NickyDee07938

Firstly it's a clear genre piece - with revenge at its core. There is clear and unequivocal evidence to suggest that writers these days are being forced to dumb down their writing for audiences that want a continual spoonfed brain-off experience. That in itself is sad and makes it difficult to build worlds that are subtle, nuanced, and built for progressive release information streams that make audiences think, ask questions, and form opinion. But sometimes a genre just wants to deliver in its basest form, and thrill with every frame it can. Here is a film in such a genre that does exactly that - except with a lot more behind it. That alone should not surprise us, with the solid steadfast adherence to identifiable tropes that we have seen many times before, often poorly, but in this case presented very well and in a setting that is fresh and inviting. The African bush is a beautiful yet potentially terrifying landscape. The film doesn't waver in its presentation of brutality with its action choreography, and narrative drive, with a relentless pacing that barely gives pause for breath. All that adds up to a roller coaster ride of confrontation that lovers of this genre and the bloodhounds in audiences worldwide take reason to immerse themselves in what I and other filmmakers should consider an excellent addition to the genre. Its emotional and moral outlying themes blend, perfectly if minimally, into the action and whilst the project doesn't delve too deeply into how desperately that impacts the lead character there is enough nuance to grasp the psychological delemmas that she has to deal with on her journey to rescue those she loves. It sometimes demands suspension of disbelief to almost questionable levels but again it's par for a genre most audiences familiar with films of this type are prepared to overlook in favour of extreme action and brutal sequences of conflict. Performances were very good - the main characters embodied by the talent really came with their A game. Yes accents were a tad 'squiffy' at times and left me with more questions as to character origin than answers but again it didn't rile me to the point of upsetting my viewing pleasure. Cinematography was excellent, sfx and vfx right on the money, Editing was sharp and focused. Overall a terrific effort and one, as a filmmaker myself, I'd be more than happy to have on any growing filmography. Recommended.

Another low budget war-set film that failed to do its due diligence. I'm literally 4.5 mins in and already frustrated for everything else to come. When filmmakers, or more precisely storytellers, do not have direct experience in the field in which they are narrating, they have an obligation to research - and research the ass out of the subject. When they fail to do that, they fail in creating a world in which audiences can suspend their disbelief. There is simply no excuse for laziness in scene setting or character presentation especially when audiences are far more historically clued up. So, for anyone who's interested, just watch the first 4.5 mins and observe...... 1) uniforms have staybrite buttons. They should be brass. Such a small detail isn't hard to get right. Buttons of the era up to WW2 (any will do as you're unlikely to see insignia detail) are freely and widely available online. Staybrite are horrible and shout modernity.

2) Our officer, the Lieutenant interacts with a Corporal (stripes on his left arm) referring to him as 'Captain'.....twice just in case you think you misheard it.....

3) The 'Captain' offers up a salute to the Lt first - not the way its done. You salute the rank, not the man. If indeed he was a Captain the Lt would have come to a smart attention and offered up the salute to the new arrival.

It's pretty basic stuff to get right to be fair. The script is just plain awful if the actors are regurgitating what's on the page. And it's not the first film I've seen in the low budget war genre that has made this simple error..........and there's a lot more wrong here that I could labour on with. But to keep it short when you don't have much in the way of budget you have to make the most of what you do have. Be less pompous, cut the narrative back and tell a simple story well. War-set stories are ones where scrimping on accuracy simply isn't the way to best present your story and keep your audience engaged.

Young, wistful, enthusiastic but oh so uneducated in the wiles of delivering, and more importantly understanding, what makes a classic horror film. The "How to Butcher a Classic 101" class has just graduated. As other reviewers have already conceded, and most admittedly are likely casual film watchers and appreciators rather than bona fide filmmakers, trying to lay open all the errors, omissions, technical inadequacies, and downright gaffs that were made in the process of bringing this to the screen, could fill a tome the size of Plato's Illiad. A word to the wise - the great villains of original horror remain in the shadows for the best part of 2/3 (ish) of a movie's run time, maybe emerging briefly over the films course to raise the tension, but NEVER in a manner that reveals so much that the fear, anticipation, and downright surprise, is lost. Even when you know who the villain is and what's at stake. Look at Aliens (okay not a horror per se, but was it exciting? Even though you knew who the villains were?). It's all about building to a climax - as in most things. Sequels, prequels, re-imaginings, reworkings, remakes all (and I mean in terms of recent franchises) seem to have forgotten this one, important, nay almost singularly most critical, point of storytelling; never reveal the source of the fear until the audience is so engrossed they cannot help but watch for the outcome. Alien is a classic example of this. The Thing, Halloween (original), The Howling etc etc etc. All classics without peer. Because screenwriters, and filmmakers knew then what made people tick. The fundamental failing of horror franchises today is in capitulating to what they perceive as an audience call for kill-count irregardless of story, plot, or character motivation. But that's not what entertains the majority; that's an unassailable fact. It's story, suspense, fear of the unknown, the unseen, the darkness - core human fears that have existed since the beginning of man's time on earth. That is why today's executives who greenlight these woeful, under-developed, derivative, kill-count focused insults to the classics, will never support anything that seems like it's a 'throw-back' to decades past ie. Good, solid, original, developed, and story-focused that tap into primal fears. They have been fed dross, blood, gore, violence without cause, and now doing what they know through nurture, feed the rest of us the same slop. Somehow, somewhere, someone needs to get a firm hand on all this and go back to the basics, to the historically accepted methods and modes of storytelling that have been in existence since before the time of Aristotle. It isn't about changing the shape of the wheel, only the material the wheel is made of. It's about feeding audience expectation but in an unexpected way. It's so simple. Sadly, the young studio executives of today, and the filmmakers they exalt, seem to think changing the wheel shape makes them an auteur and worthy of admiration. The wakeup they all need is that the opposite is true. Jeepers Creepers: Reborn was bad in sooooo many ways, not least in its awful script. The writer should hang his/her/their head in shame. The executive who read it and thought 'yep, this one's ready to go' needs sacking. Cos he/she/they've just cost the studio/investor a good few quid that they'll never, and yes you know it, never get back. It wasn't worthy of being called a production ready script (and I know, cos I write, and have done for 25 years) - by at least another ten drafts. And that's being optimistic. Lighting, camera, sound, VFX (so much bad greenscreen it made my eyes hurt), production design, direction, and performances - all were dismally woeful and so much less than the original story deserved as a follow up. A director's primary job on set is to get the actors to deliver - to elicit believable, truthful presentation of character. That's a skill not everyone has. Clearly this director doesn't have it either. Dee Wallace, what were you thinking? When the foundation of your movie isn't properly formulated is it any wonder that everything else built upon it is shaky? Whilst they've butchered Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, TCM, Carrie, The Hills Have Eyes, IKWYDLS, with re-imaginings and some with untold numbers of sequels, this one, Jeepers Creepers: Reborn stands out as one of the worst to date IMHO. And I wouldn't be at all amazed if, as a franchise, it is subsequently consigned to the annals of history as a golden opportunity that went wide, oh so very wide, of the classic quality mark. Oh boy, can I get a refund on the time I've lost?!