Review: JENNIFER'S BODY

Movie: Jennifer's Body
MPAA Rating: R for sexuality, bloody violence, language and brief drug use
Running Time: 102 minutes
Stars: Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Adam Brody
Writer: Diablo Cody
Director: Karyn Kusama

Shortly after the 2007 release of "Juno", Diablo Cody was called the next big thing in screenwriting. A few months later she won the best original screenplay Oscar and began writing a once-a-month column in Entertainment Weekly. "Jennifer's Body" is the second movie she's written and well, it's definitely not up to the standards she set with "Juno".

We all know the plot already, the main character Jennifer (played without an inch of emotion or acting ability by Megan "Needs To Be Eaten By A" Fox) goes to a show at a local bar with her friend Needy (the horribly named character played much better by Amanda Seyfried) and is kidnapped by the band after for some stupid reason, the place burns down and they're some of the few survivors. Little does she know she's been kidnapped by a devil-worshipping band who's front man (Adam Brody) sacrifices her but doesn't kill her. A demon possesses her and she begins killing every teenage boy who comes into contact with her.

I was not really expecting too much from this movie after seeing the trailers, but I did not expect such a mediocre flick. Cody's writing has deteriorated into cliches and unfunny catch phrases (i.e. describing a guy as "super salty") that filled the first 20 or 30 minutes of "Juno" and I'm sure will become a big hit with the 14-year old girls who will enjoy the film. The story also is not that good either and filled with further cliches (the dumb parents and teachers, the skeptical boyfriend). The directing and look of the movie are typical horror movie low budget and are both serviceable. The acting isn't great either. Megan Fox is not only a very unattractive human being (inside and out) but how she got into acting is beyond me (wait, then again it probably involves some favors, of the sexual kind). She delivers her lines as if reading them from Post-Its that are hanging on walls around her. I really hope she stops getting jobs and goes far far away for a long time. Amanda Seyfried (who deserves better movies than this) does what she has to and collects a paycheck. Adam Brody, who I've loved ever since "The O.C." gets a fairly meaty sized role here but doesn't do much other than brood and feign sympathy, he also deserves better movies. To me one of the biggest wastes though is J.K. Simmons ("Juno", the "Spider-Man" trilogy). He is in only a handful of scenes but the scenes that he is in are the best, especially with the Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" wig and hook hand that he sports the entire flick. Why he isn't headlining more movies is beyond me, the guy's amazing.

I hope Diablo Cody takes some time to write her next script and focus on it being good and not her trademark, "faux-wittiness". This is one of those movies I'd recommend waiting for a discount theater or DVD to see. It's not worth $10 a ticket plus concessions. Plus, maybe if we don't support the film, Megan Fox will just disappear from the atmosphere for good.

The film gets 1 out of 5 stars.

Review: GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST

Movie: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sexual content throught, some language and a drug reference
Running time: 1 hour and 40 minutes
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Michael Douglas, Breckin Meyer
Writers: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore
Director: Mark Waters

"You can't always run from your past," reads the tagline for this 2009 romantic comedy. It should have said, you can't always run from horrific romantic comedies.

Matthew McConaughey plays his typecast self as Connor Mead, a photographer cad who basically has no soul. He sleeps with women for the hell of it and that's it. He has no real relationships with women, not even his assistant. The only woman he's ever really loved broke his heart years ago (or did she?) and he's never recovered from it. He learned the art of wooing women into bed at a young age from his Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas, in a role that I was hoping would have made the movie better but sadly he's wasted). Connor goes to his late uncle's mansion where his young brother (Meyer) is getting married to a bridezilla-lite (Lacey Chabert). Connor, of course, does not like or believe in the institution of marriage so he is none too pleased to be there but goes because of his brother. What he doesn't know is that the girl who "broke his heart", Jenny (Jennifer Garner) is the wedding planner/bridesmaid. The next couple scenes are blurry to me but I just remember tons of lame hitting on women and finally Douglas' character shows up and gets the story slightly kicking (it's dead on arrival for a majority of the time though). Connor is to learn about love from 3 ghosts he will be visited by (these people are still alive though yet they're in spirit form, whatever). The rest of the movie is basically trying to show the evolution of Connor's character from cad to nice guy (spoiler alert, but you already know that, because this is a mainstream romantic comedy, there's almost always a happy ending and the main character always learns a lesson).

