Jennifer's Body Review

Suikun

New member
Mar 25, 2009
159
0
0
Jennifer's Body

Rated R (Bloody Violence, Sexuality, Language, Brief Drug Use

Run Time: 103 minutes


Normally I don't watch horror movies. I loathe their outlandish plots that force the victims to be incredibly stupid or else it would never conceivably work. I detest the amount of shameless lore that's butchered and inaccuracies made for the sake of creating a more unlikable villain. I'm enraged by the sheer bastardization of everything and how "horror" is equivalent to the word "gore".

But more than anything, I hate how horror flicks are now required to have some sort of superfluous sex scene. It doesn't matter if there's a punishment for this (Friday the 13th style), but every single one of them has to include somebody getting naked.

However, Jennifer's Body takes this one step further; not only including quite a few needless shots of Megan Fox getting naked (most notably one scene where she's skinny dipping in a lake and there's no rhyme or reason for it ever mentioned), but scenes of sex between characters that are only present for the subsidiary soft-core porn needed to make any movie successful in today's oversexed marketplace.

The Plot

The plot is a joke, plain and simple.

Trying not to give too much of the movie away, Jennifer (Megan Fox) goes to a club/bar with her friend, "Needy" (a name that's never explained, played by Amanda Seyfried) to see an indie rock show within their quaint town of Devil's Kettle. Being the "bad girl" she is, Jennifer lays eyes on the lead singer, and decides that she's going to do the stereotypical head-girl-in-school thing and sleep with him. In a short series of poorly done cinematography that reminds me quite a bit of The Blair Witch Project (shaking cameras, fast cuts, and lots of screaming, even throwing in some out-of-place sound effects just for fun) the club burns down killing many inhabitants. Shortly after, the lead singer of the band comes out to make sure that Jennifer is alright, and takes her into the band's van, and speeds off into the night, leaving Needy confused and scared for her friend.

Later that night, Needy finds Jennifer bloodied and hysterical as she proceeds to break things in Needy's house and even eat a chicken before throwing up... liquid evil or something and running into the night. From there, grisly deaths and more appearances of a bloodied Jennifer confront Needy as she tries to figure out just what happened on that fateful night to her best friend, and how to stop her bloodbath.

From that you might not think there's much to dislike about the movie's plot, and I wish I could go into what I really hate without spoiling anything, but... it's the rest of the movie that really pisses me off. Spoiler tag powers, do your thing.

Essentially, the indie band tries to sacrifice Jennifer as a virgin sacrifice to Satan to promote their record label and increase their fame. They do this by using a book called "Witches", with the bold preface of a normal pentagram. They sacrifice her to the big Evil, but because she's not truly a virgin, she turns into a succubus who's thirsty for blood. Boy's blood. And organs, too.

Needy finds this out after being boldly told by Jennifer, because "...I'm your best friend, I thought you should know." Also she does research on Satanism, ritual sacrifice, and demonology... right in her school library.

Jennifer apparently chows down on boys to steal their youth or something that's never really explained, but she's more beautiful once she's eaten. She lies, cheats, and continues to eat.

It boils down to a final battle between Jennifer and Needy, ending when Needy cuts the BFF necklace they shared from Jennifer's neck. She looses her powers, and Needy stabs her with an exacto knife.

Oh, and the story starts in medias res with Needy in an insane asylum, babbling on about how she's an evil little hellion after the events of what happened.

The plot is cliche and bland, and only sets the movie up to be a Friday the 13th clone of killing people who fall under a certain ruleset. However, the movie fails at both of those: giving only mild bloodiness and the only rule to being a victim is "you're male, and you're susceptible to my womanly charms." Also, the body count of the villain is only three. Failure as a "slasher" type horror, but it's not suitable for any other genre.


Dialogue

The dialogue of Jennifer's Body is horrific; a mixture of far-fetched conclusions that are even more outlandish than the answers to the Riddler's riddles in the old Batman cartoons, and painfully bad one-liners. A few starring moments are:

-"Check it out... a bowing knife." "Bowie? Nice."
-"You are so salty."
-(After a big long bit of makeout foreplay) "Let's go swimming... I want to see your breaststroke."
-"Nice hardware... Ace."

and the tagline of the movie...

She's evil... and not just high school evil.​
It was painful to sit through this dialogue that all-too-consistently was filled with either this terrible joke of writing, or even worse: the sounds of moaning and gasping as the parts of sex scenes.

Does it fit the genre?

