Blair Witch (if you've seen it)

I just saw the movie today, and personally, I don't think it was as scary as everyone said it was. I mean, there were some very frightening things put here and there (especially the end), but the rest of the stuff seemed like comedy to me... I dunno, maybe I'm too stupid to be scared.

So... does anything know what thing that she found in bundle of twigs was? I thought I saw an eyeball, but what was that pink thing?

------------------
I'm ready to meet Him
'Cause where I'm livin' ain't right
Black hate white
White hate black
It's right back to the same fight...

--DMX

You are right, its not very scary. But thats the idea, not show gross stuff and keep the viewer engrossed. This part, I think worked.

I didnt get the last scene though. The Witch kills the second guy and then goes after the girl when there someone at the corner of the stairs. Who the heck is that?


>So... does anything know what thing that she found in bundle of twigs was? I thought I saw an
> eyeball, but what was that pink thing?

I think that was his tongue.

I thought it might have been a nose. Some others have thought it to be a tooth.

Like the person shooting it on video, the audience is not supposed to figure it out.

I was a little disappointed because the antihype had really gotten my expectations up. My take is that the stuff in the bundle were several of Joshes teeth. The bit at the end confused me at first, it looked like he was taking a leak, but then I thought about the story that the hermit had taken the children into the basement by twos and made one stand in the corner while he killed the other. I'm thinking that Heather died before Mike (I really didn't like her very much, so that's ok). Or I could be way offbase,
Larry

More than scary, I thought it was creepy...really really freakin' creepy. In fact, I can't think of another movie that creeped me out as much as this one did. If I was lost in the woods and stuff like that happened to me, I'd be mortified.

Here's my take on the questions:
I was also wondering what was in the cloth. I thought I saw a finger and a nose and maybe lips.

I think Mike died first. You hear the clunk after he ran down the stairs and his camera falls. Heather runs down the stairs and Mike is standing in the corner somehow propped up (thru supernatural forces?) which harkens back to the Rustin Parr story. Then, clunk! Down goes Heather with her camera.

I think my enjoyment of the film (well, "enjoy" isn't exactly the right word) was enhanced by first seeing "The Curse of the Blair Witch" on the SciFi Channel.

Anyway, I think it lived up to the hype.

I think Mike died first. You hear the clunk after he ran down the stairs and his camera falls. Heather runs down the stairs and Mike is standing in the corner somehow propped up (thru supernatural forces?) which harkens back to the Rustin Parr story. Then, clunk! Down goes Heather with her camera.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

I thought he was hanging there... One more thing... was Josh the one who kicked the pile of rocks over towards the beginning? 'cause that would explain why he was the first to go and why he got that 'slime' on his stuff.

I JUST saw it, and I'm a little creeped out, which is why I'm on-line at 12:30 instead of in bed when tomorrow is payroll.

I thought Mike was hanging at first, because I'd seen what looked like a noose hanging from the ceiling when they first go into the house, but then I remembered the hermit story, and figured he was standing in the corner. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be the same house-- the hermit's house, I mean, because of the handprints.

I couldn't tell what was in the handkerchief, but the guy I saw it with is sure they were teeth.

This movie was very, very creepy, but then, things like that scare me. Slasher films just bore me, really. I think the scariest thing I ever saw was Twin Peaks. (Of course being stoned probably added the right touch of paranoia.)

The movie reminds me of a quote from the director of Vampyr, another very creepy, non-gory film.

He said something to the effect that if you are sitting in a room, and after a while, someone tells you that in the next room there is a dead body, your whole perception of the room you are in changes. He said this is the kind of feeling he wants in his films.

I think Blair Witch captures this very well.

I remember once I was playing frisbee in an old cemetery, on a bright summer's day, and my friend Mark and I were looking at the stones, some which had kind of funny epitaphs.

Then after a couple of hours, we came across a grave that looked just used-- as though there had been a recent burial-- fresh earth on top. The thing was, the headstone gave a death date of ten years earlier.

After that, we weren't having fun anymore and decided to leave.

Anyway, Blair Witch was very creepy.


