Jeepers Creepers 3 Is A Major Letdown For Fans Of The Series

      

      It took 14 years after the release of the second Jeepers Creepers for a third film to finally get made and now audiences get the long-awaited third installment of the franchise, that first began in August 2001 with the release of Jeepers Creepers. Made for a budget of only $10 million dollars, the first Jeepers Creepers not only became a box office hit but developed a cult following, that led to the greenlighting of a sequel, which was released on the same Labor Day weekend release as its predecessor two years later in 2003. Carrying with it an even larger budget of $17 million in comparison to the first film, Jeepers Creepers 2 ended up being slightly less successful than its predecessor along with garnering the same style of mixed reviews, but ultimately ended up doing well enough to generate talks of a third film. The road to Jeepers Creepers 3's production was not a smooth one as the film struggled to find proper financing, and almost went straight to DVD under MGM studios. Add to that a total of nine straight years of numerous false attempts to begin production as well as setbacks. Upon finally securing financing and beginning production in early 2016, the film came under fire due to director Victor Salva's involvement given his criminal past regarding a child molestation case in the late 1980's, which led to him being convicted and later rehabilitated. Undergoing numerous rewrites, the script was polished with its story now taking place between the events of the first Jeepers Creepers and Jeepers Creepers 2, rather than the story taking place 23 years after the events of the second film with Gina Philips returning in a much larger role as Trish from the first Jeepers Creepers, 
rather than being reduced to a cameo role in the finished product. Unlike the first two films which received full theatrical runs, the third Jeepers Creepers received a one night run in theaters in October 2017 before landing on DVD, mainly due to the controversy behind its directors past. One suspects that the finished product ended up being a result of the resistance Salva received in terms of securing funding for the film for obvious reasons as the third Jeepers Creepers is easily the worst of the three films in regards to storytelling, production qualities, and lacking both the sense of fun and creepiness the first two films carried in terms of terrifying audiences.

The plot for Jeepers Creepers 3 takes place in between the events of the first and second film (Confusing right?) with Sheriff Dan Tashtego and a team of creeper hunters enlisting the help of officer Davis Tubbs to help stop the monster's eating spree. Watching the newest Creepers film, one doesn't understand why the films plot didn't continue from where the second movie left off with audiences, as that movie's ending experienced a time jump of 23 years into the future showing that the creature from the first two films was only a few days away from getting the opportunity to escape and eat again. Instead of continuing that films story and focusing on the farmer Jack Taggard played by Ray Wise, who caught the Creeper and was guarding him, Salva chose to take the franchise a step back by going backwards in the series timeline. The new story makes little to no sense in the overall timeline of the series, and only serves to frustrate and largely disappoint fans, who went into the new film with great anticipation that the story would find new ground after the terrorizing of a school bus of kids. The film abruptly ignores the storyline of both films before it, which was a fatal mistake for the movies chances to be a decent sequel. If Salva wasn't going to add to any of the previous storylines from the first two movies instead of doing a standalone one in between, then what was the point of establishing and making the audience care for the siblings in the first movie or the angry and vengeful farmer in the second. At least with those films, the audience had characters that were fairly well-established, and made you care about their safety when the creature appeared on the screen. Sadly that's not the case here as the audience doesn't connect with any of the characters in this film with most being throwaway ones, that only serve to be appetites for the creature with no real depth to them. The creature himself is not as scary this time around as he's way overexposed compared to the previous two films. Jeepers Creepers 3 feels like it doesn't have any of the creativity, the cleverness, nor the passion that went into telling its story, that the first film had nor the campy fun of its sequel.

      In terms of the films acting performances. the actors try for the most part but feel as if they lack the energy and enthusiasm, that actors such as Justin Long and Gina Philips carried in the first film. Stan Shaw is introduced as a new character in the series playing Sheriff Dan Tashtego, whose brought in to help track the Creeper. Generally a strong character actor, Shaw does the best job possible job with playing his role despite how badly written his character comes across. Brandon Smith returns as Sgt. Davis Tubbs from the first Jeepers Creepers with more screentime delivered to his character (One still doesn't understand why such a minor characters in the first one got a larger role in this story when Trish's arc is left unresolved). He plays the part the same way he delivered his performance in the first, which was cheesy though effective despite his character feeling pointless in this film other than helping to bridge the story in between the first and third movie. Meg Foster is third in line for strongest bystander character with her doing the best she can with the character written for her as being a dementia-stricken old lady. The rest of the cast is made up of young teens who deliver serviceable performances with Gabrielle Haugh as Foster's daughter Addison, Jordan Salloum as her brother Kenny, and Chester Rushing as Buddy Hooks, the young country boy crushing on Haugh's character, fulfilling the movies quota of having a generic teen romance thrown in the mix of the story. As for the Creeper himself, Jonathan Breck returns to the iconic role and once again provides a creepy yet effective performance despite his character not being as impactful this time around (That's more of an issue with the films direction and writing rather than his performance). The performances as a whole are passable with everyone trying their best to make something out of the story, but don't have a strong script to work off.

