The Blair Witch Project (1999)
to add this to your collection
to add this to your favorites
We don't have a synopsis for this movie yet. Check back soon or send us your own!
Three people decide to do a documentary on the legend of the Blair Witch. The film opens with some routine equipment gathering, getting the cameras ready, and even a bit of grocery shopping. The three students then go about the town, interviewing various locals about the legend, and each person has a different story to tell and details to add. Finally, the trio park their car and descend into the woods, where they want to film coffin rock (a rock where seven men were killed), and a graveyard. Both things are filmed, and then the trio proceed to get lost in the woods with no map. Things get even worse when they start hearing noises outside their tent at night and finding strange items along their path.
Review by Chad
Added: March 24, 2004
I remember back when this movie was just coming out, and it was hyped to hell and back. Of course, I had to go see it, and indeed it was good... but worth the hype? I think not. It was really interesting how they had various articles / websites / TV spots to go along with it, each having a bit more information, and the way it was made to seem real was neat. But no movie could live up to the hype it was given, as usual.
Some people have a problem with the way this was filmed; I enjoyed it and thought it was a nice touch. Everything is shot on shaky camcorders, from beginning to end. No professional camera shots are to be found anywhere in this title, which distracts almost everyone I've talked with. So keep that in mind if you haven't seen it and don't know what to expect.
The storyline was pretty swell; it wasn't overtly original in itself, but the way it was shot and put together made it alot better than it would have been. Another gripe that most people have with this film, is the ending. There's not really an easy way to describe it without spoiling anything, so I won't even try; but I thought it was the perfect way to finish the movie. If you actually listen to the conversations with the townsfolk, it'll make sense; but if you're the type to ignore the opening scenes in favor of when the action picks up, you'll be clueless. Just a warning.
And for the record, even though I thought it'd been cleared up soon after the movie was released: this movie is not true. It's not based on a true story. There is no legend about a witch in the woods. Nothing in or about this film is true. Sorry to disappoint.
Overall, if the camera thing doesn't bother you, and you're not a huge fan of multi-million dollar film budgets, you may enjoy this movie. It's a bit slow in spots, but it builds up the "true story" thing they were going for, so it works out. 8/10.
- added 08/04/2004, 03:08 AM
Eh, the movie was alright. It was mostly a
documentary the kids made up. To me, "Blair Witch
2" is WAY better than "Blair Witch Project."
- added 08/22/2004, 02:55 AM
My brother went to see this when it was in the
theatre and had to walk out halfway through since
it gave him a headache. Anyway, it's not scary at
all. It keeps on building up to something, and
once the damn thing starts getting interesting, it
- added 10/12/2004, 08:37 PM
- added 12/13/2004, 08:13 AM
The worst movie I have ever seen
- added 03/25/2006, 07:34 PM
Really not worth the time, really shitty.
- added 10/19/2006, 11:30 PM
Peice of shit with a good marketing scheme...
this film could be made by a couple of freinds,
their family members, 2 cameras, a car and $300
dollars (less presumably)... Biggest waste of
money I've ever spent in a move theatre. 0/10
- added 06/24/2007, 12:17 AM
Why does nobody like this film? Not only is it
very original (save Cannibal Holocaust) and
creative, but it was actually scary, because you
see nothing. One of my favourite new horror
movies of the last 10 years or so.
- added 07/27/2007, 04:35 PM
You see nothing in "The Haunting", too. How does
that make this film original? The originality
falls on the shitty camera work, that's all.
- added 09/24/2007, 12:31 AM
Ehh, go fuck yourself. There's more than a shaky
camera that makes this film original.
- added 09/24/2007, 12:40 AM
Like? Please, elaborate...
- added 09/24/2007, 12:52 AM
Dude, maybe I'm mistaken, but how many films were
able to get so much hype of this sort behind it. I
don't mean like kids making hundreds of thousands
of "Snakes on a Plane" posters, but where a good
70% of the population actually thought it might be
actual truth. The originality falls on its
marketing scheme, and how they did SO much by
doing so little.
- added 09/24/2007, 12:57 AM
And this was 1999. There wasn't exactly an
"internet buzz" yet. So all the publicity was word
of mouth, trailers, etc. And for originality? I
dunno, how about the script? I've seen plenty of
films people claim are "so original" based on
books or short stories. I don't think I've seen a
movie like this, ever. Like I said before Cannibal
Holocaust obviously influenced it, but that's an
influence. Every fucking movie is influenced by
something or other. Look at all your stupid
martial arts movies. Call those original? It's the
same formula applied to 40 different movies.
- added 09/24/2007, 01:32 AM
Okay, Crispy, to your question: "The Texas
never once have I said martial artsfilms are
original. 9 times out of 10 it's a remake of an
older one with no official royalties. Now, as for
the script being original, I could cite atleast
10 other films it stole from, but, like you say,
they may just be "influences". Regardless of that,
the script SUCKED. It was boring. It was roughly
90 minutes of shaky camera, people looking scared
and horrible dialouge (for what little there was).
Nothing is expanded on, nothing changes, no
insight is given. The movie ends at its climax.
That, my friend, was fucking boring.
