If you've read any of my posts for Flixist, you know that I approach most sequels not with trepidation, but with outright skepticism. This is because rather than being an earnest or needed continuation to a great story, they're cash grabs. So, you say, aren't all sequels, or movies for that matter, cash grabs, or attempts to be so? Without a doubt, but it's one thing to seek monetary compensation, gain, and success for a quality product, it's quite another to seek the same by phoning it in, or trying to paint by numbers, following 'proven' formulas (franchises) and spitting out celluloid regurgitant for mindless chicks (aka we the audience) to gag down like nature intended.
On the surface, you might expect Jeepers Creepers 3, the third installment in a lesser horror series that had seemed dead and buried since 2003, to fall into this category. But despite the 14-year absence of the Creeper (and really, at this point, they should have waited another 7 to play off the whole 'he returns every 23 years' line famous from the franchise), this is not that movie. It's an honest attempt to flesh out the franchise and give life through resurrection to the titular Creeper by developing his character. The problem is, they only half succeed.
via destructoid http://ift.tt/2fGro4x