|
Post by Tweek on Jan 10, 2017 11:35:44 GMT -6
It seems another viewing is in order.
And did I see a camera and a book in the basement? Against the wall at the bottom of the stairs?
|
|
|
Post by Monrozombi on Jan 10, 2017 22:31:02 GMT -6
It seems another viewing is in order. And did I see a camera and a book in the basement? Against the wall at the bottom of the stairs? yes you see the CP16 in the corner
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Jan 15, 2017 16:48:10 GMT -6
Found it!
|
|
|
Post by Anarchist86ed on Jan 15, 2017 20:53:17 GMT -6
Well done.
|
|
tizerist
crosser of fallen logs
Posts: 28
|
Post by tizerist on Jan 16, 2017 8:01:22 GMT -6
Found it! I'm seeing only rubble in that pic and I've got pretty good eyesight....
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Jan 16, 2017 11:16:36 GMT -6
It's green. At the bottom corner of the door.
|
|
|
Post by kisstheslate on Jan 27, 2017 4:31:38 GMT -6
Well I'm late to the party having missed out catching this on the big screen for a variety of reasons. A big fan of the original film, I've had the blu on pre-order from way back and I've now watched this three time's, once with commentary. First the bad points. - Not once do I think that these guys are in the same woods in Maryland. I'm sure if they had filmed in the original location word would have quickly spread that 'something Blair Witch' was possibly coming, so I understand their reasons why. But this just doesn't look like the same place, the trees are too dense. - The script seems in too much of a hurry to get to the 'spooky, supernatural, things kicking off in the night' aspects. It kind of stumbles headfirst into the 'weird' without building up the tension or adding to the character development. The original was right at the other end of the spectrum and, if anything, took its time over this, so much so that some viewers found it 'boring' or a film in which 'nothing happened'. I couldn't disagree more with those views, but this new film takes the exact opposite approach. - The performances seem slightly variable, by which I mean to highlight the fact that they are 'performances' and always come across as being so. Whereas I can watch the original and immerse myself in the performances and (even now) 'believe' those guys are truly lost in the woods, here I'm well aware that i'm watching a bunch of actors, and of those actors its the three female actors who easily give the best performances. But heres the rub. I love this movie. So what if its 'not as good' as the original? Did anybody here really, truly expect it to be? Of the above criticisms I personally have (yes I do love it, but yes, it IS flawed) the pace of the new movie actually says more about the style of modern filmmaking (and modern life in general) than necessarily being a 'faul't of this movie. Sure I'd have preferred to see the makers 'take their time' over the set up, just as the original did, but I can hardly fault them or their film for being a product of their times. High speed 'adrenaline-rush' filmmaking was a trend that was gaining traction during the time of the originals release, a time when studios began to think that an audiences attention spans equated to that of a goldfish. BWP for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the nature of its production, flew in the face of all that, much to its credit, yet this new movie, unlike most 'event-ridden' types, never insults my intelligence. Quite the opposite, as a Blair Witch 'fan', it treats me with huge respect and holds great reverence for the subject matter by a number of 'homages' but more importantly adding and expanding on the mythology of the original. For example, the 'entity (or 'witch', whatever 'it' is ) ability to bend time/space to its will, which if you think about events in the first film now makes perfect sense. I can now speculate about how things originally panned out back then, for example, now I believe that it was Lane who was down in that cellar at the end of the first film, waiting for Mike and Heather. Just my thought. And the performances? I think the reason I found them so variable was because some were actually SO good the others just paled in comparison. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with the three male leads performances, they just get overshadowed by the girls, particularly the brilliantly understated Valorie Curry as Talia and especially Callie Hernandez as Lisa, who from her 'quiet' beginning undergoes quite the transformation until the last fifteen, twenty minutes where she gives any aspiring actor a lesson in fear and terror. This film was pretty much in a lose/lose situation from the start. The first real 'true' sequel, released 17 years after the original on a tiny budget with little or no pre-publicity, the studio gambling on the fact that an apathetic general public might actually care (they didn't) then still having a fanbase to fall back on that turns out to be overtly critical, and, obsessive. The hate this film has garnered seems palpable, and in my eyes, completely unjust. I'm really not too sure where all the hate stems from, but again for me seems a product of the times and the technology rather than a reflection of the film. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course some people genuinely won't like it whilst others do, but rather i talk here about a 'third' kind of criticism, beyond like or dislike. Some of the things i've seen written speak more about the people writing them than for the film itself. For example, I've read so much crap about the director and writers commentary on the blu, that they say this, they say that, which originated I believe from one particular erroneous article? Then because of that i read people writing real vitriol aimed at the director and writer even before they've heard the commentary themselves! This kind of unsubstantiated negativity and vitriol seems quite prevalent with regards this new movie. By all means, listen to the commentary and throw bricks at the creators, but listen to the thing first. I enjoy reading constructive criticism, pro and con a 'thing' but I'm becoming quite adept at spotting this much more prevalent 'third' type of crap these days, and reading about the reactions to this movie has given me lots more practice. I spot it early, and just ignore it. In my opinion, all involved in the making of this movie (with a special mention to the wonderful production of the 'house' set, that cellar gave me the creeps all over again) should feel justifiable pride in the final product, one that, for this 'Blair Witch fan' at least, scratched my 'Blair Witch Itch', gave me plenty to ponder and speculate about (always fun), gave enough knowing and reverential nods to the original whilst retaining its own identity, expanded on the myth and finally, finally gave the original a decent follow up. I was quite content with only ever having 'one' real Blair Witch film. I'm more than happy now with two. Wasn't the same woods though.
|
|
|
Post by kisstheslate on Jan 27, 2017 4:35:37 GMT -6
I forgot to add, I watched this with two other people, neither of whom are 'fans' of the original (although they've both seen it.)
One thought Blair Witch was 'OK' and the second thought it 'real scary.'
|
|
handel
crosser of fallen logs
Posts: 12
|
Post by handel on Jan 27, 2017 13:37:05 GMT -6
Well I'm late to the party having missed out catching this on the big screen for a variety of reasons. A big fan of the original film, I've had the blu on pre-order from way back and I've now watched this three time's, once with commentary. First the bad points. - Not once do I think that these guys are in the same woods in Maryland. I'm sure if they had filmed in the original location word would have quickly spread that 'something Blair Witch' was possibly coming, so I understand their reasons why. But this just doesn't look like the same place, the trees are too dense. - The script seems in too much of a hurry to get to the 'spooky, supernatural, things kicking off in the night' aspects. It kind of stumbles headfirst into the 'weird' without building up the tension or adding to the character development. The original was right at the other end of the spectrum and, if anything, took its time over this, so much so that some viewers found it 'boring' or a film in which 'nothing happened'. I couldn't disagree more with those views, but this new film takes the exact opposite approach. - The performances seem slightly variable, by which I mean to highlight the fact that they are 'performances' and always come across as being so. Whereas I can watch the original and immerse myself in the performances and (even now) 'believe' those guys are truly lost in the woods, here I'm well aware that i'm watching a bunch of actors, and of those actors its the three female actors who easily give the best performances. THIS! I think your second point hits the nail on the head for me; lotta horror movies completely forgo any meaningful character dev. in place of quick/cheap scares, o it's not unforgivable in the genre, but the firsts film builds it all up so well that it really mirrors how poorly this one managed that aspect. also yeah, the different woods bothered me a lot. and the way that it was filmed made it feel a lot less immersive...also, the sound design disappointed me, comparatively. but I totally agree, I'd rather have two films than one, even if I didn't like the second. if I'm a fan of something I'll usually go see anything related to it, no matter how 'bad' it seems to be.
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Feb 11, 2017 15:19:55 GMT -6
I wish they had gotten the mythology right. Rustin Parr did NOT stand in the corner, Lane. And there was no "debate" about basement or attic. It was clearly stated in the first film that Parr took his victims to the BASEMENT. Standing in the corner had nothing to do with protection from anything. If you see her you die? Nope. Lots of people saw her and didn't die instantly. Fans of this series are going to know these things. And notice if you botch them.
