1067_3786646388.jpg
Rest Easy, Angelina


Jennifer's Body / Ted Boynton

Film Reviews | September 21, 2009 | Comments (101)


Had the phrase “hot mess” not existed before the release of Jennifer’s Body, the film would have presented the perfect excuse to coin it. Screenwriter and producer Diablo Cody’s second feature film, an ersatz horror story set in a small town high school, provides the first real test as an actor for internet-manufactured hottie Megan Fox, until now lost among giant robots and special effects in the Transformers franchise. As it turns out, Fox has neither the acting chops nor the movie star charisma to elevate the disorganized tornado of horror movie clichés and leaden one-liners whirling around her, and with no real base to support the film, Jennifer’s Body quickly careens into an incoherent exercise in high production values glossing over an utter lack of imagination. Fox’s co-star, Amanda Seyfried (“Big Love”), brings nothing to the table beyond some bug-eyed reaction shots, and between Fox’s limp performance and Cody’s Swiss cheese story, it’s hard to say which is the pig and which is the crappy dime-store lipstick. (Director Karyn Kusama certainly deserves to split some blame with Cody, but since Cody gets all the media play, she gets the razzberries as well.)

Jennifer’s Body offers up Fox as Jennifer, a high school vixen who still pals around with nerdy childhood friend Needy (Seyfried) despite Fox’s status as a smoking-hot cheerleader. We know Needy is a nerdette, you see, thanks to Movie Cliché #11, i.e., “hot chick + heavy-rimmed eyeglasses + unusual hair + literacy = Dorkotron 5000.” Oh, and also because her name is “Needy.” In real life Seyfried is a luscious bit of blonde honeycomb, but in the world of Jennifer’s Body she magically turns into a geek with the simple application of the sexy librarian costume from the prop department. Similarly, Fox telegraphs Jennifer’s role as the Generic Spoiled Slut through time-honored bad-girl activities such as dragging Needy to a seedy bar to seduce a skeevy musician, complaining about the painful butt sex she endured from a jock boyfriend, and bragging about the police being in her pocket because “Hello? I date a cadet.”

Although Fox does her best dead-eyed flirting with the band leader, a fire erupts in the bar before she can close the deal, killing several patrons in the conflagration. In the confused aftermath, Jennifer is abducted for a Satanic ritual after a mix-up leads to her being mistaken for a virgin. Jennifer is hardly a virgin, of course, which botches the sacrifice and allows a succubus demon to possess her body (not to mention leading to the clever title). The demon sets out to satisfy its ravenous hunger by chewing the viscera out of several local high school boys. From there it’s up to Needy, aided by her dorky, good-hearted boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) to battle the supernatural force controlling Jennifer.

Jennifer’s Body contains so many bad narrative decisions and hackneyed horror gimmicks that it’s difficult to do justice to the overall product. The mistakes occur early and often as the film opens with Needy in a mental institution, immediately tipping the viewer that she survives the story. That’s an unfortunate spoiler considering her central role in the showdown with the demon controlling Jennifer. Needy then sets the stage with the lazy screenwriter’s age-old gimmick, a voiceover narrative setting up the flashback to Jennifer’s possession and subsequent rampage. From there, Jennifer’s Body rambles out of control down a long, rocky slope into oblivion.

While it should go without saying that enjoying a movie about demonic possession requires a substantial suspension of disbelief, Jennifer’s Body demands a level of credulity more consistent with decapitation. Even horror fantasies require an internal set of rules for structure and meaningful conflict, but Jennifer’s Body slogs along through a bilious cloud of clichéd horror movie tropes, slapdash continuity problems, and distracting narrative non sequiturs. For example, when Needy learns that Jennifer might be possessed, she plods through the threadbare plot device of rummaging through the library for books on the occult. This scene was already tired when last employed by Alone in the Dark’s Tara Reid (coincidentally also in sexy librarian mode), and one can’t help but be curious about why Needy’s high school library has a surprisingly comprehensive collection of literature on ritual sacrifice and demonic possession. Later, when Chip ignores Needy’s warnings not to attend a dance where Jennifer is likely to feed again, he makes sure to go there through a dark, foggy park by himself, despite the recent bloody disembowelments of several of his classmates. Of course, when Jennifer appears out of the mist, Chip trustingly trots off with her to a nearby ancient Roman bathhouse, complete with vines encroaching through the windows, which just happens to adjoin the school grounds.

Because Fox’s wet blanket of a demon generates absolutely zero scares, Jennifer’s Body relies mostly on el cheapo startles to generate tension, such as Jennifer showing up behind people with no warning and don’t-look-behind-that-door frights where things jump into view from off-screen. In fact, the “R” rating for Jennifer’s Body is pretty laughable given the glaring lack of anything remotely scary. The film doesn’t feel the least bit creepy, there’s no unsettling gore, and not one original twist on the genre leaks through. A powerful demon that supposedly turns its victims into “lasagna with teeth” shows off almost none of its killing prowess. Even more offensive, no one gets naked on screen, though we see enough of Megan Fox to realize that she has a surprisingly hairy back; given the unfavorable lighting and angle, the cinematographer must have been pretty sick of her shit by the time they shot that scene. The only sexual content is an awkward encounter between Needy and Chip that’s interrupted by Needy’s inexplicable vision of blood oozing through the ceiling (hello, cliché!) and one of Jennifer’s ghostly victims sitting in a chair next to her (cliché, stat!). It’s not hard to imagine Diablo Cody going back to the MPAA to beg for the credibility of an “R” rating, considering how PG-13 this whole silly thing feels.

Anyone who found the smart-alecky dialogue and quirky characters in Cody’s Juno overly precious and twee will cough up a hamburger phone over the pointless character contrivances and non-stop stream of self-consciously hipster jargon oozing through Jennifer’s Body. Fox reels off a steady patter of unconvincing slang, unironically using “freaktard” as an insult and remarking that Needy’s boyfriend “must be packing some serious pubic inches.” Later she advises a classmate that his flirting “gave [her] a wettie.” Poor J.K. Simmons reunites with Cody in an empty, throwaway role as a high school teacher who has — wait for it — a hook hand.

Let me repeat that: He has a hook where his hand should be. No explanation is offered for why he has a hook hand, nor is the hook used for any purpose in the movie other than as a cheap device to give the character an unearned off-beat feel. Amy Sedaris is also pointlessly cast as Needy’s mother, with no chance to display her talents in two short scenes, and Lance Henriksen is wasted in a tiny, uncredited cameo near the end of the movie.

Perhaps anticipating audiences’ huge collective yawn, in recent weeks Megan Fox has taken to asserting that Jennifer’s Body is a comedy. That might be an interesting theory if the film were the least bit amusing, and it’s certainly true that Jennifer’s Body desperately wants to blend the self-referential cheek of Scream with the jaundiced, absurdist’s view of high school from Heathers. The problem is that both of those films packed a great deal of substance into creative twists on genre conventions, along with dark humor, cutting dialogue, and great pacing. Jennifer’s Body has none of those elements, and the resulting turd sandwich should serve as a cautionary tale to overheated, undertalented starlets and oh-so-precious screenwriters alike: You might hide behind giant robots and a tight tee-shirt, or you might hide behind the sweet chemistry of Ellen Page and Michael Cera, but you can’t hide behind each other. We see right through you.

Ted Boynton is usually picked last for kickball, mostly because he treats it as an opportunity to lounge in the outfield with a bottle of rye and a Lone Star - there’s no “I” in “team,” but there are at least two in “inebriation.” Ted also manages to hold down a job and a wife, three hours each per day, whether they need it or not. Readers may scold, hector, admonish or taunt Ted by e-mailing him at thecarygrantrules@hotmail.com.


Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs Review | Eyes Wide Shut







Comments

I can't really explain why after reading this review, but I liked it.

Posted by: Manda90210 at September 21, 2009 3:26 PM

Well that just went from rentable to rather scoop out my own eye and eat it rather quickly. Oh well.

Posted by: Jadashay at September 21, 2009 3:36 PM

Manly yes, but I liked it too.

Posted by: bostonadrianne at September 21, 2009 3:36 PM

I guess I shouldn't go looking for logic in a movie like this, but why would anyone go virgin-hunting in a bar? Why not, say, lurk in the dark shadows of the parking lot of a Purity Ball? Maybe wait near the ladies room at a Jonas Brothers concert?

A bar would not be top of my list.

I knew I wouldn't be seeing this movie when I heard the name "Needy." It wasn't likely before that, not with Megan Fox headlining, but Needy sealed the deal.

Posted by: Wednesday at September 21, 2009 3:49 PM

Just a real quick question here:

Is Megan Fox's entire acting resume limited to the two Transformers flicks and this whatchamafrig? That's it? I'm not gonna sit here and bash her for whatever the hell everybody bashes her about because - quite frankly, I've not seen either Transformers movie, nor have I seen/read any interview(s) or even heard the friggin' lady talk - but Sweet Sugardusted Christ, the amount of coverage she's received on magazine covers, gossip blogs, talk shows, etc. made me think she'd at least been around for a while... Ah, fame - what a quickly-rising yeast infection you've become...

Posted by: Skitz at September 21, 2009 3:55 PM

curious about why Needy’s high school library has a surprisingly comprehensive collection of literature on ritual sacrifice and demonic possession.

Perhaps on loan from Sunnydale?

Posted by: ed newman at September 21, 2009 3:58 PM

one can’t help but be curious about why Needy’s high school library has a surprisingly comprehensive collection of literature on ritual sacrifice and demonic possession.

Well, Sunnydale had a similarly comprehensive collection, and it did them a world of good, so.... there's that.

a nearby ancient Roman bathhouse [...] which just happens to adjoin the school grounds.

Seriously? So this high school is not only on a Hellmouth, but located somewhere in ... Europe? I'm fairly certain there are no Roman bathhouses in the U.S., can someone correct me if I'm mistaken on that?

Finally, Boozehound! Hooray!

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at September 21, 2009 4:04 PM

Heh, ed newman. This is why I should read quicker, and refresh before I comment.... Well, as they say, great minds and all that.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at September 21, 2009 4:06 PM

Is it true that the high school in this movie is something like "Devil's Cauldron High" or something along those lines?

I read that somewhere between film reviews in a magazine, and I knew immediately right there that this movie was going to be a waste of celluloid...or digital film, whatever.

Megan Fox has the acting capability of a ham sandwich. And it's not that I was expecting Cody to pen another Juno or anything, but this is like Christopher Nolan doing Half-Baked: it just doesn't sound right at all.

Posted by: Riley at September 21, 2009 4:06 PM

"it’s hard to say which is the pig and which is the crappy dime-store lipstick."

"who still pals around with nerdy childhood friend"

tee hee hee...at least Palin is good for something

Posted by: Agent Scully at September 21, 2009 4:06 PM

Skitz, Megan Fox is mainly famous for being the girl who screwed Brian Austin Greene, that dude from the original 90210. Like you, I couldn't really believe that, after all the press she's gotten lately, she's only been in three pictures, so I checked her out on IMDB. Apparently, in 2008 she was in something called - wait for it - "Whore", which also included Rumer Willis in the cast.
I think it's safe to say that Angelina isn't sitting up nights worrying about Megan Fox.

Posted by: Carolina Girl at September 21, 2009 4:17 PM

Anna Von B already covered everything I was going to say.

I also feel like Megan Fox has been around too long to be playing a highschool student. I had to go look her up on imdb and she's only 23. I thought she was 35. Anyway, apparently she's been in some movie called "Whore" with Rumer Willis and Ron Jeremy. I think we need a Pajiba review of that one.

Posted by: BWeaves at September 21, 2009 4:20 PM

Ah, Carolina Girl. Great minds think alike.

Posted by: BWeaves at September 21, 2009 4:22 PM

(not to mention leading to the clever title).
---
That's meant ironically, right? Sure it is. You DO know that was the title of a Hole song, right? Sure you do. Of course, the reverse was true in the song:

"They found pieces of Jennifer's body."

No such luck with Fox? Bah.

Posted by: , (TCFKAB) at September 21, 2009 4:23 PM

Hey Skitz, Fox has been around...that bitch was in Bad Boys II, you can't fuck with that.

I'm still going to see this movie. Everytime I see the trailer I giggle like a little schoolboy. Sue me.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at September 21, 2009 4:24 PM

Wasn't the presence of a "surprisingly comprehensive collection of literature on ritual sacrifice and demonic possession" in Sunnydale's school library a result of The Watcher's presence in Sunnydale's school library.

Posted by: Henry at September 21, 2009 4:25 PM

Question mark at the end there.

Posted by: Henry at September 21, 2009 4:27 PM

Henry you are right. The books came from Giles' Watcher duties.

Posted by: androstarr at September 21, 2009 4:31 PM

Great review, man. You really summed up how I feel about Diablo Cody and her stupid dialogue that some people think is "clever". CNN just reviewed this movie and praised it as such. Ugh.

Posted by: Matt at September 21, 2009 4:32 PM

I already hated Diablo Cody, but the fact that she decided to use the phrase "he gave me a wettie" just cements my hateration. The ever-present, unrelenting, pretentious hipster dialogue is what ruined Juno for me. I credit the success of that movie to the actors in it, and not the horrendous script.

Cody's horrid dialogue + Megan Fox (ugh) + a character named "Needy" = there won't be a leopard print clad Bettie Page wannabe getting an Oscar this year.

Or at least I hope not.

Posted by: inflammatorywrit at September 21, 2009 4:37 PM

so much potential.

oh well.

Posted by: jvo at September 21, 2009 4:39 PM

Heathers, Clueless, and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" all played with language -- so I don't understand the gripe against Cody.

I also wonder if maybe a guy reviewing this film might miss some of the bigger points about what the movie is saying about toxic female friendships. I was impressed with the subverting of several cinema/literary tropes. The princess having to battle vines to reach the prince. The amulet that grants protection, but ultimately destroys.

It's a better movie than your review paints it to be. It's too bad some won't see it for themselves because you so greatly misunderstood it.

Posted by: Mike B. at September 21, 2009 4:43 PM

"You might hide behind giant robots and a tight tee-shirt, or you might hide behind the sweet chemistry of Ellen Page and Michael Cera, but you can’t hide behind each other. We see right through you."

This is the best line I've read in this site in quite a while. Anyway, despite loving Juno I can't stand Diablo Cody and I just hate Megan Fox for all her undeserved fame so I'm glad this movie sucks

Posted by: Radlum at September 21, 2009 4:44 PM

Hey you zombie experts, have you heard about this Lynch Mob movie? It's just a racket game, right? The trick is that it totally sucks, am I right?

Posted by: Jackseppelin at September 21, 2009 4:45 PM

Seconded on every point, Radlum.

Posted by: Todd at September 21, 2009 4:54 PM

It's a better movie than your review paints it to be. It's too bad some won't see it for themselves because you so greatly misunderstood it.

