Jeepers Creepers 3 Review

Watching a movie like "Jeepers Creepers 3" in a packed theater was a blast, fans lined nearly every seat at my showing, who jumped at every scare and laughed at every funny moment- intentional or not. Any horror buff could see every "shock" coming a mile away, which is something I fancy myself as, but that doesn't mean I didn't leap from my seat from time to time. It is the kind of movie where your heart skips a beat at the loud musical clash, only to find yourself laughing at yourself for falling for such an old trick. Yes, you have seen every scene "Jeepers Creepers 3" has to offer, but it is an effective little horror-comedy; the latter part I'm not sure was intentional.

So the plot goes like this: every 23 spring for 23 days, the Creeper gets to eat. Does it travel the world? Are there more of these things? (Are they what killed the dinosaurs?) Questions like this only distract from director Victor Salva's nack at building suspense, who introduces characters, you guess which will survive, only to find your guess was completely wrong. And there are a lot of characters, something that plagued the second installment back in 2003. Here, they are all cliches, but the actors deliver each line as if they are auditioning for a Steven Spielberg film; you see all the muscles in their faces as they speak some pretty ridiculous dialogue (including one of my favorites "... you just want to hold hands with that thing!" or something like that. I'm not sure, I was too busy laughing to hear the entire exclamation). That all adds to the charm, playing out like a lost relic of the '80's slasher cinema. There isn't as much skin shown as those movies, but with the director's sordid sexual past, I guess that is for the best.

There are more questions that burn only when you step back from the insanity onscreen: why are all the cell phones here flip phones? Why are there so many antique cars driven casually in this fictional movie town? Why is the newest car I saw a Ford Bronco? What decade does this film take place?! But I could go on forever, so let us get back to the review.

There are two primary stories that play out simultaneously and independently: one where Addison (Gabrielle Haugh) struggles to feed her horse on her grandma's farm (played by Meg Foster), who struggles to cope with the death of Kenny (Jordan Salloum), who is her son? Grandson? The film doesn't make a big deal about plot. Ken died at the hands of the Creeper, who appears in her mind warning her that the antagonist will be back (of course it is, there wouldn't be a sequel he didn't). Addison, often called Addy, flirts around with the idea of actually flirting with Buddy (Chester Rushing), who's family owns the local horse food store. What happens between the two is obvious, but the awkwardness of the two characters almost leads to unorthodox chemistry. But who cares about that when the other story, the one where non-believer Stg. Tubbs (Brandon Smith) becomes a believer by partnering up with believer Sherif Tashtego (Stan Shaw), is so goddamn interesting!? They are by far the best thing in the movie, particularly Tubbs, who's facial expressions and commentary to Tashtego's speeches are almost as over-the-top as the speeches themselves. They ham it up, lavishing in the absurdity of their situation while never "winking" at the camera like they're in on the joke.

The Creeper (Jonathan Breck) himself is effectively played and costumed, as he enters scenes above both the camera and the other characters. He has plenty of bizarre weapons at his disposal, even his truck is loaded with traps to keep outsiders out and those on the inside, well, in. The way he "smells" his victims is creepy (pun intended), but he doesn't have much to do aside from stalk and kill people, but I guess that is kinda the point of this type of movie. He doesn't stand up to Michael Myers or Freddy Kruger, but in a cinematic world of killer dolls, ghosts, and clowns, he'll have to do.

While the makeup is well-done, the other special effects often expose the film's low budget- it doesn't help that much of it is filmed during the day (one scene scene suffers from some obvious CGI explosions and bullets). When the sun does set in movie world, the night obscures much of these monetary quirks, where fortunately much of the blood is shed under the dull light of the moon. Another sore spot is the film's abrupt end, interrupting what should have been a climactic foot-chase scene to slot this film clumsily into the series' chronology.

Things here almost came together into a small-scale guilty pleasure, and there are elements that are better than the two-and-a-half star rating imply (particularly its idiosyncratic sense of humor), but there are just a few too many cracks in this old-fashioned horror flick to get a full recommendation.

