I just watched this film for the first time and, yes, I know I am late to the party. However, could someone here please explain to me what was so great about it? I mean, it was tense - sure. However, you don't actually see anything and the ending is abrupt, making no real sense. Anyone care to explain what I am missing with this film that was supposedly a horror classic?

I've never seen it, but from my understanding it's amateur style was quite fresh at the time.

Mostly, yeah. That, and the Power of Hype.

As far as I remember, it was one of the first really popular found footage films, so that made an impact. Also, at the time of release there was a fantastic marketing campaign that really sold a lot of people on it being genuine, which as you can imagine really turned things up a notch.
I also think that this film (like paranormal activity, which I adored) was a welcome break from excessive gore and torture porm. It's refreshing and really effective to be given a thread of something terrible that never really materialises, so you're constantly looking in the background and listening for things that may not be there. A bit like when you're in the house on your own and you get spooked, and start imagining that the sounds of the house settling is really footsteps upstairs. 9 times out of 10, what you imagine is scarier than what's really there, and it's the constant tension that sets you on edge and fuels your imagination. Not many films rely on the audience's imagination anymore (which is why I like a well done open ending).
The novelty of it being made for next to nothing also drew people in too I think. It shows what storytellers can be capable of even when you don't have the money to spend on special effects and big name stars.

It popularized the "food footage" genre of horror movies. I saw it about a year ago, and while interesting, it was not the masterpiece a lot of people assume it to be.

Yes. I understand that, but the actual film isn't that good. It is really tense and the suspense if fantastic, but it builds-up to nothing. Whilst I know good horror is about subtlety, it is still nice to have something happen! Without spoiling it, the ending gives no information as to what happens - leaving the plot completely hanging. Yet, it is one of the highest rate horror movies of all time. Why?


If it were genuine, then I would be freaking terrified! But, knowing it isn't and going in with high expectations because of reviews (despite friends warning me it isn't good), I was really disappointed. Also, Paranormal Activity was an abomination that even this film slaughtered with its lower budget (I presume). With regards to it showing what storytellers can do on a low budget, it doesn't show that at all! The story is awful. It made no sense!

Really? One of the highest rated? IMDB has it at #518 for horror movies with 6.3 out of 10. It was extremely influential for its time, but I've never heard anyone saying it was a great movie as far as plot goes.

That's basically what you're getting out of the movie. Appreciate its value to the horror genre, but don't look to latch onto it like it's a great movie, because it's not.

I actually liked the ending. Why? Because I honestly didn't want to see the "Witch." That would have spoiled it. I can't tell you how many times I've been watching something and my imagination of what the scary "thing" is was much more terrifying than the creature itself.

Fear of the unknown in other words.

As for why its considered a classic: because it really broke open the door to the "found footage" genre and all around its a good film. The plot is creepy and realistic enough to be plausible and it was marketed as such.

Never thought much of it to be honest. I felt then, as I do now, that the best part of it was at the end. Just when it was beginning to get interesting...that's it, shows over folks, go home, nothing left to see here.

I think at the time you could find fake police reports for the incident, there were plants posting in various forums talking about their disappearance, fake articles relating to the legend of the Blair Witch and its' history and I think fake newspaper reports on it. It was really well done!

Like its been said, the marketing campaign sold this film. Iirc it was three people and a small crew that was literally paid to [censored] with them. The marketing campaign painted it as an actual "found footage" deal and, again I memory serves, the stars of the film didn't make public appearances til after release.

As for the film itself, it was decent-good. The style was fresh and helped widen the genre beyond hack n slash crap. The fear seemed real in the movie, but the ending was a let down.

Oh yay, everyone banding together to dump on one of my favorite horror movies..and I wonder why I get upset when I come here. Here's my stupid explanation that nobody gives a [censored] about, but will type out anyway: It's a great horror movie because it doesn't show much. When you hear one of the characters screaming in agony in the forest at night, it's your imagination's job to fill in the blanks. When the girl screams, "What the [censored] is that?!", you're left wondering what, exactly, she saw that was so horrifying. And the ending itself is strictly ambiguous; again, something you must apply the real horror to.

The movie is basically telling people to stop relying on full-framed shots of blood and gore and pale, skeleton-faced monsters and to apply their own, personal brand of horror to what the movie is (not) portraying.

Or, as most people feel, it's just a [censored], low budget failure at being scary that only hipsters enjoy.