Into the woods, again

‘Blair Witch’ is a serviceable but unnecessary sequel

Back in 1999, two young, untested filmmakers, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, wrote and directed the surprise indie-horror hit “The Blair Witch Project.” In the film, three college students (Heather Donahue, Michael C. Williams, and Joshua Leonard, playing versions of themselves) trek through Maryland’s densely forested Black Hills, shooting a documentary about the legend of the Blair Witch. One by one they disappear—leaving behind only their footage to hint at their fate. Shot for around $25,000, it went on to gross almost $250 million worldwide, becoming the most profitable film of all time.

Of course, there was a shitty sequel rushed out a year later, with plans for a cash-grab franchise. But the sequel tanked, and the franchise stalled. 

That is, until Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett, the talented directing and writing duo behind the recent (and great) thrillers “You’re Next” and “The Guest,” decided to return to Burkittsville, Maryland with the quasi-sequel, “Blair Witch.” It certainly feels familiar—for better and worse.

James (James Allen McCune) is the younger brother of Heather, who famously disappeared two decades earlier. When he discovers a newly uploaded video, depicting what might be her final moments, James enlists three of his friends, Lisa (Callie Hernandez), Ashley (Corbin Reid), and Peter (Brandon Scott), to try and find out what happened—and, obviously, help him film a documentary about it.

They drive to Burkittsville to meet the uploaders, Lane and Talia (Wes Robinson and Valorie Curry), a local couple with a camera of their own and a ton of stories about the Blair Witch. They agree to lead James’s group to where they found the tape, on the condition that they can make the search for Heather a part of their film, too. But, once they find themselves under the ominous bowers of the impassive forest, their hopes crumble into the grim realization that they’ve made a terrible mistake.

One of Wingard and Barrett’s strengths is making their characters relatable and likeable without becoming shallow archetypes, as well as an almost mumblecore aesthetic that fuses personal naturalism into the horror genre. With “Blair Witch” they also add the tropes of the first film to that cocktail. 

Justifying the look of the found footage gimmick, they upgrade the technology. The college kids all have hi-def, GPS-equipped ear cameras, dSLR cameras that shoot video, and—of course—a drone. Meanwhile Lane and Talia have an old mini DV camera that might as well be a hat tip to the look of the first movie. Wingard expertly cuts between them all, and while there is plenty of the shaky cam that defines the found footage genre, on the whole this is a well-directed, more attractive and sophisticated looking film than its progenitor.

But that’s where the freshness ends. As much of a remake as a sequel (though on both counts I enjoy it more than the previous films), aside from a few minor plot tweaks and characters who are less abrasive than the original cast, “Blair Witch” is so similar to the original that it sometimes subverts whatever tension Wingard and Barrett manage to build—and which they attempt to bolster with an overreliance on jump scares that soon start to lose their potency. Again, the creepiest part is when they wind up at the house (yes, they wind up back at the house) when it becomes clear that they were always doomed to be there. That’s one creepy-ass house.

“Blair Witch” is not bad, but it feels like a misappropriation of valuable creative resources. Considering the quality of their original works, Wingard and Barrett have no business remaking anything.

For more from Joe, read his article on 2016's weak summer movies.