Lack of good storyline.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Was suprised by all the bad reviews i personaly think it was very scary. Lots of jumpy parts, sound, effects, and even the witch was terrifying. I love the original movie But its not as scary as this. Plus its actually conected to the original one what i liked . Everyone is different i guess and different things scares us. Hated the creepy noises she was making, hate the "paranormal activity" effects, and the ending??? Creeepy!!!!!

I think the people who lacked the attention spans to "get" the original Blair Witch movie are the types rating this one poorly. I will never understand such people. They should stick with standard slasher films that don't require the mind to engage much.I found this film (or video, rather) almost as compelling as the first, even though the technique of making a loud noise at almost every new appearance of a person or thing was overdone and sometimes absurd (there's no need for a crashing sound when a normal person walks up behind you). They could have kept it subtle like the first movie, but it was still a tense film that worked in its own right.Toward the end there was particularly claustrophobic scene that I won't spoil, but it rivaled scenes from "The Descent" (2005).My actual rating of this would be 7.5 if the choice was offered.

The first Blair witch had a low budget and was very watchable because the plot was good and the theme was interesting.For this to have a five million dollar budget, all I could think was where did th money go?? Certainly not into production, makeup, screen writing, acting or script. The script is literally scream people's names over aand over. My all time favorite line: " I hear there are tunnels, like maybe the Underground Railroad went through here or something" and it just gets WORSE.I couldn't even watch it it was SO boring. If you can watch a woman crawl through dirt with a camera for half An hour, go for it. YOU try to get a plot out of that....Five days of night??? Really?? Just don't even do it.

After 15-20 years or so James (James Allen McCune) returns to Blair to locate his sister Heather based on some film he saw on line. He gets a crew, GPS, Walkie Talkies, a drone and two local guides. They get in the woods but it won't let them out and it stays dark so they wouldn't have to spend any money showing you cool stuff or creating special effects. The special effects hit on all the negatives: ground cam, foot cam, sky cam, tree cam, "what was that" cam, jerk cam, scream in the dark cam, drag on the ground cam, flashlight fail cam, blurred cam, and panic whine cam. It was all annoying, done before and better. I liked "Blair Witch 2" more, even though this sequel makes more sense, it was just done so poorly. Lane (Wes Robinson) was half decent. I expected more from Adam Wingard.Guide: F-word. no sex or nudity