Rating: 
Summary: better than some snot-nosed chick in your face
Review: this movie is a must-see....i am truly disappoited that more people didnt like it just because its not like the first one. really though, its better than the first one. the first one kind of ticked me off with that snot-nosed chick always with her face stuck in the camera and screaming all the time. bw2 has an excellent plot and storyline and makes you think. it messes with your mind. and may leave you wondering that if you mess with evil or go looking for evil it may just find you and take a bite right out of your brain. see it for yourself, but please, only see it with an open mind.
Rating: 
Summary: why a sequel, it just shows how dumb people go to get so far
Review: seriously, why a frickin sequel. the original had taste and it was more better than this one. I mean come on people. you have a group of people going to the place where the movie was made and they set a tour and everything happens. a stupendous garble of a beginning and a total shame of a waste. no chills.
Rating:
Summary: AFTER ALL THE HYPE HAS WORN AWAY...
Review: "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" may very well be the most maligned sequel of all time. I have read more positive reviews for "Airplane 2: The Sequel." I have heard more compliments handed out to "Friday the 13th Part 2." There have been far more words of praise lavished like so much lumpy sausage gravy over "The Matrix Reloaded." What gives? Actually, I think the answer lies in the very hype surrounding the first "Blair Witch" which this film so succesfully spoofs. I mean, think about it. You start out with an unexpected cultural phenomenon on the level of "Star Wars." You wait barely a year before issuing a sequel (not nearly enough time for memories of the first film to become hazy, but plenty of time for the inevitable backlash against it to firmly take root in the popular psyche). Then you have the audacity to release a film that not only pokes fun at the very people who are most likely to rush right out and buy a ticket for the opening night showing, but you make the film in a style completely different from the first film. Whereas the original "Blair Witch Project" was groundbreaking and unique, "Book of Shadows" is groundbreaking and unique... But in a very different way. Joe Berlinger is more than well aware of his roots and pulls no punches when it comes to honoring and lampooning them all in the same breath. This is not to suggest that ol' Joe has gone the route of McG and is pandering with one hand while he smirks and winks the whole time. "Book of Shadows" is far too subtle and made in too much good faith for that kind of nonsense. Berlinger's point has more to do with questioning reality and fantasy and the complicated dance between the two which most of us take so much for granted. What is the truth of the Blair Witch? If it is only a story then how can it so deeply effect people and at what point is a story not merely a story any more? This is a question most people (at least in this country) tend to shrug off, but which, ironically, is a question that most people (especially in this country) need to start examining. This is, after all, the native land of one Mark David Chapman who murdered a peace-loving cultural icon because he thought it was prescribed by a J.D. Salinger novel. This is the place where hordes of people came out in protest over "The Last Temptation of Christ" because it was a story that did not live up to the other stories they had been told all of their lives. This is still the same America where Charles Manson founded a faithful cult following willing to kill or die for him based upon a science fiction novel. And this is the same country where three boys were jailed and await execution on the strength of a popular myth that says they look like (and therefore must be) witches. When is a story not a story? What is the boundary between sanity and insanity? Is it when fantasy begins to take precedence in the mind? Here Berlinger confronts us with a whole town full of characters who have been washed away by a fiction. You have tour groups roughing it out in the middle of nowhere hoping to find... Something... Anything. You have townspeople who find their quiet way of life destroyed. You have a sheriff driven to the point of vigilantism. All in the name of a fiction. What Berlinger is trying to show us is how none of these responses are appropriate to the situation. You cannot kill a myth simply by deconstructing it. The amount of time and attention means that the myth has already won. It has become just as much an obsession for the naysayer as it has for the fanatic and the results can be just as damaging either way. Want proof? Well, not so very long ago, in a town quite close to where I reside, there was a little incident known as the Columbine Massacre. In the days, weeks, months and years that followed, everyone began extending their index fingers in the