It Review

Like many Stephen King novels, the latest horror film this week is "It," based on his 1986 novel, though people are probably more familiar with the famous 1990 miniseries. It is all the same seeing it on the big screen: kids become friends, get in trouble, fend off bullies, oh yeah, and get stalked by a murderous clown named Pennywise. You know, typical childhood stuff.

Now look, I, along with many, suffer from coulrophobia, or you know, the fear of clowns. A popular choice for an irrational fear, but it is a fear (you won't find me at many carnivals). So as an exploit of this aberrant phobia, "It" works. The clown, portrayed by Bill Skarsgard, does little other than yell "boo" at the screen and the group of kids known as the "Losers," but then again, I suppose any one dressed as a clown would spook me if I was in a dark basement. It doesn't make the film any less effective, I would be lying if I didn't jolt out of my seat a time or two, but he brings zero personality to Pennywise. His scary makeup and prosthetics make him a frightening clown, not so much is performance.

But the group of kids are wonderful, so realistic; every scene was like watching a group of potty-mouthed kids enjoy their summer (well, perhaps "enjoy" is not the word). Though they're led by Billy (Jaeden Lieberher), the standout is little Jack Dylan Grazer, who plays the group's germaphobe Eddie, who's almost whiny fear is particularly realistic- he was the only one who truly looked frightened, almost struggling to speak his lines. It could be because the child actor struggled remembering them, but on screen, his terrified looks and pronunciation was most realistic.

The film lingers on each kid; we meet their parents, some abusive, some over-protective, with at least one a rapist, and watching the children growing together to escape their homes was charming and far more dramatic than scary- if you were to walk blindly into the theater, you might think you were watching long-lost scenes from "Stand by Me." The bullies, the romance, the banter, there are so many moments here far better than a movie about a psycho clown deserves. And that is the biggest fault here: there is simply little for Pennywise to do while the kids act like kids. There is a part when little Mike (Chosen Jacobs) was being beat up by Henry (Nicholas Hamilton), the leader of the bullies. Right, picture it, they are at a stream, bully pounding on Loser member, when he looks next to him and sees Pennywise smiling. But then it is right back to the fight. What is the point of the clown?! There is a story about friendship buried somewhere here, but it functions independently from all the blood and gore; just when these moments gain momentum, bam! Scary clown.

Unfortunately, while much of this clown action simply involves Pennywise running towards individual kids and occasionally showing his mouth packed with rows of pointy teeth, there is one exception. It's in the film's opening scene, when Georgie (Bill's brother, played by Jackson Robert Scott) loses his paper boat down the sewer. You know the one, it is the most iconic moment of the book. But what I simply cannot condone is what happens to poor little George- we watch as his arm is chewed off by the aforementioned chompers. Blood pours out of his arm before he is ripped down the storm drain. It amazes me that the book's infamous sex scene goes unmentioned here, but this level of violence is exploited, especially when the violence has no point. How many kids do you hear about getting killed by clowns? This isn't war, this isn't a reality. If there isn't a reason for this level of violence towards kids, then there is no reason in showing it, let alone opening a movie with it. I get zero pleasure with the notion of either, no thrill- nothing but unacceptable disgust. It is one thing to suggest the killing of a child (think of that part in "The Mist," or the one in "Pet Sematary," works based also on stories by Stephen King), but by showing it in such detail turns this otherwise uneven adaptation into a "geek show."

Pennywise himself is underdeveloped, but from what I gathered, he lives in a well in the town's abandoned house, coming out every 27 years to feast on children. He is controlled by fear, exactly like Freddy Kruger from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" film series, rendering Pennywise harmless if the kids are not scared; when scared, the kids imagine lepers, dead brothers, all sorts of gross stuff that chase the children around. But this makes no sense for the titular clown- not only does he need to wait all those years to eat, he is completely dependant on kids' fear. What if there are no kids when he comes out to eat (hey, it could happen), could he survive on adult's fear? Why such a random number like 27? His existence is barely explained, and we never know what he can do or can't do. This doesn't keep you on your feet as it should. Not knowing his tricks should work in the film's favor, but in the second half of the picture he recycles much of what he has already done; you groan at the screen each time the clown impersonates Billy's dead brother. The film does teach us that Pennywise can do one thing however, and that is set up a sequel.