Benutzerrezensionen

I loved the blair witch project and would have much rather they make a sequel that continued with the original story then made a sequel like this.

I liked this movie but it would have been a lot better had it been by itself and not part of the Blair Witch Project original movie. The plot was a bit hard to follow but I managed.

It was almost nothing like the original but I found it scary and a reasonable movie.

An interesting movie that played well with test audiences was then ruined by studio execs who bizarrely decided to change the movie based on a tiny minority of the same test audience. Any subtlety or nuance is ruined by cliché after cliché and completely misplaced gore, jump scares and the worst CGI you've ever seen. Out on the Internet, there exist some fan edits that get closer to the director's original cut. I suggest you seek one of those out... they all improve upon this mess.

The first Blair Witch was both a phenomenon commercially and creatively. Book of Shadows had the same potential, but was ultimately was let down by its high aspirations. The director could not decide if he wanted to make a straight documentary or a straight movie. In my eyes, the combination of the two cost this movie. The choppy editing had a huge factor in this as well. If only the first hour had been as carefully assembled as the last half hour, this would have been a true masterpiece. All in all this is not a super bad movie and is worth a viewing - just not multiple times. Bottom line: Good story, poor execution. My score: 4/10!

Why is this film so hated? Yes, it's pretty dumb and no where near what the original was, but what I liked is that the people in the film are aware of the existence of The Blair Witch Project, and in the beginning it even has some nice clips from real reviews. I was entertained throughout this whole film, and enjoyed the twists and turns, even though, yes, they are pretty ludicrous. The overall plot is suspenseful and mysterious, and why would anyone expect the same thing as the original? I can see why as a sequel it would not work, but as a stand-alone horror film, I thought it got the job done well. Oh well, I guess I am easy to please...

BOOK OF SHADOWS: BLAIR WITCH 2 / (2000) * (out of four)

"The Blair Witch Project" was a one of a kind hit; it had original ideas and a story about three filmmakers who become lost in a local wooded area while filming a documentary about the legendary Blair Witch. That was one of the best movies of last year, and now "Book Of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" is clearly one of this year's worst. It is completely contradictory to the original, contains not a single character we care about, and is recycled from about every other horror film released within the past five years. After comparing the two movies I am disturbed.

"Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" (the title is meaningless) has not one strand of decent plot impression. There is just scene after scene detailing an assortment of unfocused misfits on a field trip to see the related sights and settings of where events in "The Blair Witch Project" took place. There is Jeff (Jeffrey Donovan) the leader, an ex-patient at a mental hospital, Stephen (Stephen Turner) who is writing a book on the "Blair Witch" phenomenon, in the company of his girlfriend, Tristen (Tristen Skylar), who is pregnant but is hoping for a miscarriage. Also among them is Kim (Kim Director) a Goth, and Erica (Erica Leerhsen) another practicing Wicca who wants the Blair Witch to be her mentor. These characters smoke a seemingly endless amount of pot, apparently engage in ritualistic sex, had have strange experiences when they wake up the day after they set camp having no recollection of what happened the night before.

There is such a struggle for good storyline the filmmakers provide the characters with excessively blunt dialogue to reveal important information and plot points. However, to get anything out of the writing, one would have to care about the characters, and the movie provides no reason anywhere for us to concern ourselves with any of the characters. There is no development or introduction, nor does the film contain any motive or reason. This is unfortunate because the only thing holding the movie together is the mystery of what occurred during the five hours the group cannot remember. How are we to concerned ourselves with the inactive conflict if we do not care about any of the characters?

Perhaps the biggest flaw with "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" (and there are many) is the fact that it is never scary or suspenseful. I was somewhat curious about what happened to the characters during those mysterious five hours, but there is no clarification. Some of the scenes have potential to involve us with horrific material, but never on the recognizable level of the original "Blair Witch Project." The film often builds tension, but forgets, or does not know how to relieve it. The sequences that do attempt to answer our disputes are cluttered and distraught, although they do contain disgusting, disturbing, and violent nightmare imagery.

What really bothers me with movies these days is how so many provide inquisitive, thought-provoking questions but never the long-awaited answers. A specific scene in the movie has one of the characters ask what is happening. I think just about everyone in the audience had the same question on their mind…the movie has no answers.

