Even though I wrote about the top five summer films to see in 2017 for MTSU Sidelines and The Mummy was the first film to be listed on there, I now take back what I say about this film for two reasons: One, it may not be a remake but it has a similar style of how the other films were introduced. For example, the narrator talking about the person who committed murder during the Ancient Egyptian times as well as being found, mummified, buried elsewhere along with a curse. Not to mention but Tom Cruise’s character Nick who kept zoning in and out of reality dozens of times throughout the movie which led to nowhere. And because I read information about the plot and wrote the review before going to the movies with my grandfather on an early, sunny Sunday afternoon with the thought of giving this film a chance to see if it would pass or fail the test. To no avail, it failed at an instant rate.
Secondly, there wasn’t a plot story to begin with. In other words, there were two guys who went from bombing Iraq when an airstrike suddenly hit one of the areas where they found the mummy’s tomb to flying with an archaeologist on a plane back to London when suddenly one of the guys from the aircraft was cursed and killed another individual and the plane crashed somewhere on the countryside of England.
Sure this isn’t a remake of the 1932 and 1999 films but it had a similar back story to it in regards to the mummy. It was disappointing in the end because there were far too many details in regards to Tom Cruise’s character seeing the mummy from ancient times and back to reality in a matter of seconds as well as Russell Crowe’s character explaining to him that he was like Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. The plot was extremely complex to the point where very little people had shown up to the theaters and watched the film. It failed to deliver what was promised and for that reason, the “Mummy” films should be left as is while throwing this one away in the garbage.
As a fan of the original Jeepers Creepers films which were released between 2001 and 2003, the third film finished the filming production in Louisiana two months ago with an unknown release date and with one of the strangest story-lines to be shared via social media.
After reading from a few sources, the plot of this movie will be a “fill in the hole” between the first two films. In other words, what happened after Darry’s death, before and after Billy Taggart’s death (second film). Sure, it’s understandable that some people would like to have some questions answered in regards to what happened before and after but why consider doing this plot now? Why didn’t they consider doing this before filming the second film in 2003?
Has it occurred to the writers and director that going with this story will ruin the suspense the audience first encountered when watching both Jeepers Creepers 1 and Jeepers Creepers 2 for the first time?
While some pictures have been released and used in other sources along with other information, I am going to keep this post real and beg the question to my audience: why go along with this story-line and not the one where people are curious about the Creeper’s origins? What makes this story seem to be better than the original script they intended to use?
Unlike the original film, this was a film which turned into a TV mini-series in 1996. With or without commercials, the mini-series would be over three hours long. Within the first part of the series, you will see what the Clutter family does before and during the time the killers break inside the home, searching for money. Meanwhile, you will also see Dick and Perry travel from Kansas City to Holcomb and break into the home. After Dick calls Nancy, the first part of the series ends and the second one begins where it will show everything else that happened and lastly, Perry and Dick going to “The Corner.”
There were a few things that were good about the series, but overall, it should have not been remade. The few things that were good are: 1) You see Nancy and Bobby spend plenty of time together and 2) but you see the tension between her and her father regarding their religious beliefs (Methodist) vs Bobby’s religious beliefs (Catholic) which was not shown in the 1967 film.
What this movie lacked was the actors and actresses not pouring their hearts and souls into their characters. In other words, they decided to play them without doing enough research and go from there. The acting was poorly executed and the series butchered the story without repercussion. In a previous post, the series was described as being “too fast paced.” What this means is that the actors and actresses spoke at a very fast rate and the acting didn’t have a realistic tone to it. The atmosphere in the series didn’t have a terrifying atmosphere unlike the 1967 film which was black and white for two hours and 14 minutes. This show switched from color to black and white in a matter minutes and hours.
To conclude this review, those who are interested in watching “In Cold Blood,” watch the first film before the series. It will make you transfix in a heartbeat.
What’s different about these two movies? How are they similar? For starters, the films are about one story which shocked the nation in mid-November, 1959. Another similarity to these films is that they were filmed towards the end of the 20th century, only 29 years apart from each other. But how different can they be from one another? It was different in many ways, from physical and emotional features of the characters to the story itself.
In Cold Blood (1967):
Story took time to build itself
Went by the book
Black and White from start to finish
Had a realistic tone to it (dark atmosphere)
Actors and Actresses put much time and effort into their characters
Stayed as one long film
Filmed at actual location where the murder took place & felt realistic
While In Cold Blood (1996):
Didn’t go by the book
Transitioned back and forth from color to black and white
Didn’t have any tone to it
Actors and Actresses didn’t put forth the effort into their characters
Split into two parts on TV
Filmed at different locations which didn’t make it realistic
From the three Shiloh films, we see how Judd Travers behaved as a human being, dog owner and how irresponsible/responsible he was. Character development takes time and the actor did fantastic to make sure he lived up to the expectations from the directors and audience members.
Judd thinks he is above the law. He assumes he can get away with so much because the Preston family never snitches on him regarding shooting animals out of season and abusing his dogs. When Marty made a bargain with Judd to work with him for 4 hours in 5 days, Judd broke his promise on the last day and arrived at the Preston household to grab Shiloh and take him back. He then stops the truck and realizes how sad Shiloh is when he is not with Marty. Judd then accepts his name as Shiloh and realized that he is not the owner anymore. He opens the door and Shiloh runs to Marty. Judd recognizes who Shiloh considered family and he drove off immediately.
Shiloh 2-Shiloh Season (1999):
Judd still thinks he can get away with things. This time, though, he became a heavy drinker and more temperamental. After getting in a truck accident from drinking and driving, he changed his tune, especially when Marty noticed that no one sends him letters. Marty sends him letters about Shiloh and how they both saved his life. He then realized how much the Preston family cares about him and eventually invites them into his home. Despite accepting him, everyone else has doubts that Judd can change his behavior. All it takes is someone to acknowledge, forgive and show kindness to him. Not to mention, but keeping your promises to him.
Saving Shiloh (2006):
Judd became much nicer and approachable. Marty is able to walk inside his home more often and discuss with Judd how it is not good to chain dogs, but rather keep them inside a fence where they are free to have room and space. Judd brings up his childhood, expressing how his father said that the dogs should stay mean and disciplined. Marty disagreed and it gave Judd a thought that maybe his father was incorrect after all, especially the horrible abuse he endured as a child. When someone in town disappears, the entire community accuses Judd because he was at the bar one night where he and that one guy almost fought. Turns out, two robbers who escaped jail killed the man but the town still didn’t accept Judd until he saved Marty and Shiloh from drowning in the nearest river. Afterwards, he was called a “hero” and received a job offer from the Fire & Rescue Squad. From then onward, Shiloh walked across the bridge with Marty on the way to Judd’s house.
To conclude this post, these movies make you realize that you cannot change someone overnight. Instead, guide them along the way and realize that you must have patience with the person you are helping and show them the beauty and reason to live life to their fullest potential. Judd Travers changed from a nobody to somebody, thanks to Marty, along with his supportive family and friends.
In a previous post, I discussed the typical stereotypes which didn’t match the “hillbilly” criteria for the Feather and Gutshall neighbors. For this post, I will mention briefly the unique aspects of this film and the not as unique part.
The Unique Characteristics:
It was filmed in the Southeastern United States. The majority of Hollywood films would be either filmed in California or New York.
You see two families competing against land which is similar to the story about The Hatfields and McCoys.
The Gutshall crew stuck together like glue whereas the Feather crew continuously fought each other until Thrush dies.
Great film, but with a confusing plot.
The Unoriginal Characteristics:
It doesn’t have a southern atmosphere to it, although they reside in the mountains.
They are portrayed as silly, mentally imbalanced and overbearing characters.
The plot doesn’t make sense, other than the Feather crew kidnapping the wrong woman whose name was supposed to be “Lolly-Madonna.”
The southern accents are not accurate except for one.
The last sequel of Shiloh which was released nine years after the first film, was just as fantastic and thrilling as the first two movies. In this movie, though, Judd is much nicer but still has a mean streak to him. For instance, when the dog bit him on the leg after stepping on his dog’s paw. He took his pain and anger out on Marty, but apologized to him afterwards. It shows how much Scott Wilson’s character changed from a mean, abusive owner at the beginning and turning into a pleasant human being with a heart that was never given to him as a child. His personality didn’t change overnight, but it changed within its own time which allowed him, Marty and Shiloh to communicate effectively and efficiently.
At the beginning of this last sequel, everyone in the community had doubts about Judd due to his previous behavior and drinking habits. The issue arises after Marty communicates with the bartender who saw Judd and a man named Nate fight over something that was never mentioned in the film. Eventually, Nate went missing and was killed by two robbers who escaped prison. Judd was blamed for Nate’s murder by everyone but when he saved Shiloh and Marty in the river and the two robbers were arrested, everyone changed their tune and began to respect him. He was labeled as a “hero” to them and he eventually got a job with the Fire & Rescue Squad.
The lesson to learn from these films is that you cannot judge someone until you know all of the facts about them. They are innocent until proven guilty.