Heh, this is my favorite obnoxious self-affirmation of commenters on this site: "You just didn't get [movie/show/book/album]. You couldn't possibly have understood it, because I liked it and you didn't. You must be blind to the artistic fabulosity to which I am privy."

How about, "I liked it because of [X]. I disagree with this review."

I haven't seen it, but even if you're right about the theme that socalled allegedly missed, that doesn't excuse the rampant cliches and other severe flaws discussed in some detail here and in many other negative reviews.

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at September 21, 2009 4:58 PM

I read an interview with Kurama where she says that this is a horror movie and that it's about the hatred women can carry against other women (even friends) and that it's movie is different because it's heroine vs girl-monster (with boys only serving as fodder).

I'm sure she told this to Fox and she, of course, understood it all to mean "comedy."

There might be a decent idea buried underneath all of this. It just sounds as if no one was quite sure what they were making.

Posted by: Fredo at September 21, 2009 5:00 PM

Hotcha! Boozehound! Wheee!

I savoured that review like it was a piece of Teriyaki jerky.

Welcome back,
To that same old place that you laughed about.

Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained and they're turned around.

Yeah we tease him a lot cause we've got him on the spot, welcome back,
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.

Posted by: replica at September 21, 2009 5:02 PM

Know what's funny? I am as we speak (in another tab) watching Buffy on Hulu, having missed the show entirely when it was actually on TV. (Seriously, Buffy just pushed Angel into the void moments after his soul is restored! Oooo! Drama! ) and I really had no idea what I had missed. Now,it seems like every single effin' day I find some Buffy-ism in everyday life, or at least on Pajiba. I never noticed before. What the hell else am I oblivious to?

Oh, and this movie thingie looks about as entertaining as ass hair.
Pass.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at September 21, 2009 5:09 PM

Posted by: Skitz at September 21, 2009 3:55 PM

Here is another sentence I never thought I'd say: "I am in total agreement with Skitz." Not because I disagree with him usually, just that his stuff is just transcendent sometimes, I rarely feel in sync.

movie is different because it's heroine vs girl-monster (with boys only serving as fodder).

So it is basically an update of that vampire movie with Jim Carrey and Lauren Hutton? Huh.

Posted by: Vermillion at September 21, 2009 5:33 PM

So hipsters are marked by badly uncoordinated recently-made vintage-look clothing, Rex Harrison hats, and neologisms?

...and liking things we don't.

Posted by: laredo at September 21, 2009 5:36 PM

“hot chick + heavy-rimmed eyeglasses + unusual hair + literacy = Dorkotron 5000.”

OK, I get why this is annoying but I've said it before and I'll say it again; Yes, pretty girls who are smart, wear glasses or braces or who just happen to be shy CAN be overlooked in high school. I've known several pretty or very pretty girls who just didn't get asked out because charisma counts more than looks or personality at that age.

I'll still see this, I've heard from a few female critics that it's a spot-on treatment of toxic female friendships, of which I've had a few, and that's worth putting up with a mediocre horror film in my book.

Posted by: Rusty (formerly Genny) at September 21, 2009 5:37 PM

"You might hide behind giant robots and a tight tee-shirt, or you might hide behind the sweet chemistry of Ellen Page and Michael Cera, but you can’t hide behind each other. We see right through you."

This was very well put. I think there are some interesting ideas coming from Diablo Cody, but Jennifer's Body looks uninspired and shallow.

Posted by: Marta at September 21, 2009 5:38 PM

I read an interview with Kurama where she says that this is a horror movie and that it's about the hatred women can carry against other women (even friends) and that it's movie is different because it's heroine vs girl-monster (with boys only serving as fodder).

I read that too, Fredo and my first thought was, bitch you obviously ain't a horror fan. uh, let's see, female protagonist against a female monster....Ginger Snaps? The Hunger? Suspiria? And those are just off the top of my head.

Posted by: s. pisaster at September 21, 2009 5:46 PM

Hmmmm, while I'm not surprised by this well-written review (seriously! that isn't sarcasm. It was a great read) I disagree with it on several points. Where you see tired tropes and bad acting, I see campy silliness and ... bad acting, but the bad acting is OK because its a campy-as-fuck "horror" movie. I was laughing my ass off at all the supposedly "scary" scenes, and I love movies like that. Plus, it's blatantly obvious that Megan Fox will be doing porn in the near future. Win-win in my book.

Posted by: the_wakeful at September 21, 2009 5:46 PM

This review displeases me greatly. I was hoping for a pseudo-clever diversion in which there is blood and nudity and clever dialogue. Instead, Cody offers a perverse take on much better offerings, chief among them Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and waters them down, before pouring them into the ice cube tray of Juno and hoping for similar magic. Sadly, it sounds like such a misstep that my plans to see Juno this weekend have taken a sympathy-hit just by being associated with the same person. Come one, hollywood - my nonreading time is precious enough that you've gotta elevate your game to get my attention! I have no choice but to award Diablo Cody the triple fail - gratuitously odd name, a wasted opportunity of a plot, and such an egregious mess as to ruin the viewership chances of her one potential good film.

On the bright side, if she keeps up this pace she'll be in the running for the Shymanalan Lifetime Achievement Award!

Posted by: lordhelmet at September 21, 2009 5:52 PM

The internet is a vast and murky sea, packed with festering feces and brain-damaged dugongs.

Pajiba is a small gleaming island, made of the glittering sand of correct spelling and the towering forests of proper grammar, all held together on the mighty cliffs of well-developed intelligence.

Lit by the flickering tiki torches of cinema, the party continues...

Posted by: laredo at September 21, 2009 5:57 PM

I thought reviewers were supposed to try and watch movies devoid of outside influence. That is to say, I don't care if you hate Diablo Cody or have pre-conceived notions about Megan Fox, shouldn't you do your damnedest to put that aside? Obviously, this is never 100% true or possible (who's gonna watch Precious and be able to view Mo'Nique or Mariah Carey completely devoid of context?), but it seems so often that Pajiba writers don't try at all and tend to enter films eager to pounce on whatever Pajiba's whipping boy/girl of the moment is (would you guys love Knocked Up if it came out now, Rainbow Killer and all?).

And I'm biased in wanting to like Megan Fox and give her a shot at acting in something more substantial than Transformers - I'll admit that from the get go. (What can I say? I find her lack of a bullshit filter to be charming and refreshing. I appreciate that she's said in interviews that she realizes she hasn't had the opportunity to prove herself as an actress. She at least seems to realize why people might not like her, and that makes me like her. And I don't care if she's hot and says she'd think she'd look like a hippo in a sex tape - wouldn't anyone say that regardless of their body type? Would you rather have had her respond with gusto, "yeah, I'd look fuckin' hot in a sex tape 'cause I'm awesome!")

I say this without reservation: Megan Fox is good here! Honest! I wouldn't go so far as to call it a great performance, but it proves the girl has some semblance of acting chops. Concerning Diablo Cody, someone somewhere else mentioned that Diablo Cody's insufferable dialogue is so much easier to digest here with insufferable characters and I agree. I feel that Megan Fox's character would talk like this and in the world of the film, I feel these characters would be steeped in slang.

Is it a great film? Not by a long long shot. But it is fucking funny. It has some good ideas that don't all flesh out 100%, but the ones that do (the exploration of toxic female friendships the most successful) offer a rewarding viewing experience. I found Juno overly scripted and stylized, but I think this is more in line with Cody's brand of hipster slang isms. And - who knew? - Megan Fox is an ideal actress to deliver them. I'll be the first to point out the film's weak points, but honestly, while watching the film I could've cared less because I was so thoroughly entertained.

