avant-garde film for the masses?

Rating: Null/10 (12 April 2001)

I am not sure why people would characterize the camera work in this movie as "bad." That's like going to see a heavy metal band and saying the band was "loud." The camera work is very non-traditional, but only someone with no artistic vision could term it "bad." Clearly the film was a big hit because of its completely non-traditional approach- and that approach works well. The cinematography and shot composition work VERY WELL, even if we're seeing half the actor's face or just their shoes or just twigs on the ground. Watching the film, you recognize why the directors would use those kinds of shots instead of some agent making sure the actress has her "grand entrance." It shows that the big hollywood special affects and computer animation crowd has nothing over good-old-fashion low-budget storytelling.
there's a reason why people flocked to the original Night of the Living Dead over other late 60s horror movies.
I saw Blair witch for the first time on video a few weeks ago and I can't get it out of my head.
Rent it with an open mind that you are watching a film that was made in the style of a home video. I found it engrossing- I thought the improv lines and writing were terrific, completely natural. The film sneaks up on you and it reminds me of any strenuous and un-ending task (like writing a class project that takes you so long that you're pulling all-nighters and basically freaking out trying to finish that paper for an important class). you know that feeling of being on-the-edge? The cast experiences that in spades.
The only really frightening movie that I have seen in the last 5 years, bar none. no hollywood horror movie of the last 5 years has anything on Blair Witch.