|
I thought it did a lot of things that a lot of people had already done way better before -- the "fake documentary" thing and such.. hey, it's Cannibal Holocaust! Obviously, the subject matter was a lot more pop and mainstream. The whole child murder thing reminds me of those docs PARADISE LOST, that whole rednecky backwoods feel. And funnily enough they got the director of those docs to make the sequel to Blair Witch. Odd.
I remember hating it when I was 11 years old or whatever when it came out and saw it in theaters. I've seen it proobably 5 or 6 times though; it's usually strangely compelling and interesting, but you have to be in the right mood for it. I live in the woods, so watching it here at 3 in the morning is genuinely frightening.
Still, the shakey camera, the awful acting, and .. well .. just how BORING (as in, nothing happens in it -- but, again, it still can be strangely compelling) it is doesn't really make it a masterpiece imo. But it's certainly clever. I like it for what it is, and like I said, I have felt compelled to watch it many times in my life. I'd probably give it a 7/10. I think the film is only as good as you are, if you assign your own sense of paranoia and fear to it. I think it is genuinely unsettling and frightening at times, can't say that for any film except maybe DER TODESKING and KICHIKU DAI ENKAI and BEGOTTEN and VISIONS OF SUFFERING. Certainly can't say it for any mainstream film, except for the trip sequences in ALTERED STATES.
I think, in the right setting, it can be quite an unsettling treat. In other settings, it can be a total hilarious bore. But it's still a monumental achievement, an important film, and definitely the best mainstream horror film of the 90's, imo.
Also, for the sheer audacious fact that a movie like this PLAYED IN THEATERS NATIONWIDE. I mean, the thing was brilliant! People believing the shit was real -- what a fucking marketing campaign. Of course, that made it a lot more disappointing to actually watch, for most people, but by then, they'd already paid their money. A real shame about that camera though. I just can't handle supershakey cameras. I'm not saying they should've lugged a fucking tripod or a dolly out in the woods, but ... er, well, yeah, they could have had a tripod. They cost $20! It wouldn't have made the film any more/less "realistic", they're making a documentary, a "real" "professional" documentary probably would've been... not-so-shakey... in the non-running scenes. I dunno, I personally get nauseous and dizzy with stuff like that. But that's just a minor gripe.
__________________
|