Oh, and I'm gay, so I could care less how hot Megan Fox is. Lest anyone think that had some bearing on my reaction.

Posted by: whatBENwatches at September 21, 2009 6:28 PM

Well, maybe Diablo Cody... fuck it. It's a movie about a sex monster, all you had to do was flash some starletard tits, throw a Stifler clone into a blender, and you would have had a good film. Diablo Cody has no excuse, and considering the amount of alcohol the ol' Boozehound has in his system on any given day, to not even have appeal as camp is a testament to awful screenwriting. Hell, Cody couldn't even use bad actors effectively.

Fuck you, Diablo Cody. It's hipsters like you that make me want to go on a killing spree.

Posted by: George at September 21, 2009 6:29 PM

This could have been a really great horror film skewering toxic female friendships, but it sounds like it's not. It's really too bad. This movie could have joined the pantheon of movies with Heathers and Mean Girls, but instead it unwittingly fell in with Sorority Row.

Posted by: stardust savant at September 21, 2009 6:37 PM

Oh, Hound, how I have missed your reviews. I'm so glad to see one on my screen now that I've staggered in from a hard day's work. Now if I can only muster the energy to read all that...I expect I will soon.

Posted by: Jerce at September 21, 2009 6:56 PM

Confirmed: I love The Boynton. Thanks for jumping on this cinematic shit-grenade and saving the rest of us.

Posted by: Jerce at September 21, 2009 7:18 PM

Way to completely miss the point there, champ. I demand that Pajiba send a female reviewer to redo this stat, or at least link people to the Jezebel review. Whoever sent the man searching for titties and intestinal spillage through his drunken haze made a major false move.

1. "Needy" is short for "Anita". At no point is she described as geeky, that's your own prejudice against chicks with big glasses. Hell, she's the only chick who has sex in the movie and she does it for fun!

2. The movie is not horror porn created to help you bust a nut, it's a movie about a toxic friendship between two girls comically exaggerated through actual demonic possession.

3. Point of fact and proof that you are blinded by your own prejudice: Jennifer is not a cheerleader. She is on "color guard" or "drill team", i.e. she twirls flags.

4. It's funny, and the two males I dragged to see it against their will thanked me for doing so when it ended.

Go watch the cinematic masterpiece that is Hostel a time or twelve, since that seems to be all you're looking for Boynton.

Posted by: TryScience at September 21, 2009 7:45 PM

Rikkitikkitavi, you are a goose, and part of the problem at Pajiba that keeps lurkers in the shadows.

You say (in response to Mike B):

"Heh, this is my favorite obnoxious self-affirmation of commenters on this site: "You just didn't get [movie/show/book/album]. You couldn't possibly have understood it, because I liked it and you didn't. You must be blind to the artistic fabulosity to which I am privy."

How about, "I liked it because of [X]. I disagree with this review."

So, Mike B's comment...

"I also wonder if maybe a guy reviewing this film might miss some of the bigger points about what the movie is saying about toxic female friendships. I was impressed with the subverting of several cinema/literary tropes. The princess having to battle vines to reach the prince. The amulet that grants protection, but ultimately destroys."

Now, while this is gobbledygook to me, it sounds like he gave some fu*king reasons as to why he liked this fu*king film and thought the review was off point. Considering the fact that several other regular commenters backed him up, maybe his comments were valid.

So, yeah, go piss up a flagpole, peanut.

Posted by: Peter G at September 21, 2009 7:48 PM

I don't know how feminist it is to accuse people who didn't like this movie as only caring about tits and gore, or to suggest that women would understand the movie better than men. Demanding that Jezebel's more favorable review be linked here makes you sound close-minded, actually.

Posted by: Marta at September 21, 2009 8:04 PM

After a crappy day, there's nothing like a Boozehound review to lift my spirits.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at September 21, 2009 8:06 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, lemme just state my utter state of glee at the fact that this turd BOMBED, big time.

I pray to the Godtopus that this EPIC. FAIL. marks the beginning of an unrecoverable spiral of failure for this trashy, foul mouthed, hooker.

And Megan Fox too.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 21, 2009 8:10 PM

"And I'm biased in wanting to like Megan Fox and give her a shot at acting in something more substantial than Transformers - I'll admit that from the get go. (What can I say? I find her lack of a bullshit filter to be charming and refreshing..."

So you like bimbos. It's alright no need to get upset, just be honest. If she looked like Whoopie Goldberg I bet you'd want that filter.

-------------------

"I feel that Megan Fox's character would talk like this and in the world of the film, I feel these characters would be steeped in slang..."


That is NOT slang. NOBODY talks like that, NOBODY, That's Codyspeak, i.e. what Diablo Cody THINKS the oh so "cool" people in her Hipsterland talk like.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 21, 2009 8:35 PM

I don't know how feminist it is to accuse people who didn't like this movie as only caring about tits and gore, or to suggest that women would understand the movie better than men. Demanding that Jezebel's more favorable review be linked here makes you sound close-minded, actually.

I don't recall claiming to be feminist. The tits and intestinal spillage comment was in response to Boynton's complaints about the lack of nudity/gore. I don't like the Jez review because it is favorable, as much as that it takes a more analytical approach to the content of the movie than the review here. Feminist or not, I suspect the content is skewed toward female perspective, and personally feel that the women of Jez presented an all-around more accurate take.

Posted by: TryScience at September 21, 2009 8:36 PM

I read that Jezebel "review" and let me just say it read more like studio planted copy than an actual review. Isn't Jezebel part of the Gawker CORPORATE conglomo?

Analytical my ass.

I can smell the manure from here.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 21, 2009 8:50 PM

"As it turns out, Fox has neither the acting chops nor the movie star charisma to elevate the disorganized tornado of horror movie clichés and leaden one-liners whirling around her"

I...didn't get that. I thought she portrayed the malevolence of the Pretty Girl very well. I also can't get that brutal scene, where Needy is outside the van and Jennifer is inside the van, out of my mind. Both actresses convey depths of emotion through their eyes.

"Fox’s co-star, Amanda Seyfried (“Big Love”), brings nothing to the table beyond some bug-eyed reaction shots"

I don't get this either. When she has sex with her boyfriend -- sex that she's not punished for, p.s. -- there's this interesting eagerness at play. Seyfried does a good job of convincing that she's having sex with her boyfriend because she wants to have sex with her boyfriend. And both actresses do a solid job of showing the ways they're enmeshed. I didn't see any "bug-eyed reaction shots" -- and the review doesn't share where these bug-eyed reaction shots occured. ("Throughout the whole movie, idiot." -- Beating you to the punch there. But that would be a wrong argument.)

"and between Fox’s limp performance and Cody’s Swiss cheese story, it’s hard to say which is the pig and which is the crappy dime-store lipstick."

This just feels like a darling -- one of those things good writers are supposed to kill. It sounds like a line the reviewer really wanted to use, without necessarily earning the right to that line. Up to this point (the end of the first paragraph), he hasn't at all given us any evidence other than his own perceptions.

"We know Needy is a nerdette, you see, thanks to Movie Cliché #11, i.e., 'hot chick + heavy-rimmed eyeglasses + unusual hair + literacy = Dorkotron 5000.' Oh, and also because her name is 'Needy.'"

Another commenter on here did a really good job of explaining how this is a retarded statement. Pretty girls who look a little different get overlooked all the time. Cute guys in highwaters, too. High school isn't an environment that values quirk. It's a dangerous landscape. Those who best exemplify the epitome are the ones who succeed.

