I thought Jeepers Creepers (the original) was good up until it was revealed that the killer guy was a monster and after that it just sucked. I mean, why would a monster worry about dumping bodies into a fucking hole? Eh.
BUT.. the second one… well, it sucked when you go in there looking for a good movie… but if you went in there expecting a crappy B-grade horror movie, it was half good. It had all the dodgy actors, the massive plot holes, and it had a killer that was a monster right from the get go. The only problem I had with it was that all the gore and shit was done with CGI bullshit. I wish today’s horror makers would fucking do it without using their goddamn computers, it always looks fucking shit and has nothing on the “authentic” look of the ‘real’ special effects from the pre-90s. HOPEFULLY, with any luck, House Of 1000 Corpses will be like that… I think it is, but I’m saying ‘hopefully’ coz I’m not 100%.
Anyway, what I wanna know is, in the first one, the monster had the whole cave thing happening (forget how, he just did)… despite the fact he was a terrifying, indestructible winged beast. In the second one, he doesn’t care about that shit, he just tears people apart and leaves them where they land… what motivates him to alter his actions in such a drastic manner from the first to second films?
And surely it’s not something about him realising after the first film “Wait! I don’t have to hide them!”, because he’s had oh-so-many years to do that in the first place!
And… what’s the deal with him coming out every 27 years? Had it been every 28 years, the film(s) would be far more plausible.
And, if pulling his own head off is no problem, then surely his hunger pains wouldn’t be that unbearable?
I can’t wait for it to come out on DVD so I can buy one and smash it.