"The Blair Witch Project" is a feat that will likely never be repeated in the history of film. I'd debate that feat was more one of marketing than filmmaking. In 1999, a movie that cost $60,000 to make earned $248 million at the box office, some of which came, presumably, from people who believed this shaky-camera tale of three film students who set off to find a mythical witch was an actual documentary.

"The Blair Witch Project" is a feat that will likely never be repeated in the history of film. I'd debate that feat was more one of marketing than filmmaking.

In 1999, a movie that cost $60,000 to make earned $248 million at the box office, some of which came, presumably, from people who believed this shaky-camera tale of three film students who set off to find a mythical witch was an actual documentary.

It seems almost quaint now. Even if Donald Trump seems to prove the theory that we are living in a post-fact society, it would be hard to pull off a low-budget fictional movie as a fact today. Even your mom knows about Snopes.

I remember being an eager young lad excited to see an early copy of one of the most buzzed-about movies I ever knew. An older film critic friend-of-a-friend got a rare advance copy. I knew it wasn't true-to-life, but I was still prepared to be creeped out. And, for the record, I left pretty disappointed. Hype and anticipation outpaced the scare the film delivered, although I still have to note the concept was pretty brilliant.

So I entered into 2016's reboot, called simply "Blair Witch," in that mindset. I don't hold the original in really high regard, but I still love the concept. If the first film set me up for disappointment, this one set me up far better. And it delivered.

Spanning this generation gap, we meet James (James Allen McCune), the then-little brother of the original's runny-nosed heroine Heather. A recent video that's popped up online makes James think that his long-lost (and presumed dead) sister is still in those Maryland woods.

So James and three friends set off into that familiar scary forest. And familiar scary forest stuff starts to happen.

This reboot borrows so much of the original formula it's a borderline remake. But director Adam Wingard ("You're Next") incorporates new technologies - like earpiece cameras that give us first-person perspective from each character, and even a drone - to make the movie more palatable while still maintaining the found-footage illusion.

It's also the same kind of slow-boiling horror. A first act that's all setup eventually gives way to a familiar second act. Spoiler alert: They find rocks and twigs again.

But there are real tension and scares here, especially in a bonkers, breathless final 20 minutes that is legitimately terrifying even if you know it's not real. I'm not sure that's ever true of the original.