A Bruxa de Blair

This film is not a feature film. For a start, it is not feature length, also, it is not shot on film. More importantly, it does not have what feature films have these days: star actors, special effects, exotic locations, explosions. Instead, seeing B.W.P. is seeing something else that a cinema can be: a place where people can share an intimate experience created by a few people on a tight budget. I would be glad of its success if only for that reason.

The first section of the film appears at first to be amateurish and slow. In fact, it is very deft, and very efficient at what it does. It tells the audience everything it needs to know about the characters and situation, and nothing more. Also, it gets the audience into the habit of viewing the film's format: alternating between black and white (very grainy and poorly focussed) film, and the washed out colours of shaky pixilated video. The film makers managed to set up a rationale for why the film is so cheaply made. Three people hike into the woods for a few days to shoot a documentary, with borrowed equipment, and are in the habit of videoing everything for the hell of it. They cannot carry tripods, steadicams, dollies, large lighting rigs, or the like, so everything we see is lit either by raw daylight, or by a single light fixed to the camera, which illuminates just what is within a few feet of the lens. The film creates its own excuse to be cheap. This is intelligent.

The acting and script are both excellent. The well-cast actors are presumably playing pretty-much themselves, and are convincingly naturalistic, and neither too likeable or too dislikeable. The slow route into hysteria is well documented. Rather than simply having a character say "We're lost!", we see many scenes which show the trio getting more and more hopelessly lost, and more annoyed with each other for this. By the time they are thoroughly lost, the audience shares the despair.

My friend and I, after seeing it, both felt a little sick. I put this down to my having been tense for a hour, he put it down more to motion sickness. The jerky, badly-framed camerawork is hard on the eye and stomach, but I applaud the director for its uncompromising use. Similarly, no compromise is made with the dialogue. Some of it is very quiet and must be listened for, some is technical jargon, which is left realisticly unexplained.

One of the great strengths and weaknesses of the film is the editing. It is good in that it does much to heighten the tension, with many key moments lasting just a little too long for comfort. Each time the characters find something nasty, the viewer is made to want the editor to cut soon to the next scene, and the fact that he doesn't adds to the sense of being trapped, as the characters are. The problem with this, though, is that one is left wondering about the motives of the fictional editor. In truth, of course, the film is edited to create these effects, and to entertain, but the film's rationale is that these are the rushes of a documentary put together posthumously by someone other than the film's original creator. Why, then, would an editor piecing together such footage, edit for dramatic effect rather than for clarity? Why would he keep cutting back and forth from the video footage to the film footage, when neither shows any more information than the other?

The film is stark. After one simple caption at the start, all that follows is the "rushes". I wonder if the film might not have been improved with an introductory section which documented how the rushes were found and edited. A programme was made for television which did this. Perhaps a portion of this might have been added to the film, making it more complete, and more believable (and proper feature length).

While I applaud the fact that young original film-makers have managed to create a mainstream hit out of a simple idea, well-handled. I dread the possible avalanche of inferior copies which may come.

Most horror films these days are created not for the audience, but for the makers. The departments of special effects, make-up, model-making, animation and so forth all try hard to show potential future employers what they can do. The result is that nothing is left for the audience to do, since everything can be seen and heard, and the viewer's imagination can be switched off. Today, it is possible to see pigs fly on the screen, and so film-makers show off and show us a formation of Tamworths, which is something which will look impressive in the trailer. To show us less is to make our minds fill in the gaps. This way, we create our own terrors, perfectly fitted to ourselves. The ghastly face I see in my head, is the ghastly head which I find scary. The ghastly face I am shown may be one I can cope with quite easily. If I see a believable character screaming in hysterical fear at something I cannot see, my own brain creates demons for my night's dreams, demons far more mighty than anything CGI graphics or a latex mask could portray.

This film will stay in your thoughts for some while.

The Blair Witch project is the 3rd film i'll be reviewing for my october/halloween special. This movie took the horror genre to a whole new level. I remember when this first came out the internet turned a small movie into a world wide sensation. A lot of people thought these events actually took place and who could blame them. They made news specials about the missing teens and even T.V. specials that made us believe that sometihng actually happened to these kids, Of course it turned out to be a brillant stunt by the filmmakers to make the movie seem more real. The film was shot entirely with a hand held camera and the acting was almost 100% improvised. When i first saw this movie i was impressed by its creativity but the final product kinda disappointed me.