'The Blair Witch Project' is, in my view, a near-masterpiece of the supernatural, and an audacious and thrilling leap into the dark in terms of popular movie-making technique.

You would think then, that its sequel couldn't possibly live up this high standard, wouldn't you?

And you would be absolutely right. 'Blair Witch 2' has about as much in common with its predecessor as 'Ishtar' does with 'Casablanca'. I won't even dignify it with an attempt to explain its plot. It has none of the atmosphere or suspense of the original, and doesn't even make a token effort to achieve it. It is utter Z-grade rubbish. I find it hard to imagine that the original producers or writers had anything to do with this follow-up, and if they did, they ought to be put in a bag full of owls.

Ghastly, idiotic rubbish. The only thing that frightens me about it is that some people probably prefer it to the original.

This isn't as much a horror movie as a horror of a movie. It goes something like this. Throw in the usual decoys; a Goth chick who's hard outside but soft and chewy inside, a real Wiccan witch, whose petulant disdain for mere mortals is the entire range of her acting ability, and a really cool loft with a fallaway bridge for isolating the idiots who were stupid enough to get caught inside. Then have all the so-called actors yell and scream a lot to show how really deep they are.

But the grand prize goes to Jeffrey Donovan, who is so bad that even John Waters wouldn't cast him if they happened to run into each other somewhere on the streets of Baltimore. And if he did, he would have had the sense to play this crap for high camp, because playing it seriously only succeeds in producing a banal, juvenile and completely unimaginative dung heap.

What amazes me most is the bombastic and pretentious commentary track on the DVD. Is this guy for real? Does he really think dropping a litany of terms he picked up in film school is going to convince us that this is high art? Now that's scary!

Rewatched Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows last night for the first time in like 20 years. I remember liking it when I was a kid, but was kind of shocked at how much I enjoyed it.

I definitely think this is an unfairly maligned film and don't quite understand the hate or the 4.0 imdb user rating.

Don't get me wrong, it's far from a masterpiece, but at least Book of Shadows tried to do something different with the Blair Witch lore. A solid attempt was made to preserve and integrate all the faux "history" into the story. Yes, there are plot holes, and some ridiculous scenes, but overall the cast and acting are above average for a horror film, and I thought it did adequately carry a fair bit of suspense throughout.

Having seen both recently, I think Book of Shadows is a far superior film to 2016's "Blair Witch", which I thought was a pretty shallow rehash of the original with no original ideas or even the most minimal attempt to expand upon the given mythology.

First director Joe Berlinger admits to an absolute loathing of the original Blair Witch Project ... and then goes on to reveal his own character faults with such a stunning lack of self-awareness that you'll probably find yourself screaming in incredulity at his disembodied voice. I have never before been so unintentionally entertained by anything else in my entire life. Do not, however, bother subjecting yourself to this stool specimen of a flick in its unadulterated form. Every ounce of hatred Berlinger harbors for his film's predecessor manifests itself in his story line's slimy proto-teen characters. In short, I wouldn't whiz on these kids if it was the only means of saving them from their self-induced flamings. There's more heart in a pop-top can of sandwich spread than in this soulless, spineless little spin off.

"Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" follows a group of fanatics obsessed with the Blair Witch legend in the aftermath of the film's first release. Among them are a mentally-unstable local; a husband-and-wife team of graduate students studying the Blair Witch; a self-proclaimed Wiccan; and a depressive goth. The five camp out in the ruins of Rustin Parr's home, where the Blair Witch tapes were "found," and experience a mental blackout in which they each fail to recount several hours of the night. In a daze and confusion, they retreat to the group leader's warehouse- turned-home, where their individual psychological breakdowns lead them to a disturbing truth.

I'm just going to say it outright: I love this film. It was, and continues to be met with hostility from fans of the original, which still quite frankly baffles me. It's not nearly as terrifying as the original film, but it is ingenious in its own way. Rather than approach a sequel with a rehash of the first film's material, co-writer/director Joe Berlinger offers something different: a narrative within a world in which "The Blair Witch Project" was real footage— a world inhabited by characters who range from unabashed believers to academic skeptics, to people who simply "thought the movie was cool."