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

Rowan says, "....another very creepy, non-gory film."

One of my favorites of this type was always Jacob's Ladder. It's been a long time since I saw it, so there may be more gore than I am remembering now, but I sort of recall that its horror came about in other ways than gore.

I've always preferred that to films that achieve their horror through gore, which seems like a cheap crutch.

k0myers

Okay, it's now 4:20 AM New York time. I walked away from the movie saying 'hey, that was actually kinda funny'. But now, as you can probably tell, I'm bugging out. Every little sound is freaking the heck outta me. Anyway, I'm taking back what I said about it not being all that scary.

I thought they were teeth in the bundle.
And I'm sure the guy was standing in the corner at the end. For me, that was key to making that last scene so creepy, the way it referred back to the story of the killer making one kid stand in the corner while he killed the other. It's immaterial that he was bonked on the head before Heather; the bonk didn't have to kill him, and besides a supernatural witch could stand his ass up again if she wants.
I think whether people get that last scene is often the difference between people loving this movie or hating it.
I also thought the movie wasn't as "scary" as I'd heard, but I loved it. And it's the first movie in a long time that gave me the creeps just before going to bed that night. That last scene flashed through my mind as I lay down and I thought, "Geez, I wish I hadn't just thought of that."
-- Greg, Atlanta

OK, it's the next morning, and I still have the creeps big time. Went through the house and locked EVERY window last night.

I also have more questions, for people who live in Esat, or people who studied folklore.

What was up with the effigies? Ben said "If we were from New England, we'd probably know." I reminded him that I am from New York, which resulted in a brief argument about whether Manhattan is culturally part of New England.

Anyway, what is their significance, other than the fact that they are very creepy, and kinda look like a bunck of hanged people?

I've been pondering why Josh was taken first, and I can't think of a particular reason (other than the rocks), except that since Heather was the one obsessed with filming, if she'd gone first, it would have been the end of the movie.

Also, as to why they all "had" to die-- do you remember the fishermen's story about the hermit? He said the reason one kid was standing in the corner was that the hermit didn't like all those eyes on him. Well, the filmmakers had their "eyes on him" in a big way.


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

rowan and ragin' azn: thanks for being the test subjects. Based on your progressive creeped out accounts, i'm not planning on see it.

Sound of Music, anyone?

OK, so Mike got hit first. That's all we know. Then he was propped in the corner like in the Rustin Parr (the hermit) folklore. Creepy creepy!

Oh! If you go to http://www.burkittsville.org, you can get a free mail alias of <username>@burkittsville.org.

I just thought I would throw this out in answer to what the bloody things are in the bundle. This is from A & E's Blair Witch site:

http://tbwp.freeservers.com/spoiler.html

"What's in the bundle of sticks Heather finds outside the tent?

The bundle of sticks contains teeth. It's also tied with strips of Josh's shirt. Obviously bad news for everyone, especially Josh..."

I just saw the movie last night and I am still creeped out. I was wide awake and spooked from about 4 to 5 this morning! Ugh!

I saw it yesterday and must say that it was one smart, creepy movie. As a marketer, I've got to hand it to the way these guys have spun their own buzz through the use of the internet; whether you like it or not, you've got to admit it was a stroke of genious.

My theory on what's in the bundle: probably teeth and hair, but it doesn't really matter...it's some part or parts of Josh's body and that's bad enough. The whole point of this movie is that you never actually see the menace...that's what makes it so smart and creepy. Think about it, if you thought that was some part of a friends body, you would'nt want to dwell on it or give it extensive study.

Who's in the corner?: Mike; doesn't really matter if he's dead or alive. It brings the whole thing full circle to the hermit's story. I give it a hefty 10 on the creep-o-meter.

::crying:: Damn my motion sickness! I tried watching this movie last week and had to leave 40 minutes into it because I couldn't handle the camera work. Now I read posts like these and want to see the movie more than ever but I will NEVER be able to see it!

