Jennifer's Body

[bredon7777]

Good concept, poor execution.  Diablo Cody is apparently a one trick pony. Pity.

Avoid.

[Talavar]

Because a writer always has complete control over the films that get made from their work - and she didn't direct this.

[Ajax]

Considering how well received Juno was, do you really think it would be possible to top that? This seems like a good movie to reset everyones expectations back to something humanly possible. Plus this isn't a bad movie just not great (aka worth price of admission).

[bredon7777]

Because a writer always has complete control over the films that get made from their work - and she didn't direct this.

No, she didn't- but unless you can show me a studio note that says "Hey, Diablo- don't bother coming up with any fresh, new, or original characters- just use the characters from Juno, but shuffle them around a little and change them superficially, because audiences are stupid and won't see right through that", then the responsibility for that lies directly at her feet.

And Ajax, I dont know how much you paid, but I went to a matinee and it wasn't worth $7.25.  It'd probably be worth the $2.25 itd take to rent it though.

[UnkoMan]

I was thinking about writing a script about a guy who is obsessed with Diablo Cody. It would have a bunch of lines like "Why do you even like her? I mean, you can't just use snappy dialogue in place of a plot." as well as more snappy lines in lieu of an actual plot.

Anyhow, I downloaded it for free from the internet, just to see, and I still don't think it was worth it. I kept waiting for something to actually happen. I also really have to question why it was labeled a horror comedy? There's not a single comedic thing in this movie. Come to think about it, there's not really any horror either.

[Ajax]

Because a writer always has complete control over the films that get made from their work - and she didn't direct this.

No, she didn't- but unless you can show me a studio note that says "Hey, Diablo- don't bother coming up with any fresh, new, or original characters- just use the characters from Juno, but shuffle them around a little and change them superficially, because audiences are stupid and won't see right through that", then the responsibility for that lies directly at her feet.

And Ajax, I dont know how much you paid, but I went to a matinee and it wasn't worth $7.25.  It'd probably be worth the $2.25 itd take to rent it though.

I said it wasn't worth the price of admission. o.O

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I said it wasn't worth the price of admission.

That's the exact opposite of what you appeared to say.

Plus this isn't a bad movie just not great (aka worth price of admission).

I read that as it isn't a bad movie, just not great, in other words it is worth the price of admission.

You're trying to say that by great you mean worth the price of admission and it isn't, but that's not the way it reads.

[Talavar]

Because a writer always has complete control over the films that get made from their work - and she didn't direct this.

No, she didn't- but unless you can show me a studio note that says "Hey, Diablo- don't bother coming up with any fresh, new, or original characters- just use the characters from Juno, but shuffle them around a little and change them superficially, because audiences are stupid and won't see right through that", then the responsibility for that lies directly at her feet.

Bull-hockey.  Good scripts can get mangled (and, more rarely, bad ones saved) by any number of interventions and changes in preproduction, on the set, and in editing by the studio.  To put this 'directly at [Cody's] feet' is just part of a backlash because she's more famous than the director, and a lot of people want to knock her down a peg after the success of Juno.

That doesn't mean it was a good movie, but trying to pin it's failures on Cody alone, and dismissing her as a 'one trick pony' on the basis of that is ridiculous.  I mean, so far she's written 2 films - one was good, and the second was not.  Maybe waiting 'til she's written a third film to dismiss her shouldn't be too much to expect.

[Mr. Hamrick]

Because a writer always has complete control over the films that get made from their work - and she didn't direct this.

No, she didn't- but unless you can show me a studio note that says "Hey, Diablo- don't bother coming up with any fresh, new, or original characters- just use the characters from Juno, but shuffle them around a little and change them superficially, because audiences are stupid and won't see right through that", then the responsibility for that lies directly at her feet.

Bull-hockey.  Good scripts can get mangled (and, more rarely, bad ones saved) by any number of interventions and changes in preproduction, on the set, and in editing by the studio.  To put this 'directly at [Cody's] feet' is just part of a backlash because she's more famous than the director, and a lot of people want to knock her down a peg after the success of Juno.

That doesn't mean it was a good movie, but trying to pin it's failures on Cody alone, and dismissing her as a 'one trick pony' on the basis of that is ridiculous.  I mean, so far she's written 2 films - one was good, and the second was not.  Maybe waiting 'til she's written a third film to dismiss her shouldn't be too much to expect.

slight correction, two films and a TV show.  The TV show is doing very well all things said.  (The United States of Tara, i believe is the name and it got an emmy nomination)

the biggest problem with this film is Megan Fox can barely act her way out of a paper bag.   and the rest of the cast wasn't all that great either.

As for the director, this is only her fourth time out directing (three films and one episode of The L Word) and only one of her efforts were marginally worth anything... and she wrote that one.  That tells me that she is not necessarily adept at handling other people's work other than her own.  Which is sad to say because there is a general lacking of female directors out there and fewer GOOD female directors.

[Ajax]

I said it wasn't worth the price of admission.

That's the exact opposite of what you appeared to say.

Plus this isn't a bad movie just not great (aka worth price of admission).

I read that as it isn't a bad movie, just not great, in other words it is worth the price of admission.

You're trying to say that by great you mean worth the price of admission and it isn't, but that's not the way it reads.

Obviously I screwed up in relaying what I meant. Basically when I put the (aka worth the price of admission) bit I was defining what I considered great not making any evaluation on the movie itself. Sorry for the confusion.

[bredon7777]

Because a writer always has complete control over the films that get made from their work - and she didn't direct this.

No, she didn't- but unless you can show me a studio note that says "Hey, Diablo- don't bother coming up with any fresh, new, or original characters- just use the characters from Juno, but shuffle them around a little and change them superficially, because audiences are stupid and won't see right through that", then the responsibility for that lies directly at her feet.

Bull-hockey.  Good scripts can get mangled (and, more rarely, bad ones saved) by any number of interventions and changes in preproduction, on the set, and in editing by the studio.  To put this 'directly at [Cody's] feet' is just part of a backlash because she's more famous than the director, and a lot of people want to knock her down a peg after the success of Juno.

Look, maybe the "one trick pony" comment was a little harsh, but when a movies main problem is its incredibly derivative and unoriginal characters, Occam's razor says, barring proof otherwise that I've yet to see, that that's the fault of the writer.

The idea that this is some "backlash" is ludicrous.  I loved Juno, and I wanted nothing more than to see a great horror movie with new characters from Diablo. She didn't deliver; her problem, not mine.

Yeah, the directing was only so so, and we all knew Megan Fox couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag. But the movie's main drawback is cliched and unoriginal character work- you got an original script send it to me, and I might revise my opinion.  But till I see  proof otherwise, the fact that the characters are cliched, unoriginal, near letter perfect copies of the folks from her last movie - she owns that.

[Silver Shocker]

Interesting Roger Ebert gave the film a good review. Personally, as I've never seen this nor Juno I can't really comment on either.