As I said before; this movie fails to deliver the scares. It seems like it wanted to actually be something that would be more psychological or jump-out-and-spook scary, and didn't want to go the cheap gross-out gore route. Unfortunately, the way the director did things, it half-asses the gore factor, and there's no psychological or cheap jump scares to speak of.

Honestly, I'd say given the nudity scenes, the gratuitous amount of on-camera and implied sex, along with the short lesbian make-out scene... this is meant to be halfway between a horror movie and a soft-core porno. Strongly gravitating towards the second option, due to the lack of much of anything disturbing.

Other Things

My other gripes of the movie are as follows:

-A deer chomping on the dead body of a victim.

-The make-out scene... it's needless, and all it does is gives straight guys a cheap stiffy.

-The many sex scenes, a few of which are (likewise) not needed for the plot, but only serve as more pseudo-porn.

-Unexplained things that lead to conclusions that are just ridiculous including...
the psychic link between the girls, how she chooses her next victims, how cutting the necklace broke the demon powers, just to name a few

-The ending is just... disappointing. Trying to say it without spoilers: there could be a lot more of a bloody resolution rather than such a tame retribution.

Wrap Up

Jennifer's Body is awful. If you want a movie that tries to be horror and porno at the same time: this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a movie that will spook you, make you cringe at gore, or make you stay up all night with the lights on; you will be disappointed.

Also, for the record: I would like to say that this objectification of adding shameless sex and lesbianism to simply get more horny men watching is disgusting. If you're going to insist on that, at least have the kindness to include cute guys doing the same. Bloody wanks...

~Sui


EDIT: Let me know how you like the review and what I can improve on. I'll admit, this wasn't one of my better reviews, so I'd like your feedback to know what I can do to get better!
 

Cherry Cola

Your daddy, your Rock'n'Rolla
Jun 26, 2009
11,940
0
0
A Megan Foxx movie was bad? I would have never guessed!

It was a rather good review. But it needs more pictures!
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
Review was probably good, but I lost interest once the words "Megan Fox" came up, plus ive never heard of Jennifers body
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
Yeah, well written reveiw though I'm unsure as to why you'd have bothered watching it. I'm sure google is more than capable of showing off a pretty girls bare chest (even megan fox if you're willing to type in her name). I can't imagine anyone actually expecting anything from this film.
 

Disaster Button

Elite Member
Feb 18, 2009
5,237
0
41
HUBILUB said:
A Megan Foxx movie was bad? I would have never guessed!

It was a rather good review. But it needs more pictures!
All she needs is one more X in here name and she'll become a whore in name and profession and.. everything she does. She's sticky and ew.

OT: Pretty good review, and splitting it into categories was a good move too.
 

Suikun

New member
Mar 25, 2009
159
0
0
Dys said:
Yeah, well written reveiw though I'm unsure as to why you'd have bothered watching it. I'm sure google is more than capable of showing off a pretty girls bare chest (even megan fox if you're willing to type in her name). I can't imagine anyone actually expecting anything from this film.
Because I was bored and curious why the hell there was so much hype over the movie. Apparently, my mind happened to filter out the words "Megan Fox kissing a girl," when I heard this, so I wasn't running away from it then.

And yes: Why indeed... especially seeing as I'm gay, so boobs don't particularly interest me...

Random argument man said:
I don't know why you guys keep calling this "horrible". I laughed all the way. I could honestly say it's was a good comedy of cheesiness.

It kinda makes me remember something...
This is because the movie seemed like it was trying to take itself seriously. If it's a parody, then it's parody, and it doesn't have to be bold faced to do it. Rocky Horror is one of my favorite movies to date, and not just because I love the song about being a sweet transvestite.

This movie just shows how awful a serious attempt at horror can really be before it crosses the line into intentional parody.
 

DuplicateValue

New member
Jun 25, 2009
3,748
0
0
You're taking the movie way too seriously.
That horrible dialogue? Intentional. It's so horrible, there's no way it wasn't put there on purpose. It's also fucking hilarious.

As for your complaints about all the sex scenes: look at the title of the movie.
Why wouldn't you expect a movie called "Jennifer's Body" to be full of sex scenes? Especially when Megan Fox was their best asset.

I have to say, I loved the movie - it's never boring, it's funny, and it delivers nothing less than what you were expecting when you paid for the ticket.
 