As you know the plot of the movie is about 3 people who venture into the woods to do a documentary on the blair witch and strange events occur and they a re never heard from again. one year later their footage is found and we get to see what led up to their mysterious disappearance. Pretty good plot that works really well. so far so good.

The atmosphere really works. to me the woods is one of the scariest places to be and it really works for this film. Also being shot entirely on a hand held camera we get to experience first hand what the characters or doing or feeling. Blackouts and shaky camera movements add to the already great suspenseful tension.

The acting is superb. Frist we get 3 funny and carefree young people who are very full of life but as the film progresses we see how fear is tearing them apart and we get to witness this first hand. Since the actors were newcomers at the time i was very impressed with their acting talent.

Another good thing was the last 15 or 20 minutes which are the films highlight and its most scariest moments. i was really hooked by this point at what was happening.

That was the good. Here is the bad.

The film is too short. at 87 minutes it isn't nearly long enough. I felt there should've been so much more included. it's such a quick finish that i couldn't really take it all in.

now, even though the film is pretty short it also tends to be pretty slow. like i said the last 15 or 20 minutes are its best but before this it seems like it takes forever to get started and sometimes it tends to drag and be a little boring

I liked the acting but listening to 3 people yell and curse through almost the entire movie got a little annoying and at some moments that seemed to be the films only conflict. i liked how they showed that fear was consuming them but i wish they would've concentrated more on the legend.

Now this is kinda my own personal gripe about the film. i lied the last 15 minutes but the actual ending itself was such a letdown. for that 20 minutes it created such a good intense build-up and all of a sudden it's over and you go "that's it". i know they were trying to be creative and make us wonder what happened to them without actually telling us but it just ends up being a letdown.

another thing that hurt this film but also helped it was the hype that surrounded it. the hype made this film gross 140 million dollars but since there was such a demand that this film be the scariest thing we've ever seen and to some it simply wasn't and i think over-hyping a film can really hurt it sometimes and this is the case with this film.

All and all it's creativity saves it from being a total disappointed and i do give it credit making a uge impact on the horror genre but i just wish it could've been better. 7/10

It is to the "Blair Witch" filmmakers' (and I am talking about Myrick and Sanchez, not Donahue, Leonard, and Williams) great credit that for the most part, they get away with the central conceit that three tired, hungry, lost, and above all, frightened-out-of-their-minds documentarians would still keep rolling footage under the dire circumstances in which they find themselves -- for that is one of the movie's only shortcomings (even though the majority of the audience won't notice or won't mind). The Project's plus column, however, is far longer than the minus one, as the very fabric of the improvisational techniques employed holds together an authenticity virtually guaranteed to send shivers down the backs of all but the most road-hardened horror vets. The interplay among Donahue, Leonard, and Williams is refreshingly funny in the early stages, which only ratchets up the intensity when doom seems to be knocking (or howling or scratching or leaving creepy tokens outside the campers' tent). The Blair Witch Project has all of the necessary sequences to assure its cult status (I love the stick figures) and the mysterious, dread-filled ending will most certainly set fans arguing -- once they catch their breath.

This kept me a nervous wreck throughout. Considering the reviews I've seen, looks like you'll either love it or hate it. I personally love it, and think it's better than a lot of films I've seen with an all star cast, and a much higher budget.

This film has maybe been one of the most hated 100 million dollar grosses in history. Before seeing this movie one should know absolutely nothing about it. Not even what the critics have said. It is a very creepy film. I for one loved it. I love the fact that it had virtually no-budget and it has made tons of money. It deserves it. It provides more atmosphere and creepiness than any horror film released this decade. The way it is presented, as the footage taken by 3 missing film-makers, is so simple yet pure genius. I've heard people complain that anyone with a video camera could have made this. This is true, but those people didn't and these people did. They had the idea and those who criticize it are just displaying their jealousy that they didn't think of it first. An instant classic whether you like it or not.