Another "two thumbs up" vote

Rating: Null/10 (13 September 2004)

I finally saw this (on television, even) day before yesterday, and it still lingers in my mind. I find it amazing that there is such a large number of viciously negative comments for this film.
I'm even more amazed at the reasons for these negative reviews:
1) Once you knew that it was a "hoax", some or all of the interest value of the film was lost.
Yeah, right. Ever heard of "suspension of disbelief"? Or are some of us under the impression that if we went to New York and hung around long enough, we would eventually see Spiderman swinging around? Trust me, I was born and raised in New York City. He ain't there. The whole point of a movie is to pretend that the circumstances under which the movie is occurring are true. I admit that having real-world confusion on that point (of whether this is true or not) enhances the experience, but it is not necessary.
2) Boring and irritating characters/lag in storyline.
Goes back to the first point... these are not "characters", they are people who happen to have filmed themselves. If any one of us made a film of "My hike in the woods", or "My party", we would likely be seen as boring or irritating by a fair number of people (especially if we really were), and the "story" of our experience would undoubtedly "lag" in the eyes of the viewing audience. Life is mostly boring. People are mostly boring, too. But (again, going back to the first point) this is the only record left of the end of these small lives. If I was the company responsible for releasing it as found footage, I wouldn't have the heart to cut it for "time" or "interest value", either.
As to the "whining and cursing"-- well, they were all quite young. Young adults tend to obsess about things, whine, blow things out of proportion, and try to micromanage things that they don't fully understand (often because they don't fully understand them). They also tend to have foul mouths, since they are finally old enough to say "forbidden words" without having those mouths washed out.
I don't know how the complaining viewers expect people suffering from age-induced self-absorption, multiplied by participating a naturally egotistical endeavor in a career field that encourages self-absorption and obsessive behavior, to behave when discovering that they are in mortal danger that they didn't even believe in (in addition to being delirious from hunger and sleep-deprived), but I thought the film nailed it pretty well.
3) Irrational, survival-negative behavior.
As far as the "just drop the camera and get the heck out" contingent-- well, clearly you don't know filmmakers and camera people. But even those of you who don't might remember the outcry over the cameraman who filmed a protester (against what, I don't remember) as the protester proceeded to light himself on fire, and did not drop the camera to stop him, or to put him out. Documentary makers, camera people/photographers, news collectors-- they tend to obsess over documenting what they see, rather than participating in it. And directors-- most notably "auteurs"-- tend to obsess and micromanage the film that they are making. Many (think Hitchcock) feel it is their duty to do so. They may be right to think so; obsessive micromanagement is often a valuable job skill for a movie director.
Heather, Mike, and Josh even discuss/argue about the use (or overuse) of the hand-held camera in two separate places. That's how obvious an issue it is (so those commentators who mention it aren't even telling the people in the film something they don't know). But when people feel powerless (as they often do when in mortal danger), they tend to cling to something familiar, which gives them some sense of control over the situation. And for these people, continuing to record, to document every detail, served that purpose.
As far as the map and compass-- everyone who has complained about this assumes that these items still worked properly. They clearly did not, otherwise how could one (very carefully) go south all day and wind up walking in a circle? There are several indications that the hunter had some ability to bend perceived reality-- and a compass and map are no use if you see them as saying something they do not.
The sequel picked up on this implicit ability and made a big deal about it (the sequel was shown right after, so I saw them both in a single viewing), so it seems clear that the students were being herded the whole time, and their technological tools were useless. Walking in the creek might have helped, but I wouldn't have bet on it. The hunter ruled her domain for a couple of hundred years. I don't so much think that there was an escape option that would not have been blocked.
4) "Nothing scary".
Everything is scary when you are *not safe*. And the meaning of the stick men, the rock piles, the noises was simply to say, "This is my place. I know you are here. And you are not safe."
Even the most minimal sign is pretty alarming when you can't escape an unsafe place, you know that you are being hunted by something that wants to kill you just for being there-- and the sign it left is clear evidence that it knows you are there (when lack of such knowledge was about your only hope of survival).
5) No visible enemy/answers
What I liked best about this movie (other than the ending, which was fab), is that it's much more like real life than most horror movies are. TV shows like CSI and movies like Se7en lead you to believe that there will be some thread to tie everything together, but even the victims in those films/shows didn't have that thread. Much of the time, bad things "just happen" and you have no idea why. And you never find out, either. Things happen on somebody else's agenda, and due to your ignorance of that agenda and your designed powerlessness, you get whacked, and that's just it. Someone else might find a coherent thread at some point, or might not, but that doesn't answer the essential "Why" (me? is this happening? was this not prevented before it came to pass?) that everyone has when something bad happens. Such a thread of understanding wouldn't likely help the victims anyway. And in this movie, that is who we are identified with-- not the hero cop or detective who solved the mystery "before she could kill again". There are none such present.
Who was the Witch? Was there even a Witch? Why was Mike in the corner? What killed Heather, and how? What happened to Josh? Was that even him we heard crying out? What is the point of all this bloodletting anyway?
Why would we ever know the answer to these questions? The Witch (if there is a Witch) obviously kills most everyone who wants to put the story together. Clearly the Witch (if there is a Witch) is not interested in fame or her story being understood-- she's got an agenda of her own, and she follows it. If it's some psycho pretending to be the Blair Witch, they wouldn't want to be caught, or destroy the myth, as that confusion works for them.
So no, the 'evidence' found doesn't answer anything. Even the (pretty awful) sequel didn't fall into that trap. In that way, not only does the film retains consistency with its own internal logic, but that internal logic is much closer to common logic than what you normally see.
For that reason alone, this is quite a good film, especially if you are interested in film. It is also quite creepy if you take it as what it's claiming to be-- a last message from the unsung dead.
Which is spooky enough right there, imo.