Xpwn3ntial

Avid Reader
Dec 22, 2008
8,023
0
0
That movie is so bad it's good. You're just being a little too... I can't think of the word.
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
Suikun said:
Dys said:
Yeah, well written reveiw though I'm unsure as to why you'd have bothered watching it. I'm sure google is more than capable of showing off a pretty girls bare chest (even megan fox if you're willing to type in her name). I can't imagine anyone actually expecting anything from this film.
Because I was bored and curious why the hell there was so much hype over the movie. Apparently, my mind happened to filter out the words "Megan Fox kissing a girl," when I heard this, so I wasn't running away from it then.

And yes: Why indeed... especially seeing as I'm gay, so boobs don't particularly interest me...
Don't be like that, I'm straight and as such have no sexual interest in men, but I can still appraciate the beauty of the male body (to the point where I'm even motivated to sculp my own). Surely you could find a similar beauty in the power of boobs, though Megan Fox and sillicon aren't an especially inspired example...
 

Suikun

New member
Mar 25, 2009
159
0
0
Dys said:
Suikun said:
And yes: Why indeed... especially seeing as I'm gay, so boobs don't particularly interest me...
Don't be like that, I'm straight and as such have no sexual interest in men, but I can still appraciate the beauty of the male body (to the point where I'm even motivated to sculp my own). Surely you could find a similar beauty in the power of boobs, though Megan Fox and sillicon aren't an especially inspired example...
Allow me to make my stance on nudity a tad clearer, then...

In porn: Well, it's supposed to be there. If there's boobs in Girl's Gone Wild, I'm not going to call it a bad porno, just not my personal preference.

In art: If it's fairly relevant to the piece, (i.e. Hell, showing of innocence, etc.)sure. Again; it's the female figure and if it's bare it's at least nice to heave a reason for it rather than just "HEY LOOK, BOOBS!"

In movies: Same as art. So long as it's relevant I have no qualms.

Jennifer's Body just makes a needless show of what I can only assume to be cock-tease just for the sake of getting more horny guys into the theaters... that I have no patience for, and it's perverting the female figure for not-so-subliminal advertisement.

DuplicateValue said:
You're taking the movie way too seriously.
That horrible dialogue? Intentional. It's so horrible, there's no way it wasn't put there on purpose. It's also fucking hilarious.

As for your complaints about all the sex scenes: look at the title of the movie.
Why wouldn't you expect a movie called "Jennifer's Body" to be full of sex scenes? Especially when Megan Fox was their best asset.

I have to say, I loved the movie - it's never boring, it's funny, and it delivers nothing less than what you were expecting when you paid for the ticket.
Xpwn3ntial said:
That movie is so bad it's good. You're just being a little too... I can't think of the word.
The more I think about it, the more I want to believe that you're both right. But given how much potential the movie could have had if it would stop with the showing off barely-legal girls bits, I want to believe that it's not supposed to be a joke. And I can't really say that I laughed at anything, but I got fairly close to crying because I realized I wasted my time and money to watch something that was absolute crap based on the gimmick of "Heeeey... Megan Fox makes out with a chick... awesome..."

I want to go on a tangent to explain why I hate things like this and Jackass and so forth so much, but I'll spare the forums of that...
 

DuplicateValue

New member
Jun 25, 2009
3,748
0
0
Suikun said:
The more I think about it, the more I want to believe that you're both right. But given how much potential the movie could have had if it would stop with the showing off barely-legal girls bits, I want to believe that it's not supposed to be a joke. And I can't really say that I laughed at anything, but I got fairly close to crying because I realized I wasted my time and money to watch something that was absolute crap based on the gimmick of "Heeeey... Megan Fox makes out with a chick... awesome..."
As far as I can remember, there wasn't any actual nudity in the movie. All nudity happened off-screen.
Correct me if I'm wrong - it's been a while since I saw it.
 

Suikun

New member
Mar 25, 2009
159
0
0
DuplicateValue said:
As far as I can remember, there wasn't any actual nudity in the movie. All nudity happened off-screen.
Correct me if I'm wrong - it's been a while since I saw it.
Unfortunately, after suffering through it a second time; you're right. The closest it comes to actual nudity is a from-behind shot of the Fox, completely nude. Otherwise, it's a lot of partial nudity that rivals the paintings that use a woman's long hair to hide nipples.

But, the point I'm trying to get across is that people need to stop marketing movies with boobs being the reason to come see it. I miss days when story actually seemed to count...
 

giantgemclips

New member
Mar 26, 2009
23
0
0
Suikun said:
Jennifer's Body

Rated R (Bloody Violence, Sexuality, Language, Brief Drug Use

Run Time: 103 minutes



EDIT: Let me know how you like the review and what I can improve on. I'll admit, this wasn't one of my better reviews, so I'd like your feedback to know what I can do to get better!
Well, first of all if you don't like horror films you are starting out with a bit of a bias. I have to agree with you that I don't like how horror films have migrated from "scary/supernatural" to what I would actually consider "Slasher" films.