      The films directing and writing by Victor Salva is well deserving of the criticism it receives as both works lack the creative feel that the previous films had. While neither Jeepers Creepers film was perfect and had their share of issues with each story, they always carried with them a sense of campiness, which made their stories thrilling regardless of how silly they came across. That sense of dedication and passion towards telling their story is absent here as everything from the writing to the films production values feels like a downgrade in quality. The CGI in the film is cheap and unrealistic compared to the work done in the previous films, both of which carried with them larger budgets. It doesn't help that the effects are plastered all over the film either and involve weird new surprise twists involving the Creepers van that was never revealed before in the previous films. Examples are a giant chain that shoots out of the van and can go straight into another car, or rolling explosive balls that fly out of the Creepers vehicle and can blow up vehicles during highway chases. The films pacing is uneven and all over the place with the story both lacking focus and feeling off compared to the first two films. The way that Jeepers Creepers 3 ends with it's final scene is how the movie should've began with the tying of the first two movies stories together. The previous films also had stronger characters, that made the audience give a damn such as Darry and Trish from the first movie. Their plot was simple and easy to follow while providing enough time for the audience to grow connected with them and care when Darry is taken by the creature and ultimately murdered. The first movie was essentially a simply story about a pair of siblings trying to survive against something mysterious and sinister, that's out of their control. The second film took what worked about the first movie and built upon it with the main focus being the high school football team with an effective side-by-side subplot involving an angry farmer father, who became hell-bent on killing the creature after taking his son. The difference between the plots of the first two movies and the one for the third film is the first two were well-balanced, fairly developed, and easy to follow. Regardless of how silly the second film came across as being in comparison to the first, the audience was still drawn to the story and having fun with the concept of a bunch of high school kids in a school bus being terrorized by the Creeper. The plots for the first two movies worked because they took each other's concepts and built off them to create what could've been a bizarre yet solid horror movie trilogy if Jeepers Creepers 3 had stuck to it's original script of taking place after the events of Jeepers Creepers 2. Wouldn't it have been a more exciting storyline to see Ray Wise's character from the second team up with Trish from the first film to take down the Creeper once and for all when he awoke at the end of the second movie? That would've been a much more satisfying film for fans than what they ultimately got here.

      The most eye-opening revelation about the third film being so poor in quality in comparison to the first two is not how bad the CGI is for the film, it's how poor the scriptwriting comes across along with how the story feels like a bunch of unfinished ideas thrown together without a straight-forward narrative. This is easily the most confusing and frustrating Jeepers Creepers film to follow in regards to its plot as the film feels like it jumps all over the place with numerous characters the audience doesn't give an ounce about because they aren't properly developed. Some of the movies subplots have moments of potential where it could've worked if more elaboration was placed upon it, while others prompt unintentional laughter due to how silly they come across. Examples of the story feeling like it's bouncing off the walls is Meg Fosters character getting visions from her dead son along with the audience being treated to Sargeant Tubbs pointless bickering with Sheriff Dan Tashtego. The films jumps from their subplots to that of the anti-Creeper gang, then to the ones involving the teenagers such as Buddy crushing on Addison with her character having her own subplot. The script tries so hard to juggle all of these stories while introducing all of these characters in an attempt to make them relevant to the plot when in actuality they feel unimportant, unnecessary, and distract from the true narrative of the series which is that the creature gets to eat every 23 years and 23 days. The first two movies brilliantly and effectively conveyed that concept in the most brutal fashion, yet here the Creeper doesn't feel like the same creature from the first two films. The Creeper is also not as scary in this one due to the amount of times he's shown in daylight, making his costume come across as looking cheesy (Anyone wonders why he's wearing a red shirt in this film in comparison to the others?) For whatever reason he chose to eliminate some of the key traits that made the Creeper such an intimidating and frightening figure in the first two films, Salva fundamentally changes his own horror movie monster and gets his characteristics wrong. Whereas the Creeper singled people out by smelling their fear and eating their body parts, he does nothing similar here besides just walk around and grunt. The CGI work on him is so terrible that when he flies away at night, it looks like painfully fake rather than being visually striking. The only good scene in the film involving The Creeper is a scene in the woods where a group of young teenagers bikers find the Creepers truck in the woods prompting his character to attack. Beyond that one of the most innovative and interesting characters in modern horror is completely betrayed by his own filmmaker and completely wasted.

