Flawed, but brilliantly spooky

Rating: 9/10 (11 August 1999)

I used to review books and movies professionally, so I hope my comments will add a few fresh perspectives. First, let me say that it's obvious that this is not the kind of movie that everyone will like. People biased against seeing horror films won't; people who want technical perfection in the filmmaking process won't; people who want an airtight and tightly wound plot won't. And I agree that the film has its problems - lots of gratuitous profanity, a tendency to drag about two-thirds through, and some plot points that aren't entirely clear. For example, I didn't tie in how some of the residents' brief comments in the beginning affected the movie's ending (and various other events). But they do impact it. Maybe I just need to be hit over the head, but I didn't get it the first time around.
All that said: I love "The Blair Witch Project." Took me two viewings to really appreciate it. The first time, I found it fascinating -- and the second time, I found it scary, especially when I "got" the ending. Scariest movie ever? No. But for a combination of scary and interestingly done, it scores big points.
Unlike some reviewers, I found the acting very realistic. Some of the negative reviews I've read cite problems: The actors wouldn't have done this or that, usually. One reviewer said student filmmakers are very savvy these days, and the filming wouldn't have been that rough around the edges. He said this totally spoiled the movie for him. Lighten up -- all fiction, and especially horror fiction, requires suspension of disbelief. Horror films are notorious for having plot holes, unlikely things happening, and people going where they shouldn't. In fact, in a lot of horror flicks, if people acted realistically there would be no plot! And obviously fake studio-lot trees and dry-ice "fog" certainly didn't keep "The Wolf Man" from being a horror classic, at least not for me.
I also disagree that finding out how the film was made or that it isn't a true story make it a lesser experience. Sure didn't for me. And I'm glad to see some other comments here that tell me I'm not the only one with the "hangover" effect -- it ran across my mind for days after I saw it. By the nature of its filming, Blair Witch gets a little vague in its plot sometimes, but it more than makes up for this with its freshness and genuine thrills.
I also appreciate the intricate Internet and TV framework of mythology -- what negative reviewers call "hype" -- that's been built up around the movie. There's talk of a sequel. Personally, I'd like to see a "prequel" built around the Blair Witch mythology created on the film's home page and in the Sci-Fi special, "Curse of the Blair Witch."
All in all, I'd rate this right up there with "The Exorcist" and the original version of "The Haunting" as the best of the post-1960 horror films. Although each has its own special brand of horror, each keeps its place well secured in my memory. As to those who are disappointed that they didn't "see the witch" or needed some presence to scare them, blame modern horror cinema for spoiling them with special effects and gore. Those who don't like the film for these reasons would never "get" a classic ghost story.