- added 09/24/2007, 02:02 AM
TCM was a completely different affair. TCM took
an actual event, the family of Ed Gein, and
movie-tized it. Naturally, people get confused
with the overlap. BWP on the other hand was an
original legend these people made up, with the
story of these students who disappeared, again
that they made up, and everybody thought was an
- added 09/24/2007, 02:08 AM
Both of those events are urban legends and were
so long before this movie too off. More
importantally, as far as TCM is concerned, the Ed
Gein factor had very little to do with why so many
people thought (and STILL think) it to be true.
More or less it was the opening of the film that
mentions that the events ctually happened. Now,
when you have people going around saying that the
dad of a friend's cousin was in prison with
Leatherface, then you know the thing has gained a
life of its own. "TCM" got the same type of
- added 09/24/2007, 12:08 PM
The Blair Witch was not an actual legend. Sure,
it's a carbon copy of a few, including a "Bell
Witch" but the Blair Witch itself was a creation
of the movie makers. And you're just reiterating
what I said the first time:
"Now, when you
have people going around saying that the dad of a
friend's cousin was in prison with Leatherface,
then you know the thing has gained a life of its
Exactly, people started believing it
AFTER the fact. That's not part of its publicity,
that's part of its legacy its made. And starting
off with "the following events are true" isn't
anything new. Not only that, but using that to
open the movie is nothing compared to the lengths
the Blair Witch went. They released news clips
reporting the disappearances, they created actual
documentaries on the subject. Months in advance
they started laying the groundwork for the "truth"
approach. Hell, TCM was a movie. It was presented
as a movie. Even though everybody knew/thought it
was supposedly based on truth, as you watch it you
know its actors re-enacting the situation. BWP was
supposed to be ACTUAL footage of these doomed
students. And THAT'S where the originality hits.
Not the story itself, but the execution and the
lengths they went through to enforce it.
- added 09/24/2007, 12:09 PM
Just getting my novel off the front page. Gotta
keep it pretty and all. :)
- added 09/24/2007, 12:32 PM
This film is flawless. 100% flawless. The last
truly original horror film. People can talk smack
about this film all they want (which seems to be
the 'hip' thing to do these days), but the fact
remains that all the nay-sayers were scared just
as shitless as I was when it was first released.
I watched this film the other night, and as a
horror film, it still holds up remarkably well. I
love, love, love this film. 10/10.
- added 09/24/2007, 03:31 PM
Saying it's the last original horror film is a
bit of a stretch, as is saying it's 100% flawless.
But when all is said and done, it's a very
effective horror movie.
- added 09/24/2007, 06:08 PM
Give me an example of a totally original horror
film since "Blair Witch"?
- added 09/24/2007, 07:33 PM
What? Original? How?
It was a
fake-documentary! People have been doing them for
years before this one reared its head. That
"dedication" was just far too simple. I highly
doubt that there's a filmmaker alive who couldn't
make "TBWP", it was all about who jumped on it
that decade. More importantlly, it isn't even the
best in that department, either. "Man Bites Dog"
is far more professional, well-composed,
terrifying, disturbing, and entertaining that
"Blair Witch" could ever hope for.
It was not scary. Not at all. There wasn't even a
"jump-out-go-boo" scare. It was boring. Very, very
boring. Moreso, who are you to say it's the hip
thing? I was bashing this peice of trash since it
was released in theatres.
And, yeah, I was
actually making reference to those other urban
legends when I cited "TBWP"'s script as lacking
originallity. I mean, don't crack at things like
"The Shining" because it's based on a book. There
is no originality in the world. I fear there never
again will be.
So, before I list all
of the original horror films that have come out
since then, please tell me why this movie is 100%
- added 09/24/2007, 08:39 PM
Yes, anyone could have made BWP, but nobody has
ever taken that extreme truth approach before. Of
course it wasn't the first fake documentary ever
made, but how many fake documentaries are there
that was made to serve the pupose this was. Let's
get something straight. Originality does not mean
reinventing the wheel. Originality means taking
something that's been done before and completely
overhauling it. Like I said before, how many
movies have gone to such lengths to create this
"is it true?" feeling.
- added 09/24/2007, 08:53 PM
Truth be told, several films have taken that
approach, not so many before, but many filmmakers
saw how ridicuously simple that style of
"filmmaking" was and dcided that if it could be
succesful, so could they. And from that we've
gotten even more entertaining films, so I'll give
"Blair Witch" that. If it weren't for it we
wouldn't have gotten the "August Underground"
And, although shot to be used as a
movie, don't forget that "Cannibl Holocaust"
purposely tried to appear like the documentary was
real (and, with all the lawsuits to consider, it
seemd to do a pretty good job of it), so,
therefore, "Blair Witch"'s originality wasn't too
- added 09/27/2007, 11:54 PM
Guh, I went to see this with a friend when it was
released in theaters. There was so much hype and
man oh man, it didn't deliver. I remember coming
home and telling my mother about it and my friend
and I came to the conclusion that staying at home
watching the tv made movie on at the time would
have been more enjoyable. I will admit though that
2 scenes did kinda scare me. The tent scene at
night time, and at the very end when the girl is
running downstairs yelling one of the guys name,
then seeing him standing in the corner. For some
reason that scene reminds me of some of my
nightmares. But then the movie just ends. Overall
I'd give it 2/10, and those 2 marks are for those