Thursday, December 31, 2009

BD impressions: Jennifer's Body

11:50 PM / BD Impressions / Comments8 Comments

BD Impressions
Blu-ray

I wasn't going to bother with Jennifer's Body. I liked Diablo Cody's first produced script, Juno, but the buzz about this second offering wasn't good, and let's face it, Megan Fox isn't much of an actor. (At least going by her "performance" in Transformers, which if we're being generous is probably not the sort of movie that would best show off the talents of even the world's finest performer.) Then, Mark Kermode gave it a tentatively positive appraisal, in which he drew parallels between it and the excellent Canadian horror movie Ginger Snaps. So yeah, I decided to give it a shot.

It's not bad, but it's no masterpiece either. It's not funny enough to genuinely work as a comedy, nor is it gruesome/unsettling/scary (delete as appropriate) to be an effective horror movie. Its heart is certainly in the right place, though, and it's entertaining in a light, unchallenging way. Surprise surprise, Megan Fox is rubbish in it, but that's almost beside the point as the character she's playing is a complete plastic anyway, so fake and insincere that her non-performance almost seems appropriate. Amanda Seyfried (of Mean Girls and Mamma Mia!), who is actually the true star of the movie, is much better (even if, as Kermode rightly points out, it's a little hard to accept her as the dowdy one). The script is certainly genre-literate, and Karyn Kusama directs with enough style for me to forgive her for the atrocity that was Aeon Flux. I'm not trying to suggest that this is some sort of misunderstood masterpiece, but I can't help thinking that it was an unfortunate casualty of the Diablo Cody/Megan Fox backlash that erupted this year in the wake of Cody's Oscar win for Juno and Fox's... well, I'm not entirely sure what she's supposed to have done, but I guess, in a way, that sums her up perfectly.

Image quality: Reference. 10/10

Jennifer's Body
studio: 20th Century Fox; country: USA; region code: A; codec: AVC;
file size: 25.1 GB (unrated cut), 23.9 GB (theatrical cut);
average bit rate (including audio): 33.47 Mbit/sec (unrated cut), 33.49 Mbit/sec (theatrical cut)

Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body Jennifer's Body

 
8 Comments

1. Ronny said:

Nice review. I actually enjoyed the film more than "Avatar". The transfer is a real beauty too. One of the better ones I've seen recently.

(Posted on Friday, January 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM)

2. Author Profile Page Michael said:

I haven't seen Avatar yet, and to be honest I don't have any great burning desire to. I'll probably catch up on it on BD, but in spite of all the positive reviews I've heard, the idea of it just doesn't grab me at all.

(Posted on Friday, January 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM)

3. Marcus said:

What does Jennifer's Body have to do with Avatar, out of curiosity? I posted my thoughts on Avatar in DarkDreams, a disappointment IMO. Expect 3 hours of visual delight and massive frustration.

(Posted on Sunday, January 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM)

4. Ronny said:

With regards to "Jennifer's Body" and "Avatar" connection, I expected very little of "Jennifer's Body", but was pleasantly surprised and entertained. I expected a lot from "Avatar", but was extremely disappointed. "Avatar" is razzle dazzle eye candy mixed with really bad acting, bad character development, predictable plot...am I missing something...oh yeah, it's a blatant rip off of "Dances With Wolves" and "Dune". Also, the 3D glasses gave me a massive headache afterwards:).

(Posted on Monday, January 4, 2010 at 12:23 AM)

5. David Mackenzie said:

I liked Avatar more as a film... but Jennifer's Body didn't give me a headache.

(Posted on Monday, January 4, 2010 at 3:32 AM)

6. FoxyMulder said:

Avatar has just passed the worldwide billion dollar mark this weekend at the box office and is currently the fourth biggest film of all time.

Thats actually great news for those who want 3D to succeed as it will mean many more films in that format ( i love it and want it to succeed )

Of course it also means more effort will be put into making the new home 3D format work. I actually never get sore heads with the glasses.

Avatar is supposed to be an adult version of Ferngully: The Last Rainforest or so i heard the director James Cameron saying in some interview.

Looks ok and i'm sure i would enjoy it but i'll wait until all the hype dies down as hype on a film ultimately leads to a disappointing viewing experience.

(Posted on Monday, January 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM)

7. LGans316 said:

IMO, Avatar as an action film is definitely worth the hype. The 3D wasn't effective and the story is cliched but its a technical and visual masterpiece. This should look and sound reference on Blu-ray.

(Posted on Monday, January 4, 2010 at 6:29 PM)

8. Kentai said:

District 9 was by far my favorite genre film of 2009, but Avatar was still a lot better than I'd expected it to be.

It's big, it's loud, it's long, it's beautiful, and yes, it's a little dumb - just like Aliens, True Lies and T2: Judgment Day. Avatar shares the same strengths and weaknesses as any of Cameron's "genre" movies, so I don't have a clue why people all got in a huff when it delivered no more and no less than Cameron - by way of his catalog - had ever promised them.

Oh wait, this was about Jennifer's Body? Damn, I got nothin'.

(Posted on Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at 12:57 AM)

 
Note: to combat spam and simplify site maintenance, BlogJanitor automatically closes comments on entries more than a month old.

 
Archives
Categories
Recent posts