1999's The Blair Witch Project has done a lot of good for the film community. It was the first ever movie to showcase filmmakers being able to make a memorable and terrifying film, for a minuscule budget, and release it wide for the world to see. It was able to fool half of these people into thinking that the movie was, in fact, found footage. It has had major staying power in the realm of American horror culture and spawned a "never speak of it again" sequel as well as a remake-quel. It has also spawned the likes of movies on a low budget using handheld cameras that are equally, if not more so, terrifying films like Paranormal Activity. However, the film has also done a lot of bad. It has also spawned such found footage films like Apollo 18, The Devil Inside, A Haunted House, Devil's Due, As Above So Below, Project Almanac, and The Gallows. So, in retrospect, it's really done a lot more harm than good. However, with the success of the original and the complete and utter failure of the sequel, it was only a matter of time before a remake or a prequel or a reboot or a sequel or a remake-quel was bound to stumble upon us. And it is not the drones we are looking for.
Coming off the success of highly underrated and very clever horror film You're Next, little known horror director Adam Wingard seemed like the best choice. His work with You're Next as well as his contributions to the anthologies V/H/S, V/H/S 2, and The ABCs of Death. He's a director, along with longtime writing partner Simon Barrett, that shows true promise and grit in a world overwhelmed by lousy horror filmmakers. Even if what he produces isn't a masterpiece, there is always something new and inventive, highly creative, and yes, terrifying. So, his take on the Blair Witch piqued my interest simply from his involvement in the film. Hell, I was even interested when it was announced that this movie was called The Woods and was yet to be discovered as a Blair Witch film. Unfortunately, through most of this particular film, it appears that the aforementioned inventiveness, creativity, and terror were left on the cutting room floor, because all that we get for most of it is a more expensive, and decidedly lackluster, remake of the original.
I've seen this tactic used before and it has actually worked. Back in 1981, a group of film students took it upon themselves to make a cheap and gory horror movie in the woods and called it The Evil Dead. It was cheap, it was hokey, and it was awesome. Then, when the movie deals and money came pouring in, director Sam Raimi took the original crew back out to the woods to do a sequel... except this time he had a bigger budget. So, a good third of Evil Dead 2 is a more expensive remake of the first movie with better effects, better gore, and an expanded mythology that lead directly into the sequel. I believe this could've worked for Blair Witch had they focused more on adding to the mythology and expanding the story, rather than rehashing it for a new generation.
This time out we've got James, whose sister Heather was the girl from the first movie was lost in the woods only to have her footage discovered. He ropes his filmmaking friend Lisa into an idea of going out into the woods to look for her (even though it's been almost 20 years later). Along for the ride is James' best friend Peter and his girlfriend Ashley. They head out to the Burkitsville woods to look for clues of Heather and see if there really is a witch in the woods. Out there, the tale of the Blair Witch is told again. Creepy goings-on in the woods start to happen. Little wooden figurines hang from the trees and time seems to work differently for the crew. The group of friends, never leaving a camera turned off, begin fighting with one another and searching for a way to get the hell out of there. If this sounds a lot like the first movie... you're right. And it essentially is except this time there aren't any handheld cameras. Everyone has a camera attached to their ear like a bluetooth (which, to be honest, gives the never-putting-the-camera-down gimmick a bit more credulity), and a drone.
But, here's the problem. Even though it is an updated carbon copy of the original-- it's kinda boring. Nothing really happens other than people POPPING UP from out of nowhere in front of cameras in order to give the audience a cheap jump scare. All the friends do is search the wood and bicker. The terror is slow to build and not in a good way. Then, there's the logic problems with the idea of found footage that stand out like a gay couple at a Chic-Fil-A. When one of the friends starts to feel a little dizzy-- the picture in the camera gets fuzzy. When another character loses his hearing-- well, wouldn't you know it-- we lose the hearing from the camera replaced by a slight ringing sound that one might experience when... losing hearing. And finally, I don't think I'm alone here when I say that found footage films are so obnoxious and the novelty has long since worn off. The quick cuts and the nauseating shaking that forces the audience to look away for seconds at a time just don't seem to be worth the story. There's really nothing about this movie that NEEDED it to be found footage other than the original was.
Now! That being said-- I did say that most of the movie was disappointing. The last fifteen minutes or so are FANTASTIC. While not necessarily adding to the mythology of the Blair Witch it does add a bit more explanation of the house from the end of the first film. In the original, Heather walks into a creepy house, finds one of her friends eerily standing in a corner, there's a THUD and she drops the camera-- The End. In this film, the same thing happens. Only we get to see the house. We get to see the house for a good fifteen minutes and this is where the real terror begins, and I mean that-- it's terrifying. The tension I felt in the last fifteen minutes almost made up for the rest of the movie. There's chilling shots of what could be the Blair Witch, there's twists and turns and anxiety and panic behind every door. It's so good that if Wingard and Barrett had employed this type of filmmaking to the entire movie, it would've been great-- instead of forgettable.
Is the last fifteen minutes worth the rest of the movie? No, probably not. But the foul taste I had in my mouth for the majority of the film was instantly swept away with the last fifteen minutes and I was able to look back and think, "that kinda sucked... but damn that was a good ending."
C-
No comments:
Post a Comment