       To put it blatantly, Jeepers Creepers 3 is an all around terrible film, that serves as being a massive letdown for fans of the first two who waited 14 years for a stronger story to continue the series from where the second film left off. Here, the audience still doesn't know the origins of the series main antagonist, though it's hinted that the main characters in the film do because of a hand, that allows people to see visions of where the creature came from and what he truly is. The audience never gets to see what the characters in the film saw, which makes such a subplot completely pointless, frustrating, and stupid. Looking at this film in comparison to the previous two Jeepers Creepers, one doesn't understand why Salva decided to go in between his previous films with a story that absolutely no one was interested in watching, and didn't choose to continue from where he left off with the end of Jeepers Creepers 2. He missed out on a really good opportunity to tie both of those films together by uniting all the survivors in what could've been a strong finish to a fun series of horror movies. Not only could the Creepers origins story been explored here, but audiences could've gotten the proper finish to the trilogy they waited 14-years for while giving Trish's character as well as Ray Wise's character from the second the justice they seek for the Creepers actions. The third Jeepers Creepers film is a bad movie any way that one cuts it, but its greatest tragedy is not that it's terrible, it's the lost potential the third movie had to wrap up it's series in a more satisfying fashion for fans of the series. The end of this film implies that the door is left open for a 4th film, which after watching this almost nobody will want unless a different writer-director helm it or the series gets completely rebooted. What could've been a sequel that gave fans what they wanted after waiting in anticipation for 14 years, ends up being a complete disappointment, that deserves to be forgotten about immediately after seeing it and erased from memory. You'll be better off for it once you see what has been done to the story.

Final Verdict: If you enjoyed Jeepers Creepers 1 and 2, skip and avoid this film at all costs and just rewatch the first two, it's way more satisfying than this.

A Wrinkle In Time Is Fun, Bold, Full Of Heart, And Carries A Great Message For Kids

       Much has been said about A Wrinkle In Time since it debuted in theaters last spring. Running a production and marketing budget of around $150 million dollars, the film ended up becoming one of the biggest box office bombs in movie history with losses totaling $131 million, while also receiving mixed to negative reviews from critics. Add to insult, the audience score sits at a ridiculously uncalled for 27 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. There was only one film that performed worse than A Wrinkle In Time financially last year and that was Mortal Enemies. The reception that the film received from critics was split with some taking issue with the heavy use of special effects and numerous plot holes, while others celebrated the diversity and female empowerment the film was promoting. Having seen the film finally, one can simply say that the final product while not perfect, is much better than what it's reputation gives it and actually serves as being a fun film that's a brave and noble attempt from acclaimed filmmaker of Selma and Netflix's When They See Us, Ava DuVernay to bring a children's fantasy story to life based on popular literature. With A Wrinkle In Time, DuVarney tries and succeeds for the most part in delivering a new type of kids adventure that has heart, imagination, and carries a good message behind it.

      The plot for A Wrinkle In Time centers around a 13-year old girl named Meg (Played wonderfully by Storm Reid), whose both frustrated and heartbroken due to the disappearance of her astrophysicist father (Played by Chris Pine) four years prior during an experiment involving time travel. Facing acts of bullying by classmates and being derided by teachers, she is introduced by her younger brother to three celestial friends serving as guardian angels (Played by Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling), who persuade her to take an inter-dimensional journey to find her father. Reading the synopsis for A Wrinkle In Time, one would get the impression that this film serves as being a cross between The Wizard Of Oz and Tron Legacy with the Oz comparison being a young girl transported into a different type of world, that's visually out of this world with the Tron Legacy comparison being her character is also looking for her father much like Jeff Bridges son in that film with the main plot difference being the gender swap. A Wrinkle In Time is guilty of utilizing large amounts of CGI to tell it's story to the point where the cinematography and effects come across as looking awkward at times, but the movie at its core is good-hearted and carries with it a sentimental message, that says the universe creates each person to be unique in their own ways with the ability to save the world. Some of the themes that A Wrinkle In Time's story covers ranges from absent fathers to broken families along with being guided by angels and spirits, science, diversity, love, respect, self-esteem, success, and determination. Watching the film, one feels as if DuVarney shaped this story to speak to young children (Particularly young African-American girls) in hopes of being a story that not only captivates them, but will reach to them on a personal level with words of encouragement and hope for their upbringing as they get older. She even incorporates themes that a lot of children experience in today's generation such as the absence of parental figures in their life as well as unstable and dysfunctional families. She shows the character of Meg as being a young girl, who experiences these themes while building up her own self-esteem and determination to make it on her own with the absence of her father-figure. Her character feels like she's a representation of what typical children of color go experience throughout their upbringing. Despite the many criticisms the film gets for the way it comes across visually, one cannot deny that DuVarney and the cast put their heart into the film as it shows through the performances and story shown.