Yeah, Papa, following the river to a town seemed logical to me too. The only possible explanation I can think of is that, though they were terrified, they hadn't gotten into "total survival" mode, where all you think about is staying alive - also evidenced by the fact that they were still carrying around all the equipment and packs.

(Although, if they'd dropped the cameras there wouldn't have been any more movie...)

I mean, how hard is it to follow running water to civilization?

Not very...except when you're in the Twilight Zone *cue music*

Actually, they had a compass and they were walking south the whole time according to Heather who had the compass. Personally, I would have done the same thing if I had a compass...picked a direction and kept going in it. Somehow, even though they kept going south according to the compass, they ended up right back at that log they'd crossed at the beginning of the day. I don't think they were stupid. I think they had the witch working against them.

Remember when Heather started crying and saying,"We've been walking south all fucking day, I swear to god! That's not the same log. It can't be," or some such thing?

Michelle, take 2 non-drowsy Drammamine about an hour before the movie. Be sure to drink plenty of water, too--I find that I am more prone to nausea if I am even the slightest bit dehydrated. As a fellow motion-sickie, I find that works pretty well. (Does Drammamine help you at all, anyway?)

Or, if you want the super-potent stuff, ask your doc for the scopolomine patch. You have to put it on 24 hours prior to whatever you anticipate might make you sick, and you have to be careful not to actually touch the patch. If you do, wash your hands thoroughly 'cause if you touch your eyes after touching the patch, you'll get double-vision. Probably a lot to go through just to see a movie, but you'll have extra patches for other fun--I still have some patches I'm gonna use at Magic Mountain later this month. I'm gonna ride all the rides I was afraid of before...thoroughly test it out! :)

------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

"English? Who needs that? I'm never going to England."

ok, now I have a questions. Heather never did tell Mike about finding Josh's teeth, did she? As far as I can tell, Mike never had any idea.

PapaBear wrote:

Did anyone else feel that the trio's complete lack of survival skills was a little unbelievable?

Yup. As an experienced wilderness hiker and camper I walked out of that movie thinking, "Never go camping with morons!".

What I also found a little odd was that if I heard the weird sounds that they heard that second night I would have gotten busy fashioning some crude weapons. I may be a pacifist, but I'm not a fool.

Motion sickness? I was pretty nauseated during a lot of the movie, but I'm getting over a bladder infection, and I'd just eaten in a restaurant I'd never been to before, so I chalked it up to that. I really want to see it again-- I'll try the Dramimine, and some Pepto-Bismal, plus a Coke. Did Pepto-Bismal and Coke when I got home, and felt fine-- well, not nauseated, anyway.

I found their lack of survival skills pretty believable, but I'm from Manhattan. I know people who stand under trees to take shelter during a storm. Hell, I'd probably be like that myself if I hadn't gone to college in Indiana. I saw the movie with my friend Ben, who's from Northern Indiana, and at one point he leans over and hisses "Follow the creek DOWNSTREAM. Morons." Then he said he always takes a gun camping.

I was thinking I would have dumped the equipment too, but after I got to thinking more, and talking with some people at work, we thought about the psychological effect: as long as they maintain the pretense of their original purpose, they haven't admitted defeat. In other words, they're thinking, "If we were really in trouble, we'd leave the camera; therefore, if we don't leave the camera, we're not really in trouble."


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

From Friday's "StudioBriefing"

IT'S THE CAMERA -- NOT THE HORROR

Like Exorcist, The (1973) a generation ago, the opening of Blair Witch Project, The (1999) has been accompanied by reports of audience members rushing out of theaters, deathly sick. But today's (Friday) Washington Post says that the primary cause of nausea may not be any on-screen horror, but the hand-held camera work. John Risey, a clinical audiologist at Tulane University Hospital in New Orleans, told the newspaper, "What happens is the camera and the brain mismatch message. ... Because you are seated and you are still, your brain gets wrong information that you are in motion." He indicated that the sensation would not be induced if the same film was viewed on a TV monitor.

Another thought:

The Compass: there're different kinds of compasses, and given the kids lack of woods-savvy, chances are the only kind of compass they'd used before was the cheap kind with the arrow painted on the glass, and the dial or ball that floats in oil. You use it by turning it until the arrow points toward the direction you want to go.