There other thing is, there's this great scene where Needy explains to her boyfriend the dynamics of the friendship with Jennifer: "I can show my stomach...tits are her domain." Girls sabotage each other with this shit all the time, because patriarchy says, "Hi: I've got some veiled sexism that I think would look great on you."

"Fox telegraphs Jennifer’s role as the Generic Spoiled Slut through time-honored bad-girl activities such as dragging Needy to a seedy bar to seduce a skeevy musician, complaining about the painful butt sex she endured from a jock boyfriend, and bragging about the police being in her pocket because 'Hello? I date [sic] a cadet.'"

"My So Called Life" trafficked in this kind of relationship. It's not unheard of. It's also not a cliche.

"In the confused aftermath, Jennifer is abducted for a Satanic ritual after a mix-up leads to her being mistaken for a virgin. Jennifer is hardly a virgin, of course, which botches the sacrifice and allows a succubus demon to possess her body (not to mention leading to the clever title)."

I think you missed a lot of what was going on in that scene. For one thing, Jennifer isn't abducted. She gets in that van of her own volition. And there's an interesting argument in there about women's sexuality. The lead singer feeling like he knows her type -- and then paying the ultimate price because he really doesn't understand girls or female sexuality at all. (He understands make-up though. Boys in eyeliner are hot.)

(Or maybe just Adam Brody in eyeliner is hot.)

" From there it’s up to Needy, aided by her dorky, good-hearted boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) to battle the supernatural force controlling Jennifer."

When did Chip help at all in this movie? He doesn't help Needy battle anything. In fact, he discounts Needy's sanity -- even after she says, "I'm not crazy and I'm not a liar." A traditional horror film would have the boyfriend save the girl.

"The mistakes occur early and often as the film opens with Needy in a mental institution, immediately tipping the viewer that she survives the story."

This is the beginning of a circular argument: It's bad because it's not good. Why is showing Needy in an institution at the beginning a bad thing? Do all films that do this earn the same opprobrium from you? The film shows us that Needy survives -- if it can be called that. But we still aren't show how. Or why. Or what it means. We know that the father in The Brother's Karamazov doesn't make it to the sequel. We know this in the first page. We also know it has something to do with the brother. And yet, a lot of us still read the whole novel.

"While it should go without saying that enjoying a movie about demonic possession requires a substantial suspension of disbelief, Jennifer’s Body demands a level of credulity more consistent with decapitation."

That sentence makes no sense. It has the makings of another darling. It got away from you.

"Jennifer’s Body slogs along through a bilious cloud of clichéd horror movie tropes, slapdash continuity problems, and distracting narrative non sequiturs."

Such as...?

"For example, when Needy learns that Jennifer might be possessed, she plods through the threadbare plot device of rummaging through the library for books on the occult. This scene was already tired when last employed by Alone in the Dark’s Tara Reid (coincidentally also in sexy librarian mode), and one can’t help but be curious about why Needy’s high school library has a surprisingly comprehensive collection of literature on ritual sacrifice and demonic possession."

Because it's a library. Books are there. Also: Needy mentions that it's not a very well-stocked library. However, I know my library in high school had a section of occult books. It was something like the 001s or something -- with the books on alien abduction and bigfoot. that you didn't like it doesn't make it a bad cliche.

"Later, when Chip ignores Needy’s warnings not to attend a dance where Jennifer is likely to feed again, he makes sure to go there through a dark, foggy park by himself, despite the recent bloody disembowelments of several of his classmates."

That's not a continuity problem, nor is it illogical. It's boys. Young men are pretty good at not believing in their own mortality. And, when he runs into Jennifer, she tells him a rumor about his girlfriend. This is why they go off to the pool together.

And that pool house? Not really a pool house. Or, it's acting as more than a pool house. She's a monster. It's a castle. He's a prince in peril. He has to be rescued. Only, because of how terribly enmeshed Needy and Jennifer are, Needy can't save him because she's too busy kicking the shit out of Jennifer; or, at least, trying.

"The film doesn’t feel the least bit creepy"

I found it plenty creepy in several places.

"there’s no unsettling gore"

The vomiting was unsettling to me. YMMV. Also: Jennifer lapping blood out of a chest cavity. That was pretty gross.

"Even more offensive, no one gets naked on screen, though we see enough of Megan Fox to realize that she has a surprisingly hairy back"

Sometimes, sir, movies aren't made so you can whack-off to ladybits. You'll have to use the internet.

"The only sexual content is an awkward encounter between Needy and Chip that’s interrupted by Needy’s inexplicable vision of blood oozing through the ceiling"

It's not awkward -- or, it's not unbelievably awkward. It's two teens who want to fuck, fucking. Also, do you remember that scene in the movie, the flashback, where Needy sucks the blood out of Jennifer's hand? Do you think there was a reason for that? Do you think that blood connects people? Have you read a novel before?

These are all reasons why I think you didn't do a good job of reviewing this film. Not just because you didn't like it and I did. But because it doesn't seem like you watched it.

Posted by: Mike B. at September 21, 2009 8:52 PM

So, yeah, go piss up a flagpole, peanut.

Thank you, Peter G, for proving my point that there is a significant contingent of commenters here that cannot have a discussion without going personal on people who disagree with them. Maybe Mike B. has a legitimate point, maybe he doesn't, but his inability to posit analysis without insulting the writer doesn't help sell it, it only makes me suspicious of his thought process. Good debaters with something worthwhile to say get their argument out there and don't need to assume that their opponent is stupid or ignorant. Here's where, if I were of your and Mike B.'s ilk, I would assert that such methodology tends to indicate a vacuum between the ears.

Rikkitikkitavi, you are [...] part of the problem at Pajiba that keeps lurkers in the shadows.

While Mike B. is hardly a lurker -- I'm more of a lurker than he is -- this statement is simply incorrect. Lurkers who want to post should do so, but if someone lacks the civility to disagree with a piece without insulting the writer, then he should squiggle back under his rock.

Consider your pole pissed on, Petey.

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at September 21, 2009 9:00 PM

"Fox telegraphs Jennifer’s role as the Generic Spoiled Slut through time-honored bad-girl activities such as dragging Needy to a seedy bar to seduce a skeevy musician, ...
"My So Called Life" trafficked in this kind of relationship. It's not unheard of. It's also not a cliche...."

Jawbreaker: Rose McGowan character

Buffy: Faith

90210: Tyffany Thiessen's character

But I'm a Cheerleader: Thea Duvall's character

FUCKING Weird Science: LeBrock's character

and the list goes on, ALL these "bad girls" used the take the nerdy character to a seedy bar routine.

You are gonna keep arguing that it isn't a cliche? Or is there a new definition?


Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 21, 2009 9:03 PM

Funny Tryscience, you smell of that same "pseudo-feminist" type. You said that you never claimed to be a feminist, but you had to "drag" your male friends to a movie and insist that a female perspective is key to approval. Be more blatant, why don't you?

Posted by: Ricky at September 21, 2009 9:15 PM

I know my library in high school had a section of occult books. It was something like the 001s or something -- with the books on alien abduction and bigfoot. that you didn't like it doesn't make it a bad cliche.

Here we go:

Buffy
The Faculty
The Craft
Nightmare on Elm Street (pick one)
Fright Night
Fright Night 2

need I go on?

The conveniently stocked library is not only a horror cliche but can be seen in sci-fi, action and other genres. Apparently you are the only one who seems perplexed by its mention.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 21, 2009 9:18 PM

That first paragraph is supposed to be a quote.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 21, 2009 9:20 PM

"Here's where, if I were of your and Mike B.'s ilk, I would assert that such methodology tends to indicate a vacuum between the ears."

