BLAIR WITCH | Sequel to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT | 9/16/16 | The Blair Witch returns as The Blair "Blair Witch" Witch

[robertman2]

What does she look like?

[Kevin Bacon]

3 hours ago, DAR said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Is it scary than some sticks and few rocks?   Man fuck the original BWP

 

From what I know of the original, if you hated it I think it's likely you'd enjoy this one more. It's a very conventional found footage horror movie.

 

On the other hand, if you loved the original, this one won't live up to it at all.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Kevin Bacon

[75Live]

Well my turn to see if this disappoints me or not as I sit in the theater for this to start 

[ainsleyb]

On 9/12/2016 at 8:23 PM, ainsleyb said:

WOM will be poor on this, it'll have its fans but it's just not that great of a movie, the concept is way overdone now. Cinemascore of C or below is what I'm expecting. My screening was probably a D- reaction and I went to a specific horror showing where the crowd should be lapping this sort of thing up.

 

Lionsgate's Blair Witch won't even come close to the most modest of expectations after an estimated $4 millionFriday will lead toward an opening right around $9-9.5 million and a "D+" CinemaScore won't be helping word of mouth over the weekend or weeks to come.

 

Even worse than I thought.

[Cookson]

I thought it was really good. What was the budget for this?

 

So much better than Book of shadows.

[75Live]

Probably going in with tempered expectations helped, but overall, I thought this was pretty good.  Although, I do agree that it could have been even better.  They did add on to a few things from the first one, but not all of those worked.  Overall, I give it about a B.

 

I was completely alone in my theater so that was kind of cool and "freaky" at the same time.

Edited September 17, 2016 by 75live

[MovieMan89]

22 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

The biggest thing to come out of this as it relates to box office is the overall marketing campaign.  I think it will rub a lot of people in the industry the wrong way that Lionsgate seemed to recruit friendly online critics and bloggers to give it these hyperbolic early reviews and pump up the expectations.  

 

Then when it ultimately is screened for everyone and you see the reviews go completely in the opposite direction and pretty much label it a rip off piece of garbage, that is going to make people really scrutinize limited early reviews.  

 

I thought this would happen and said it earlier in the thread that all of the word was way out of reality compared to what the movie actually was.  Now all they have done is bought themselves a lot of general public backlash and even makes a couple respected Director/Writers lose some credibility.  

It's pretty shady, but you're not seeing things clearly from a marketing perspective either. This movie was honestly never going to be huge because the horror market relies on a younger demo who simply weren't gonna care about the blair witch franchise or the concept of it to be more precise (this genre of horror is beyond old hat now). So I guess they thought the only thing they could do was get some overzealous bloggers out there trying to make it sound like the next Paranormal Activity to the younger gen. I get it. Not saying it was right, but honestly they were fucked no matter what here. Wasn't going to be a successful film, even if it had delighted fans of the original. At least the budget is still small, hence why this exists in the first place. 

[Blaze Heatnix]

I remember when this movie was at 100% on RT, with the first 9 or 10 reviews all being fresh.

 

Things change fast, lol. It seems the word of mouth has been atrocious, but I'll be giving it a try eventually.

[Gumby]

Hope the horror sites that championed this are happy.

 

They have zero credibility now.

[MCKillswitch123]

Oh, the Blair Witch returns as the Blair "Blair Witch" Witch. Interesting casting. But does William Hurt return as General William Thaddeus E. "Thunderbolt" Ross too?

[Kevin Bacon]

[Taylor]

I really enjoyed it. The jump scares were lame and it definitely did follow the same general structure of the first, but enough happened and it introduced enough new elements to the mythology that I was entertained the entire film. The final 30 minutes are especially great.

[The Futurist]

Guys, shoud I see this or not ?

 

I am unsure and I really don't like found footage movies because the reasons they try to give to explain why they still shooting with their damn cameras  are always retarted to me ...

Edited September 20, 2016 by The Futurist

[Mockingjay Raphael]

I watched it yesterday.

 

Yeah, it is a bad movie, and a big disappointment. The worst kind of disappointment happens when you see that something has a lot of potential, but they waste it, and that's what happens here.

 

The movie has a great first act, Wingard built an terrific atmosphere, but, then the characters start dying and it become just another boring slasher. The plot is just ridiculous, and (most) of things that the characters do are beyond stupidity, even for a movie like this. 

 

BUT, we have that climax.

 

And, Oh, Boy, that's what I call a good climax, I literally had to put my hands in front of my eyes in some moments because I was so fucking scared, I don't even remember the last time that I did this while watching a horror movie! It seems that Wingard put all his effort in the climax and forgot to build the same tension in the rest of the movie. 

 

Overall, it's a bad movie with an amazing climax, it could have been a great movie if the whole movie had the same tension of the climax.

 

C-

[Mockingjay Raphael]

I have a question to you guys: Do you think this movie would have been better received by both critics and public if it was released as "Woods"? I mean, it's clear that the brand did nothing for the movie, and, it seems that the movie only got raves at the beginning because of the surprise factor. Don't you guys think it would have worked way more than releasing it as a Blair Witch movie? 

[NoobSaibot]

51 minutes ago, Mockingjay Raphael said:

I have a question to you guys: Do you think this movie would have been better received by both critics and public if it was released as "Woods"? I mean, it's clear that the brand did nothing for the movie, and, it seems that the movie only got raves at the beginning because of the surprise factor. Don't you guys think it would have worked way more than releasing it as a Blair Witch movie? 

 

It's hard to say. Other than Sully, it's been a slow September. This isn't a good month to release movies in, so I am not sure if keeping it as The Woods would have helped it.

[Hiccup23]

1 hour ago, Mockingjay Raphael said:

I have a question to you guys: Do you think this movie would have been better received by both critics and public if it was released as "Woods"? I mean, it's clear that the brand did nothing for the movie, and, it seems that the movie only got raves at the beginning because of the surprise factor. Don't you guys think it would have worked way more than releasing it as a Blair Witch movie? 

Might have helped a bit. People would have definitely judged it less harsher

[Kevin Bacon]

13 hours ago, Mockingjay Raphael said:

I have a question to you guys: Do you think this movie would have been better received by both critics and public if it was released as "Woods"? I mean, it's clear that the brand did nothing for the movie, and, it seems that the movie only got raves at the beginning because of the surprise factor. Don't you guys think it would have worked way more than releasing it as a Blair Witch movie? 

It probably wouldn't have helped the box office any (it's hard to say) but I'm pretty confident it would've been much better received by critics. It still would've been pretty mixed, but I think it'd be more 50-70 on RT than down in the dumps where it is now. But the movie was always Blair Witch in reality, it's the entire reason for its existence. If you changed the name, people would've thought it was weird that they just lifted the premise from TBWP. Those early teasers implied it could've been anything in the woods. Now, if you're asking if it would've been better received if we simply got that movie, I'd say yes. I imagine Barrett would've turned in a much better script if the movie wasn't a sequel to something else.

[LateReg]

On 9/20/2016 at 4:18 PM, The Futurist said:

Guys, shoud I see this or not ?

 

I am unsure and I really don't like found footage movies because the reasons they try to give to explain why they still shooting with their damn cameras  are always retarted to me ...

Not if you don't like found footage, but it is phenominally viscerally scary for a sustained amount of time toward the end.

[CoolioD1]

this is definitely the found footage that's the least found footage-y i've ever seen. good for people that hate the format but i think there's a lot of interesting things people can do with it. and finding a way to shoot it like conventional coverage isn't one of them. there are points where you forget y'know.