Blair Witch Project - Your Opinion?

Question

ok well i seen this movie like 4 times but on dvd because i was only like one when it came out. i only watched it because id heard about it and i like horror movies so i watched it and it creeped me out because i thought (and still do) think its real. it was really good so i showed it to ma mates and they thought it was good and got creeped owt.

i just wanna know wat you ppl thnk. i honestly think its real bcoz those 3 students never turned up and on the internet it shows videos with the guy that found all their tapes underneath a 100 year old cabin with no way of getting there. it also shows police photos of joshuas car left were they parked it.

thanks.

o btw if you thinks its a fake can you give me sites that prove it? plz and thnk you

Answer 1

It's fake, there were tons of interviews with the filmmakers and those "students" have acted in other films since, at least Heather has.

I saw the movie in the theater and it was so scary. And the shaky camera movements gave me severe motion sickness

Answer 2

It's just a movie. It was meant to scare people. Because it was a low-budget movie, they had spread rumors that the movie was real.

This is what I think about the movie.........

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.

By the time it came out at the movies, I had already read several articles in various magazines about how it was made, and interviews with the producers and actors in the movie, anybody that follows entertainment news was well aware that it wasn't real. I wish I hadn't known, that would have been an interesting experience.

Answer 3

I Used To Like The Movie Until I Found Out If Was Fake

Answer 4

This movie is a classic example of how public opinion turns.

No, it's not a particularly decent movie.

But it scared the crap out of people.

This was all because of their publicity. They hid the stars, they ran a special on SciFi making it sound like it was a real legend, and like the stars still hadn't been found.

The movie was substandard, but the marketing was brilliant. They made millions on a movie that only cost a few thousand.

I need to figure out how to do that with a really bad movie.

The stars presented at the MTV movie awards a few months later, thus ending their hoax. Look for the clip on YouTube.

Answer 5

It was completely fake. However before it's release the producers pretended it was real and went to great lengths to give that impression (such as listing the actors as missing - presumed dead). It worked really well and the added publicity made it such a success. That could be why your sister thinks it's real. However, the actors weren't told the entire script and at the time were told that the mythology was genuine. They didn't know what was going on some of the time (such as when there are the noises outside the tent and the tent begins to shake) so some of it is real in the sense that they were genuine reactions from the actors

Answer 6

Yeah its fake its not real because heather donahue is still acting right now and so are the other two. nobody died they made it look like it. But i dont understand they showed real family members that were upset but that couldve been a hoax too.

Answer 7

It's fake because the people that made it said it was......

The movie was crap and a half in my opinion.

People are running.

WHERE'S THE F-ING MAP

People are running, only lost this time

One is gone, more lost running

Stand in a corner as the camera falls

there you go, not scary at all..

Answer 8

That movie was lame when it came out and is still lame today.
All the people who made it went public with the fact that it is a MOVIE not a documentary!

Answer 9

it was so bad that i rank it up in Worst movies ever as a tied second

Miami Vice
both Blair Witch projects
American Beauty
Austin Powers 2

Answer 10

I have to go against the majority and say that I actually liked it. I thought the whole plot was a nice change.