| Author |
Message |
|
| lshap |
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:42 pm |
 |
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
Joe Vitus wrote: I think it gets a bad rap because it's a poorly acted, completely unfrightening, and plot-wise fairly ridiculous movie.
So it became a phenomenon because millions of people just thought they were scared shitless?
Your comments don't hold water because they could apply equally well to any horror film ever made. Or comedy for that matter, if you swap "unfrightening" and "unfunny". I'd use your exact words to describe every Stephen King horror film ever made, but I recognize that part of it's me; millions of others actually respond to the guy. Some people inexplicably don't get Monty Python. Personal taste - go figure.
But if the goal of a horror film is to scare people, it's hard to argue BWP is an off-the-charts success story, and it crossed almost every demographic in the process cause it wasn't just the Freddy/Jason fans going to see it. The fact that it didn't re-use an old formula, barely spent a dime and had zero star power makes it a head-shaking success for the ages. |
Last edited by lshap on Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
   
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:43 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
Blair Witch Project did something that, for its time, was unique: involved the Internet AND a pre-release televised mockumentary to hype the film. It got to the point where people believed there really WAS a Blair Witch and the fear was beginning to evolve as real. To its credit, it utilized the power of the internet in very effective ways. Nowadays, with trailers popping up online (as well as illegal downloads of full movies!), this seems trifling, but back in 1999, the 'net was a new entity and not a household given.
As well, the improv aspect of the film was unique - maybe the acting wasn't great, but horror films don't strike me as thespian delights to begin with, so you need to compare apples and apples. But the director had the actors improvising what they did, as well as almost unaware of what they were going to find. They got to a place in the woods and found signs with information for them to improvise. Again, different and cool.
And let's not forget the micro-budget===>mega-profit aspect. It did make tons of money for its little beginnings.
Credit where it's due. I'm not defending it, but it wasn't just a blip on the radar either. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| mirgun |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:43 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 165
Location: New York City
|
lshap wrote: Why does The Blair Witch Project get such a bad rap a decade later? It exploded onto the scene because it was a different breed of film, and because, for many, it was freakin' scary. People were watching something they hadn't seen before, and in many cases they were taken to places they'd never been before. It was guerrilla filmmaking, done on a budget of half a shoestring, and the guys who made it leapfrogged over practically every other big-budget studio release at the time because they tapped into something those other films couldn't. In my opinion BWP earned every dollar of the millions it made.
I'm not a horror fan, but I give BWP credit for what it was. Not sure why Mirgun and others continue to knock it.
i 'm not particularly into horror either but when i do see one ,i want to ..crap in my pants.While I appreciated the 1/2 budget,and the style somewhat, at the end, it didn't do anything for me. it as boring for me. |
_________________
Mirgun |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:46 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
BLAIR WITCH PROJECT spooked me. The ending was one of the most downbeat and disturbing of any movie I've seen.
I saw BLAIR on opening day in NYC. Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino were in the audience. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:47 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
(Hi Mirgun!)
Let's consider the special FX aspect of BWP vs today's horror films. We're talking a chasm of difference. We expect great things for horror (and other genres) because of the evolution of CGG and other film magic. BWP used none of those. It looks homegrown because it was. And frankly, not only was I scared by it, my brother - very hard to frighten him - was reluctant to go home alone that night. I almost had to put him up for the rest of the time he was in town!
Consider this as well: nowhere in BWP was there gore, scary monsters or any characters of the sort, or explicit violence. It was all implied. It was a mess-with-the-viewer's-mind more than with the viewer's vision, and that's kind of neat. It was more interpretation of fear than fear itself. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:54 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: We expect great things for horror (and other genres) because of the evolution of CGG and other film magic.
I think that CGI is exactly what has killed horror movies. Directors rely on special effects instead of tight editing, good plotting, lighting and mood.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho are two of the most frightening movies ever made and they cost nothing to make and had no special effects. The films of Val Lewton were haunting and they relied almost exclusively on lighting and mood. The same could be said of Tod Browning, George Romero and John Carpenter.
There's nothing less scary than some computer generated booga wooga lurching off the screen like a cheap thrill in a third rate carnival. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mirgun |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:56 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 165
Location: New York City
|
lissa wrote: (Hi Mirgun!)
Let's consider the special FX aspect of BWP vs today's horror films. We're talking a chasm of difference. We expect great things for horror (and other genres) because of the evolution of CGG and other film magic. BWP used none of those. It looks homegrown because it was. And frankly, not only was I scared by it, my brother - very hard to frighten him - was reluctant to go home alone that night. I almost had to put him up for the rest of the time he was in town!
Consider this as well: nowhere in BWP was there gore, scary monsters or any characters of the sort, or explicit violence. It was all implied. It was a mess-with-the-viewer's-mind more than with the viewer's vision, and that's kind of neat. It was more interpretation of fear than fear itself.
hi.. yes i know, i'm not into any of the full out gore of today's horror flicks.i like to have some mystery to the horror.I totally do agree and appreciate the homegrown aspect, but i don't really care how it was made if it didn't scare me or messed with my mind (which i want horror and sex, and ALL sensations to do). It's great if you and marc and your brother liked it.Maybe I should see it again before i talk too much.. haaa |
_________________
Mirgun |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| you want sex to mess with your mind. Hmmm. I want it to take me out of my mind. I never had horror movie sex. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| Blair Witch Project managed to be frightening without a trace of gore. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
| BWP got the audience to work at the fear instead of spoon-feeding us. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
....work at the fear....?
Oh please...... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mirgun |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:07 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 165
Location: New York City
|
Marc wrote: Blair Witch Project managed to be frightening without a trace of gore.
you guys, I'm saying I don't like the gore either and I appreciated/liked BWP ..
and as Marc said,Psycho was terrifying .but to me BWP wasn't .What can I say....booooooo
okay,I can't wait until you (or some of you..) see Antichrist..I want to know what you all think. |
_________________
Mirgun |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Syd |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:13 pm |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12921
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
Marj wrote: mirgun: Other than posting twice, you got it!!
Sometimes if I double post, I'll use the edit button to replace it with a new post and pretend the double post never happened. |
_________________
I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:15 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| Gore and horror are not the same thing to me. I find over-the-top gore effects, if they're imaginatively done, to be entertaining but not frightening. Splatter fests like Ichi The Killer and Re-Animator are more fun than frightening. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Syd |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:29 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12921
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
Paranormal Activity has even less gore. It's into ghosties and ghoulies and things that go *bump* in the night, and what you are imagining is happening. As I said, I thought it was pretty effective.
A recent horror movie that really got to me was The Descent, which works by claustrophobia and the feeling that *something is down here with me.* It was even more effective for me in the early scenes, which was also claustrophobia and the feeling of being trapped. |
_________________
I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