       Along with the films visuals style, one of the movies strongest points lies within it's performances from the main actors. Newcomer Storm Reid does an impressive job playing the films main character Meg. She perfectly conveys her characters sadness, frustration, and hope that she can find her father again, while growing as a person throughout her journey. Levi Miller also shines as Meg's loyal friend and love interest Calvin, who accompanies her on her intergalactic journey to find her dad with Deric McCabe doing great as Meg's brother Charles Wallace. As far as the performances from the child actors go, they all do a really good job of bringing their characters to life and sharing both natural and believable chemistry together. In the supporting roles category, Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling all deliver strong performances as the three main guardians of Meg's character as they guide her on her trip. The three work extremely well off each other and appear to be having a blast contributing to the story. Chris Pine shines in a nice change of pace role as Meg's scientific father, who goes absent throughout most of the movie then reappears two thirds in. Pine brings a sincerity to his performance that makes his character likable despite leaving behind his family for selfish reasons. One takes interest in his relationship with Meg as shown through flashbacks in the first half of the movie. Overall, the cast as a whole ends up being one of the films strongest points as they all do a great job of playing their roles and adding realism to the story.

      The films directing by DuVarney earns credit for creating a visually striking piece of art with a powerful message behind it. She doesn't just bring the story to life, she creates a journey for the films audience to take while leaving it up to them if they wish to do so. Given that this was DuVarneys first real experience in regards to using CGI, she handles it very well though the coloring in certain scenes may come off as being a bit too extreme for some viewers. DuVarney always manages to get the strongest performances out of her actors with this project being no exception. Here she crafts a beautiful tale, that's aimed directly for kids and directs it with confidence in knowing which audience she's aiming for. She crafts a touching and heartfelt story that's about the conquering of ones own insecurities and faults with the antidote being love. Love in the film is presented as being a powerful force ultimately bends both space and time. The only criticism that can be directed at DuVarney's style of directing is the use of CGI in certain scenes comes across as being over-the-top and unnatural compared to other sequences. The films pacing feels appropriate which gives the story the right flow. The films cinematography, costume, art design, and make up are top notch as well as the films moving score by Ramin Djawadi. DuVarney set out to make this a kids oriented film and here she succeeds in creating her own The Wizard of Oz type story, that feels sentimental in the message it delivers to young children.

      The screenplay by Jennifer Lee and Jeff Stockwell is solid though has minor issues such as certain subplots feeling rushed and not fully developed. Meg's father leaving his family behind for scientific purposes felt rushed and not as shocking and hard-hitting for the audience as it could've came off had it been elaborated on somemore. Meg has moments where she describes some of the issues her character goes through with the audience being confused at some because there seemed to be no trace of them prior in the story. Despite the film feeling rushed in terms of scriptwriting, the screenplay makes up for it's shortcomings with the powerful themes it tackles. Lee writes the script as if it's one big analogy of life, while never feeling overly preachy in it's aim to teach people how they should properly live and treat others. The film basically says that those watching it should live life by avoiding and becoming disengaged from all the negativity they come across and focus on the positive or the "light". The writers elaborate on the way to do that by living as a good-hearted person, who puts oneself first while believing in their own potential family is also a driving force in the films story as the presence of such is needed in order for one to learn about their worth and be supported. While the scripts themes tower over the rest of the writing, the material itself feels rushed and not as fully developed as it should've been, ultimately taking what could've been a great fantasy film for kids and making it just an entertaining one.

      A Wrinkle In Time is a flawed yet decent fantasy epic for kids, that has an important message to get across to the youth and it does so reasonably and admirably well. The film definitely could've benefitted from more elaboration on some of the scripts elements as well as the restraint of the CGI in some areas of the film, but overall the end result is much better than the reputation people gave this movie. As an adaptation of the classic 1962 novel of the same name written by Madeleine L'Engle, A Wrinkle In Time is a faithful version of the story brought to life on the big screen with both imagination and charm. One cannot deny that the film isn't without it's moments of enchantment, even if the structure of the film comes across as feeling uneven at times. Given that Ava DuVarney tackled her first 100 million dollar budget film as well as a popular piece of English literature, she did reasonably well with the project given to her, especially considering the material itself was always going to be extremely difficult to film. The film has more positives to offer audiences than negatives with the pros being the films stunning visual experience, as well as the value that young kids will find with the films themes and concepts. Perhaps the films biggest flaw is how it expects everyone to think like a child in regards to embracing the concept, as it tries to reach for the stars in terms of being broad and inspiring. The film was hoped to bring in a wide audience but feels like DuVarney always had the film aimed specifically for young girls, who can relate to the character of Meg in terms of their struggles. Perhaps DuVarney saw herself with that character and felt like she knew the right approach to telling the story. Her attempt at taking a complex source material and bringing it to the big screen was fairly successful though not without it's moment of missteps. A Wrinkle In Time is one of the most misunderstood and unappreciated films of 2018. Whereas it struggles in terms of remaining balanced with it's writing, it thrives off the energy and heart the films stars and creators bring to the final product.