What they bought, however, looked like one of the more expensive kind with the moving rim. These kind should always point North.

So there's a good chance they used the compass incorrectly.

Also, if the person with the videocamera held the compass, the magnetic properties of the camera could have screwed up the compass.


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

Speaking for those of us who are thoroughly unskilled in wilderness survival, I found their plight quite beleivable. Foolish and arrogant, but believable.
And when you factor in hunger, exhaustion, and overall terror, it seems plausible that they would wander ineffectively. Remember, those folks were not in a good state of mind towards the end of the movie.
-- Greg

If they were being hunted and tormeted by a witch (altho it COULD have been psychopaths but I'm sticking with the witch theory), why is it so hard to believe that they were using the compass and/or following the stream and ended up back at the same place anyway? I don't care how wilderness savvy you are, if there are witches after you, they're probably going to win.

Of course, if you absolutely can't buy the witch theory and you think it was some psychopaths after them, I could see how you would think they were such idiots. Of course, if supernatural powers weren't involved, the psychos would have had to abduct Josh without disturbing the other two and knock Mike out and hang him in the corner before Heather ran down.

Damn, I'm starting to know what it feels like to be a hardcore Star Wars or Star Trek fan ;). Just call me a Blairian.

Rowan, re: why Josh was taken first.

First, there's the rocks that he knocked over, but I also think it was effective to make him the first victim because he had become the de facto leader of the trio.

Heather's the pushy bitch in charge of the project (great character...everyone's met someone like her) but Josh is the one who was the balance between her and the just-on-the-edge-of-babbling-incoherently Mike.

Josh was the glue that held them together; take him out and it just increases the terror experienced by the other two.

"Creepy" is definitely the adjective that is called for here. I think the makers of this film have gotten more bang for their buck than any other film in history. Not only is this film a masterpiece of motion picture art, but it is also a masterpiece of entrepenuership.

Just one quibble:

Did anyone else feel that the trio's complete lack of survival skills was a little unbelievable? I consider myself a competent outdoorsman, so I'm not suprised that I kept noting all their mistakes. My wife on the otherhand has no experience at all in these matters, and her common sense alone brought her to all the same conclusions. I mean, how hard is it to follow running water to civilization?

Just saw the movie today and thought it was a bit overhyped. I hate movies like The Haunting that try to scare us with fancy computer special effects, but this movie is way to the other extreme: it's something I could have made. Maybe that's it's appeal.

It was a bit creepy, especially the scene where the protaganists are running away from their tents, and it is different.

I agree with the nausea thing. My poor fiancee had to struggle throughout the movie to keep from getting sick. I ate too much popcorn and SweetTarts, and my stomach was acting up. The constant camera motion was not helping.

I agree with the theory that we are not supposed to know what was in the bundle of sticks and what Mike was doing standing in the corner at the end. For once, the fictional director is not in control of his/her subjects. The movie is supposed to have the look that whoever discovered the footage edited it the best they could, but could not figure out the sequence as shown on the cameras at the end of the two character's lives.

I do have some stupid questions though:

1. How can anyone be so stupid as to go South for 15 hours only to go in a circle?
2. Wouldn't the FBI (in a real world) grab the film footage, figure out the area where these murders took place, and then comb the area with thousands of agents to find the bodies and gather evidence before these "fiimmakers" made this movie? Well, as the old saying goes, "It's a movie!"

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/parliament/1685/

1. How can anyone be so stupid as to go South for 15 hours only to go in a circle?

OK, apparently, I, like the witch, am invisible ;). So for the third time...it is true we don't know if we're dealing with a witch or psychopaths. I doubt the idea of the film was that it was psychopaths (please see my previous postings) stalking them. The other alternative is that they were in fact killed by a witch. A witch is supernatural. If there were such things as witches, wouldn't it also be possible that a witch could a)mess with your compass/magnetic fields (they did have one and they were walking south) and send you in a circle or b)just pick you up and put you back at the place you started without you knowing it until you got there. When you're up against a witch, the witch will probably win. There weren't going to get out of the woods no matter what they did. The witch was just tormenting them and letting them spin their wheels, so to speak.


