Review of Blair Witch (2016) by Jack F — 26 Feb 2017

Sequels are a tricky business, particularly when it comes to horror movies. Given the nature of the genre, it's just extremely difficult to capture that lightning in a bottle twice, which would explain why so many horror movie follow-ups tend to be little more than derivative retreads of their predecessors.

The task becomes even more daunting when the filmmakers are tasked with creating a follow-up to a genuine phenomenon like "The Blair Witch Project." The polarizing film had its proponents as well as its detractors, but the cultural impact it had on the horror movie landscape is undeniable; essentially it propelled the "found footage" genre to mainstream audience's attentions. That alone is difficult to follow up. Exacerbating matters further is that the movie itself didn't leave much room for a sequel. (This really shouldn't be a spoiler as the movie's whole marketing campaign was based on this, and there's also the word "found" in the genre itself, but SPOILER ALERT anyway...none of the characters make it out of the forest.).

Perhaps it was this difficulty that led to the vastly different style utilized in the movie's first sequel, "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2," released in 2000. This oddity was more of a "sidequel" than a true follow-up as its connection to the "The Blair Witch Project" was more-or-less tangential. The story has very little to do with the events of the first film (though those events did serve as a sort of "jumping off" point) and in perhaps the most surprising development, there's very little "found footage" as the format is more standard. In hindsight, it's understandable why the filmmakers would want to go in such a radically different direction. But the execution was sloppy, the story was an absolute mess, and the vastly different style confounded moviegoing audiences.

This would explain why it took 16 years to dive back into the franchise. The generically titled "Blair Witch" is a more traditional sequel, serving as a legit follow-up and once again utilizing found footage. And with director Adam Wingard and screenwriter Simon Barrett (the filmmakers behind "You're Next" and "The Guest") in tow, it was reasonable to expect this entry to serve as a satisfying addition to the Blair Witch canon. But alas, things didn't really work out...

To get back to what I was saying earlier, the decision to change things up so wildly with "Book of Shadows" makes a lot more sense in the wake of "Blair Witch." While it's fair to say the latter is probably the more logical direction for the series to go, it also falls into the same trap that has been befouling horror movie sequels since time began: it's essentially a rehash of the original film. Once again, we're dealing with a group of college students who get lost in the haunted forest just outside Burkittsville, Maryland. The main character, James Donahue (James Allen McCune) is actually the younger brother of Heather Donahue, the protagonist of "The Blair Witch Project.".

So, in a way, it makes sense that he'd choose to enter these terrible woods as he's determined to locate his sister, who has never been found. But at the same time...dude, you saw the footage that comprised the first film. You saw the way your sister and her friends got lost and subsequently turned on each other. You saw the way they were tormented by an unseen, seemingly supernatural force. And you're STILL going to go into these woods?

Yeah, nice knowin' ya. You might as well have said, "I'll be right back" as you walked into the forest.

Snark aside, I really was willing to grant the movie its premise. James thinks he can find his sister? Okay, whatever. But I was less willing to forgive the additional displays of idiocy he and his friends exhibited upon entry into the haunted woods. Say what you will about Heather and her cronies in the first "Blair Witch Project," but at least they weren't stupid enough to actually split up once shit started getting real (at least not that I can recall anyway).

And real the shit does get. James and his friends quickly discover that there might be some truth to this whole Blair Witch thing as they realize that something is stalking them. (Gee, if only they'd had something to warn them, something like footage of people who went into these woods years earlier...) But unlike the first film, in which the unseen assailant mostly played stealthy mind games on the hapless campers, the malevolent force in this movie moves with all the subtlety of a Tyrannosaurus. Seriously, this thing is LOUD. It thunders about recklessly, snatching up tents and actually upending trees. Is this the Blair Witch or the smoke monster from "LOST?".

Truthfully, I get what they were going for here. Wingard and Barrett were in an awkward spot; they had to do something to differentiate this film from the original, and as it's a sequel, they had to go bigger. They had to do "more," so to speak, because they didn't want the audiences to get bored. But I feel like this is usually a misconception. If ever there was an example of the "less is more" approach in the horror genre, it's "The Blair Witch Project." The film played on audiences' primal fears of the dark and the unknown, trusting that their imaginations would make up for the movie's lack of budget or special effects. In "Blair Witch," when we actually catch visual glimpses of the eponymous crone or whatever it is that is hunting the campers, the monster loses some of its mystique. It adds a tangible quality to something that should remain incorporeal and mythic. The effect just wasn't the same.

To their credit, the filmmakers did attempt to add some new elements to the mythology, like some kind of time distortion or time loop thing. (I'm not really sure if it makes any sense, but it's still intriguing to think about.) And the movie does have a few viscerally effective moments, including a bit of David Cronenberg-ian body horror involving an infected foot and an absolutely squirm-inducing sequence involving a character crawling around in an increasingly cramped tunnel. Claustrophobics, you've been warned.

But when the movie isn't hitting the exact same beats as its predecessor ("OMG, we just went in a huge circle!"), it's engaging in displays of excess that retroactively diminish the power of it. Michael Myers didn't need to be Laurie Strode's brother, and the evil entity in the Burkittsville woods didn't need to be seen. Part of "The Blair Witch Project's" appeal was its highly mysterious nature. Like the lost campers, we were never really sure what exactly was going on. "Blair Witch" is a lot less ambiguous, and the movie suffers for it.

The Blair Witch sequels would make for an interesting case study. Both went in different directions and both, ultimately, are failures. Between the two, "Blair Witch" is the better film, if not the more interesting one. I admire that "Book of Shadows" took a very big chance, and ordinarily I'd probably side with the movie that takes risks over the one that plays it too safe. But "Book of Shadows" is damn near incomprehensible; it doesn't really matter if it's an original plot if it doesn't make any sense. "Blair Witch" is at least coherent (mostly), and Wingard is a capable horror filmmaker who knows how to set up a scene. (Those little stick figurine things are still unnerving for some reason.).

I admit that the whole Blair Witch scene still fascinates me. But if the cinema world can't figure out a way to tell another compelling story about this subject, it's probably best that they stay out of the damn Burkittsville woods.