If only negative ratings were possible.....

Rating: 1/10 (20 April 2009)

As anyone who has read my reviews for any length of time knows, I don't kiss ass when it comes to independent films. If it's a good film; I rate it accordingly, if it's a bad film; I do likewise.
However....
It's become one of my pet peeves that indie film fans demand that EVERY independent film be called nothing short of a masterpiece no matter how mundane it is, no compromise. It's this mentality that has resulted in my extreme dislike of indie films and their fans and filmmakers. Honestly; just because something was made without studio assistance and/or interference DOES NOT automatically make it a masterpiece, any more than having the hot new centerfold of-the-month makes the next Michael Bay film an Oscar contender. Yet, still the indie zombies insist that it does, supposedly this mentality comes from resenting Hollywood's excesses, such as taking away artistic control, bloated budgets, inattention to casting appropriate actors in favor of popular ones, and worst of all; annoying marketing campaigns. What BS.
Indie films are guilty of many hypocrisies; but attacking marketing campaigns is their biggest; as endless marketing hype(along with pure stupidity)is the only reason anyone would have seen this clunker I'm currently reviewing.
I can recall, quite vividly; the endless pop-up ads, the fan sites; official and(supposedly)unofficial, magazine articles, TV. specials, the merchandise, the relentless TV. commercials. Whew. The people who complain about the 'Dark Knight's marketing campaign just plain weren't ALIVE to not know the extent of this films marketing(which makes sense; since 99.9% of all the negative TDK reviews I've seen couldn't have been written by someone older than 5 or 8). TDK had NOTHING on this film's relentless marketing campaign.
Trashing Hollywood for over hyping their products, then doing the same: that's the definition of hypocrisy. That alone would be justification enough to dislike TBWP and it's indie film moron cult and to call them hypocritical and give the film a 1 rating, even if it was a good movie, even if I had liked it.
The fact that it also sucked as a film anyway just justifies my rating.
The common defense is that this is some brilliant 'art-film' which introduced the concept of not showing the monster and leaving it to the imagination. BS. Val Lewton did the same thing a thousand times better during the '40's, with films which are classics of the genre: 'Cat People', 'The Seventh Victim'. etc. and in 1963; probably the best of all 'unseen' horror films; Robert Wise(a disciple of Lewton)'s 'The Haunting' was released; to borrow an indie film fan phrase: it PWNED 'Blair Witch'. All classics, all achieving their suspense without showing the monster. All before this film.
But indie fans ignore all this; they claim those movies don't count because they are old and in black & white. Typical response from them, no respect for older film.
As for the 'story' of this film and it's qualities; I wouldn't even give it a D if it was a student film. The device of not showing the monster comes off less as an artistic choice and more an excuse to film nothing but a couple of dumb-asses running around and passing it off as a film. I'll admit it's clever, heck, even Lewton originally adopted the device out of necessity, but he did it mostly because he recognized it's dramatic potential in the face of several alternatives. For the record, it is also a complete and utter rip-off of a much better film called 'The Last Broadcast', the difference being that there is a survivor. Really, otherwise it's the same damn thing, and it's the indie film fans who call Hollywood unoriginal(If only I could use the eye-roll emoticon).
The story also sucks, 'Cannibal Holocaust' did the 'found footage' thing much better. The 'acting' is also awful; it's so forced you wonder if the witch is a legitimate legend even in the context of the story. The praise for characterization is true, though. I definitely felt something about the characters: I wanted all 3 of them dead within a minute. And even if, pray tell, the device of not showing the monster WAS original, or had been used well; does it REALLY matter if it's an awful film otherwise? Nope. At best, it just revives a long-dead gimmick.
And for all the people who say it must be good because so many people thought it was real, let me ask you something: Have you ever heard the phrase 'Idiots will believe anything'? Grow up and watch some atmospheric, 'unseen' horror films that are actually good. This is no different than your usual incredibly stupid, vapid Hollywood slasher flick with annoying teenage victims, only without a slasher and not made by Hollywood, but still incredibly stupid , vapid and filled with annoying teenage victims.~