Final Verdict: If one is looking for an innocent and fun children's fantasy story with a strong message behind it that's ultimately empowering, A Wrinkle In Time is worth a watch.

A Star Is Born Is A Worthy Remake With Great Performances From Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga

      

      When one star fades, another one rises and shines. That is the underlining theme of A Star Is Born, an American musical romantic drama film directed by, produced, co-written and starring Bradley Cooper in the main role with Lady Gaga as his co-star. Cooper's film serves as being the third remake of the original 1937 film of the same title, followed by the 1954 remake, and the 1976 version which starred Kris Kristofferson and Barbara Streisand in the main roles. Originally, the project was supposed to be helmed by Clint Eastwood with Beyonce in the main role with various actors in the running for Cooper's role such as Leonardo Dicaprio, Christian Bale, Tom Cruise, and Will Smith with Jennifer Lopez up for Beyonce's part, which later went to Lady Gaga. The project ultimately was picked up by Bradley Cooper, who signed onto star and direct it with Lady Gaga joining the cast afterwards. The film ended up being a huge commercial success making over $434 million worldwide and opening to critical acclaim that landed it a spot on the American Film Institute's Best Movies of 2018 list as well as receiving a total of 8 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor for Cooper, Best Actress for Gaga, a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Sam Elliot, with a Best Song Oscar win for Gaga's "Shallow". Looking at the actual film, it's no secret as to why the film received such critical and box office acclaim, A Star Is Born is extremely well-performed, written, directed, and hard-hitting with its tragic romance, that also serves as being inspirational in a sense that as one person's star fades in terms of stature, they help another reach their full potential despite facing their own personal demons.

      The plot for A Star Is Born focuses on a fading rock and country music star (Played impressively well by Bradley Cooper), battling alcoholism as he comes across a beautiful young singer and songwriter (Played beautifully by Lady Gaga) with great star potential, but carries with her insecurities in regards to her looks and abilities. The two begin a romantic relationship with him helping her boost to fame status, despite their romance hitting serious obstacles in regards to her rising stature and his battle with alcoholism. Any of the audience members who've seen the previous versions of this story know that the love story ends in tragedy going into the new film. The film as brilliantly well put together as it is, deals with a culmination of themes regarding stardom, envy, love, lifting each other up, believing in oneself, struggle with alcoholism, addiction, money, grudges, substance abuse, and defining what beauty is ultimately. One can simply say that the romance in A Star Is Born serves as being a roller-coaster ride of emotions as the audience cares when Cooper and Gaga's characters are happy together, and get sad and frustrated when seeing them struggle with Cooper's character Jack's substance abuse issues playing a big part of the downfall of their relationship. On the surface, it may seem that their love story is a dysfunctional one due to the verbal abuse both characters share as well as the excessive drinking, but deep within the core of their relationship lies a powerful message about one person on the last leg of their career essentially using what's left of their talent and resources to uplift the other person, whose star is just rising making it one helluva romantic gesture. The film is not so much about the alcoholism and substance abuse issues the main characters showcase throughout the film, the story is about two people with common ground, who are music stars meeting each other, growing connected, aligning their careers and talents together, and for the time that they do spend together, try and uplift each other to shine brightly before one star ultimately fades for the other to shine. The film is about love and giving someone a chance to express themselves in the way they know how to do so best. Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga make for a dynamic romantic duo, who share a great deal of burning and passionate chemistry on the screen while bringing out the best in each other in terms of both acting and singing performances

      One of the key elements to the success of the 2018 remake is the performances of its cast. Not only does Bradley Cooper do a fantastic directing job, he's terrific in the main role as country singer Jack, showing charisma in the role while making it convincing that his character is completely in love with Gaga's character Ally even to the point of envying her with the more famous she gets. He also does well with brilliantly depicting his characters internal struggles in regards to his substance abuse, his battle with alcoholism, and ultimately feeling like he's a burden on those he cares about (Particularly Gaga and Sam Elliot's characters for example). Cooper also demonstrates great versatile range with his singing duties in the film. Lady Gaga shines and surprises in her first feature-length film performance. One knew that she was talented as a singer but didn't realize how much talent she possessed as an actress. She's terrific here and conveys all the right emotions the part required such as being a young woman with dreams, but also holds insecurities deep down. The audience cares about her as she rises to stardom while struggling with the harsh realities of being famous. She gives an emotionally powerful performance that comes across as being strong, deep, and personal. The chemistry she shares with Cooper is spot on with both doing such fantastic and likable jobs playing their characters that audiences can't help but become emotionally connected with them. In terms of supporting roles, Sam Elliot does a great job playing Bobby Maine, the white-haired, manager and brother of Cooper's character Jackson Maine, who always seems to be tasked with forever cleaning up after his younger half-brothers mess when he gets drunk. Elliot's character provides the perfect balance between the three main actors as Cooper and Gaga work perfectly together as equals with Elliot's character providing the strong supporting role needed to round out the main cast. Together, the trio as a whole deliver performances of a lifetime, that are all deserving of their Oscar nominations. Had any of these roles been switched with someone else playing them, the film wouldn't have turned out to be as good as it ended up being with their involvement.