direction of everyone else. The vast majority of these fingers were leveled directly at popular culture. The music of one Marilyn Manson was usually singled out for the greatest abuse. Pundits and so-called experts appeared on television nightly to discuss the relative merits and demerits of Mr. Manson's wailings and shoot off (no pun intended) an opinion as to just how much, if any, blame should be laid at his feet. Only months later did we learn, to our collective shock, that neither of the perpetrators of the Columbine killings was all that big a fan of Marilyn Manson. Oops. By then, however, it was too late. The myth had taken root. The pundits and so-called experts laughed all the way to the bank. Mr. Manson rescheduled his canceled concert dates. The so-called news networks stuffed yet more money in their collective coffers and none of us learned one damn thing. We simply supplanted one fiction with another. And the beat goes on. For this, if for no other reason, "Book of Shadows" deserves a second look. Despite Mr. Roger "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" Ebert's gripes about how horribly this movie reflects on Berlinger's previous documentary efforts, I think a closer inspection will reveal just how wrong the portly one really is. If you haven't seen it, then do yourself a favor. Now that all the hype has died away, put on a fresh set of eyes and keep your mind open. You're in for a fast-paced, stylish, genuinely scary ride with something more on its mind than simple shock value.
Rating: 
Summary: Blair Witch 2: History or Hysteria?
Review: "Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows" is of course the sequal to the 1999 darkhorse smash hit "The Blair Witch Project". And like many sequels it fails to live up to most of the original movie's fans expectations. However, BW2 merits a closer look. Director Joe Berlinger, the successful documentary filmmaker who shed light on the plight of the West Memphis 3 in his acclaimed "Paradise Lost" films, takes on the theme of illusion and reality in the gloomy Black Hills of Maryland where the first film's protagonists supposedly died while making a documentary film on the legend of the Blair Witch. Berlinger has brought on a young cast of unknowns to explore the further depths of the human mind and its often unseen capability for credulity and violence. The film revolves around five strangers on a tour of the area around Burkittsville, MD, inundated with tourists in the wake of the first film's success. The group is led by a entrepreneurial former mental patient who makes a living hocking Blair Witch memerobilia and stolen electronics equipment on the Internet. Along for the ride are a pair of grad students working on a book about the Blair Witch mythos, an attractive young Wiccan who is out to stick up for her much-maligned beliefs, and a tough-talking Goth chick who "thought the movie was cool" and who seems to hide some latent psychic abilities. Together they brave the same woods where the Blair Witch is said to have walked and, armed with a bevy of video equiptment, get drunk and stoned amidst the ruins of the same house where the original filmakers were said to have died. After a run-in with a rival tour group, strange things start to happen, including miscarriages, sex, ghostly visitations, dancing naked girls, rampant paranoia, and...maybe...bloody murder. The question at the end of the film is...did this really happen? And if so, who did it? The theme of illusion (ie. film) vs. reality has been done before, but it is done here in an engaging and eerie atmosphere. There really aren't alot of scares in this film, and judging from the director's own comments, there weren't meant to be. This movie takes the idea that people can believe in something enough to make it real...perhaps that is the true scare. Where is the line between fiction and reality? Tristan and Stephen even argue the point as they camp out at the Parr ruins just before the bloody Bacchanalia ensues. If these murders were real, who did it? Was the Blair Witch responsible for reachign out from beyond the grave with her dark powers to force these people to kill? Is there a Blair Witch in the first place? Does it even really matter? The true evil lies not in the supernatural, but in the dark recesses of the human mind. Can a group of people, obesessed with a horror movie about a group of kids who die alone in the woods while searching for a legendary evil Witch, be driven to commit horrendous acts of violence and then delude themselves into believing it didn;t happen? What is the effect of media on our perceptions of reality? These are all questions Berlinger indirectly asks during this film. That is not to say that this is a perfect movie by any means. The script leaves much to be desired, the chracters are simple caricatures, and it seems to drag in its second half. But I think this film is worth a look and deserves a little better than many of the reviews give it here.
Rating:
Summary: If you're a fan of the original Blair Witch Project....
Review: If you're a fan of the original Blair Witch Project, please don't bother ruining your day by watching this one. It's just a waste of money for the producers. I really can't believe that someone can ruin this great idea that we see in the original. The original idea of filming only from the character's point of view is almost complitely lost; and even the scenes where we see this technique, it's so stupidly filmed. And what's with all these naked scenes; we never saw them in the original and it was still great, because we actually didn't care about the sex, but about the fact that we were scared of something that we couldn't see or touch. During the film, and after that (for days in my case) I was scared to go out alone at night, and I'm living near a wood, so imagina my fear...
As a conclusion I just want to say that if you really want to see Book of Shadows- Blair Witch 2, you should do it. You'll see some of the techniques used in Memento and Blair Witch Project, but actually it's not something that you can waste around hour and a half of your life for. Apologise to those who may feel offended by this review, but this is my point of view.
Rating:
Summary: One of the all time worst films ever made
Review: I remember sitting in the theatre on opening night, mourning the loss of my 9 bucks over this POS. Yes, its entertaining in a trash film kind of sense. I mean, who would have thought the Blair Witch was so proficient at graphic design and video production? What trash. Not even the topless scene helped. Wait, I lie, it did help tremendously. Wait, was there a topless scene? Maybe I'm confusing it with something else, it was THAT bad. Either way, a little skin is all this movie had going for it... and if thats what you're looking for you can find many better choices. You're on the internet, after all.
Rating:
Summary: Bore witch project 3000 book of boredom...
Review: Ok so the first one had a pretty original idea (as far as new horror movies go) and what does the second one do? I don't even know how to describe it. I knew this movie was nothing special even before renting it (from the library, theres no way I would ever pay for this) but this was a total shock. Nothing could have prepared me for how god awful this movie is. The whole idea in the begining could have been something to run with and adleast get two stars but hey its his movie, he can trash it as much as he wants I guess, its us whos suffering not him. Anyways this movie really strives to be "Dark" (thats proberbly why the director randomly made all of the "obsessed fans" in the movie of the bland "gothic as seen by a teen movie" stero type) and "scary" but falls so short.The whole "vision as seen by multiple characters" type aspect it aquires is done so poor that you really wonder what the director was thinking. The "plot twists" are so simple to figure out you don't notice they are untill the end when you figure out you were right about everything that they gave you clues about (i.e. the bloody nail file in the bag, who diden't see that one coming as soon as the person turned on the store cameras)and that the end was no shock at all. Pass on this one, though not as terribe as "ghoasts of mars" it rivals it for worst horror movie in my book. My advice is if your going to watch any new horror movie (which isnt a very smart thing to do to begin with, most of them are terrible) watch the first one, adleast it kept you interested with the "old school low budget" scare tactics. The begining concept of making a comment on obsessive fans of movies going to far dies fast and is not sitting through the whole movie for. Pass this one up you'll thank me later.
Rating:
Summary: Breathtakingly Stupid
Review: Imagine my surprise when I saw an interview with one of the stars of this godawful mess saying she had studied the occult writings of Levi Strauss. How he found the time to write while making all those blue jeans is a mystery to me, and just goes to show the extensive research that went into this project. This whole movie is a veritable ode to idiocy, with the characters consuming approximately a billion units of alcohol in one night, then wondering why they lost consciousness for several hours. The "Wiccan" character exists only to reinforce stereotypes (flaky bimbo New-Ager, sexually seductive witch just waiting to steal somebody else's man) and to attempt to assuage Wiccans and Pagans who were offended by the first film (I'm Wiccan and was only offended that I paid good money to see that monstrosity). Depictions of witches as evil, sex maniacs, etc. are just flat-out boring, we've seen them so many times. If you're writing a horror flick and can't think of anything more original than this sort of thing, don't give up your day job. Aside from the silliness about witches, the characters are obnoxious and insane and one is glad to see them get their comeuppance, which probably wasn't what the writers had in mind. An abject failure.
Rating: 
Summary: Why Book of Shadows fails where Blair Witch succeeded
Review: First and foremost, don't view this movie if the commercials/previews piqued your interest. Book of Shadows (BoS) was marketed as something it's not. The storyline is almost totally unrelated to that of the original Blair Witch (which wasn't half bad, although no movie could have lived up to the hype associated with it). What few elements *are* related to BWP have little bearing on the course of the story, and they could have been replaced or removed without dramatically altering the film. For this reason, I feel that BoS is, in fact, NOT a must-have for Blair Witch enthusiasts. BWP and BoS share a common theme: perception v. reality. BWP is a decent movie because it approaches this theme in a way viewers can understand and relate to. We all jump at noises and creep ourselves out sometimes, and most people are familiar with the inner battle between mounting panic and a fading, rational voice that insists, "This is not happening, there's an explanation for this." BWP is a tactful, dare-I-say intelligent film that knows viewers are more frightened by an unseen, immaterial menace than by full-on gore. BoS, on the other hand, features gore as early as its beginning credits sequence. While BWP has a simple plot unhampered by gimmicks and powered by fear of the unknown, BoS is powered by more conventional foreshadowing, physical violence (or the threat of it), and an unoriginal whodunit vibe (a la Scream, if you will-but not that entertaining). Characters are perhaps BoS's greatest weakness. The characters in BoS are full-on straight-up crazy, and they seem as if they were created to satisfy the more self-involved sectors of the Goth/wannabe-witch crowds. Furthermore, they're rendered flat and predictable moments after their introductions. Only the scholar's wife proves interesting, but early hints at her development don't pan out, leaving viewers unsatisfied. (Granted, the characters in BWP are not necessarily well-rounded or dynamic, but they *are* human. We watch them joke around and shop for groceries-everyday, sane activities that allow the audience to identify with and better accept their responses to stressors later in the film.) BoS earns its two stars by refusing to answer questions and resolve issues at the end of the film (true to BWP) and by succeeding in creeping me out (which is not terribly difficult to do). BoS is a pretty awful movie, but it's an acceptable late night party choice if you're looking for a "horror" flick that will create dialogue in a group (mostly about how bad it is) and still give you a touch of the heebie-jeebies. Keep your eyes peeled for the nutty sheriff, who is hilariously Southern/Old West for a Maryland town-he comes across as the embodiment of a certain chicken mascot. Oh, and the "special features" on the BoS DVD are uninteresting crud narrated by a Twilight Zone reject, so don't say I didn't warn you.
Rating:
Summary: Bland Witch...
Review: This film begins quite interestingly enough as a kind of mockumentary showcasing the aftermath that befalls the town where the original Blair Witch was filmed as tourists and fans flock to the area. After this short prologue there's scant little originality to found. The film presents us with several plot threads that never really go anywhere, and a few ideas that could have elevated the film if they had been properly explored. By now, I'm sure that you've heard this film is nowhere near as intelligent or enjoyable as the original. In fact there's hardly a shred of intelligence in the script, and some of the dialogue and plot twists are so bad that it makes you wonder if they were improvised on the spot. The movie thinks that it's clever and hip, playing with notions of perspective and identity and doubling back on itself, but instead it's just an incoherent mess. It's a shame, as this had a flicker of potential and could have been something great - the director cut his teeth co-helming the two "Paradise Lost" documentaries which were captivating, and I was quite eager to see what he could do with a larger budget and a horror film. There is one good thing about this movie and that is Kim Director, the actress who plays Goth-girl Kim. Hopefully she'll get a part worthy of her talent and we'll be able to see her in something at least half-decent.
|
