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.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day 3D Review

What other score could you give the second in the Terminator franchise? It is the best film in the series, as well as arguably the best flick by director James Cameron, and easily Schwarzenegger's most iconic role. All this reissue brings is a 3D gimmick, which aside from have the T-1000's liquid metal arm swords come slightly towards audience's eyes, is an excuse to see a real summer blockbuster on the big screen again. None of that matters; this is one of the greatest in the science-fiction genre, as well as in the action category (and why not, it is a superb picture amongst any sequel).

The point of a 3D re-release isn't to attract a new audience; after all, who is gonna pluck down eleven bucks to see a 26 year old film? I saw it in a cramped theater spotted with only fans of the movie, who gripped their armrests at every tense moment and laughed at all the jokes (one of my favorites is when a beat-up Schwarzenegger quips "... I need a vacation"). So let me not waste my time repeating the plot (life's too short, and I'd like to have this review finished before they re-release "Terminator 3").

Without going into detail of exposition, the performances hold up all these years later, with Linda Hamilton and Edward Furlong perfecting capturing the mood of a hyper-dysfunctional mother and son. She chain-smokes her way out of a mental hospital, being committed following the events of the first film, with a body almost as bulging than her costar Arnold. He does what he does best here, cracking jokes with the straightest of faces and kicking ass with the biggest of muscles. He is amazingly charming, whether he is fighting a biker or pondering why humans cry, this is a surprising example of his strength as an actor.

The brilliance to "Terminator 2" comes to its action, where like "Jurassic Park" a few years later, mixed thrills with this new thing called "CGI," where computers created images no one had ever seen before. Here, the T-1000, dubbed the liquid Terminator, morphs his arms into swords and heals himself after every bullet. But what is most remarkable is how little there is of it; every explosion, chase, and stunt looks real, with true momentum to bodies thrown from crashing cars and verisimilar force when a human leaps from a fiery blast. Computers here only enhance what is seen on the screen, taking control only where practical effects would fail.

And it is every bit as good as you remember, if not more spectacular on the big screen, where it belongs. Every explosion rumbles through the speakers of the theater, just the way they should, and if you can, see it in a multiplex that hasn't been renovated in twenty something years, if you want to get real experience of this antiquated actioner.

War for the Planet of the Apes Review

It's funny to think that a film called "War for the Planet of the Apes" contains very little actual warfare, or at least explosions, fighting, or gunfire. The trailers showcase pretty much all the action, most of which occurs in the first half an hour or so. What does that mean happens in the rest of the movie? Not a whole lot; the apes mostly speak in sign language (as well as some of the humans, but more on that later), only Caesar (Andy Serkis), Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) and the Colonel (Woody Harrelson) have much of any verbal communications. It is a brilliant example of how to move a plot forward without pretentious speeches, leaving striking visuals and a wonderful score to carry the narrative to its end credits.

With the Simian Flu having wiped out most of the humans, the Colonel continues to war against the apes, believing that ending them will obliterate the virus. After discovering Caesar's refuge of monkeys, Colonel kills one of his sons and his wife. That makes him go bananas with anger (pun intended), on a blind, one-ape army seeking revenge against the shaved-headed military leader. Several of his right-hand men (or is it apes?) talk him into taking them along for protection, along the way discovering a mute little girl and the rogue chimpanzee Bad Ape, who has been living in an abandoned ski resort since the aforementioned viral outbreak.

But Caesar is caught, locked up, and stages an escape after him and other POW apes are forced to build a wall for the colonel (sounds like the 2016 Presidential election) to stop another army of humans. Why aren't the humans banded together? Well the virus has mutated, turning people into non-speaking primitives, and while the colonel thinks that stopping the sickness with a gun will work, the other army thinks science can end it. But with such a gun-happy man in charge, Caesar is kept alive to service the plot, not because it makes any sense. He admits that he killed his son and wife because he couldn't find Caesar, so then why keep him alive?

This virus is shown to spread with contact, affecting people within hours, but if the monkeys have the disease, then shouldn't the imprisoned apes be sanitized or something? Shouldn't they be handled with rubber gloves or vaccinated? The virus can live on inanimate objects, and the colonel knows that (he mentions at one point that he burns everything that the infected touch), but has a petting zoos worth of apes right outside his sleeping quarters? How does he know the virus isn't spread in the air? His base is on a snowy hill, the windows are obviously closed (otherwise his heating bill would be outrageous). If the monkeys are so smart, why didn't they all spit at the humans, thusly infecting them? Or do the apes not carry the sickness? This is the part of the movie when the plot becomes murky, an opaque explanation of how and why that you sort of just have to roll with the punches, accepting what it says and ignoring your own questions.

But the apes look fantastic, interacting with actors and set pieces in a way that makes its predecessors look like video game cut scenes. Despite how common motion-capture is, the series remains the best example of the practice, and this film is the most impressive. And although not John Williams, Michael Giacchino's score is masterful, and although I didn't walk out of the theater humming any of the tunes, I did walk out remembering liking the tunes.