      In terms of the films directing and writing, Bradley Cooper does a fantastic job helming his first directorial project. With A Star Is Born, he keeps the camera steady and allows the performances to do much of the work in terms of driving the film. What could've easily ended up being a bland and tired old remake, is given a fresh retelling for a new generation of audiences while remaining deeply affecting thanks to Cooper's skills as a director. The fact that he was wrongfully snubbed of a Best Director nomination for his work on the film is a tragedy as he crafts a moving story about making it to the top in the music industry, while experiencing the challenges and downfall of fame. He does a brilliant job of setting up the characters and the story in the films first half with the fear factor of stardom being beautifully conveyed through Ally's character. Cooper shapes and molds the story around Lady Gaga's performance while utilizing both her musical and acting talents as a vital asset to the stories success. Coopers work as both the co-writer and director of the film, showcases pure craftsmanship as he keeps the film grounded in reality with his method of directing while making the character of Ally almost feel like a personal reflection of Lady Gaga's own life. The films cinematography is top notch making the film engaging to watch visually like a young girls dream of becoming a star being turned into reality with the films music being incredible, particularly the sequence in which Cooper and Gaga's character perform "Shallow". Not only is the song well-written and performed, but it literally feels like Gaga puts her soul into it. Given that the story is centered around an era where people can become stars over night due to digital technology on their phones, Cooper does a beautiful job of bringing both realism and sincerity to a story that not only feels genuine, but hits hard with its emotional climax.

      As well-done of a film as the 2018 remake of A Star Is Born turned out to be, it ultimately wasn't the film to take home the Academy Award for Best Picture (That distinct honor went to Green Book). While there was certainly stronger films up there for consideration on the Best Picture list, it doesn't make the impact that the story has on audiences any less real or powerful. The difference between this version of the story and the previous remakes, is that despite the previous ones feeling more Hollywood, this version makes audiences believe that they are seeing these characters and story happening before their own eyes. While some audiences may be turned off by the substance abuse nature of the story, others will take notice of the films deep message regarding ones desire to make their dreams become a reality. That and the films relationship at its core is the heart and soul of the story, keeping the audience invested in the movie while wanting Jack and Ally to succeed as a couple in the music industry despite their obstacles. Every so often, Hollywood puts two leads together in a love story, that are so effective they literally create magic on the screen. With Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga, A Star Is Born carries that magic and charm, which makes the whole experience feel like lightning in a bottle for both actors involved. The film is not just a solid romantic drama, its a shocking revelation of how talented its two main stars are compared to what audiences previously thought. One of 2018's most surprising and strongest filmmaking achievements, that deserves both its financial and critical reception. It's rare to find a Hollywood remake that not only lives up to the expectations placed upon it to match its predecessor, but also be surprising. This one however lives up to the hype and is worthy of its title.

Final Verdict: For Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga fans, A Star Is Born Is A Must See.

The Girl In the Spiders Web Pales In Comparison to David Fincher's Stellar 2011 Remake

      

      Taking a foreign​ film thats become a classic and making an Americanized version of it is no easy task. The results have either been very good with examples such as the Hong Kong masterpiece Infernal Affairs being made into The Departed and ending up being a superior film to it's predecessor largely thanks to Martin Scorsese helming it, and not so good examples with foreign films such as Oldboy becoming classics and redone into a far inferior Americanized version. In the case of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, the foreign film based off a series of books by Swedish author Stieg Larson, which turned into a highly successful Swedish trilogy that later gained a cult following, was remade into the perfect Americanized version with David Fincher masterfully bringing the story to the big screen for American audiences after Sony bought the rights to the films. Both movies are not only exceptionally well done, but can literally stand on their own in terms of quality with a debate going on which version told the story better. Despite Fincher's movie being an overall success quality wise, the film didn't make as much money as the studio was hoping it would with the latter opting to make a standalone film, that draws influence from the novel with the same title. The 2018 action thriller film The Girl In The Spider's Web was created to serve as being a soft-reboot to David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, while also serving as a sequel in the Americanized version of the Dragon Tattoo series. Replacing Academy Award winner Rooney Mara in the iconic role of Lisbeth Salander is actress Claire Foy with her character fighting a mysterious organization called The Spider's, who are bent on seeking world anarchy. The end result is an unnecessary reboot and poor sequel to what's arguably a extremely well-done and near perfect American remake.