Wouldn't the FBI (in a real world) grab the film footage, figure out the area where these
murders took place, and then comb the area with thousands of agents to find the bodies and gather evidence before these "fiimmakers" made this movie? Well, as the old saying goes, "It's a movie!"

Well, yeah, if there was evidence. Supposedly, there was none to be found. Remember the story about Coffin Rock? The first search party who went to look for the missing little girl were found on Coffin Rock, disemboweled (sp?), by the second search party. The second search party left to get more help. When the second search party and the extra help came back, there wasn't a trace of the slaughtered first party. Only the scent of death was in the air.

Anyone up for a camping trip? Burkittsville is only an hour away from here. ;)

Laura, Drammamine does absolutely nothing for me. I might have to check out some prescription alternatives, but it seems a bit far to go just to be able to see a movie. Bermuda mentioned that the movie might not have the same effect on me if viewed on a TV monitor, but I don't think that would be the case for me either. My father sent me a home video once and I couldn't watch that either, it made me sick within minutes. I am surprised the earth's rotation doesn't make me ill.

Not only that, but I've heard that almost all of the camera work was done by the actors. Does anybody know if its true that the cost of this film was recuped in its very first paid screening?

The directors said they made the movie for about the cost of a Ford Taurus. Other places, I've heard "$25,000", "$100,000", and anywhere in between. I'm thinking the movie itself cost about $25,000 to make and with publicity and marketing, it eventually hit about $100,000 for everything but I could be wrong about this. They sold it for $1 million to Artisan Entertainment. As of this weekend, it's done about $33 million at the box office. It's per screen intake has surpirsed the record which was previously set by "Star Wars-The Phantom Menace."

It's per screen intake has surpirsed the record which was previously set by "Star Wars-The Phantom Menace."

I meant that it has SURPASSED the record.

Phantom Menace's per screen intake was about $21,000 while Blair Witch's was about $25,000.

>>They sold it for $1 million to Artisan Entertainment. As of this weekend, it's done about $33 million at the box office.>>topolino

Just an update -- and what's $3 million between friends -- but Exhibitor Relations has it at over $36 million through Sunday. And this is all before its truly wide release -- on 2,000 more screens this coming weekend

>>Phantom Menace's per screen intake was about $21,000 while Blair Witch's was about $25,000. >>

Once again, the figures in for this past weekend put it at an amazing $26,528 per screen, which is a record

>>They sold it for $1 million to Artisan Entertainment. As of this weekend, it's done about $33 million at the box office.>>topolino

Ok, naughty, naughty, naughty.... I'm gonna break my lurking to ask:

Have you seen their web site?

http://www.blairwitch.com/



------------------
--Kalél
(The Original EnigmaOne)

Sorry Topolino. After reading the 21st post I got dizzy and decided to ask my question.

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/parliament/1685/

Have you seen their web site?
http://www.blairwitch.com/

Me? Yes, but it's been a week or so since I've been there. Why, is there something there you want me to look at in particular or are you just asking me/everyone?

More recently, I've been to Artisan's website. They're selling a plethora of Blair Witch stuff.

Im deaf so I wont be able to watch it till it comes out on video captioned.

However, did any of you read about how they made it? It was mostly an improvised script, very very low budget [if anything], no big stars, etc. Very successful, though. Actors having to make up script as it comes along, dirctor [if you can call them that] playing jokes on the actors to get them to act special scenes, etc.

Not only that, but I've heard that almost all of the camera work was done by the actors. Does anybody know if its true that the cost of this film was recuped in its very first paid screening?

[topolino]

Cornflake: Yes. Review the thread to see who felt the same.

Well, I just looked at the Yahoo Auction site under Blair Witch. People are bidding extrordinary amount of money just for anything that is described as "rare" or "hard to find" even if it isn't. There's a poster going for $130 that I bought this weekend for $6. I saw the comic book for $3 at a local store and people are bidding upwards of $30 for it. There are a few unusual things but most of the stuff they're auctioning off is readily available.