With a common interest, they set out into the woods to find some evidence—but all goes awry when one of the women suffers a premonitory miscarriage, and they are forced to retreat to the leader's home, which is where the film becomes a full-blooded psychological thriller. What is real, and what isn't? Where is the Blair Witch? Outside, lurking in the forest? Possessing one of the characters? Is she even there at all?

These are the kinds of questions the script toys with, and the result is wildly engaging. The performances are top-notch, and the film is peppered with disturbing scenes and images, and some ghoulish scenarios. The score lends an oppressive tone to the movie, and it is steeped in an atmosphere of complete unease that grows more and more pervasive as the five characters bear witness to the inexplicable. The film plays its cards well and is careful in its subtlety, which leads to a downbeat and twisted conclusion.

Overall, "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" has been harshly criticized by fans who it seems haven't taken the time to try and understand what it's attempting to do. It is not a rehash of the original film, and it never aims to be. The approach taken is commendable and rather brilliant, and it manages to establish an ever-increasing sense of oppressiveness that grows on the audience, which is the real catch here in my opinion—it is genuinely unnerving to watch, and that's something rare these days. 8/10.

I really liked this film. And like so many other before me, I will say that this isn't a sequel to The Blair Witch Project. This is a seperate movie that is loosely connected. This movie plays with your mind (which I have a tendency to enjoy) and sort of makes you think (for as much a horror movie can): Things are not what they seem, and memory can, at times, be deceiving...and your worst enemy. And as I said in my review of The Blair Witch Project, you need an open mind watching this film. Book Of Shadows shows you the blood and gore that wasn't needed in the first film, which is either a plus or minus--depending on your taste. I thought it was interesting and entertaining. Don't take movies (especially horror movies) so seriously people, it's entertainment, nothing more.

If you liked Blair Witch, you'll hate this movie. If you didn't like Blair Witch, you'll still hate this movie. If you have a functioning cerebellum, you'll hate this movie.

This film was nothing more than a cynical attempt to cash in on Blair Witch while the craze lasted. It wasn't reasonable to expect to capture lightning in a bottle twice, and the studio obviously realized that and didn't bother trying.

Stylistically the film might just as well be a Scream sequel. It's not shot in a mock documentary style, but in a conventional way, on a sound stage with a script and regular cameras and special effects.

Given that it was going to be a conventional studio film, you might at least hope that they'd have shelled out for some name, or at least good, actors. They didn't. There's nobody here you've ever heard of, seen before, or will want ever to see again. The acting is uniformly wooden and forgettable, and similarly the direction by Joe Berlinger who, surprise, surprise, hasn't directed anything else you've ever heard of either. We're therefore stuck with the worst of both worlds: the low artistic aspirations of a studio film combined with the low budget of an independent picture.

Wow, I really don't get all the bad reviews. It's not a blockbuster movie or is it anything like the original Blair Witch Project. It's more like playing off of it with a set storyline about a group so fascinated and intrigued by the original Blair Witch movie, they all decide to go search for it. That is until they find something worse than the Blair Witch.

The twist to the story is unexpected and the acting is pretty tolerable for a movie like this. As a matter of fact, i'd say the acting is pretty damn good for a horror movie.

This movie is one of my favorite movies to watch during Halloween. I saw it when it first came out and was surprised how good it actually was.

People expecting to see some top notch production, direction, acting, plot, storyline, etc is going to be let down big time because that it is not. It's a simple horror movie playing off another that was hyped up with it's own story. That's it.

Just go in with no expectations and intentions to enjoy a horror movie. You will enjoy it.

Book of Shadows benefits from being distinct from the original, shooting to be a meta-comment on the popularity and questions surrounding the found footage classic. Otherwise, there are few words for awful this is. I can't decide what is worse: the insanely stupid script, the collection of terrible actors, the clichéd and bland direction, or the insane choice to edit in a non-linear timeline. Works better as a comedy than a horror, as I audibly laughed way more than I jumped.

Blair Witch 2 is an obvious cash-in on the success of the first movie. The film makes no attempt at hiding it either, as that fact is the motivation of the characters! In this film's universe, "The Blair Witch Project" was an actual recording, not a movie. Intrigued and curious, various tourists come to the area where it was shot to find out more. The film centers around a small circle of tourists visiting the area. Among them is the typical cool young male archetype, the horror-obsessed goth girl (who, surprisingly enough, doesn't show signs of mallgoth-ism) and the boring, ditzy girlfriend. Also among them is the easily-offended, fundamentalist Wiccan girl, surely a result of so-called "witches" who were offended at the original film.

As for the plot, there hardly is one. A circle of clueless tourists stay in a house in the woods and some weird stuff happens. Anything that's supposed to be scary isn't (at least not to me). Just as an example: near the beginning of the film, there's this huge tree in the woods. The tourists come back to it later and it's not there anymore. Oooh, scary! Phantom tree! But if you know the motivation behind this sequel, you know what to expect. It's a ridiculous attempt at crowd pleasing.

"The Blair With Project" was a surprise box office hit...costing very little to make and raking in a ton of money. The powers that be wanted a sequel as soon as possible and many of the folks responsible for making this film wanted to wait...so they made the next film without them! And, it's obvious as the supposed sequel is really nothing like the first picture. It's not a found footage film and instead spends much of the movie talking about the first movie...and how it was a movie. Not surprisingly, this was nothing like what fans expected and they mostly hated it...but enough excitement from the first film STILL meant this follow-up made money in spite of itself. Talk about cynical film making!

So why did I decide to watch this film...especially since I never watched the original? Well, I have set a goal for myself to see every entry on IMDB's infamous Bottom 100 List--the 100 worst rated widely released films. So far, I've seen 71 of them. A few I might never see (such as a couple Turkish movies and a German film) but I was excited to see this, #96, on Showtime. Is it as bad as fans think? Could it be as bad as fans think? Or, were they simply angry that the movie wasn't at all what they expected?

My verdict is that the film is quite bad. Not only is it NOT what fans wanted, these new characters are incredibly annoying jerks. Seeing them hanging out in the woods drinking, talking (non-stop) and acting like idiots did not make them endearing....and I just wanted the picture to end. It was a literal chore to make myself finish the movie. Not the worst thing I've ever seen by any stretch but I can see why the fans were disappointed.

I watched this movie hoping it would be a sequel to the original movie, but found out that it was just Blair Witch ->2<-. No further investigation into the witch, just a couple of new teenagers...

I think the movie was lousy, to say it all in one word. There is no tension building up through the movie, it's more like unexpected short cuts that make you jump a little, and that's a very cheap way to scare people. Like in most other horror movies, a lot of things happens without explanation. But if there never is an explanation it's not frightening, it's just frustrating. A horror movie should build up tension and in the end you get to know. Like in "The Ring", and watching BW2 was like waiting for the girl to come out of the TV, but she never did. The whole movie through, it feels like something is missing. Part from the tension, it's a story. I also got the feeling that the creators thought that nudity and sex would be just as good as a story. Several times the nudity feels very unnecessary with the actors walking around naked for, as it seems, no particular reason. Probably just a way to make the movie interesting in some way ;).

The plot didn't make much sense to me and the end didn't make any sense at all. I can see that it's all the work of the Blair Witch but you never really get to know that in a good way, and I guess that's supposed to be the scary part but judging from the many low grades given to the movie, many people think like me - it isn't! You maybe don't want all the facts handed to you but there can't be too much left to you own imagination either.

BW2 is so intent on impressing people that it goes to great lengths to poke fun at its much-superior predecessor. It ends up completely bastardizing the first one, portraying it as a laughable piece of fiction. The first one may not have been the scariest movie ever made, but it was far more innovative and original than this trite sequel, which is so full of plotholes and inconsistencies.

For example, how can the Blair Witch call our insipid group on their phone and pretend to be the town sherriff? Does she have a Nokia like everyone else? I find that a bit too "Scream"-ish. Second, the Blair Witch must have attended some incredible film school to know how to edit and manipulate the group's video footage.

The first one gave Elly (the witch) the powers that she should have, powers to destroy and instigate confusion. In the second, she is reduced to a mere "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" witch who's a little too 1990s saavy.

There is nothing redeeming about the sequel. It is not the least bit scary, and the ending is extremely anti-climactic, while I dare say I've never seen a better ending than the first one. The acting is horrible, and any complaints about Heather Donahue will be quickly silenced one you've seen the performance of any of the five leads. Save your money and don't even wait for video. Forget the details of this and let your imagination create a much better follow-up to the first one.