      The plot for The Girl In The Spider's Web features an all new cast and focuses on computer hacker Lisbeth (Played less effectively by Claire Foy) and maverick journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Played by Sverrir Gudnason) finding themselves being caught in a web full of cybercriminals, spies, Russian thugs and corrupt  government officials to retrieve stolen access codes for nuclear weaponary. The sad part regarding the plot of this film is not that it isn't a strong enough sequel to continue the storyline from where Fincher, Daniel Craig, and Rooney Mara left it, the story presented here had potential to be a strong sequel to the 2011 remake had it been supported by the right people and the scriptwriting being more fully developed. The end result feels rushed, uninspired, and is a major let down given the potential a David Fincher Dragon Tattoo trilogy had if he was allowed to continue his arc with the right actors and screenwriters behind it. As a soft reboot to that film, The Girl In The Spider's Web feels unncessary and a generic attempt to bring Lisbeth's character into the arena of being a female action heroine (which shes not if anyone's seen the foreign trilogy or the American version). The new film throws out the heart of the remake as well as all the elements that made that film work, and settles for a generic action thriller, that's as exciting as watching a baked potato cook in the microwave. As a sequel, it's unworthy of being connected to the film Fincher made and becomes frustrating to watch as the filmmakers take such a large detour from the greatness of the original, as well as replacing the talented cast that made the first one so compelling to watch. Watching The Girl In The Spider's Web, one can't help but miss the presence of Rooney Mara in the main role playing Lisbeth as well as Daniel Craig and Robin Wright Penn. What made the 2011 American remake so exceptional as a redo of the foreign film, was the total role commitment that the main actors had with playing their parts (Rooney Mara particularly), along with the fact that the film was a brutal yet a genuinely intense and captivating experience largely thanks to Fincher's masterful style of directing. Looking at the source material that he was given, Fincher was hands down the perfect choice to direct The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and knew how to bring the story to life while engaging the audience. Not only does The Girl In The Spider's Web lack the stamp that Fincher left on his film in terms of directing, it also lacks the energy and character devotion that the actors in his film brought to the roles. Here, the audience doesn't care much about the characters including Lisbeth cause the story isn't as well executed as the previous film, and lacks the same level of character depth.

      In regards to the films acting performances, the cast as a whole is uninspired and never feels like they truly want to be apart of this film other than obligation. The performances for the most part are serviceable but nothing spectacular to write home about, which is the total opposite of what Fincher's film was. Claire Foy does the best job with the material she's given, but ultimately comes across as being poorly developed as Lisbeth. Out of all the actresses that portrayed Lisbeth thus far, Foy is easily the weakest performance wise despite trying to do her best with the part. She's not a bad actress by any means but her character lacks the depth and edge Rooney Mara gave her in Fincher's film. Sverrir Gudnason is serviceable as Mikael Blomkvist, journalist for Mellennium as well as lover/partner of Lisbeth. His performance as well as his character doesn't leave the same kind of presence on screen that Craig presented in Fincher's film. Gudnason also lacks the chemistry with Foy that Mara and Craig shared together in the previous film. The same can be said towards Vicky Krieps in the role of Erika Berger, partner and lover of Blomkvists character, who was played much better by Robin Wright Penn in the 2011 movie. LaKeith Stanfield does a notable job in his supporting role as NSA (National Security Agency) security expert, whose assigned to track down Lisbeth. Sylvia Hoeks is also effective in her role as Camilla Salander, Lisbeths estranged sister, who also serves as the films main antagonist given she's the head of a major crime syndicate. She does the best job she can despite her character not being developed very well for the audience to really care about the sibling rivalry and grudge her character holds towards Lisbeth regarding their abusive father. Other supporting roles worth mentioning are Stephen Merchant as Fran's Balder, a terminated employee of the NSA and developer of a program called Firefall, which accesses the world's nuclear codes. He ends up requesting Salander's help in destroying the program he created, believing it to be too powerful for any player to have. Christopher Convery does fine as Fran's son August Balder as well as Andreja Pejic as Lisbeth's lover/partner Sofia. It's not the actors/actresses themselves that are the problem (Most if not all of the main performers are genuinely decent actors), it's the direction they received as well the poor scriptwriting that make their performances come across as being lackluster.