Check it out: http://search.auctions.yahoo.com/search/auc?p=blair+witch

Man, I'm missing my chance to rip people off.

[EnigmaOne]

{{{Me? Yes, but it's been a week or so since I've been there. Why, is there something there you want me to look at in particular or are you just asking me/everyone?---topolino}}}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was meant more for those who haven't seen it yet.

Interestingly germane to the remarks of earlier, just handed to me is a front-page article in today's Los Angeles Times--"Internet Powers Success of 'Blair Witch Project.'" There are some interesting numbers here:

Total domestic box office (through Monday): $36.1M(illion)
Per-screen average: $26,500 (exceeds Star Wars Episode 1, @ $22,000 psa)
Original film cost: $50,000 spent by Haxan Films (Artisan spent $341,000 on sound re-mixing and enhancements to the film itself)
Purchase price: $1.1M (Sundance Film Festival--1999)
Projected Gross: $100M plus
Additional costs: $15M on prints and advertising, of which most was delayed until after the movie opened.
Web site activity: 63M hits (since the site came up, in April '99)
Current distribution: 1000 theaters, with plans to double that figure this weekend.
Original distribution: 27 single-screen art houses
Collateral deals: F/X Channel buys the film for $10M and merchandising is generating brisk revenues. There is, supposedly, a soundtrack. Evidently, each of the filmmakers stand to reap on the order of $2M each, via a profit-sharing contract with Artisan. Deals are in the works between Haxan Films (the original creators of Blair Witch) and 20th Century Fox Television, Inc., as well as Regency Television, Inc.

In general the appeal seems to be based on, well, here's the quote from Eduardo Sanchez: "People are being scared by it--and not 'Hollywood' scared. They're having nightmares. There's this side effect to watching the film and people are digging that."

This wasn't a movie made by a major player in the industry. It was literally made by 5 nearly starving guys, who took a gamble that paid off. I *like* that!

I'll go check it out, just to satisfy my curiousity as to technique, etc.


"....Aye Captian, engaging lurking device."



------------------
--Kalél
(The Original EnigmaOne)

[Gundhilde]

Ah, thank you. I just saw the movie today and thought it was terrible!...but now that I see the connection, with the standing in the corner/hermit thing, I have a lot more respect for it. I should have been paying attention to those weird people at the beginning and their stories! Too busy hitting my talkative friend over the head. I know there were teeth, I saw those....but those were shown when she pulled back the cloth a little more...what were the FIRST two/three things she saw, that she looked at forever? They didn't look like teeth, those were pink....gums?

------------------
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." --1984

Personally, I was more creeped by the web page; of course, I looked it up before I spent two nights in a forest of piping at my industrial workplace. The film was good, but it was good like a new local band and I think the hype raised my expectations unfairly.

Thirty minutes into the film, I turned to my wife and said "These people are so stupid they deserve to die!" Sorry, but I just couldn't feel any sympathy for the characters, considering how unskilled, immature and petty they were portrayed. Did anyone else have this response? I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe at 34 I'm just too old.

[AuraSeer]

Undead Dude, don't bother trying to go camping in Burkittsville. The town and its surrounding area are reportedly crawling with campers and tourists already.
Some of those people are fans who just want to look for places they recognize from the movie. Others are frickin' idjits who still think the movie is non-fiction, and are looking for ghouls and ghosts and things that go bump in the night.

My biggest gripe about the movie: people now have a fresh reason to associate the word "witch" with an evil force that stalks around killing people. Witchcraft is a religion, not a psychosis.

[Tony]

>>And I'm sure the guy was standing in the corner at the end. For me, that was key to making that last scene so creepy, the way it referred back to the story of the killer making one kid stand in the corner while he killed the other.<<

I apologize if this is a bit outdated, but I just saw the movie today and absolutely agree with this point. Most of the people in the theater were disappointed at the conclusion and seemed to expect more. We have all heard about the ending and watch the film anticipating what will occur. Maybe someone can build up expectations too high and miss the whole point. One guy blurted out, about halfway through, "This is boring." Well, perhaps if he would listen to the stories at the beginning of the picture instead of yawning, he'd be able to make a connection.

