I don't understand all the hate and the low rating - Jennifer's Body (2009) Discussion

[–] Jonny-Juke 12 years ago

I'm with you. I love it for what it is - a bit of silly fun that gave more than I was expecting. On my Hallowe'en playlist for sure.

reply

[–] Defenseman13 10 years ago

sucked ball, that's why.

reply

[–] MannyTheSpaniard 11 years ago

I think one of the main reasons I gave it 6/10 is Fox's astonishing beauty and performance, rather than other aspects of horror films that critics pay attention to. I think she is the centre of every positive thing about the film.

I'm demanding. I may hate Casablanca and enjoy Freddy vs. Jason

reply

[–] NeedysBoy 11 years ago

ManuelPrez writes: "I think one of the main reasons I gave it 6/10 is Fox's astonishing beauty and performance..."

Well, Megan is god in the flesh.

"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

I've never understood that. I find Amanda immensely more attractive than Megan.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

reply

[–] NeedysBoy 11 years ago

Soodinum writes: "I find Amanda immensely more attractive than Megan."

Both are very attractive.

I saw the film because of Megan, I watched it again for Diablo Cody, and every time since for Amanda.

"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

[–] NotASpookyGhost 11 years ago

I've never understood people like you who don't understand people who find Megan attractive. Whether you don't like her acting, her attitude, she's not your type, or whatever, she's still a very beautiful woman. We all have different tastes. What is there to understand?

reply

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Because she's over rated, had work done already, and is set to age really badly.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 10 years ago

you made me think of something. is there a point where a woman is so beautiful where no one can think she's not beautiful? Like Megan Fox, she's inhumanly beautiful. I mean, she doesn't even look like any other woman really, so is there ever a point where no one can deny that a woman is beautiful? or is beauty always based on personal qualifications?

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 10 years ago

I find Amanda more attractive than Megan too. but you have to admit that Megan has superhuman beauty.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 10 years ago

I like your signature. so true, Casablanca was as boring as watching paint dry. Freddy Vs. Jason was spectacular entertainment!

You're right I give it at least 6.5 out of 10. Fox's astonishing beauty is something worth repeating. she looks just so mesmerizingly beautiful in this it's ridiculous and superhuman. she doesn't even look real to me, she looks like an animated character or a painting of a woman, she looks beyond a normal woman.

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 11 years ago

I gave it a 5, which pretty much matches the user rating. It's because it's more high school drama than horror movie. Also the writing was annoying, the characters boring, the allegories ham fisted, and the whole ending is a big waste. But I also dislike the buffy TV show while loving the original movie, so what do I know...

"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[–] louiswu-5 11 years ago

Just watched this and found it very enjoyable her getting powers from surviving being bitten by a 'possessed; was a nice twist.

There is no such thing as reality only what we perceive through our poor inadequate senses

reply

[–] lazarillo 11 years ago

Well, what seemed to be it's two main assets--Diablo Cody's precocious dialogue and Megan Fox's sex appeal, turned out to be it's weakest aspects, so I think people were probably disappointed.

Megan Fox frankly couldn't act her way out a cheap porn loop with a German shepherd co-star. She's definitely "hot", but that isn't enough to carry a movie. And if she isn't going to do nude scenes, then her character probably shouldn't go skinny-dipping and raise the expectations of half the audience. They should have given Fox's role to Amanda Seyfried, who's a much better actress and given Seyfried's role to someone who is even remotely believable as the "plain-looking best friend".

Actually, Cody's story is good--I loved the dimwitted "emo" Satanists who mistake Fox for a "virgin", but her cutesy dialogue is pretty much ruinous to any kind of serious horror movie elements. Other than both having teens in it, this isn't "Juno". Maybe Cody's dialogue is genius, but it doesn't work in a horror movie. The dialogue in "Scarface" or "Goodfellas" is great too, but it wouldn't work in a romantic comedy or a family film.

reply

[–] louiswu-5 11 years ago

If the film was a serious horror film then i 'd agree more...however it wasn't, it has some very funny lines in it. Megan Fox pulled off the tongue in cheek humour pretty well imo.

Examples...

"I can take care of myself. I've been using the Bowflex."

"I think it's important to reach out to our fans in the *beep* areas, too."

"Yeah, right. I'm not even a backdoor-virgin anymore, thanks to Roman. By the way, that hurts. I couldn't even go to flags the next day. I had to stay home and sit on a bag of frozen peas."

Made me laugh quite a bit in parts.

There is no such thing as reality only what we perceive through our poor inadequate senses

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 11 years ago

I think that was his point though: the movie itself is serious. What we SEE happening is done with a straight face. It's just the written dialogue that we HEAR that shoe-horns in some unwarranted 'comedy' just because Diablo Cody wrote it.

