Jeepers Creepers

Jeepers Creepers

A college-age brother and sister get more than they bargained for on their road trip home from spring break. When the bickering siblings witness a creepy truck driver tossing body bags into a sewer near an abandoned church, they investigate. Bad move! Opening a Pandora's Box of unspeakable evil, the pair must flee for their lives -- with a monstrous "shape" in hot pursuit.

On their way back home during the spring break, Darry and Patricia Jenner witness a mysterious person dumping something down a tunnel. Deciding to discover what was dumped down there, Darry discovers a huge disturbing hideout full of modified bodies. Darry and Patricia set off to get help, unaware that the individual is now aware of who has been down the tunnel. Darry and Patricia soon realizes that their pursuer is not just a mysterious person, but something even more horrifying, who has more in store than they could possibly imagine. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Jeepers Creepers torrent reviews

Mario R (ru) wrote: Why don't egyptian films have the right to a picture here?... :-( very good film! ????

Edith N (jp) wrote: The Word Has Never Been Written or Uttered Which Should Not Be Published We are kicking off Banned Books Week with a tribute to Barney Rosset. He is not the most pleasant of people, but he is a hero to the fight against censorship. As the publisher of Grove Press and [i]The Evergreen Review[/i], he led the fight to get [i]Lady Chatterley's Lover[/i] published in the United States. [i]Tropic of Cancer[/i]. [i]Naked Lunch[/i]. [i]I Am Curious (Yellow)[/i], when he branched into film. Basically, his entire career was based on fighting for your right to read whatever you want to. Oh, and his right to publish it, but he didn't make any money at it and indeed lost a fortune on court expenses. He had thousands of copies of [i]Tropic of Cancer[/i] sitting in a warehouse, because he could only afford court battles for one book at a time and he was already fighting for [i]Lady Chatterley's Lover[/i]. Barney Rosset was the son of a banker. During World War II, he worked with the film division of the Army Signal Corps. And after the war, he somehow drifted into publishing. If there was a court case involving censorship in the US in the second half of the twentieth century that involved neither the schools nor actual pornography, odds are pretty good it did involve Barney Rosset. He became the American publisher for such writers as Samuel Beckett and Pablo Neruda. He published Malcolm X and Che Guevara--and got his office bombed for the latter. He pursued First Amendment cases to the Supreme Court--and then had to keep fighting the case in court, because apparently that means less than people think it does. He doesn't seem to have been a very good businessman on top of that, and his attitude toward women was a bit lacking. Though he also assumed that the people trying to unionize his office were feminists teamed up with the FBI. It is true that he was under government surveillance, but that seems to me to be a bit much. The important cases are not always won by the most worthwhile people. Rosset was half-Jewish, but there seems to have been a strong streak of antisemitism to him. When he was a child, his father (the Jewish parent) told him never to marry a Jewish girl, and he never did, though he did marry four other women over the years. Apparently, he used to spend quite a lot of time belittling one of his wives over the office intercom. I mean, I spent quite a lot of the movie very angry at him as a person. He seems to have had a strong sense of entitlement, though he did also seem determined to use that to better the world. One of the things he felt he was most entitled to was his First Amendment rights, and I can't argue that point. I'm not sure he was ever really interested in most of what he published for its literary merit, but I don't really think he had to be for it to be worthwhile. The point was that he thought it needed to be published, and that overcomes a lot in my opinion. And it is true that you don't have to think something is worth reading to think that it has a right to be published. I find [i]Catcher in the Rye[/i] to be remarkably boring, as it happens. I read it in high school, which is when you're supposed to in order to be most moved by it, and I hated it. I thought Holden Caulfield was a whiny little snot who deserved everything bad that happened to him. I've never read [i]Naked Lunch[/i] and probably never will. I could go on. Literature is very personal, and what's meaningful to you is not necessarily meaningful to someone else. But to deny it publication because of the harm it might do? Ridiculous. After all, our government was created in part because of revolutionary literature. It's probably why the First Amendment is, well, [i]first[/i]. Our country would not exist without the Founding Fathers' ability to say and publish what they wanted, and believing what you want just naturally connects to the rest of it. I studied banned books in college, actually. I'm not sure how much I read that was originally published in the US by Grove Press, but I know I received the benefits of Barney Rosset's life work. I do believe in the concept of "age appropriate"; I have argued in favour of the NC-17 rating, for example, and one or two of the books I read for that study, I thought, "Well, I get taking this out of an elementary school. But high school?" However, declaring things obscene and unable to be published or sold in a certain jurisdiction is taking choices away from adults, and that's ridiculous. Now, I don't remember my mother's ever having censored what I was allowed to read, probably on the grounds that, if I was capable of reading it, I could decide for myself if I got the concepts. However, that was Mom's choice. I was her child and her responsibility, and no one had the right to tell her that I wasn't allowed to read things she thought I could. Whatever else he did, Barney Rosset fought to let us all make our own choices.