Going found footage this time was a mistake. We're clearly watching actors. I've seen some of them in other things. Not once did I believe I was watching actual events.
|
|
|
Post by Monrozombi on Feb 11, 2017 20:13:01 GMT -6
you could also go down the line of Lane was bad at knowing what the legend was and wasn't as smart as he made himself out to be and was more enthusiastic than he was informed.
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Feb 12, 2017 12:40:08 GMT -6
you could also go down the line of Lane was bad at knowing what the legend was and wasn't as smart as he made himself out to be and was more enthusiastic than he was informed. Lane did seem to be a bit of a doofus.
|
|
|
Post by Monrozombi on Feb 12, 2017 18:35:51 GMT -6
you could also go down the line of Lane was bad at knowing what the legend was and wasn't as smart as he made himself out to be and was more enthusiastic than he was informed. Lane did seem to be a bit of a doofus. He knows about 75% of the facts and fills in the rest to make himself look good
|
|
|
Post by Heather, taking a piss. on Feb 18, 2017 18:29:54 GMT -6
The more I see it, the more I fancy it. Peter's Elly isn't James' or Lisa's. Clever game of perception.
I really liked the idea of dying by the mere sight of the witch, but they make her to seem a hard slapper.
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Feb 19, 2017 9:11:56 GMT -6
"It" appears differently each time we see it. Or we are seeing multiple creatures. Which also works.
Elly's pimp hand is strong in this one. No shaking the tent this time. Now she's knocking down trees, smashing through doors, and throwing tents!
|
|
|
Post by Monrozombi on Feb 19, 2017 9:33:05 GMT -6
She was like "bitch i told your sister to leave me alone and now you're stepping up?"
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Feb 19, 2017 12:26:21 GMT -6
Did James not watch Heather's footage? What did he think was going to happen out there? H pops up from behind a tree and gives him a big hug?
|
|
|
Post by Monrozombi on Feb 19, 2017 13:30:00 GMT -6
Did James not watch Heather's footage? What did he think was going to happen out there? H pops up from behind a tree and gives him a big hug? I bet he only saw a little bit since she disappeared when he was 4. So i bet the vast amt of footage that he saw would have been from the news or what his parents told him...
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Feb 19, 2017 13:52:09 GMT -6
He makes some good points...
|
|
|
Post by Heather, taking a piss. on Feb 19, 2017 14:04:34 GMT -6
James seems to be completely clueless regarding the conditions of Heather's disappearance, the original tapes and the supernatural.
OR DID HE?
Him mentioning "she only takes sacrifices" implies he maybe actually knew what he was getting into.
Has anyone got into the "Wizard Of Oz" character references? The "Ashley" lady said in an interview she was the Scarecrow. Lane has a lion on his packpack, and he does act a bit of a pussy until we see him in full blown psycho mode.
James is looking for a house, maybe he is Dorothy? Lisa's looks resemble Dorothy's as well. I haven't checked the audio commentary but I'm a little letdown that the producers didn't service the fanbase explaining and giving credit to their hard work.
|
|
|
Post by Anarchist86ed on Feb 22, 2017 12:46:48 GMT -6
Called jump scares, dawg.
|
|
tizerist
crosser of fallen logs
Posts: 28
|
Post by tizerist on Mar 1, 2017 14:45:07 GMT -6
James seems to be completely clueless regarding the conditions of Heather's disappearance, the original tapes and the supernatural. OR DID HE? Him mentioning "she only takes sacrifices" implies he maybe actually knew what he was getting into. Perhaps he's seen the Extended Cut, and he knows more than we do
|
|
|
Post by Heather, taking a piss. on Apr 26, 2017 23:12:28 GMT -6
I'm beginning to like it. Though I really dislike Elly being so noisy.
|
|
tizerist
crosser of fallen logs
Posts: 28
|
Post by tizerist on May 2, 2017 11:28:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on May 2, 2017 13:54:01 GMT -6
No way to see that in the theater. Goes by too fast. It doesn't look like a map to me either. But Simon says it's there. He would know.
|
|