MovieChat Forums > The Blair Witch Project (1999) Discussion > Is a 6.4 rating accurate?

Is a 6.4 rating accurate?

posted 9 years ago by jonny-04689
39 replies | jump to latest

I feel like this movie gets hate more so than other popular films because of how unique it was, and how strong and huge the cult following of the film is. When this film first came out it was monumental, and I feel like for a lot of people it's fashionable to simply put it off as stupid before really giving it a chance. In other words, someone will start watching and already think it's bad before even giving it a fair chance, and then rate is something like a 2 or a 3 out of spite. I feel like this movie should be at least a 7.5 if not higher, but for some reason the score is affected by those who have something against it, even if they themselves don't know what that is. I don't know, just something that was on my mind and I wanted to get some other takes on it.
By the way, I know Roger Ebert isn't the end-all be-all of movies, but even he gave Blair Witch four stars. Anyone wanna share there opinion on this?

On a separate note, my God, the sequel is so terrible it's almost hard to believe it exists. Of course it is in no way affiliated with or even should share the name Blair Witch, except for the opening interviews which I thought was really good. What a colossal failure Blair Witch 2 was.

[–] northernlad 9 years ago

No that rating is not accurate. It should be rated somewhere around a 7.

I gotta go feed that thing in Room 33.

[–] nullcreations 9 years ago

It's not accurate. It should be rated a lot lower. This film was garbage.

[–] psybientfox 8 years ago

Bullcrap.

[–] msudude20 8 years ago

@nullcreations: Well when you make a movie, you can say that. Until then just stay living in your mother's basement at the age of 30.

[–] applepoison 9 years ago

I just started a topic on this and realized it was here!

Yeah basically, I assume the film's low score here is due to a millennial virgin audience not realizing this was the very film which spawned the legion of found-footage films. I was fortunate enough to see it in the theatre when it was to be believed as real; the experience was viceral. This movie is brilliant and I am saddened to see a low score.

[–] redapple-47749 9 years ago

This movie was just honestly boring as hell. (IMO)

[–] dreamer.ice 9 years ago

Watched it long ago, gave it a 6. Extremely overrated. Spawning a genre of imitators might make it 'historically significant', but I vote on whether films are good.

[–] brandonhelee 9 years ago

I don't hate it because it's cool to do I hare it for being lazy and without any shred of integrity.
The film is basicly some *beep* getting lost in the woods anybody can go and out and do that.Out of respect to the artistic medium of film this should be loathed laughed off.
It put those God-awful Paranomal Activity films in the mainstream.

Guns are for pussies,Real men use fist.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] masadjie234 9 years ago

How The shining get in Top 250 and this is not is beyond me.

[–] jonny-04689 9 years ago

the shining is one of the greatest horror films ever made.

[–] grayremnant1 8 years ago

Stephen King disagrees with that statement. And he WROTE it. 

[–] yan-trussart 8 years ago

Tha fact that King wrote the source material doesn't in any way make him an auhtority on the question.
Clearly, the movie clashed with his vision, but the fact is once he published the book, his vision becomes pretty much irrelevant.
A good cinematic adaptation doesn't necessarily have to be faithful to the book.

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

It was totally new (to me) and very creepy. I loved it, and give it an 8.5!

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.