I could be misinterpreting what they wrote of course, that's just what I assume they meant...

"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 10 years ago

you made a good point about appropriate and acceptable dialogue in movies. I agree with trying to make Amanda seyfried plain and ugly just by putting glasses on her. that's what they made a joke about in scary movie. Hollywood needs to hire ugly people for ugly parts, come on, give us realism already, they did in the '80s. and, EXACTLY! that was the worst part of this movie, the fact that she went skinny dipping and didn't show nudity, what the hell? that was so wrong, and I kept thinking throughout that whole scene, is she going to show nudity now, is she going to show nudity now, but no, no nudity, how disappointing. I mean, it's rated R, she's hot as hell, her character is nude but we can't see any nudity from her. that's unforgivable. that's the biggest sin a movie can commit, making us think a woman is going to show nudity. and I was thinking ok, she's going to show nudity also when she unzipped her top, but again, no nudity, what the hell? all we got was sideboob, so horrible and so unforgivable!

reply

[–] vicissitude1 11 years ago

I didn't think this movie was terrible, but it was not good. Deserves a 5, maybe less. It never fully fills any genre other than high school drama. It's not scary, it's not gory, it's not well written or acted, it's not believable, it's not special effect driven, it's never captivating, it's just kind of there.

I think the largest issue I had with the movie is it was a giant cocktease. Megan Fox's beauty and sexuality were so heavily promoted, yet the movie never delivered there either. I mean the previews did everything they could to make it look like the audience would at least see some boobs, yet there were none.

So this movie is essentially a horror movie for high school girls that was marketed heavily to horny young guys who want to see Megan Fox naked. They failed to deliver anything resembling a movie young men are going to like regardless of them teasing her naked. It is no wonder it did terrible. Could you imagine the backlash if Twilight had marketed to men and hid it's tie to the tween female fan base? I would seriously have walked out, asked for my money back, and been extremely upset leaving awful reviews. I about threw my beer at the stupid movie Twilight while at home and am still sad I watched it through. There would have been riots if it was marketed as a normal gory action packed vampire flick for dudes.

reply

[–] EndoftheDream 11 years ago

I think the largest issue I had with the movie is it was a giant cocktease. Megan Fox's beauty and sexuality were so heavily promoted, yet the movie never delivered there either. I mean the previews did everything they could to make it look like the audience would at least see some boobs, yet there were none.

So this movie is essentially a horror movie for high school girls that was marketed heavily to horny young guys who want to see Megan Fox naked. They failed to deliver anything resembling a movie young men are going to like regardless of them teasing her naked. It is no wonder it did terrible. Could you imagine the backlash if Twilight had marketed to men and hid it's tie to the tween female fan base? I would seriously have walked out, asked for my money back, and been extremely upset leaving awful reviews. I about threw my beer at the stupid movie Twilight while at home and am still sad I watched it through. There would have been riots if it was marketed as a normal gory action packed vampire flick for dudes.

Wow - exaggerating much?
The advertising for this lead you to believe you’d see Megan’s boobs (a sad reason to see the movie at best) and all of a sudden it was marketed wildly different than the actual movie?
I think not. Your twilight analogy is incredibly off. The marketing for this film represented exactly the tone of the actual film. I’m sure we’re all sorry you didn’t get to wank in the theater.

I found a bird closing her eyes, one last time, and I wonder if she dreamed like me

reply

[–] NeedysBoy 11 years ago

EndoftheDream writes: "I’m sure we’re all sorry you didn’t get to wank in the theater."

Good one!

"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 10 years ago

you make a lot of good points about marketing films a certain way. and, if you talk about promising and getting us to expect and anticipate seeing Megan Fox's boobs, well they did that sin here. my gosh, it's unforgivable how they didn't show ANY Megan Fox nudity in this movie. especially with the way they made it seem so forbidden, so carnal, and so sexual with the previews and the way they showed Megan Fox all hot in her panties on the bed. it was the worst thing ever, the fact that Megan Fox didn't show any nudity in this. her part and this movie needed it. us guys needed it and demanded it and this movie needed it to make it a lot better. don't you agree?

reply

[–] tv_holic92 11 years ago

I totally agree.I didn't expect this movie to be this good . I really enojed it .But I think most people didn't like this movie because they expected it to be a lot more scary.This movie is fun,not scary or gory either. Its more of a teen dark comedy then a scary movie.

reply

[–] NeedysBoy 11 years ago

tv_holic92 writes: "Its more of a teen dark comedy then a scary movie."

Amanda called it a dark coming-of-age story.

"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

[–] bigBang8 11 years ago

No it's pretty *beep* i'm just in it for the tongue lighter action.

The increase in human knowledge is the cause of the decline of religions.