Wow, I had a tiny sliver of hope for this movie. I liked the idea of it being a romantic comedy take on "A Christmas Carol" and the supporting cast but really all of that is wasted on a film that is pedestrian and by-the-numbers throughout. There are real no surprises or shocks or anything. Even as a date movie, it's pathetic. I am in no ways a biased male film reviewer. I've seen a lot of romantic comedies in my life and I've liked quite a few of them, but THIS was definitely not one I'd ever watch again or with anyone. I wouldn't even recommend it to couples. It has no redeeming value at all. I just felt bad for all the actors in this that I respect, especially Garner, Douglas, Meyer and Emma Stone, who is still too young in her career to be making crap like this, but she thankfully is one of the few shining lights in this movie as the ghost of girlfriends past. The recession must have really been hitting many of these guys and gals hard for them to agree to be in this. Not even McConauhgey, who I can normally stomach in his romantic comedies ("How To Lose a Guy In 10 Days" and "The Wedding Planner" to name a couple), just grated me. I did not wanna see him succeed or get the girl. He did not deserve it. But I am not gonna go on a tangent about "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past", it would be a rant wasted. Another thing, the writers of the movie Lucas and Moore, why would they write such tripe like this?! They wrote "The Hangover" for God's sakes! Thank God they have that modern classic under their belts. And Mark Waters, the director. He's known for fluff like this, but he's also responsible for the two lone saving graces in Lindsay Lohan's career "Freaky Friday" and "Mean Girls". Wow man, can you like stretch your filmmaking muscles please. Every director has at least one GOOD film in them, are those two them? Oh well, there I go ranting again. If you're a guy and you wanna take a girl to see a good romantic comedy, THIS would not be one of them. If you're a girl and you just want a good movie to cuddle up and watch, THIS is not one of those. You've seen it all before and done better. Leave this one on the shelf folks.

My grade for this waste, .5 out of 5 stars.

Update: 9/6/09

I haven't really been posting as much as I'd hoped (watched a couple movies here and there that I haven't taken the time to review like "Inglourious Basterds" which I had intended on writing one but I think my opinion might have been too biased based on the fact that I was getting sick while watching it), but I'm gonna try to keep posting as many as I can in the coming months. Thank you to everyone who reads my reviews and says kind things about what I write. I appreciate it and I write these for you, not for myself. Keep reading and I'll keep posting 'em.

-Justin

Review: GAMER

Movie: Gamer
MPAA Rating: R for strong frenetic brutal violence throughout, sexual content, nudity and language
Running Time: 1 hour and 35 minutes
Stars: Gerard Butler, Michael C. Hall, Kyra Sedgwick, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, Terry Crews, Amber Valetta
Writers/Directors: Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor

Over-the-top action films have been around since the 80s when Schwarzenegger and Stallone were in their prime. The 90s toned down (some would say watered down but that's not completely true) the violence and overt sexual content. The late 2000s have seen a resuscitation of the 80s with testosterone fests like the "Crank" movies (also directed by Neveldine and Taylor), "Shoot 'Em Up", "300", "Rambo", etc. "Gamer" is another one of those movies that are aimed for men and mostly men (although I won't say it's not girl-friendly, it stars Butler after all).

Now if you have seen the trailers and TV spots for it, or watched "Death Race" or "The Running Man", then you know what the overall plot is. The only real changes are that the "games" are more interactive, and instead of Jason Statham or Ahhnuld playing the hero, we have beefcake Butler. He does a serviceable job as Kable, the big star of the game within the film. Also in the film is Michael C. Hall (TV's "Dexter" and "Six Feet Under) as Castle, the zen-like creator of the simulation games in the film "Slayers" and "Society". The rest of the cast kinda just pops in every once in a while for some exposition and plot-explanation. In fact, two actors just pop in to collect paychecks (I won't say who, you'll see once you go watch the movie, I'll just tell you one of the characters they play is named Rick Rape....waits while many of you go on IMDb to search).

The movie itself is quite a mess. With such a "high concept" idea, it doesn't really delve into that portion of it too much. All the film is concerned with is showing intense graphic violence at a frenzied pace, which can be okay, if backed up with a well-told story. Then again, who am I to go see a movie called "Gamer" and expect Oscar-worthy story. The dizzying cinematography (while it looks spectacular in digital projection) leaves you wondering what the H-E-double hockey sticks is going on (especially in the first few minutes) for a majority of the running time. I wanted to walk out during the first 25 minutes but as the film progresses it gets a little more interesting (albeit more disturbing at times) and concludes with one of the most hilarious scene stealing moments I've seen in years involving Hall and Butler. The performances in the movie won't be winning any awards in the future, but don't ruin the picture at all. Now if only Butler had been given more dialogue.

I think if the story had been worked on more, we would have had a solid 90-minute time waster. Maybe if we're lucky an extended version will hit DVD/Blu-ray (definitely the way to see it once it hits home video). But with what I witnessed on screen, I can only give it:

2 out of 5 stars.

I'd personally recommend seeing this in a discount theater if you must see it theatrically, but if not wait for home video or cable.