I carry mixed feelings towards 1999’s “The Blair Witch Project.”
Much like 2009’s “Paranormal Activity,” I respect the craft, ingenuity, and low-budget dedication found throughout the $60,000 production. I like how it sparked viral marketing as we know it today, and I also ultimately appreciate its longstanding contribution to not merely the horror genre, but film in general, and I recognize and often admire the commitment given by directors Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick, as well as actors Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard and Michael C. Williams, to provide as much gritty, dingy realism as they can possibly muster. And yet, the experience of watching ‘The Blair Witch Project” is an often tedious, frustrating, and deeply meandering one. It’s a film that is so committed to staying true to its dirty authenticity that its often at the expense of being engaging or interesting, and I could never decide if that’s the film’s biggest strength or its greatest weakness. It might be the most perfectly imperfect movie ever made.
I had a similar reaction towards “Blair Witch,” the newest film from director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett, the team behind “You’re Next” and “The Guest.” These filmmakers are given the thankless task of trying to recreate the specific magic of the original “The Blair Witch Project,” while also attempting to add to its vague mythology, develop new characters and provide something that’s cut from the original’s cloth without feeling like a direct copycat. It’s an admirable effort from two competent filmmakers, and yet it never quite comes together in any fulfilling manner. Is it possible to make a good ‘Blair Witch Project’ sequel? Nothing’s impossible, but Wingard and Barrett’s commendably underwhelming sequel suggests that — no matter how hellbent your good intentions can be — it’s certainly an uphill battle. But at least it’s better than “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.”
It’s been over a decade since the events depicted in “The Blair Witch Project,” and despite an extensive search for the protagonists of that film, the footage they left behind remains the only evidence found in their absence. But when a mysterious clip seemingly featuring Heather appears online, her younger brother James (James Allen McCune) recruits his friends Lisa Arlington (Callie Hernandez), Peter (Brandon Scott), Ashley (Corbin Reid) and Blair Witch believers Lane (Wes Robinson) and Talia (Valorie Curry) to search and record the small town woods of Burkittsville, Maryland, hoping to find Heather or, at the very least, discover where she’s been all these years.
There are some genuinely clever ideas in “Blair Witch.” Similar to the surprising “Paranormal Activity 3” from a few years back, Wingard and Barrett find interesting and sometimes ingenious ways to incorporate new technology into the series without completely taking away from the spirit of the original. Devices like an ultra-smooth flying drone captures some gorgeous woodland shots, meanwhile every character walks around with earpiece miniature cameras on their person, constantly give us first-person perspectives that are genuinely immersive. It provides a bit more logic in explaining why the characters would continue filming, despite the fact that their lives are often in danger. These ideas are the foundation for a good “Blair Witch” sequel, but unfortunately this followup slowly loses itself to monotony — in ways both intended and sadly not — and, like our hapless leads, it never quite finds itself again.
Unlike the original, “Blair Witch” can’t rely on the same tricks to coast by. Wingard and Barnett, to their continued credit, recognize that and try to zest their new movie up whenever they feel it’s appropriate. They try to up the stakes, add new conflicts and struggles for these young individuals, but they all-too-often rely on far too many jump scares and dull repetition to keep the plot enticing for more harder-to-please younger viewers.
However, once the story works its way into the familiar cabin, things admittedly start to pick up. There’s an extremely effective catastrophic moment that’s among the most genuinely creepy scenes seen this year. Also, getting a chance to better explore the house — beyond the two-or-three minutes we saw it in the first film — is an enticing and potentially rich prospect. The production design team works overtime to make the haunted house as authentically rickety, whittled and worn-down as can be, and you often feel like you’re trapped in this place, blindly hoping — just like the characters — to find a tunnel out of this hellhole. But as one might fear, Wingard and Barnett go ahead and reveal too much.
Part of what made the original so effective was the ingrained mystery, and the suspense that came naturally. Unfortunately, Wingard and Barnett feel too inclined to explain the what’s behind the events in “Blair Witch,” which kills the fear found in the complete unknown. And it leads to a finale that simply can’t compete with the raw terror of the original.
That said, there’s much to admire in this “Blair Witch.” The performances are decent, the characters are well fleshed-out and there are more attempts to provide some more light-hearted moments, without completely sacrificing the suspense. But while this sequel is more entertaining than its predecessor, it simply can’t capture the mystique of the original. It’s an admirably well-crafted misfire, created by two of the finest filmmaking duos working together today. But perhaps that demonstrates just how singular the original remains, even to this day. You can’t always like it, but you still admire it. That’s only partially true this time. [C+]