Martha Stewart Witch Martha Stewart, the well-known American businesswoman, television personality, and author, has often been playfully referred to as a "witch" by her fans and followers. This playful term is a nod to Stewart's uncanny ability to effortlessly transform ordinary household items into something magical through her creative ideas and craft techniques. Stewart's television shows, books, and magazine articles have long been a source of inspiration for home enthusiasts, providing them with ideas on how to beautify their living spaces, entertain guests, and create homemade crafts and decorations. Her attention to detail and impeccable taste have earned her a dedicated fan base, who admire her ability to make any space look luxurious and inviting with just a few well-chosen items. Like a witch, Stewart seems to possess a special power to transform the mundane into the extraordinary. Through her innovative ideas and DIY projects, she has taught her followers how to turn ordinary objects, such as mason jars or terracotta pots, into stunning centerpieces or unique home decor pieces.
Through her innovative ideas and DIY projects, she has taught her followers how to turn ordinary objects, such as mason jars or terracotta pots, into stunning centerpieces or unique home decor pieces. She uses her keen eye for design and her knack for reinvention to make something out of nothing, much like a witch casting a magical spell. Furthermore, Stewart's love for cooking and entertaining adds another layer to her "witchy" persona.
'Witch' in Shadow
Not only ain't it a sequel, "Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows" wasn't even filmed in Frederick County!
Nah. It's a Baltimore movie, lacking John Waters's charm and Divine's hairdos, even if it was designed by Waters's designer, Vincent Peranio, and cast by his casting director, Pat Moran.
Think of it as a sequel to "Pink Flamingos" if that helps, and it probably won't. But the original conceptualizers of the truly frightening "Blair Witch Project," Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, are long gone (to Fox TV) and this is an attempt by the studio, Artisan, to generate more cash from the franchise.
The results are mixed: It's a pretty good horror movie on its own, but who among you is willing to let it stand on its own?
Of course the famous gimmick is gone--the "found" journal, which in "Blair's" case took the form of videotapes that purportedly survived the 1999 disappearance of three young documentary filmmakers in the woods near Burkittsville, where they had gone in search of a rumored supernatural phenomenon.
The tapes and film showed the ugliness of fear: The kids, without resources or natural cunning, simply fell apart under the pressure of their terror, and rode the beam of panic straight into destruction, either self-willed or engineered by something from the Other Side. Whether it was a great film or a cheap trick, the movie had the remarkable intensity of the actual.
This time around, gone, too, are all the appurtenances of cinema verite that gave the original its uniqueness: the hand-held cameras, the poor framing, the sense of spontaneity, the extreme close-up of drippy nostrils. (Heather, thank you for sharing.) In fact, quite quickly "Blair Witch 2"--which is directed by the great documentarian Joe ("Brother's Keeper") Berlinger--abandons its initial fake-doc look and becomes pure industrial-strength feature movie, albeit one in which video (usually in the form of security-camera tapes) is a persistent theme.
And, like the first "Blair," this film chronicles the breakdown of a small social unit, which disintegrates under pressure that may be supernatural, and becomes a study of panic, terror and ultimately murder. And, like "Blair," the actors use their real names, a crude device meant to blur the distinction between truth and fiction, but which only seems an affectation.
This movie's singular originality is that it appears to be set in the "real world," as opposed to the Blair Witch world. That is, a world in which a clever horror movie called "The Blair Witch Project" became a No. 1 hit in America and turned a small Maryland town into a tourist mecca for disaffected youths hungry to believe in something Out There. Nearly all of them are disillusioned to find, at the real site, no witch at all, but just an unprepossessing, grumpy place that is uneasy with its sudden celebrity. At this point the movie itself is a mock documentary, but soon it settles down and locates the real trajectory of its story, as a group of believers, nonbelievers and hucksters test their prejudices against a night in the witch's woods, if there is a witch.
This second expedition is put together by a website entrepreneur named Jeffrey Donovan, who promises "tours" of the real place. On the inaugural excursion he crowds four clients into his battered minibus and off they head to the woods: a seemingly happy couple (Stephen Turner and Tristine Skyler, who plays a character named Tristen Skylar, for unfathomable reasons) who are writing a book meant to disprove the existence of the Blair Witch, a pretty youngster who claims to be a Wiccan (Erica Leerhsen), and a young woman (Kim Director) who may or may not be pretty--difficult to say because she's made up like Elvira. (I suppose she's cool if you go for the Priestess of the Night look.)
They spend a night of drunken partying in the woods where the three earlier filmmakers disappeared. When they wake up, their equipment is trashed and their memories cloudy but disturbing. Eventually they return to the entrepreneur's headquarters to try and figure it all out, helped by the fact that they've found videotapes exactly where the original vids were found.
