I thought the first Jeepers Creepers was ok. I didn't think it was great, but I also didn't think it was horrible. I absolutely hated the second film.
I had a lot of problems with the series, especially in the second film. The biggest issue was the fact that the Creeper didn't abide by his own rules. Every scary movie has its rules. The creature is capable of this, but not that. You can kill it with silver bullets but not by running it over in a car a dozen times. It can't go out in the sun, or it doesn't like bright light, or it doesn't like hip-hop music. Whatever. I can't recall specifics anymore, having seen these movies some time ago, but I seem to recall that almost all of what got laid out in the first movie was completely ignored in the sequel. That's what sticks out in my mind, but like I said, I don't remember anything specific. You can't change the groundwork in a franchise movie. That's what makes it a franchise.
Also, I thought the Jeepers Creepers song was just ridiculous. I know they were sort of going for eerie, creepy, a la the little girls playing jumprope in the Nightmare on Elm Street: One, two, Freddy's coming for you.... The problem is that the Jeepers Creepers song just doesn't have the same effect. It's too upbeat, too cheery. Change the key of it or something, make a new recording, maybe then you could pull it off.
The best part of the first movie was keeping the monster mostly hidden, just like Ridley Scott did with the first Alien movie. Your imagination conjures up something worse than the best special effect. They overused his appearance in the second film. It got so that by the end of the film, you weren't even scared when you saw him. I was more afraid of Leatherface in Texas Chainsaw.
I also heard the happening wasn't that great of a film. I'll probably rent it. The interesting thing when you look at Shyamalan's oeuvre is that he doesn't necessarily make scary movies. Unbreakable wasn't scary, and neither was Lady in the Water. I tend to classify him as a maker of "weird" movies for lack of any better category. He gets some weird ideas, and ultimately makes the movie that he set out to make. As a case in point, based on what I've read of him, he was happy with Lady in the Water. Almost everyone else thought it was horrible. I think he just tells his stories, and occasionally they have a broader appeal (sixth sense, signs). That's what has made him famous. When you look at all of his films, he's had just as many flops as he has big hits. I used to joke that he would make one good movie, and then one bad one.
Alright, I'll check out the Orphanage.