But you did something similar: you called me obnoxious and insinuated that I didn't put any thought into my disagreement. I posted at length the places where this review doesn't work. I hope that you don't see me as maligning the writer just to malign him. (Though, to be fair to myself, I don't think the writer is a bad person. I just don't think he did a good job with this particular review.)

Posted by: Mike B. at September 21, 2009 9:21 PM

Mike B., while I appreciate that you're analyzing without bomb-throwing, I have to ask: Are you that torn up about a movie that was marketed as Megan Fox T&A? The trailers, the website, the cast interviews -- none of that seems to be pushing this as some kind of post-modern take on female friendships.

Personally, I cannot wait until every review is 20,000 words long so the writers can give copious examples of everything they dislike about a film and cover every single-dingle detail with which someone might disagree.

Also highly anticipated: Footnotes! Lots and lots of footnotes! Or endnotes. I don't know how this internet thingie works with academic analysis, but I look forward to the day when it takes an hour to get through an article just to make sure all possible counter-arguments are addressed.

The marketing on this film also renders the feminist arguments pretty hollow -- this movie was designed to bring in young men on the promise of naughty Megan Fox behavior. The idea that a woman should review films that might explore "toxic female relationships" is sexist in its own right. I feel confident most of the writers at Pajiba have heard of Mean Girls, Thirteen, Single White Female, The Craft, etc., ad nauseum. It's hardly a new idea, and even if it were, the most sophisticated theme in the world doesn't make something a good movie.

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at September 21, 2009 9:22 PM

"I have to ask: Are you that torn up about a movie that was marketed as Megan Fox T&A? The trailers, the website, the cast interviews -- none of that seems to be pushing this as some kind of post-modern take on female friendships."

The way a movie is marketed is often not at all realted to what the movie is about.

I saw Jennifer's Body over the weekend, and my first thoughts on leaving were: "I kept expecting this to be better." There were several places where I thought the movie was going to do something even more interesting with the tropes -- but then the movie would either not, or would do something gratutious. The reviewer doesn't mention it, but the make-out scene between Needy and Jennifer seems...a mistake.

So I read the review at Pajiba -- and it seemed to be just as tired and eager to miss the point as most of the other reviews. Generally that's not the case (except when Dustin assigns himself super shitty movies, then writes about them with unashamed glee that he tries to mask as vitriol). I don't think the review was fair.

And there's a market out there for lengthy reviews. The New York Times Review of Books gives full-throttled reviews. Sometimes they're a bit too much information, especially if it's a topic I'm not interested in. But when the review dovetails with my interest, I don't mind spending an hour thinking about things.

The last bit is: I don't use reviews to make my movie-going decision. I tend to use reviews to augment my own thoughts about a movie. If a reviewer didn't like a movie I liked, I like to know why. If a reviewer liked something I didn't, I'd like to know why. I miss a lot of things sometimes; it's helpful to have someone with a critical eye pointing things out. This review didn't really point things out so much as make a lot of quips while missing the point.

My kitchen/your kitchen. My face/your face.

Posted by: Mike B. at September 21, 2009 9:31 PM

A traditional horror film would have the boyfriend save the girl.
*bangs head against table
No damnit, as anyone who actually watches a substantial amount of horror would know, a fair number of horror films - possibly even the majority - feature heroines, not heroes. The entire slasher subgenre is based around female characters overcoming supernatural killers. Why do so many people seem to think this whole concept is new to horror? There isn't a single other genre out there that so consistently features badass women.

Posted by: s. pisaster at September 21, 2009 9:31 PM

I wonder what you and I mean, BarbadoSlim, when we use the word cliche.

What I was trying to say is that Diablo Cody uses tropes (or cliches) that others have used. It feels like, when we like the way a cliche is used, we say that the author transcends cliche, or re-invents it. (E.g., Scream) But when we don't like it, then we just assume the writer is bad and lazy.

There are some cliches we can't escape. Boy meets girl/gets girl/loses girl. Painful first loves. How absolute power corrupts absolutely. If all Diablo Cody were doing was stringing together cliches to fill out her run-time (like that weird Dungeons & Dragons movie that Jeremy Irons starred in), then I would agree: bad filmmaking. But I think she's trying to do something else here. She doesn't succeed throughout the whole picture; but I feel she succeeded enough that I didn't feel like my wallet had been lifted during the screening.

Posted by: Mike B. at September 21, 2009 9:37 PM

But I think she's trying to do something else here. She doesn't succeed throughout the whole picture; but I feel she succeeded enough that I didn't feel like my wallet had been lifted during the screening.

Posted by: Mike B. at September 21, 2009 9:37 PM

---------------------------------------------

I'm using "cliche" as it is commonly used. And you and I disagree, fundamentally, with what Cody did here. She did string together some tried and true horror cliches,stuffed them in Fox's bra, wrapped them up in Codyspeak and took your elven dollars my friend.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 21, 2009 9:42 PM

$8.50.

Tomato/tomahto.

(So, cliches are always bad?)

Posted by: Mike B. at September 21, 2009 9:45 PM

So what you're saying, Ted, is that Jennifer's Body is just another disposable, ignorable PG-13 horror that scored an R rating for its reference to underage buttsecks?

Consider that bullet sufficiently dodged, and this Neo grateful that you watched this dreck so the rest of us don't have to.

Posted by: David at September 21, 2009 9:53 PM

(So, cliches are always bad?)

Posted by: Mike B. at September 21, 2009 9:45 PM

-----------------------------------

Not necessarily, but you are the one getting all up the reviewer's grille because he, correctly, pointed them out and honestly criticized her on them.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 21, 2009 9:54 PM

Elven dollars? I want some elven dollars. All I have are these useless ogre coins. Laundromat doesn't even take them.

Posted by: CarribeanTubby at September 21, 2009 10:08 PM

I wrote: "And I'm biased in wanting to like Megan Fox and give her a shot at acting in something more substantial than Transformers - I'll admit that from the get go. (What can I say? I find her lack of a bullshit filter to be charming and refreshing..."

BarbadoSlim replied: "So you like bimbos. It's alright no need to get upset, just be honest. If she looked like Whoopie Goldberg I bet you'd want that filter.

I also wrote, but BarbadoSlim ignored: "Oh, and I'm gay, so I could care less how hot Megan Fox is. Lest anyone think that had some bearing on my reaction."

-------------

I wrote: "I feel that Megan Fox's character would talk like this and in the world of the film, I feel these characters would be steeped in slang..."

BarbadoSlim replied: "That is NOT slang. NOBODY talks like that, NOBODY, That's Codyspeak, i.e. what Diablo Cody THINKS the oh so "cool" people in her Hipsterland talk like.

I mean, I can agree with arguments that her style is annoying or assertions that you don't like her style (I found Juno a bit much, myself), but at least she has a distinct style. Saying that no one speaks like Cody writes is a backwards way of saying that she has a distinct voice as a writer, something I'd rather see than not. And complaining about the lack of verisimilitude in the dialogue of a movie where a demon inhabits a high school student and causes her to feast on boys' flesh is a moot point. It's stylized. Duh.

For me, Cody's style felt more at home in this milieu than in Juno where the Hipsterspeak comment is perhaps more applicable because those characters were hipsters or hipsters-in-training. Here, Cody's tone counteracted the horror tropes (and yes, I'd say they're tropes, not clichés) with her biting one-liners, a move that I think was purposeful.

I'll also throw this out there: I'd argue that writers use tropes, and rely on cliché. On the whole, I'd say Cody was playing with and using tropes to her narrative advantage here (not always successfully), rather than relying on cliché to do the heavy lifting. (Again, there are examples I could give where Cody falls into cliché, mostly in the BOO! types of scares that just didn't work that well, but still, these are on the whole avoided, I think.)

Posted by: whatBENwatches at September 21, 2009 10:18 PM

Good grief, little Ricky. I used "dragged" was a figure of speech. My husband was afraid that my taking him to a Megan Fox movie was a thinly veiled "trap" of some sort, and my best friend just doesn't like Megan Fox. Based on what I had read and my knowing both very well I assumed they would both like the film on its own merits. They did. I don't care what anyone calls me or who thinks it's sexist, I still think that the specific nature of the friendship depicted in this movie might (note my use of "might", and "it's my personal opinion", I'm not purporting to speak for the world at large you half-wit) be an almost uniquely feminine thing. Therefore better understood by a woman, and I don't give a fig if that opinion isn't PC.

No I revise, I'd be happy with someone who actually watched the film, regardless of gender, because as Mike B. has so eloquently pointed out it's pretty clear to those of us that did that Boynton didn't.

Posted by: TryScience at September 21, 2009 10:22 PM

This whole movie sounds like The Stupid, Spoiled Whore Video Playset Saga: Halloweenster

Posted by: Sofía at September 21, 2009 10:23 PM

...and who'd'a thunk THIS would be a polarizing film here at Pajibaland? Wow.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at September 21, 2009 10:31 PM

Posted by: CarribeanTubby at September 21, 2009 10:08 PM

Way to poke fun at someone's typo with a giant spelling FAIL. C'mon, people. If you're gonna mock other people's mistakes, check your own shit.

[Note: I actually thought your post was funny and relatively good-natured as jabs go. But I just couldn't help myself.]

Posted by: MM at September 21, 2009 10:38 PM

Posted by: whatBENwatches at September 21, 2009 10:18 PM

Enought, BEN, Diablo Cody spent a lot of money on a hot star who can't act, had no balance to her script, and decided to have the film produced anyway, and guess what, it BLOWS, and guess what, nobody cares, because everyone's already fucking sick of Diablo Cody, and guess what yet again, liking Diablo Cody isn't even hipster cool anymore, because she already has enough money to spend the rest of her life eating lobster sandwitches made with saffron bread.

You can call a frozen turd a fudgesickle, you can even admit it's a frozen turd that just smells nicer than your average frozen turd, you can even say that the person who made the frozen turd at least ate chocolate first, but it's still a frozen turd, and nothing you say will ever change that.

Posted by: George at September 21, 2009 10:48 PM

Actually, I did that just to stir some shit if anyone would notice. Sort of a joke within a joke with me as the butt of it. I'd post as "CaribbeanTubby" if it'll make you happy.

Come on, don't we all have spellcheck on auto-everything?

Therefore, my post against sanctimonious dousche BarbadoSlim is full of EPIC AWESOME WIN!

Posted by: CarribeanTubby at September 21, 2009 10:50 PM

I really, really hope Dustin comments on this. Isn't he a huge Diablo booster who's utterly convinced that anyone that disliked Juno/her is a big woman-hatin' meanie who just doesn't get it?

For a guy that hates certain genres and tropes, he wears his on his sleeve. About high school and/or featuring awkward, smart protagonist with the musical taste of a 35-year-old Pitchfork writer? Sold.

Posted by: Midnight Monkey Madness at September 21, 2009 10:56 PM

George, have you even seen the movie? I'm reminded of a post TK made not too long ago...

Posted by: TryScience at September 21, 2009 11:01 PM

People are getting defensive about this? This?!

Am I so wrong for wanting this movie to fail simply so Megan Fox can never earn any form of legitimacy? Other, of course, than whatever kind of legitimacy can be claimed by kind of resembling Ms. Jolie, being a total whackadoo in interviews, and inspiring what I imagine to be many, many fantasies/wet dreams in the thirteen-twenty bracket of manboys (shame!). God forbid she should be in an appealing movie and trick anyone into thinking she's the next Winona Ryder.

Am I so wrong for taking simple pleasure in her failure, no matter who is dragged down into that fail-y muck with her? Am I so wrong for thanking film-Jesus for granting me this small cinematic comfort?

Posted by: sheshakes at September 21, 2009 11:03 PM

Ok, enough with this over analyzing shit. This movie was not good, but it wasn't that bad either. No, Megan Fox is not a good actress. Amanda Seyfried is pretty damn good and a cutie. Diablo Cody is an ok writer with nothing special about her. The movie was horribly, horrible cliched, but what isn't anymore? This film isn't great or riveting, and it has no deeper meaning or anything like that, but I had fun seeing it.

Just a lot of wasted potential.

Posted by: PatG at September 21, 2009 11:07 PM

I haven't seen this yet, so I can't say for sure, but to all the people getting their knickers in a twist because the review didn't look at the movie through the teenage-girl-relationships lens, I suspect that a movie that used this basic idea and was a good film (Ginger Snaps *cough cough*) would get a good review on Pajiba. You certainly don't have to have the same taste as the reviewer, but this one doesn't stink of rampant sexism to me. So you don't agree with the review, feel free to state why, sure, but why get all worked up about it?

Posted by: s. pisaster at September 21, 2009 11:10 PM

Not only can Angelina rest easy but who is that coming up in Fox's rear view mirror and ready to pass her....it's Olivia Wilde....just as hot, much better actress and picks better material (i.e. House).

There was a quote in a review once about Ryan Phillipe that said he was an actor best suited for silent gay porn. Megan Fox would be perfect for silent straight porn. When she opens her mouth and gives an opinion, a butterfly dies. Sasha Grey has more acting chops than this woman. When her beauty fades, she is going to hit the Playboy/reality show wall like a meteor. Can't wait for I'm a Celebrity...in 8 years with her, Robert Pattinson, Hayden Christenson, Leighton Meester and Spencer and Heidi, because they still will suck and still be Z level media whores.

Posted by: Rubble44 at September 21, 2009 11:18 PM

I sort of lump the likes of Amanda Seyfried, Kristen Bell and Hayden Pantiennewhat into this catagory of actresses that I really just can't find attractive.I thought, at first, that it was a short and blonde thing but now I've realized that it's because they are pretty much proportioned (both in the face and in the body) like girls. And not like 18 yr old girls, but younger. Like 13. Like unusually short arms and boxy torsos. Like faces that are rounded have no cheekbone definition. Like trilled voices coming out of a weirdly larger looking head.

I don't know. It just seems like those are the girls you go for if you are secretly very, very uncomfortable or disturbed with things that are sexual, so you go for a type that is essentially non-threatening. Like the guy version of being obsessed with Zac Efron or sparkly vampires or the Jonas brothers, who are safe in their sort of aura of purity. Glarg. I'm not so eloquent. But yeah.

Also, Megan Fox actressed the hell out of that part. The shot where she smiled with the bloody mouth after the barfing? That was major.

Posted by: jasper at September 21, 2009 11:45 PM

[ggghhh...AUGH... OK, I just can't help myself...]

CarribeanTubby, if we had auto-spellcheck on everything, you wouldn't have misspelled dousche [sic]. I will, however, give you a shiny nickel for using the word sanctimonious correctly.

[Seriously, my mother is an English teacher. I CAN'T help myself.]