In any case, Jennifer's body does have issues. First of all I do think that it is supposed to be a parody. The dialogue is supposed to be cheasy. However, something is not right with the movie and I almost blame the director. Either that or the script needed another once over.

I don't really think that certain things need to be explained. The character "Needy" absolutly needs no explanation. she is a person who has self esteem issues and who seems to require or "need" the approval of others who have a bit more social weight. There is a scene in the movie where the relationship of needy and jennifer is sort of defined at a young age. This sets the tone for their relationship later in life.

Having this sort of succubus feeding on young men does not really need an explanation. It's a succubus.

I don't believe that tearing the "BFF" pendant made the demon's powers dissipate. I think it was more symbolic.

My thought about the movie is that the writer and director had a lot they wante to do but they didn't have the skill or inclination to expand it.

For instance, there seems to be a bit of depth there and that relationships really could have been expanded. The football player who mourns his dead friend, the relationship with Needy and the Goth guy, Perhaps even showing more of why Needy was "Needy" though an actual explanation is not necessary as we just need to see more of her foibles.

The comedy of the movie needed to be amped up as well.

It's almost as if there were all these ideas but none of them were taken to places where they could shine.

I kept hearing about how the premise of the movie was ridiculous but after watching it I didn't think the premise of a rock band making a sacrifice for their career was so far fetched if done right.

It's almost as if each idea needed to be treated a certain way but in order to do that it would ruin another idea if not done right. So each idea pulls at other ideas and none of them get the room they need to grow.

Also, I think it's ok to have "nude" (as there really isn't any nudity) scenes and sexuality with a central being that is a succubus.

what is needed is more "funny" for the funny bits, more of us knowing the characters so that we really can sign into them, and a way to integrate all the ideas so that they seem more natural to the movie as a whole.

After watching it I felt the movie should have worked but missed the mark. If one watches it with the right mindset one might be able to appreciate it with an eye for what could have been. Also, I liked the ending very much (the very ending) and thought it was needed. One can't have actions without consequences.

I give the movie a C+/B-.
 

Suikun

New member
Mar 25, 2009
159
0
0
giantgemclips said:
It's a succubus.
Just wanted to pull this out in particular...

Succubi aren't killers. Neither -cubi kill their victims, according to the original lore. They were sex demons, yes, and I can understand that increasing the sexuality of the film, but... that's like saying a movie about Heaven needs all sorts of nudity because it's what many people would consider a part of Heaven.

Ah, right, and yes, I did start out with a bias, but I do indeed enjoy horror films that are actually... horrific. That meaning they invoke fear of some kind (regrettably it's usually through extreme-gore, nowadays). Again: I can see this as being how Jennifer's Body is a parody, having a slasher film without gore or over-the-top deaths, but as you said, it misses the mark by not being funny enough, and the bits it does parody are too subtle, which leads me to continue to believe that it was just a failed movie.
 

giantgemclips

New member
Mar 26, 2009
23
0
0
Suikun said:
giantgemclips said:
It's a succubus.
Just wanted to pull this out in particular...

Succubi aren't killers. Neither -cubi kill their victims, according to the original lore. They were sex demons, yes, and I can understand that increasing the sexuality of the film, but... that's like saying a movie about Heaven needs all sorts of nudity because it's what many people would consider a part of Heaven.

Ah, right, and yes, I did start out with a bias, but I do indeed enjoy horror films that are actually... horrific. That meaning they invoke fear of some kind (regrettably it's usually through extreme-gore, nowadays). Again: I can see this as being how Jennifer's Body is a parody, having a slasher film without gore or over-the-top deaths, but as you said, it misses the mark by not being funny enough, and the bits it does parody are too subtle, which leads me to continue to believe that it was just a failed movie.
I do recall a book/movie called "the succubus" which did have some deaths but you are correct they do not actually start out to kill.

My thought is that the being is then just a demon that uses the sexuality of the host in order to lure victims. So a different take on the idea of succubus. With all the changes made from the original lore about vampires (they were never killed by stakes and they became weaker during the day as opposed to burning up, etc) it's not unimaginable to think that someone would alter the idea of a succubus.

But again, though I could enjoy the movie for what it was, I have to say that it need "more" in order to really make it great.