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.

[–] BCKixAzz 9 years ago

I didn't want to hate it, but this was barely even a movie. It was such a letdown. Nothing happened! It was so boring! I'm very glad I didn't watch it in the theaters like my brother and his wife, who told me to skip it.

It created such a buzz over nothing, and the entire found footage genre is awful.

As for the second movie, apparently they made an actual movie that time around, and everyone who liked this improv non-film hated it for that.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] toshiofivefootseven 8 years ago

Well, what dp you expect from kids these days, who can't sit through a 10 minute video on youtube, to actually watch a movie where they bothered to build tension and scary atmosphere? They have the attention span of a 6 weeks old puppy. Now there are jump scares and gore five minutes into pretty much all horrorflicks because the filmmakers are so scared that the targeted audience, which is mostly teens, won't like it and find it boring. Even typing this "much" as an answer would be ignored because they can't F- be bothered to actually read something.

For me I love horror like BWP, even other genres like this where the filmmakers aren't holding your hand throughout the whole film and spoon feeding you the answers. I'm not gonna say I don't enjoy watching the horrorflicks nowadays, because I do, but I'm not genuinely scared or freaked out about them. Hell, I still remember the day I found out about BWP, and the rumors that it was actually real footage of three people who went missing in the woods. It was the talk in school for literally months before and after. There are only one or two of these horror movies per generation that sticks with people.

I think the only two horrorflicks I've seen since BWP, that I genuinely was freaked about was the first Paranormal Activity(The dragging scene was freaking terrifying) and The Conjuring (The handclap scene)

[–] InsecureNeuroticControlFreak 8 years ago

No. It's incorrect. It deserves much higher, the high 7s, at least. It deserves at least a 7.7.

The sequel isn't terrible, either. It should be at least 5.8, but preferably, in my opinion, around a 6.3. I thought it was very creepy.

I don't feel enough for you to cry.

Oh well.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dwfubar-564-667323 8 years ago

It should be a 4. The movie was absolutely terrible.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

I wasn't much of a fan, but I wouldn't call it a terrible movie like some others do.