Joe Berlinger set out to make a film with a different feel than what the studio twisted Book of Shadows into, but the end result is nothing to throw in the trash bin. I would love to experience a true Director's Cut and wonder if it would have been as memorable, because Book of Shadows, as it is, is a fun little flick that deserves better than some of the ratings it's garnered by those wanting more Blair Witch Project.

After Blair Witch how would it be possible to continue to suggest the possibility of real footage and lost documentary videos falling into the hands of a movie studio? Viewers have now latched onto found footage as a style, but at the time following the release of the first film the idea was simply seen as a gimmick to get people to pay to watch a movie with zero budget.

Book of Shadows is a great horror film, not quite as ambitious as the director set out to convey in his final cut, but tons of fun for horror fans. Turn off the lights, turn off your phone, enjoy the show.

Book of Shadows does not make any sense. No, it's not that I'm so dumb I cannot understand it, it's actually that the film is so simple in it's conflictions that I am surprised everyone else hasn't seen right through it.

Showing slight promise in the early scenes where mockumentary seems to taken to a higher, more sophisticated level than the first, the film quickly collapses into stupidness after about 30 minutes of mildly effective mystery.

Basically, 5 idiots (one of them with a basketball sized goiter on his neck) try to figure out why the whole world went nuts over BWP back in 1999, rather than if the BW really exists or not. 2 of them are writing a book on mass hysteria, one is a tour guide with a dodgy (and totally unexplained) past, the other a witch, the other a Goth (?).

After spending the night in the ruins of Rustin Parr's house they awake to find their camera's destroyed and their paperwork shredded. Was it the Blair Witch? Hardly, she's not real. Right? Don't look at me for answers, the film doesn't contain any. In hoping that the audience would rather be confused than bored, any old crap is thrown at us to keep us in the dark.

The original film was excused for this. It was a low budget independent movie and NOT a Hollywood film. BW2 IS a Hollywood film and fails on every basic level. Even the tiny, tiny irony in being called Book of Shadows, I believe, is a fluke/coincidence. Any other attempt at irony is purely textbook. Ooohhh mass hysteria!

And if the Blair Witch ISN'T real (as this film repeatedly states) why are their physical impossibilities taking place? Why do they all go mad (mass hysteria my ass)? Why, if they are naked, do they conveniently have underwear on when it comes to frontal shots, but take them off for any other angle? What's the deal with tour guide dude's past?

It's all trash and all pointless. A cheap, quick cash-in and a total insult to the honesty and simplicity of the original.

I paid 36p for this!

The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and Dolby 5.1 with some rubbish extras.

An incredibly misunderstood horror film, Book of Shadows is a taut, suspenseful, and well acted psychological thriller- that doesn't rely on gimmicks or cliches (old or new) to entertain and fright its audience. To start with the flaws of this film, the thing that sticks out most to me is the editing. Things don't seem to have a clear map of how they are being told at times, which was mainly due to studio interference unfortunately, as they thought it would appeal better to audiences. Instead, the film loses its charm and suspense a bit in the process, which is a flaw even the director himself has recognized, and was deeply irritated the studio forced upon his film. The music in the film also seems kinda out of place, also do to the studio involvement I am guessing, to appeal to target audiences I suppose, but seriously, trashy grunge rock does not belong in a Blair Witch movie. As for the positive things about this film, here are my thoughts. This film is certainly not a disaster, as it was claimed back when it was released, and still is often enough now. This film is very well thought out, very complex, and it kept me entertained all throughout. It feels a lot more down to earth than the previous film, not showy, or forced in any sort of way. Its story is unnerving, and its performances are very well done, especially lead actor Jeffrey Donovan. I was truly invested in what was happening on screen, I was never bored, in total, I liked it better than the original. It also has an interesting social commentary component to it as well, as well as many twists and turns that will keep you guessing till the very end. In the end, I enjoyed the hell out of this film, and i'm not afraid to admit it. It's a shame the film doesn't receive the credit it deserves, as well as the studio interference it clearly didn't need. Hear me out on this one, give it a try sometime. My Rating: 8.5/10

Wow what a big waste of film. I did not pay for the ticket and I still wanted to get money back after seeing this! If you only see 5000 films this year try not to waste your time on this. Smash your head on the wall I found it much better!