Posted by: MM at September 21, 2009 11:55 PM

What do you mean, I misspelled dousche? I assure you I'm educated, my versimillitude is should be clear by now.

Also, I have no opinion on this movie.

Posted by: CaribbeanTubby at September 22, 2009 12:02 AM

Are you people really arguing so vehemently over a Megan Fox movie? REALLY?

Posted by: tinmo at September 22, 2009 12:02 AM

jasper-

That is an interesting theory regarding the appeal of those actresses versus the same appeal that male pin-ups such as the Jonas Bros and Robert Pattinson have. Then again, I have an interest in sociology, psychology and sex theories.

Also, this wasn't sarcastic. Not everything on this site has to be bitchy. Seriously, that was pretty interesting.

Posted by: Midnight Monkey Madness at September 22, 2009 12:06 AM

tinmo-

Apparently.

Posted by: Midnight Monkey Madness at September 22, 2009 12:14 AM

I agree with MiMoMa and jasper. They are adults who lack many of the usual physical traits of adulthood. I call this the John Ruskin type.

Posted by: igor at September 22, 2009 1:10 AM

How hot can she be: the girl's got toe-thumbs, fer cryin' out loud. TOE. THUMBS!

Posted by: ceejeemcbeegee at September 22, 2009 1:40 AM

Are you people really arguing so vehemently over a Megan Fox movie? REALLY?

This is exactly my problem: the fact that we should somehow discount an entire movie because its lead actress has only primarily been in two summer blockbusters and hasn't yet "proven" herself as an actress. And that's what it feels like the majority of critics has done, which strikes me as incredibly backwards.

Posted by: whatBENwatches at September 22, 2009 4:14 AM

It takes a sanctimonious dousche to know a sanctimonious dousche...

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 22, 2009 6:31 AM

Just a thought: Sometimes a film connects with some people, but not with others (see also: Drew's review of Eyes Wide Shut). Doesn't matter whether the film is good or bad or mediocre. And it's not the fault of the person it doesn't connect with. Also, I don't believe is has anything to do with gender; TryScience, you said yourself that your husband and your male best friend loved it, and I'm guessing that Mike B. is a boy and he has given his reasons for liking it, including the "toxic female relationships" angle, and Ben also is a boy and liked it.

Perhaps it didn't connect with the reviewer? As it connected with, for example, TryScience and Mike B. and Ben ? It sounds more like that than anything else to me. It's not a personal attack on anyone who did like the film, either; it's simply the critic's opinion.

And that's why we have these discourses.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at September 22, 2009 9:01 AM

This was a great thread. Real film analysis, hard objections, impassioned defenses of opinion. On top of that we have both scathy and bitchy! Strange that it pops up for this type of movie but I'd love to see more of this type of discussion in future threads.

Posted by: ed newman at September 22, 2009 9:31 AM

@ed newman

I agree this was an interesting thread. I like people that can give the reviewers and people that disagree with them shit, although not giving them shit for the sake of giving them shit. That's just trollin'.

I swear, there was this one girl on here that used to talk about if Dustin's (then unborn) son would get his genius genetically, and how what he wrote was better than if Shakespeare knocked up Plath, etc etc. Not to mention people who say "now I don't have to see it!" which just says to me "make up my mind for me!"

Although for the record I probably agree with this review in this case. I myself won't see this as I can handle stylized dialogue, but not the unholy utterings of Diablo Cody.

Posted by: Midnight Monkey Madness at September 22, 2009 7:04 PM

OMG. I cannot wait to see Megan Fox's excessive backhair! Whoo! Now this is why I am so glad I read the review!

Posted by: Gistine at September 23, 2009 1:35 AM

Man, I wish I had seen this movie sooner. I have so many things I want to respond to but I don't know how to do those fancy things where there's bold and italics and such so I'm just gonna write what I think and sorry if I repeat stuff.

So, yes. Rah Rah Women. Men hurt woman, woman gains "power" (feminism), woman exacts revenge on men, other woman doesn't see the light and brings down first woman, but eventually learns the "power" (feminism) and gets back at the men.

Ok I can get behind that. Cool for them.

My rule for editing this movie would have been: Any time you hear a line coming out of Megan Fox's mouth that would sound adorably quirky coming out of Ellen Page's, cut it. Yes Diablo Cody, your slang is funny and contemporary and you get teenagers blahdy blah blah. Didn't work for the genre, learn how to write differently if you're going to do different movies.

I liked Amanda Seyfried, Megan Fox didn't make me cringe through the whole thing, and I thought the plot was kind of interesting up until they shoved everything in my face when i had already figured it out. YES everything went wrong because she wasn't a virgin. YES she's an evil demon. OF COURSE she must be killed by Needy.

SPOILER (I mean, I guess.)

What would have been cool is if after Needy kills Jennifer, it turns out she made everything up. And that's why Needy is in a mental institution. Either that or she's the real demon and she was projecting. Whatever. Not terribly original, but it would have gotten a 'oh, that was kind of neat'.

I gotta say though, I was never bored.

Posted by: buttercup at September 24, 2009 12:11 AM

I thought it was interesting that the character of Jennifer never really changed. The only difference after being possessed is that she now literally eats those around her. I don't know how much of that is Megan Fox's lack of range or Diablo Cody's intention.

And I kept waiting for J.K. Simmons to do more. I was sure that hook would be good for something. I was disappointed.

Posted by: calypso at September 25, 2009 8:33 AM

The reviews on this website are really amateur hour. The whole review was so vile, and hate-filled. I highly doubt the movie was as bad as he claims.

Posted by: Man at September 26, 2009 2:10 AM

Mike B. / WhatBENwatches:

Thank you. Thank you so much for voicing your opinion thoroughly even though it was in opposition to a majority of the reviewer's opinions. I've found that most commenters on this site choose to kiss ass and high five the reviewers on this site even when/if they're talking out of their asses.

I applaud you for not backing down (you did quite the opposite, actually) - even in the wake of being insulted for your opposing views.

People can't post a simple opinion on this site without getting their assholes ripped open for being a feminist, a misspeller, or god-forbid, a hipster.

So thanks.

Posted by: whateva at September 27, 2009 2:53 AM

WTF? Do you guys get that you're arguing over a Megan Fox movie? Christ.

Posted by: Sar at September 27, 2009 8:21 PM

Why is no one commenting on anything relating to Adam Brody? The part of the plot involving him is hilarious. He wants to sell a virgin to Satan in exchange for fame and fortune for his band. He angrily says to his bandmates, "Do you want to (something something) for the rest of your lives or do you want to be like the guy in Maroon 5?" And speaking of things no one is bringing up, I've always thought of Megan Fox as the replacement Sydney - Hope's daughter - in the second & third seasons of Hope And Faith, who WENT ON to do Transformers. When all you people IMDB'd her, didn't IMDB give you Hope And Faith?

Posted by: Beau Hajavitch at October 13, 2009 2:39 AM

Wow. Lotta comments, I guess I missed a shitstorm.

The movie was okay, I didn't hate it. Sub-par plot, way-hot girls. That's a win, I guess. I feel like it would fit in on my shelf next to Buffy and Supernatural, and uh, Blade: The Series.

Seyfried's character made me sad, though. Poor thing.

Posted by: AmbroseKalifornia at October 16, 2009 3:22 AM

i just find it funny that in every movie shes in shes objectified. shame.

Posted by: Nicole at June 21, 2010 4:03 PM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment:



Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.



Related Posts with Thumbnails









twitter_badge-thumb-300x110-5250.jpg facebook-thumb-300x112-5252.jpg