comments, pt. 2

Rating: 4/10 (23 August 1999)

Having already posted one review which could be seen as being "negative" (although not as much as many of the reviews here) I have become rather resentful at those who not only praise the film (to each his own) but also offer their interpretation as to why the rest of don't like it - because it lacks special effects and relies on our imagination which therefore must be lacking.
As for the first, Sixth Sense was plenty scary without special effects. I can enjoy a non-effect movie as long as there is something compelling going on. Blair Witch was interesting but hardly compelling, and effects or not, there was *nothing* scary. Not a single solitary moment of the film caused me to jump in my seat, to look over my shoulder or to instill a fear in me that wasn't already there. Silence of the Lambs lacks special effects and except for a scene or two, doesn't have "jump out at you" scares yet is widely considered one of the scariest movies ever. Why? Because the audience is given just enough info to truly be frightened by the possibilities and the knowledge that something real is behind it all. Blair Witch gives some hints of things to be frightened of, but nothing to indicate that something truly malevolent is taking place.

As for the second. My imagination is fine. I'm a filmmaker myself. When I go to a film I go to become involved in the filmmaker's imagination. If the whole point of the film was simply to be scared by what I can imagine, why go to the movie? I can sit at home and imagine some pretty scary stuff without spending $4.50. "Jaws" left alot to the imagination but it also gave me enough to go on to fuel my imagination. Blair Witch gave me nothing. Not a hint, not a glimpse. For all I know, the whole thing was a practical joke played on them by Mike, the movie not only doesn't offer any explanations it doesn't even offer any clues (and yes I know what the ending was supposed to be and that was hardly enough to validate any explanation from aliens to a ticked-off hermit). I am left thinking that the filmmakers had nothing scary in mind... that it was their imagination that was lacking, not mine. That they couldn't think of something sufficiently scary to match the build up so instead of going for the big climax, they just end it and then say "imagine something scary here" That's not filmmaking genius, that's a cop-out. If Speilburg had *never* showed us the shark and instead left the possibility open that it wasn't a shark but perhaps a big p-o'd goldfish or maybe just a maniacal scuba diver or maybe (insert something you think is scary here) people would have been upset too. Movie scares require something concrete to scare me. There was nothing concrete in Blair Witch. The sticks & rocks set up a creepy atmosphere but are not scary by themselves.
I have no problem with a movie that doesn't draw a straight line for me, that doesn't make all the connections explicit (Eyes Wide Shut for instance which requires active thought on the part of viewer and was thus not understood by most people) but if I'm to be left to connect the dots myself, you'd better at least give me the dots.
If this film scared you, fine. But for me it didn't and the film's supporters attempts to explain why it didn't scare me (usually in an insulting manner) simply don't hold water.