      The main issues with the film lie within both the directing by Fede Alvarez and screenplay by Jay Basu, Steven Knight, and Alvarez as co-writer. Despite the teams noble efforts, they don't feel like they were the appropriate ones to handle this project as the script doesn't match the elaboration and craftsmanship that writer Steven Zaillian brought to the 2011 movie. In terms of directing, Alvarez ditches the dark tone and mood that Fincher established with his film, and instead opts for a more James Bond style action movie approach to it. One of the biggest mistakes the filmmakers made with the film, was turning the story into a full-blown action movie in a style similar to James Bond/Mission Impossible, while connecting it to the previous film. This was an odd move despite the Millennium novels having action-oriented plots, and further makes the character of Lisbeth feel awkward in this one as her character arcs usually revolve around extremely slow-paced and small scale stories. While those stories weren't the most thrilling ones in the world, her character kept the audience engaged because of the unpredictability of what she would do next. One however doesn't imagine Lisbeths character dealing with issues such as shadow terrorist organizations, stolen nuclear launch codes, dodging explosions, outrunning rogue NSA agents, committing to hallway shootouts, and becoming engaged in both supercar and motorcycle chases. Given what Fincher's movie was about in regards to her character teaming up with Craig's to find a woman, whose been missing for over 40 years, the new sudden drift into espionage style thriller territory feels totally left field. Whereas Lisbeth was presented as being a character with vulnerabilities in the previous film, she's suddenly portrayed as being a super-heroine in this film with little to no weak points. Add to that the lack of depth her character gets in this film with Alvarez eliminating her character's anti-social appearance. The parts of Alvarez's directing that do work are the beautiful Swedish scenery that's filmed, giving the movie a Bond/Mission Impossible action style feel with Lisbeth as the main character. The films action and stunt sequences are reasonably decent and well-filmed with examples being the car chase in the films middle section involving Lisbeth as well as the bridge sequence. The films fast-pacing doesn't benefit the story as it makes everything feel rushed given the film clocks in at 115 minutes, which is significantly less than the originals 160 minute running time. The main issue with the story despite the fact that it had potential to be a good sequel to Fincher's film, is the lack of believability that it carries. Lisbeth was presented as an anti-social computer hacker, that hated everything "establishment" in the previous, now all of a sudden is saving the world and comes across as being super human like with how she's able to survive being drugged, burned, and even shot. The Bond style action that the film possessed made it hard to take seriously at times. The character of Mikael feels so out of place in this film that he essentially could've been written out of the story and it wouldn't have changed much of the films narrative given the main focus was aimed at Lisbeth's character. The subplot involving Lisbeth and her estranged sister isn't given much development and buildup for the audience to truly care about their rivalry. With The Girl In The Spider's Web, the filmmakers trade rich character development and masterful mood setting for the action elements of the source material it draws from. The end result feels like another generic wannable Bond style action movie, that carries a female heroine in the main role. One doesn't understand how the director of the surprisingly good Evil Dead remake can turn out something as disappointing as this.

       One simply doesn't understand why David Fincher, Rooney Mara, and Daniel Craig weren't simply allowed to continue the work they started with their film as it would've certainly ended up being a much better sequel than what this turned out to be. It probably wouldn't have been as action-oriented as this film, but it would've been a much stronger movie in terms of story and characters. While The Girl In The Spiders Web is not necessarily a terrible movie, it's also not a good one and comes across as being bland and painfully average with little to offer outside of it's well-shot action sequences. It feels like the soft reboot that absolutely no one asked for given the original managed to make a small profit and garnered several Oscar nominations, though didn't gross the absurd $500 million worldwide Sony studios was hoping for. Their refusal to fund a proper sequel with the same returning cast, writers, and director is the greatest tragedy of this film as it could've worked with the right influences behind it. Though Fincher's movie was a slow-burn in terms of pacing and character development, his skill at building steady tension while filming the slick and cold beauty of the setting made it one of the rare American remakes, that lived up to its foreign counterpart. The difference between the exceptional Swedish trilogy, Fincher's movie, and Fede's Alvarez work here is that the first two had their filmmakers artistic stamps all over them which gave them a soul, Alvarez's film lacks that stamp and feels like a rushed and ultimately poor attempt to reposition the main character for today's audiences. The Girl In The Spiders Web to put it bluntly is a heartless, forgettable, and sad attempt to reboot a film that didn't need to be done over again in the first place, and should've been expanded on rather than forgotten. One can find many other things to do with their time other than to waste it watching such a giant misfire.

Final Verdict: If you enjoyed the Swedish The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo trilogy or even David Fincher's film, SKIP this one. It's an unworthy sequel and unnecessary reboot to that film that's insulting to fans of the source material.