M
~Mobius~
Guest
I watched Blair Witch yesterday (SCARY!) and I was just wondering about the sequel how it links in. Do another group of kids go and do the exact same thing?
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #2
I heard the sequel is up there with Battlefield Earth.
1
1tchy trigger
Guest
- Thread starter
- #3
Shouldn't that be 'down there'?
Blair Witch was a great idea but with too many inconsistencies and random acts of stupidity - e.g.
Why make a big deal about the guy 50 years ago that killed the kids ... was it him or the Blair Witch ffs? Never explained.
Also - while 'lost' in the woods, why didn't they just follow the river - i.e. a sure fire way not to walk around in circles - 'tards deserved to die IMHO.
Blair Witch was a great idea but with too many inconsistencies and random acts of stupidity - e.g.
Why make a big deal about the guy 50 years ago that killed the kids ... was it him or the Blair Witch ffs? Never explained.
Also - while 'lost' in the woods, why didn't they just follow the river - i.e. a sure fire way not to walk around in circles - 'tards deserved to die IMHO.
M
~Mobius~
Guest
- Thread starter
- #4
I thought the guy was the Blair Witch, but its difficult to understand only watching it once.
L
Laroma
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
Did you enjoy watching it? The strangest thing about that movie in my opinion was the hype previous to the release. Why did people actually look forward to this?! I thought it was complete crap.
M
~Mobius~
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
******Huge Spoiler for the very end of the movie******
I thought it was a great movie. Considering how much it cost to make. Also it left alot up to the viewers imagination, since you never actually saw anyone but the 3 teenagers in the forest. There is really no clue as to what or who the Blair Witch is. Also I like how near the beginning you hear about how that person used to make 1 child face the corner and then shoot the other. And right at the end of the film the teenage girl walks in and her friend is facing the wall, then her camera hits the ground.
I wish I watched it at the cinema, must've been great on the big screen. When the camera is on at night and its pitch black.
I thought it was a great movie. Considering how much it cost to make. Also it left alot up to the viewers imagination, since you never actually saw anyone but the 3 teenagers in the forest. There is really no clue as to what or who the Blair Witch is. Also I like how near the beginning you hear about how that person used to make 1 child face the corner and then shoot the other. And right at the end of the film the teenage girl walks in and her friend is facing the wall, then her camera hits the ground.
I wish I watched it at the cinema, must've been great on the big screen. When the camera is on at night and its pitch black.
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #7
In the cinema it was slightly nausea inducing, I don't think watching it on the big screen makes it any more frightening.
I have it on DVD as well, and I cack my pants at the thought of watching it again.
I have it on DVD as well, and I cack my pants at the thought of watching it again.
L
Laroma
Guest
- Thread starter
- #8
Sure it had the potential to become a decent horror movie, but in my opinion they just made a decent script into something that should never have made it to the big screen.
Maybe it's because I personally don't like the "dogme" concept at all, and how they applied it to a horror movie just ruined it for me.
Maybe it's because I personally don't like the "dogme" concept at all, and how they applied it to a horror movie just ruined it for me.
P
PR.
Guest
- Thread starter
- #9
Don't watch the sequel.
O
old.D0LLySh33p
Guest
- Thread starter
- #10
Blair Witch was poop.
X
Xtro 2.0
Guest
- Thread starter
- #11
The sequel is truly shite and is a bland bland bland attempt at teen horror.
However the goth lass in it wants a major shagging and made up for the wasted 90 mins.
However the goth lass in it wants a major shagging and made up for the wasted 90 mins.
O
old.Dillinja
Guest
- Thread starter
- #12
The first one was total and utter shit. The second one looks worse. How anyone could find a few breaking branches and pathetic noises scary is unbelievable. The scariest part of the film was the part where the woman starts to cry really close up to the camera. And to think that some Yanks thought that it was real? I knew they were stupid but that is just a new low.
E
Ekydus
Guest
- Thread starter
- #13
Yeah, the first one was utter shit... But there were still Americans who ran out of the cinema.
W
WPKenny
Guest
- Thread starter
- #14
I thought the film was great. It doesn't hold my interest on re-watching it but the first time I saw it I was huddled up in a wood cabin at the bottom of the garden of a house in the middle of nowhere. It scared me the way that telling each other ghost stories when you're a kid at scout camp or wherever would scare you. The sort of feeling that makes you not want to hang even your little toe outside the shelter and protection of the duvet.
Of course after the film had finished we needed the loo and were petrified to walk to the house accross the garden/courtyard in the dark.
It's an original film and I do like the way in which they leave it open as to whether it's just some nutter who's escaped from the set of Deliverance or whether it truely is a supernatural force that's hounding them. I think it's one of those films you have to be in the right frame of mind. You need to get totally absorbed in the film. If you're sitting there with a bunch of mates yelling "it's behind you!" at the screen then the illusion is shattered and, yes, it does seem a rather pants film.
Of course after the film had finished we needed the loo and were petrified to walk to the house accross the garden/courtyard in the dark.
It's an original film and I do like the way in which they leave it open as to whether it's just some nutter who's escaped from the set of Deliverance or whether it truely is a supernatural force that's hounding them. I think it's one of those films you have to be in the right frame of mind. You need to get totally absorbed in the film. If you're sitting there with a bunch of mates yelling "it's behind you!" at the screen then the illusion is shattered and, yes, it does seem a rather pants film.
H
hoggsboss
Guest
- Thread starter
- #15
it was released without advertising and hype in america with web sites suggesting a video tape had been found etc etc, by the time it was released every where else we all knew about it.
personally i thought it was crap and coulda done without the motion sickness it induced.
S
Sping
Guest
- Thread starter
- #16
I don't think it was that great but it was quite original. The fact that I'd never seen a film like that before made up for what it lacked script-wise.
A
Ardrias_Mid
Guest
- Thread starter
- #17
The most scary thing about it, is that I actually sat through the whole film
One of the absolute top 5 shittiest films ever
One of the absolute top 5 shittiest films ever