Adam Wingard's Blair Witch

People knew Wingard’s was working on something called The Woods. Turns out that it was secretly a Blair Witch sequel!

Oh god not this shit again. I still resent what a letdown seeing Blair Witch in the theater was after all the hubbub. Certainly notable for being one of the first big indie movie successes, yes? And a precursor of reality stuff?

I remember someone farted in the tent.

Yeah some notable firsts here. I still maintain this was not a great movie, that it was more “timely phenomenon” than anything else.

The big story here is that Lionsgate got Adam Wingard to make a Blair Witch sequel and kept it completely secret since 2013 when the movie was green lit. That’s freaking awesome. Even the SDCC audience thought they were being treated to a movie called The Woods. The title card came up, fake glitched, then BAM, it’s Blair Witch!

I watched the trailer just so I could see all of the scary parts. And they were all in the trailer. And I wasn’t scared. I hope other people enjoy it!

I like Adam Wingard, but I suspect this may be his first movie that does nothing for me. Certainly I didn’t particularly care for the original.

I was really into You’re Next and The Guest, so I’ll keep an eye on this, but that trailer was pretty generic.

More found footage shaky cam cheap scares incoming…yay…

If you want an indie precursor of reality stuff and the found footage craze, we Belgians had a movie called Man Bites Dog (original title: C’est arrivé près de chez vous) in 1992:

It’s a “documentary” where journalists follow a serial killer. Very indie. Also very good and a good critique of reality TV that was burgeoning at the time.

As for Blair Witch, I think it was disappointing because there was so much hype. I liked the concept. But the movie really couldn’t hold up to that hype.

That said, I’m sure I’ll be curious enough to watch this one.


It’s out now. Anyone seen it? Worth bothering for fans of Wingard with no affection for the original?

Reviews appear to be unsurprisingly mixed-to-bad. The sentiment seems to be that this is just a big retread of the first movie.

“Once it becomes evident that this movie is just the 1999 version done with an electric guitar instead of an acoustic, all tension is shot.”

Yeah, I checked Rotten Tomatoes, but a lot of critics a) seem generally down on horror and/or b) liked the original a lot more than I did.

I feel very out of step with most other horror fans but I have not especially enjoyed anything I have seen by Adam Wingard. I did like the first Blair Witch (didn’t see the sequel) so I’m a but conflicted on seeing this one. Which means I’ll probably catch it on Netflix in five years.

I think You’re Next is a seriously great horror movie. It’s got just the right mix of the stuff I like, plus it helps that the main character is amazing.

I liked The Guest right up until the final bits in the school haunted house. It really fell apart for me there because it just turned into a typical slasher boss fight. Dan Stevens was great in it, and I really liked Brendan Meyer as the kid that knowingly starts to fall in with the killer, not realizing how serious the situation really is for his family.

I thought A Horrible Way To Die was a little too mumblecore for its own good. Wingard was trying a lot of camera stuff in it that just put me off. I liked the story, and I really liked the juxtaposition of the protagonist trying to get her life back together while AJ Bowen self-loathingly killed his way to her, but the camerawork just annoyed the shit out of me.

Jeremy Jahns liked it enough that I’m kind of curious and would like to enjoy it in a cinema now:

Edit: thanks for the edit @wumpus. I posted from my phone and thought shortened YouTube URLs wouldn’t auto embed at all. So didn’t try to leave this one on its own.


The only Wingard stand alone I’d seen before was You’re Next, and I had no great love for it, so I don’t think I can make a statement about how this falls within his oeuvre. As a general fan of the original, however, I feel like I can state that this movie kind of sucked.

Or rather - it’s a 2016 found footage horror movie. No more, no less. I foolishly thought I’d be getting something better than that.

I like that guy’s style. Maybe I will go see this.

$5M budget. Figure maybe $10 million advertising (I don’t think you can do the “double the budget” system to determine marketing for such a low-budget film). $15 million total spend, so no one is going to take a bath on this one. It might even make a bit of a profit for the studio before it makes it to DVD and TV.

It will likely make a profit during the theatrical run, but in Hollywood just making a profit doesn’t really cut it. If your movie comes in below expectations, then that’s the bigger issue. Especially if the studio was trying to revitalize the license for a renewed franchise. Studios like to hit the numbers they project because usually someone’s career rides on meeting those return assurances.

I think you’re right that no one is going to take a bath on this, but I’m curious to see what the studio does going forward.