I haven't seen any mention here about the incident during one night when the camera follows a strange figure running away. It's dressed in white, with a kind of hood on its head (like a Klansman). And what was that strange bellowing just before they opened the tent and chased into the night? It sounded like a female voice. Was that Heather and if so why would she make those sounds?

['LiZa JaNe]

I think that Mike was hit on the head, but not killed right away..I think the killer hit him then moved him to stand in the corner somehow and then kill Heather when she came down..and killed Mike afterwards. Like the HErmit..and yeah I think there is a very good chance that house was the Hermit's.

now, I am not really sure what was in the cloth, it looked to me like a tongue that was first shown, but I know there were other things in there...My fiance says he thought there was an eye in there and something else.

now on the following the running water...Heather did say that someone was okay with following the river, but the other one didn't want to follow the river(I can't remember which one said they didn't want to follow the river). But who knows what would have happened if they followed the river anyway..I still don't think they would have made it out of there alive.

that was a very creepy movie..and I do think you feel nausious(sp??) because of the camera..even though I do not get motion sick from anything else....I was very freaked when I got home...and I just sat listening to music for a long time after getting home from the movie...and kept on feeling like someone was watching me..I think I would like to see the movie again..thought this time I will take some kinda motion sickness pill before I go...so I can actually enjoy the movie instead of hateing my headache.

--LiZa JaNe ;)

[Tony]

I had some more thoughts come to me over the past few hours. First, like the original poster here, initially I did not, and still now, do not feel afraid. But as the sun lowers in the sky and night creeps on, maybe I will also begin to feel a little more anxious. This just remains to be seen.

But the genius of this movie is in the psychology of it. Blood and gore horror has its place but after a while people tend to become desensitized. So the creators have to come out with new ways to corner us. That ending is a masterpiece. There is no definite answer as to what exactly happened and that mystery increases the power of it. Why the hell would a grown man submit and stand in the corner like a child? What made him do it? Was he dead, hypnotized, overwhelmed by some unseen witch...?

In my opinion, the house definetly was the one where the hermit's killings took place. And the movie's ending replays those tragedies. But after checking the website and reading the story of this particular legend, I learned something else(unless I missed this in the movie). In the theather I seemed to understand that the killer killed a certain number of children, putting one in the corner while killing another and then turning to him or her. But on the website, there is only one boy who is put in the corner while the madman kills the rest. This boy is eventually released. **He survives** but eventually becomes insane. What significance could this have?

A little tidbit I picked up which may not even be worthy of mention but I'll throw it out anyway: Before the three go into the forest, Heather struggles with her gear. Mike films her and says, "I'd like to help you be but I want to keep recording." Ironically (I guess) he is the one who becomes annoyed that Heather continues filming, when everything is turning black.

Also, maybe I'm the only one who feels this way (from what I've read here so far) but I definetly felt sorry for the group. I didn't think Heather was snobby or bitchy. After the pressure starts mounting, and they hear "things" in the night and they are going in circles and on and on, I don't know too many people who would not be at each other's throats. Finally, I couldn't help but think of the families that saw the upper two-thirds of a weeping Heather, apologizing and accepting fault, and essentially conceding the fact that they were near their end.

What about her comment that she is too afraid to close her eyes and too afraid to open them? In other words, there is no escape.

[bernard]

I saw the movie last night and thought it was good but not great.

I think there are two things that hurt the movie:

1) Even if you remain spoiler free before seeing the movie the open text reveals that the three are going to die. This makes it more difficult to get worked up as they are being chased because we already know the end. However, if they had of simply stated "In October of 1994, three students from whatever college went into the woods near Burkitsville, MD to make a documentary about the Blair Witch. This is their footage." Now, we do not know whether they will live of not ... it makes things much more suspenseful (sp).