Spider-Man: Homecoming Review

Six credited screenwriters (six!) wrote the new Spider-Man movie, subtitled "Homecoming." What he is coming home to is beyond me (although he does enter his aunt's house a few times). Perhaps it was the school dance? It doesn't have much to do with the main plot (I mean, this is a superhero film), but then again, maybe I missed something (I mean, it is the subtitle). Maybe a seventh screenwriter was needed. But in the flood of superhero movies the past two decades, this is the second reboot, with Tom Holland taking over the role from Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, with Tom having previously "guest-starring" in last year's Captain America movie.

But I saw that movie (obviously, I just linked my review), and I saw this movie (obviously, I am writing this review), yet I couldn't tell you how Peter Parker got his super powers. I know, a spider bite, but when did that happen? It didn't happen in "Spider-Man: Homecoming," but why not? Isn't this a reboot? If they are not going to show his entire beginning here, what's the point of showing any of his start? This is the sixth goddamn movie, do you think I care about the uprising of Spider-Man??

The screenplay suffers from the surplus of screenwriters, with at least one scene beginning in the dark of night ends up being bright and sunny by the end of it. At one point Spider-Man runs out of "web" stuff, but then, next shot, is firing webs. Too many conversations consist purely of pithy exchanges that sound good in TV commercials. And worst of all, well, actually, let me interject: the following is a slight spoiler so, read at your own risk. When Spider-Man climatically pulls Vulture from the wreckage of the film's big battle, the film pretends as if the good-guy has saved the bad-guy from something. But nothing happens. The rubble didn't explode, Vulture was in no danger under the debris. Why did Spiderman bother pulling him out? So he could trap him in a web of webs until the cops showed up? Wouldn't have the rubble have kept him in place? I'll tell you why, so we see our hero carrying his nemesis in slow motion.

End spoiler.

The plot is inconsequential- the stakes are a bit smaller here, but I'll do my job- I mean my best: Spiderman (pardon the spelling, I will be typing those words so many times this review that ignoring the hyphen will save me hours) tries to become more than "just a neighborhood Spiderman" and stop Vulture (Michael Keaton) from stealing alien materials (left behind from previous Marvel movies), repurpose them as weapons to sell on the black market. Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man (a.k.a. Robert Downey Jr.) goes in and out of scenes half-soused, giving false parental guidance to the titular hero, whose only other adult in his life is his aunt May (played by the charming but superfluous Marisa Tomei). The main storyline is threaded by Mr. Spider's teenage angst, with a crush, a bully, a fat friend, a mystery loner girl- the usual stuff screenwriters (or at least the six credited here) think actually happens in high school; it is as if they never went to high school themselves and had only seen "The Breakfast Club."

I am all OK with the risks here being smaller- the world isn't in danger (only, really, Queens NY is), but director Jon Watts, whose sophomore effort "Cop Car" was a tight little thriller, leveled by a strong cast and witty script, sort of buckles under all the CGI weight. His smaller-scaled scenes of conflict (such as an early ATM robbery) are well shot and edited, but a late scene in a cloaking jet was hard to follow, with the camera whipping in one direction and bodies flying in the other.

Holland gives Peter Parker/Spiderman a slightly whiny persona, a needy complainer who always wants what he can't have yet (honestly, I'm surprised he turned down alcohol later in the film). And although I am not convinced this is the perfect depiction of the web-slinging teen, but I can commend him for the lack of smugness; this is the first Marvel movie in a long time where the hero wasn't a cocky jerk. Here, he stumbles with his powers, letting bad-guys get away and missing web shots. It doesn't completely work here, but it is a breath of fresh air.

But the star here is Michael Keaton as Vulture, who turns to illegal weapon trade when his salvage company belly-ups when his contract to clean up the Avengers' mess is abruptly ended when Tony Stark takes over. That's it. No gods this time, no magic weapons, nothing obviously "supervillain," and his story, and particularly his performance, made me wish the film was called "Vulture: Homecoming" instead. It isn't that his character is anything unique; he flies in a mech suit (*cough Iron Man *cough), but every time he is on screen, I forgot about little teenaged Spiderman. I guess it is that I just don't understand Spiderman an his powers- I get that Peter needs his latex underwear for some of his powers, but if he can't shoot webs from his wrists, what powers does he have? Super strength and can ascend walls? That isn't overtly spider-like. Why even bother with the webs if he needs attire to fire them? Could he have picked other abilities- why did he settle on a spider? (Perhaps he was getting over arachnophobia.)

Despicable Me 3 Review

Another weekend brings another kid's animated film, well, actually, last weekend, but hey, can't I have a life away from my keyboard? This time Steve Carell plays Gru, a bad-guy turned good-guy after three kids, a wife, and two predecessors. Overall? It is mindless children candy, with pop-songs and dance numbers, fart humor (on the production company Illumination's title screen even!), but nothing here is as deadened or as gross as the recent "Captain Underpants."

