Dub’s Take: The Blair Witch Project (1999)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.


5 out of 5

Sidebar: when “Blair Witch 3” came out in 2016, there was an article from ‘reputable’ site Bloody Disgusting claiming it would “leave viewers shaking to their core”, in the opinion of its author. Certainly one could make that distinction about the original, but there was no way audiences were getting an out-of-the-blue sequel, sixteen years after the last, without any kind of prerelease hype, was there? Especially not after the wealth of viral marketing that went into pumping the first & second pictures.

Turns out, that review was the hype, because Blair Witch 3 was forgettable. Why spend the kind of money the original producers did in the late-nineties, making whole fake behind-the-scenes documentaries about the fake myths behind the fakery, when you just need to post something online that sounds credible? That review was probably my inaugural experience getting fooled by clickbait, other than being sixteen-years-old and watching Kevin Trudeau informercials for the first time.

But I really wanted to believe 3 was going to be good. The original is good. Great, even: often cloned but never imitated. Surely if you’re from that generation, you will have already formed your own opinion. My wife’s is that the handheld camerawork is stomach-churning, although I’ve never had that problem (I wish my stomach was in 4DX, not).

But what struck me on this recent viewing wasn’t how little Burkittsville lore is actually featured in the opening act (although what ‘facts’ are, all have payoffs) or how well-paced the film’s brief 80-minute runtime is as I imprudently watched on a work night. It was how relatable all three of its main characters are, and how the film never goes out of its way – nor needs – to textually individualize any of them, despite how much background the supplemental material may contain. The movie itself is delightfully uncluttered: Heather is believably headstrong; Mike is believably cautious; Josh is believably aggravated; and there isn’t one choice made by the characters stemming from these traits – not even Mike’s fragmented decision-making at the midway point – that didn’t feel convincing under the narrative circumstances.

And it’s scary. Maybe not as scary as it was when I was twelve, watching it for the first time, but unnerving, with a splendidly abrupt ending devoid of the time-stretching tactics of contemporaries like “Paranormal Activity”. Mwah! Chef’s Kiss!


Poster sourced from impawards.com. An upcoming 25th anniversary Blu-ray edition, supervised by the filmmakers & purported to present the film without the post-production processing from original distributor Lionsgate, is available through Second Sight Films (unsponsored).

Dub’s Take: Late Night with the Devil (2023)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.


Actor David Dastmalchian is an odd duck. He has a long face weighed down by the pressures his characters carry and the secrets & desires they harbour. Even when his role selection leans toward weirdos & villains (Polka-Dot Man in James Gunn’s “The Suicide Squad”; Piter in “Dune” (2021); Murdoch on TV’s “MacGyver” revival), Dastmalchian’s work sidesteps mockery for sympathy.

David’s casting as a talk show host in “Late Night with the Devil” is inspired, in one of the most “normal” portraitures that I’ve seen out his filmography. However, I think directors the Cairnes brothers do their lead a disservice by making David’s Jack Delroy a Carson competitor, placing the character in the same pantheon as contemporaries Leno & Letterman. Dastmalchian’s subdued Delroy would have played better as a Charlie Rose/ Dick Cavett type, even if that meant no additional texture in the form of a studio audience. I won’t say David’s Delroy is uncharismatic, but maybe a little too first-season Springer for the subject matter (the character deliberately transitioned his show to tabloid trash for ratings, so more cockiness would have played to that).

As someone who enjoys “lo-fi” vaporwave, “Late Night” was an aesthetic feast, with visuals mimicking live television from the 1970s, the on-stage orchestra with its oboes & saxophones, and crusty title-cards. In-between these moments of found-footage were black & white “behind-the-scenes” takes that are framed perhaps too much like a movie and took away from the purity of the “live” footage. Other details – such as the stoic Cavendish ad-reps sitting in the front row, or the boom-mic dipping into shots – counterbalanced the pretence of authenticity.

Does the film succeed as horror? I would say it succeeds at constantly-mounting dread: Ingrid Torelli as Delroy’s young, demon-possessed guest is incredibly cute & effectively spooky, and there’s a brilliant (and earned) sequence involving worms that plays with audience perspective. As far as the ending, it could have gone a number of different ways but I was not disappointed with what the filmmakers chose narratively: only underwhelmed by the out-of-place CGI work and abrupt aspect-ratio change (although it was a very cool creature design in the climax).

Overall, Late Night is effective in healthy fits-and-bursts, it’s a transient 90-minutes-long, and may play better via home streaming than in theatres.

2.5 out of 5

Poster sourced from impawards.com. What do you think? Much like an evil djinn, do you think you need to be very specific when making a deal with the Devil? Wasn’t Ian Bliss’ substitute for the late James Randi a pretty money enactment? What’s your favourite David Dastmalchian role? Do you agree with the Matt Zoller Seitz review that says the film would have been more effective had they left out the documentary-style preamble? Leave a comment below!