At least that is what I think is going on, and possibly your interpretation will be better than mine. For the movie is aggressively postmodern in structure, leaping forward and back in time, to interrogations held by the police (including a Maryland sheriff with a goatee and a ponytail, highly unlikely this far north of Greene County, Miss., but nevertheless picturesque) who are investigating the concurrent slaughter of five other interlopers in the woods that night.
All this takes a lot of sorting out, and that's primarily what the movie is about: kids in a funky postindustrial space smoking and drinking the night away, looking at old tapes while one (Tristine/Tristen) recovers from a spontaneous miscarriage evidently caused by the shock of the previous night's events. At odd moments they flash back to their interrogations in the police station, or possibly they flash forward to them. The videotapes are decoded to reveal disturbing events. Or, possibly, they simply imagine the whole thing, or certain parts of it.
Are we having fun yet? Well, there's no mad stalker in a hockey mask leaping out of closets and opening people up with a box cutter. If that's your idea of fun, rent "Halloween" for the 7,000th time. But something is happening: A pressure is being applied, and, strangely, people begin behaving in odd ways. Suddenly we're not sure who's sane, who's not, who's inhabited by the spirit of the witch (if there is a spirit of the witch), who will survive, who will go to prison. We're not even sure what's happening, even as people begin dying and other people seem to kill them.
Like the predecessor, it's intense rather than frightening and the ugliness of fear and its most revolting manifestation, hysteria, are everywhere in evidence. Like to see people scream or otherwise lose it? Here's just the movie for you.
On a works/doesn't-work rating system, this one just barely works, primarily because the kids in the cast are so good. Like its predecessor, "BW2" is superbly acted, extremely intense and convincing, and it gets extra points for sparing us Heather's famous nostril. Yet somehow it lacks the resonance of the first--it just scares, it doesn't vibrate into the darker recesses of the soul.
And while we're at it: What the hell is the Book of Shadows? It may be in the title, but it isn't in the movie.
Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows (90 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for violence and lots of screaming.
All this takes a lot of sorting out, and that's primarily what the movie is about: kids in a funky postindustrial space smoking and drinking the night away, looking at old tapes while one (Tristine/Tristen) recovers from a spontaneous miscarriage evidently caused by the shock of the previous night's events. At odd moments they flash back to their interrogations in the police station, or possibly they flash forward to them. The videotapes are decoded to reveal disturbing events. Or, possibly, they simply imagine the whole thing, or certain parts of it.
Just like a witch concocting a potion, Stewart effortlessly creates delicious meals and menus that leave her guests spellbound. Her recipes are carefully crafted, using only the finest ingredients and techniques, resulting in dishes that not only taste incredible but also look like works of art. However, it is important to note that the term "witch" used to describe Martha Stewart is purely playful and metaphorical. Martha Stewart is not an actual witch, but rather a talented businesswoman and creative force who has inspired countless individuals to embrace their own creativity and transform their homes and lives. In conclusion, referring to Martha Stewart as a "witch" is a lighthearted way to acknowledge her ability to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary through her creative ideas and craft techniques. Her attention to detail, impeccable taste, and love for cooking and entertaining have earned her a dedicated following who admire her ability to make any space look magical. While Stewart may not have actual magical powers, she has certainly cast a spell on her audience, inspiring them to tap into their own creativity and create something beautiful..
Reviews for "The Charmed Life of Martha Stewart: How Witchcraft Guided Her Success"
1. John Doe - 2/5 - I was really disappointed with "Martha Stewart Witch". The storyline was incredibly predictable and lacked any element of surprise. The writing style felt forced and just didn't flow well. Additionally, I found the characters to be one-dimensional and difficult to relate to. Overall, I expected more from this book and it failed to meet my expectations.
2. SarahSmith12 - 2/5 - "Martha Stewart Witch" was not what I thought it would be. The plot was confusing and seemed to drag on without any clear direction. I found it difficult to connect with the characters because their motivations and actions seemed unrealistic. The writing style was also a bit too descriptive for my taste, making it hard to stay engaged with the story. Sadly, this book just wasn't for me.
3. JaneDoe23 - 1/5 - I really disliked "Martha Stewart Witch". The plot was incredibly cliche and lacked originality. The characters were uninteresting and lacked depth, making it difficult to care about their fates. The pacing was also quite slow, which made it hard for me to stay invested in the story. Overall, I found this book to be a dull and uninteresting read. I would not recommend it.
4. BookLover2000 - 2/5 - I was not impressed with "Martha Stewart Witch". The story felt rushed and poorly developed, leaving me feeling unsatisfied. The main character lacked any real growth or development, which made it hard for me to root for them. Additionally, the dialogue felt forced and unrealistic. Overall, this book was a letdown, and I wouldn't recommend it to others.
5. Reviewer91 - 1/5 - "Martha Stewart Witch" was a complete waste of time. The plot was poorly executed and lacked any real substance. The writing style was uninspiring, and the characters were forgettable. I found myself struggling to finish this book, as it failed to capture my attention or engage me in any way. I would not recommend wasting your time on this read.