He finds out he has a long-lost twin brother, Dru (also Steve Carell), gets fired from his job at the "Anti-Villain League," while being targeted by Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker), the supervillain here who is persistently stuck in the eighties (he was, of course, a child-actor in a TV show during that decade, but the film never materializes much from this). That is the plot's skeleton, but there are pounds and pounds of excess plot, particularly forgettable is the subplot about Gru's wife Lucy (Kristen Wiig) trying to be a "mom" to the three little girls; fans of the franchise know that Gru adopted them, so Lucy isn't their real mom (unless she is, and I just guessed the plot of the fourth film). Dru persuades Gru to become a villain again, one of the kids searches for a unicorn, the minions (the franchise's obnoxious mascots) quit and end up in jail- there is simply too much plot! And too much of it has been done before and with more wit (such as the slammer-sing-along ripped straight from "Austin Powers in Goldmember"), but I don't know... the kids laughed at least.

Bratt's 80's attitude is superficially charming,  dancing (or should I say "moon-dancing"?) to Michael Jackson, Phil Collins, Madonna (whoa, what a decade) and plenty others. His shoulder pads got a grin from me in the commercials I saw on TV weeks before seeing it, but there is zero depth beneath the retro haircut; his personality is defined only by the songs on his playlist. Parents may chuckle when he does he plays the keytar for the first time, but by the end of the movie adults will be wishing for somebody to hit the "mute" button. The rest of the cast speak with the passion as someone cashing a quick check (ironic), but the animation is fast paced, not exactly occurring at breakneck speed, but quick enough to keep a grumpy critic from falling asleep.

A week after release, a quick internet search shows this movie has grossed about half a billion dollars. That is a lot of money, and if you are a parent whose kids desperately want to see this movie, don't worry. It isn't terrible. It is far from good (let alone coherent), but for a non-Disney movie, you won't be needing to sneak in that flask to get through this ninety minute long film. Just do not bring in any candy- this film is so sentimental, so sappy and saccharine about family and all that stuff that if films had calories, this movie could cause diabetes.

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie Review

Based on the popular books by Dav Pilkey, the movie adaptation "Captain Underpants" was titled with the expectations to make sequels, hence its subtitle "The First Epic Movie." Only I wish it never made it past the desks of Hollywood executives. It is eighty nine minutes of pure potty humor, which even the film calls "the lowest form of comedy," and I agree. If your kids, or the kid in you, laugh at the idea of a chorus of whoopee cushion noises, then this is the movie for you, because there is a tireless scene of it. And if just the thought of a towering, walking toilet has you immediately going and buying your ticket, then stop reading. I might spoil one of the poop jokes for you.

Despite debuting the same day as "Wonder Woman," and coming before and after numerous other superhero flicks, "Captain Underpants" is too afraid to parody them. This could have been the audience's relief from all the the darkness of the genre, all the gluttonous and sameness, but like this years "The Lego Batman Movie," the underwear wearing captain settles for flashy visuals interrupted by only by musical numbers, flatulence, and a story that wraps up far too conveniently, with a message about friendship to boot. For a superhero who literally wears tight underwear, there is a funny idea here, somewhere, buried deep below more potty jokes than Adam Sandler would dare tell.

The animation is fast paced but painfully boring, save for that one "sock puppet" scene. Simple geometry and bland art style pale in comparison to the company's other films, and particularly when graded against Pixar or Disney's offerings. The budget is smaller; perhaps that is why the most of the cast are "for-rent" comedians and actors.

The plot goes something like this: George (Kevin Hart) and Harold (Thomas Middlehitch) are grade-school delinquents who spend their free time writing a comic about the imaginary "Captain Underpants." Their principle, Mr. Krupp (Ed Helms), spends his time trying to prove that the duo are behind all the pranks around the school. But through the power of a cereal box prize "hypno ring," which actually works despite the reluctance of both the two heroes and the principle himself. As a joke, they snap his fingers and poof, Mr. Krupp is now the title superhero; splash him with water, and he is back to his school-running self. I like how the film never bothered explaining how or why the ring works, or why water retards its effect; it adds to the sugar-coated visuals and zippy pacing, but why they never try and hypnotize villain "Professor Poopypants (Nick Kroll), disguised as the district's new science teacher. Or why the police don't show up when a giant toilet rampages through the school until the film's credits are revving to start rolling. Or where everyone's parents are. Or why Professor Poopypants doesn't  change his  name (that is, of course, the reason he is evil). Or why every punchline involves farting, burping or nose-picking.

It isn't that farting, burping or nose-picking isn't funny- only it isn't. But every line sets up the same punchline, and that punchline is well, farting, burping or nose-picking. Kids are smarter than that; I saw this in a theater fairly filled, all kids with the parents, but very few laughs were generated. That is the sign of a movie failing to realizes its target audience.