretty fast and this is where the film falters and succeeds. The shaky cam activity does become a bit of a nuisance. There are moments it works (particularly during the final 20 minutes) but most of the time it’s more stomach churning than effective. Some critics have criticized the sound design but this is one technical aspect that elevated a few of the scenes for me. When the lights go out, it sounds like the woods are being ripped apart during certain moments. It’s an attack on the senses that make you feel like you’re in the moment with these characters. This is especially true during the final 20 minutes which would probably make a pretty great short film. It ALMOST makes you forgive how familiar the film feels. The ending may not amount to much, but I will say that was on edge for those 20 minutes and that’s how a horror film should make you feel.
As we all know now, Blair Witch had a disappointing opening weekend and received a dreaded “D+” on its opening night Cinemascore. A couple of months ago, this film was being viewed as the one to see but much like in 1999, once the dust settled it became clear that it couldn’t quite live up to the hype. As a horror fan I appreciated moments of the film that definitely stand out but the more you think of the product as a whole, you realize that this concept doesn’t have much life in it anymore and a more original idea would’ve been a better direction. It may be time to put the Blair Witch legend to rest.
Reel Talk gives Blair Witch 2.5 reels
