•
Rating: The internet wasn’t as developed as it is today, and that’s the main reason why, in my opinion, this film was so successful.
At the end of the 90s, two independent directors decided to create a myth based on the Blair Witch cult, which involved three kids in 1994. Their bodies were never found, but some video recordings made before their disappearance were discovered in the nearby woods.
The two clever directors thought of creating a website specifically for this mystery, generating a sort of word-of-mouth among people intrigued by the case. And so, in 1999, this film was released, earning huge box office revenues of the time, dividing the audience into three groups: those who figured out the trick and dissed the film, those who thought it was all real, and those who knew it was fake but pretended otherwise.
The following year, the film was released in Italy, and it was obviously a flop because everyone understood the massive nonsense behind the film (also due to articles like this one: http://www.repubblica.it/online/spettacoli/blair/blair/blair.html). However, the critics were still divided: some said the film was good, others said it was a colossal bullshit.
Thanks to this film, today we wouldn't have all those fake mockumentaries like Marini's cheekbones, where nothing happens for 3/4 of the duration and everyone must film themselves wobbling like drunks. I might only save Cloverfield, REC, and the beautiful web series "Marble Hornets," which deals with the Slenderman myth in a realistic and perfect way.
I would also save Blair Witch, because it's not crap, but neither is it a masterpiece. It didn't invent the mockumentary style, but it made it more accessible and famous than before, considering that the embryo of this genre lies in the even older Cannibal Holocaust.
The plot is simple: three kids decide to conduct an in-depth research on a town myth in Burkittsville, Maryland, once called Blair. I can tell you right away that the first part of the film with interviews to various people is worth watching, successfully making you anxious just by listening to the little stories circulating among the inhabitants.
It's said that the alleged witch is Elly Kedward, who lived in the 1700s and was exiled from the village of Blair for possible child abuse. Once exiled, however, the children began to disappear from the village under mysterious circumstances.
Then there's the real serial killer story of Rustin Parr, who would take children to a little house, have one face the wall, and kill the other.
But perhaps the most intriguing story is the one from the old lady who claims to have seen... well, find out for yourself!
Subsequently, the three have the BRILLIANT idea to search for possible evidence of the witch's existence in the Burkittsville woods. Obviously, it's a terrible idea.
The three actually find some very strange evidence, such as odd symbols made with tree branches, wooden artifacts, and so on.
Moreover, the three unfortunates not only decide to go into the woods looking for evidence but also spend their nights there. However, by the end of the first night, something strange happens. One of the kids says he heard a weird noise, but they assume it to be an animal or something else.
Then, as if it wasn’t already miserable enough being there, alone with a canteen, they also lose the map in a way that makes you really angry at human stupidity. But we'll discuss that later...
In the other nights, the three hear the heavy sound of footsteps from outside, and that's when they start panicking. But the pivotal night is when, outside their tent, they hear the laughter of children and hands on the tent, to the point that they go outside to find something, finding nothing.
As if that wasn’t enough, they lose Josh, only finding traces of blood and his tongue. At that point, the two remaining kids despair, realizing it might really be the end for them, but on the last night, they hear Josh's screams in the distance, leading to an unsettling and haunting ending. I won't spoil anything, but keep well in mind the stories from the interviews...
Plot-wise, the film is nothing new, but it’s told through a handheld camera that quickly captures all the details, making the atmosphere even grittier than it already is. The fear is relative: I stated that the first part gives chills because it shows nothing but tells you. Therefore, you have to think about the event and imagine it for yourself.
With the arrival of the three in the woods, our emotions could split into two parts: on one side, there's the tension building, as nothing truly unreal or paranormal happens, but strange sounds or events are crudely filmed by the camera, making us only think about how they might have happened.
On the other hand, there's boredom, because those not used to these films or those who already know everything about the making will not endure 75 minutes in the little woods.
But what lowers my rating is the numerous nonsense the two pseudo-directors included to make the story progress:
-do you know how they lost the map? Because that twit Mike, finding it useless, tossed it into the river! o_o
-the three smart alecks are desperate because they don't know how to find their way back and keep going in circles along the stream, but why the hell don't you follow the river that might lead to the sea?
-and anyway, the three protagonists are sometimes not believable at all, you can see from a mile away that they're faking it, so much that Heather even got the Razzie Award.
-it’s not a flaw, but a tip: watch the film in the original language, it’s more effective.
The film might drive you crazy or make you sick. I liked it a lot, it intrigued me until the end and (perhaps) manages to make you anxious even in more ordinary moments, like the beginning!
Having said that, I'm off for a walk in the Karst...
Loading comments slowly
