Sunday, September 20, 2009

jennifer's body

so, is jennifer's body a good movie? i probably won't know until like a year from now when it hits cable. and, it looks like a lot of people are taking a very similar tactic. it finished 5th in the weekend box office totals. now, it's possible that 5th isn't bad. especially if the movie was going up against some real winners. let's see who finished ahead of the highly promoted and anticipated jennifer's body:

1. cloudy with a chance of meatballs - hey, it's hard to beat a movie intended for kids. seriously, parents and children's book lovers are definitely going to turn out for this movie.

2. the informant - well, this movie has seen about as much ad time as jennifer's body, so that's not the issue. maybe people just want funny over scary/weird. or, maybe matt damon is a bigger star.

3. tyler perry's i can do bad all by myself - uh oh, the wheels are coming off here. this movie has been out two weeks. it made a lot less than it did it's first weekend. but this movie looks epically bad to me.

4. love happens - aaron eckhardt is dreamy. and he's got helluva chin. err, wait, i mean jennifer aniston is hot. and this movie looks awesome. well, it's a romantic comedy, so i'm sure people were looking for date material or something.

5.jennifer's body.

the good news for jennifer's body is that it did beat sorority row, which looks like a steaming pile of crap.

but box office numbers don't tell the whole story. reviews also matter. rotten tomatoes has it rating @ 42% currently. that's not so good. tonight, i watched the review of it on at the movies. one of the reviewers was trying to say how the movie was sort of good and highlighted the co-star of the film, amanda seyfried. he went on quite a while about how it was a sort of decent movie with a few problems. the other guy dismissed that review and launched into a pretty rough take on the movie. he said that the other review was basically ignoring the major issue with the film, megan fox sucks. sure, amanda seyfried is good, but the movie apparently rambles all over, and did i mention he thought megan fox sucks? oh yeah, i did. he went on from there.

however, roger ebert, formerly of at the movies, said this, "There is within Diablo Cody the soul of an artist, and her screenplay brings to this material a certain edge, a kind of gleeful relish, that's uncompromising. This isn't your assembly-line teen horror thriller." interesting. not convincing, but interesting.

what i do know is that megan fox, who is allegedly the hottest thing around, couldn't get teenage boys to open their wallets. and that's pretty bad. i mean, really, it's a psuedo slasher, teen boys like that. they're advertising some sort of lesbian-y subtext, teen boys like that. megan fox is easy on the eyes, teen boys like that. megan fox was in transformers, and teen boys turned out in droves for that thing. so what went wrong?

beats me. all i know is there are probably a half dozen other movies out right now that i would rather see.

No comments: