MovieChat Forums > Blair Witch (2016) Discussion > Dull, tedious, boring and pointless rema...

Dull, tedious, boring and pointless remake

posted 8 years ago by keithxroberts-1
36 replies | jump to latest

I was a fan of the original as I thought it brought a refreshing new angle to the genre and skillfully crafted genuine tension and fear from unseen threats.

Like any remake you need to bring a new perspective to the material and try and better the original otherwise why bother.

This move failed in just about every aspect from the direction, plot (what plot?), writing, camerawork and total lack of any mood.

Running, screaming, crashing through undergrowth followed by shaky hand held cameras and merit less jump scares do not invoke fear in a wise and weary audience.

Repeated jump scares generated by people randomly bumping into inanimate and animate objects and shrieking into the camera are sure signs of a movie that has nothing else to offer.

Wingard needs to find another career or a genre that he is comfortable operating in because horror certainly isn't one of them.

He even managed to turn the promising start of the Guest into something that resembled a poor 80's TV movie.

As I said in the thread title dull, tedious, boring and pointless remake demonstrating a lazy and talent less approach to film making.

[–] sentiovereor 8 years ago

most of all it was made without passion and heart

[–] keithxroberts-1 8 years ago

Spot on which is probably the worst sin of all for a film maker and also is why he is such a bad Director

[–] rushmoras 8 years ago

Here's what I don't understand - it's the same as the original, and yet, people praise the original, but bash this. Why? It's the same rubbish that was the first one. Only the first one was marketed as: a) you are watching a real thing; b) it's a pioneer of found footage genre. But

This move failed in just about every aspect from the direction, plot (what plot?), writing, camerawork and total lack of any mood.

the same could be said about the first one also. 

In vino veritas

[–] haunt_freak 8 years ago

Here's what I don't understand - it's the same as the original, and yet, people praise the original, but bash this. Why?

The original didn't need jump scares every 5 minutes. The characters in the original are more relatable because the actors aren't a bunch of pretty teens who look like they belong on a show on the CW. The dialogue in the first movie was mostly improvised, so it felt real. This film also shows too much. The reveal of the witch/Elly Kedward was a huge disappointment.

~~~
"I'm not used to being out in months that don't begin with 'O'."
-The Ringmaster, Dark Harbor

[–] theendisopened 8 years ago

So you've basically explained why no sequel could have ever been good enough, and why this was guaranteed to fail with most people.

You couldn't make a sequel without a significant amount of more action/scares because the original dull/realistic tone of the first only works one time. The characters felt real in the first, but this could never be achieved in a sequel. At best, they could only use less pretty actors. 'The film shows too much.' But you can't have the same ambiguity of the first film without it being the exact same thing, and subsequently, everyone complaining about how boring and pointless it is.

I'm just responding to your post because it pinpoints why I ended up liking this movie. There's no real alternatives that could have worked that would have satisfied the majority of the audience. This is probably as good as it could ever get.

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

Did characters felt real in the first movie? Some people find them annoying...actually, you may have a point.

[–] haunt_freak 8 years ago

the original dull/realistic tone of the first only works one time.

You know what only works one time? A fake-out jump scare where someone just suddenly appears on camera accompanied by a loud noise. This movie does that three times.

And who says the subtle/realistic tone will only work one time? This movie could've been great if it still held on to some ambiguity.

There's no real alternatives that could have worked that would have satisfied the majority of the audience.

And this is the problem with horror audiences that have no imagination. Obviously TBWP wasn't spoon-fed explanations and that's why a lot of people loved it.

This was a travesty that got mostly bad reviews. Sure, it made money, but any jump-scare filled crapfest will satisfy the audiences of today with short attention spans.

~~~
"I'm not used to being out in months that don't begin with 'O'."
-The Ringmaster, Dark Harbor

[–] reaseltbim 8 years ago

Here's what I don't understand - it's the same as the original, and yet, people praise the original, but bash this. Why? It's the same rubbish that was the first one. Only the first one was marketed as: a) you are watching a real thing; b) it's a pioneer of found footage genre. But

ill explain it to you.
the first one was Original, im not saying sequels and reboots are bad but at least good reboots change the plot a little bit. This movie was almost a straight remake. there were a few new concepts but overall it felt boring in that it followed the first one too much.
the first one was the first time we saw that story. the first time we were introduced to the myth. This is like serving you a cold plate for dinner of what you had for Breakfast...
Also another reason people praise the first one and hate on this one is because the actors in the first one felt more genuine and they felt more real. they didn't look like models from a Sears catalog. they felt like real college guys that get lost.
the new cast looks like a modeling agency ad.

Another reason people love the first one was because of the insane marketing they did with the Missing posters and the website for the legend making it look real. the marketing was the reason a lot of people got so freaked out. you might think it is stupid now but more than a decade ago when it came out it was a really big deal

also the movie never showed the witch so you didnt know if they were just crazy or imagining things. there was doubt if the witch was real. that made the movie more interesting.

this movie is way over the top with the effects and has fake acting and no real suspense and a lot of JUMP SCARES the original didnt have and annoying characters and dumb ideas

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

also the movie never showed the witch so you didnt know if they were just crazy or imagining things. there was doubt if the witch was real. that made the movie more interesting.

I don't know, I think the first movie pretty much offers supernatural explanations only because of certain things that happen.

the original didnt have and annoying characters

Actually, it's worth pointing out that some people dislike the characters in the original because they swear and argue a lot.

[–] reaseltbim 8 years ago

There were things that were kinda paranormal but it was ambiguous

And as for the annoying actors,
At least in the original they feel like genuine college people. They felt real. They felt like people you would meet at a bar.

The people in this movie feel very fake. Feel like people they picked up at spring break

[–] SpringheelJack_fin 8 years ago

It does the same things as the original but without any of the atmosphere or tension.

Example: there was nothing at all eerie about them waking up to all the hanging stick figures. Everything is so rushed to that point and there's no sense of isolation due to all the scripted nonsense and hilarious jump scares, bad acting etc etc. not to mention there contrived panic, "We're not prepared for this." Dude, you aren't prepared for hanging stick figures? Even though the movie opens with the original tapes being studied?

The people who enjoy the original do so because they appreciate the fact that it seems like legitimate found footage, it's the fact that it's grounded in reality so well that all the strange little occurrences so spooky. That's how the movie managed to trick a lot of people, even critics, into thinking it was real. This sequel couldn't trick anyone, within the first 10 seconds you know you're watching a B grade horror movie so it can't get away with the realistic, subtle tricks of the original.

On top of that, it's a representation of everything wrong with horror. Pandering to the lowest common denominator, people with attention spans the size of a maggot, with its jump scares, scripted drama.

It even does stupid things like... one person is filming the guys playing the Xbox at the start yet the angle keeps changing etc etc

Man, I could rant on but you get the point. They TRIED doing the exact same things but failed miserable. It's like they had a good idea for an ending but didn't want to use any brain cells on the rest of the script.

[–] Mats_Thy_Wit 8 years ago

Here's what I don't understand - it's the same as the original, and yet, people praise the original, but bash this. Why?

It's not the same. The original was subtle, nuanced, QUIET, largely devoid of jump scares, and featured a small cast of characters that though we may not necessarily like them we can relate to and sympathize with. The original also didn't think we needed to hear the witch growl and scream every time she moved, nor did it show us a generic long limbed zombie-like witch roaming through the house thereby removing any semblance of authenticity that the original film retained.

[–] divisionbell-2 8 years ago

You're right. Both the original and the remake/sequel were terrible. At least something did happen in the new one. The original was just three atrocious actors in a boring film.

[–] EverKane 8 years ago

You're right. Both the original and the remake/sequel were terrible.

I don't know when you watched the original one, but if it was when it was released, it was huge and with a marketing work nobody ever seen before.

It created a generation of movies that are still out there, massively.

The original one is a masterpiece.

But of course if someone watch it for the first time today it would not have the same impact, not even close.

[–] divisionbell-2 8 years ago

I was in the theater when it originally came out and the hype was huge. I just left the theater disappointed.

[–] dxben99 8 years ago

The original one is still the only horror movie to make me scared sh-tless in a room (movie theater) full of people.

The new one I watched yesterday alone at home at night....and was mostly annoyed.

[–] gstards 8 years ago

The original was a horror classic which defined the fashion on the whole preudo-documentalistic horror genre (yes, it's the whole independent genre now considering how much movies was made in it).

Nolan, I love you forever!

[–] selectrick 8 years ago

You answered your own question. The 'original' was exactly that, original. This was just a copycat.

[–] mgreen9715 8 years ago

Then just skip it and move on?

You know how to do that, don't you?

[–] EverKane 8 years ago

This is not a remake, this continues the story of the first movie.

[–] SleevedBiker 8 years ago

As a fan of the original you should be able to tell that this is a sequel to the first movie and not really a remake.

[–] SCY385-1 8 years ago

I think the main criticism I would have is that it was a pointless film that didn't really show us anything we hadn't seen before. No innovation whatsoever. As a matter of fact it seemed to me that the film was made to cash in and that's it. Like the filmmakers didn't get enough money on the first one and decided to make this one.

[–] SleevedBiker 8 years ago

They made tons. They cash in because films like this cost a couple million to make and profit $100 Million+

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

The filmmakers weren't involved. They wanted to do a prequel. This is all LionsGate. Don't pin it on the original crew.

[–] chet19 8 years ago

Uhhh, it's a sequel not a remake.

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

Here's what I don't understand - it's the same as the original, and yet, people praise the original, but bash this. Why?

The acting and characterizations were much better in the original, plus it more or less launched the genre. It was fresh back then. No one had really conceived of this style before. But the whole found-footage thing has been played out to death since then and the genre has gotten really stale. There's nothing remotely interesting about this film.

"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

[–] msudude20 8 years ago

I just finished watching it and it wasn't a remake. It was about different characters, which means it's not a remake. They copied everything right up until the end though that happened in the first one. Even the end was exactly the same. Horrible movie.