Paul S (kr) wrote: Complete pile of wank. Only watched it because of a certain person who shall remain nameless...

Johnny L (br) wrote: The first Kirby Dick work I watched. It's very good and exposes hypocrisy within the MPAA ratings board.

Arven A (br) wrote: Still the best Superhero film I've seen (the extended version) though a couple of Batman and X-Men movies come close. There's something sickeningly saccharine about most of the superhero movies around, even the good ones. Love the distortion of the genre in this one.

Gordon S (gb) wrote: Tarzan and the lost talent???

SaRaH MaRiE (it) wrote: love the movie! paul is so hot!

Missy R (fr) wrote: I saw this movie for the little supporting role Tom Wood (Noah Newman, "The Fugitive") played but really seriously ended up really loving this movie. It's so witty. Andy Garcia is amazing!

Keith W (es) wrote: This movie was actually better than teen wolf with Michael J Fox.

Frat B (us) wrote: I was a teenager when I watched this movie, it was fabulous. The short movie he makes inside the movie was quite good as well...

Yash B (us) wrote: It's nothing compared to the original but it is has some fun moments. It is definitely a forced sequel but it is watchable thanks to Steve Carrell.

Kalil H (de) wrote: More Kubrick? YES PLEASE!

Chelsea L (fr) wrote: I have always loved this movie. I have always thought that Burt Reynolds never truly got the accolades he deserved. The whole cast was just amazing, and they had the best male chemistry going. This is a movie that I often buy for the younger generation to show them that Burt Reynolds was so much more than "Smokey and The Bandit". If your out there Burt I just want to thank you for an amazing movie. You deserved so much credit for this film! This movie also set a record for the fall stunt at the end.

Scott C (es) wrote: This film got a lot of attention back in the day...mainly for Linda Fiorentino. She was great and I do remember this being fairly entertaining.

Grant S (mx) wrote: Nobby Graves is a working class man, with a wife and several kids, living in Grimsby. His brother, Sebastian, went missing 28 years ago and he hasn't seen him since. Little does he know that Sebastian is now a secret agent with MI6. Sebastian is currently working on foiling an attempt by a terrorist organisation to disrupt a prestigious event and kill a famous actress and social activist. Nobby goes to the event to meet Sebastian but hinders Sebastian's operation, making Sebastian look like the perpetrator of a terrorist act. Trying to track down the actual terrorists while on the run from the law, the two brothers now need to rely on each other more than ever...Better than expected, though that doesn't say much. I wasn't expecting much, as the trailer looked rather low-brow and puerile. Turns out, it is mostly low-brow and puerile, but it does have some very funny scenes and lines. It also has some of the most over-the-top scenes you'll ever see, scenes that really rely more on shock value than anything else for their laughs.Overall: silly but has its moments.The earlier stuff of Sacha Baron Cohen, who wrote and stars in Grimsby - Da ALi G Show, Borat and Bruno - was brilliantly funny. That humour was of a candid camera nature, relying on the other participants to be unaware that it was a set up. Now that he has turned his hand to non-candid humour, his movies are far less funny and far more low-brow. The Dictator was okay, but not great, and with Grimsby the trend in quality is downward. A pity, as he is an incredibly talented man and is capable of far better than this.