2) The ending requires you to remember a single (non-repeated) piece of dialogue at the start of the movie. When the movie was done, I heard quite a few people asking each other why Mike was standing in the corner? I would have mad sure that the fact that the killer made one child stand in the corner while the other was killed repeated a few times to make sure everybody got it.

Other that that the movie was quite good, especially if you throw of your disbelief and put yourself in their shoes.

I would give it an 7.5 to 8/10.

[Ukulele Ike]

Excellent point, bernard. I feel that the filmmakers should have added a scene 'bout halfway through the movie where the director steps out from behind a tree and says "Now, for all you folks who weren't paying attention to the preceding material, we're going to do a short recap of the dialogue pertinent to an understanding of the climax of our story. All viewers who were actually listening to the filmn up to this point, or are not blithering idiots, may repair to the lobby for the next five minutes to enjoy a smoke or a bag of fresh, hot, buttered popcorn."



------------------
Uke

[DrPorkchop]

Looks like there are lots of questions. I think the best site for answers is http://tbwp.freeservers.com Go to the FAQ, it has all the answers I was looking for, and they seem pretty accurate.

[Pickman's Model]

Based on your progressive creeped out accounts, i'm not planning on see it.

Sound of Music, anyone?

Based on what I've been reading through this whole thread, I'm not planning on seeing it either, but it has nothing to do with how frightening it's supposed to be.....it's simply that jittery camera work is something I cannot and will not abide.

"High on a hill stood a lonely goatherd......"

[DrPorkchop]

Those of you who are planning on not seeing it because of the camera work should reconsider. If you're a horror fanatic, which I'm not, or a film fanatic, which I am, this is definitely a milestone in both respects, and shoudn't be overlooked because of the camera work (which is a bit shakey, but doesn't take away from the film).

------------------
Dr. P. "You can't fake the funk."

[Stephen]

quote
---------------------------------------------
I haven't seen any mention here about the incident during one night when the camera follows a strange figure running away. It's dressed in white, with a kind of hood on its head (like a Klansman).
---------------------------------------------

Uhh, that was Josh in a light colored sweat jacket (I believe the right-pondians call them 'jumpers'). Heather couldn't quite keep up with him because her boots were untied and threatening to flop off of her feet.

------------------
Stephen
http://stephen.fathom.org
Satellite Hunting 1.1.0 visible satellite pass prediction shareware available for download at
http://stephen.fathom.org/sathunt.html

[9Amber]

I think that the Blair Witch was some kind of possessing spirit, not an actual physical form. Thus, Josh wasn't abducted, he was possessed. This would explain how he could disappear without waking the others. The witch would then use Josh to carry out the physical results of the rest of the movie (self mutalation, his voice in the distance, the two murders at the end,etc). Also with reguards to the trio getting lost, this spirit, while much weaker during the day, could still influence the trio enough to keep them lost(or to throw away the map for no reason).

[Strainger]

Interesting take, 9Amber! I just saw it last night so I hadn't read this thread at all until today. Until your post, nothing was mentioned about whose voice they were responding to at the end (hard to believe it could've been Josh given the contents of the flannel outside the tent). To me it looked like a tongue, a finger, and two eyeballs, but I'll take A&E's word for it. When I saw the movie, even though one of the interviewees mentions one victim standing in the corner while the other is killed, I thought Mike presented the posture of being hung there with his feet barely touching the ground. I also thought their survival skills failed to employ logic and common sense, but I also run a hiking club so maybe I'm not one to ask. Matt should've been thrown in the creek himself after confessing what he did with the map.

After watching the movie, I got some great ideas for some practical jokes to play on our next backpacking trip. I'll just have to remember to bring some twine, torn flannel, and some chicken parts. The stones and sticks are already out in the woods! MuahahahHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[pldennison]

For those of you who had a problem with motion sickness and were unable to watch the movie in the theater (Michelle? Where are you?), it is being released to home video on VHS and DVD on Oct. 22. Even if you have a bad motion sickness problem, your TV occupies a much, much smaller proportion of your field of view, so there shouldn't be a problem.