Actually evil, not high school evil
October 31, 2018 10:13 PM Subscribe
I liked it - because I’m always game for a good tampon / period joke. But I couldn’t get over how the story was basically Christopher Pike’s book Monster.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
I have no idea how old Constance Grady is, but this strikes me as flat-out revisionism made by someone who wasn't around the film world in 2009 -- film people fucking loved JENNIFER'S BODY when it came out. Critics didn't like it for some reasons the article cites (Diablo Cody backlash) and some it implies (not a lot of female film critics or critics who recognized and grappled with issues of femininity and women, either back then or still today), and the public didn't like it because, as the article makes clear, the marketing made them expect a certain kind of genre exploitation that the movie was never going to deliver on.
Anyway, miss me with the endless "Let's re-evaluate a movie and assume that when I search "MOVIE TITLE date from: to:" that that gives me an accurate representation of opinion of the film back in the day."
posted by incessant at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2018 [8 favorites]
Anyway, miss me with the endless "Let's re-evaluate a movie and assume that when I search "MOVIE TITLE date from: to:" that that gives me an accurate representation of opinion of the film back in the day."
posted by incessant at 10:55 PM on October 31, 2018 [8 favorites]
I think Grady does a fair job of laying out that it's the reviewer domain and general zeitgeist that's changed, not the movie and as such is looking at the larger cultural reaction rather than those who did recognize Jennifer's Body for being something more interesting than claimed back when it was released. The marketing certainly was a major problem, which is almost always the case for movies that don't quite fit the expected standards, but the reviewer issue is the more notable aspect.
The sad thing about paid reviewers is that there is no level of competency or knowledge demanded over the things they are getting paid to review. Movie reviewers didn't get the jobs because they have demonstrated expertise on film history and interpretation, but because they provide moderately engaging writing on time and get page views. The rise of internet critics who write out of passion changed that dynamic some, maybe not entirely in demonstrating deep historical knowledge of film all the time, but in approaching movies from a wider range of perspectives.
The thing about movie history is that movies that get "remembered" are those that maintain a strong group of supporters as most movies, or works of any sort, are engaged with as in the moment pleasures. That means most movies just fade from conversation and active memory as they don't find any hook that carries them beyond their time. Movies with even small groups of "fans" or strong supporters are held on to as providing continuing importance which keeps them in active conversation. That conversation may start as small group celebration, but over time, if it is maintained, it grows as the works that it once competed against for attention fade.
How well or long Jennifer's Body will keep its status of meriting attention depends on how long it stands out from other movies of its time in providing something worthy of notice. It's gained attention could fade again if other movies are found to, essentially, take it's place, but as the culture changes a lot of what was once popular is going to start looking ever more questionable in hindsight, while movies like Jennifer's Body that showed greater awareness of the flaws in the culture will stay relevant for how well they capture things of continued importance.
Ironically, a key part of what makes Jennifer's Body interesting comes from the same thing that helped limit its success. Cody Diablo's notoriety and success with Juno gave her a chance to make a movie that didn't quite fall within the usual conventions of the time because studios were taking a gamble on her connecting to audiences in some unique way they didn't quite understand. That same notoriety though was what so many reviewers cued into in discussing the film. Reviewers almost never talk about screenwriters, unless they also direct, but Diablo got noticed which meant she was going to be subject to review, or, more accurately, the film was going to be reviewed as a proxy for Diablo and her style.
That the movie came out at the same time as the Twilight movies were being made and while there was a spate of horroresque films and some "auteurist" stuff like Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards, subjected Jennifer's Body to a range of different manners of comparison to which it could be found wanting for not fitting the norms of those accepted groups. Jennifer's Body did its own thing and reviewers weren't able to deal with it for neither being well versed in their area of work or in being able to see the relevance to the culture at large. It's an unfortunately common problem, in no small part, because that's what most movie viewers and review readers want; buying guides for instant gratification without any effort involved.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:31 PM on October 31, 2018 [9 favorites]
The sad thing about paid reviewers is that there is no level of competency or knowledge demanded over the things they are getting paid to review. Movie reviewers didn't get the jobs because they have demonstrated expertise on film history and interpretation, but because they provide moderately engaging writing on time and get page views. The rise of internet critics who write out of passion changed that dynamic some, maybe not entirely in demonstrating deep historical knowledge of film all the time, but in approaching movies from a wider range of perspectives.
The thing about movie history is that movies that get "remembered" are those that maintain a strong group of supporters as most movies, or works of any sort, are engaged with as in the moment pleasures. That means most movies just fade from conversation and active memory as they don't find any hook that carries them beyond their time. Movies with even small groups of "fans" or strong supporters are held on to as providing continuing importance which keeps them in active conversation. That conversation may start as small group celebration, but over time, if it is maintained, it grows as the works that it once competed against for attention fade.
How well or long Jennifer's Body will keep its status of meriting attention depends on how long it stands out from other movies of its time in providing something worthy of notice. It's gained attention could fade again if other movies are found to, essentially, take it's place, but as the culture changes a lot of what was once popular is going to start looking ever more questionable in hindsight, while movies like Jennifer's Body that showed greater awareness of the flaws in the culture will stay relevant for how well they capture things of continued importance.
Ironically, a key part of what makes Jennifer's Body interesting comes from the same thing that helped limit its success. Cody Diablo's notoriety and success with Juno gave her a chance to make a movie that didn't quite fall within the usual conventions of the time because studios were taking a gamble on her connecting to audiences in some unique way they didn't quite understand. That same notoriety though was what so many reviewers cued into in discussing the film. Reviewers almost never talk about screenwriters, unless they also direct, but Diablo got noticed which meant she was going to be subject to review, or, more accurately, the film was going to be reviewed as a proxy for Diablo and her style.
That the movie came out at the same time as the Twilight movies were being made and while there was a spate of horroresque films and some "auteurist" stuff like Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards, subjected Jennifer's Body to a range of different manners of comparison to which it could be found wanting for not fitting the norms of those accepted groups. Jennifer's Body did its own thing and reviewers weren't able to deal with it for neither being well versed in their area of work or in being able to see the relevance to the culture at large. It's an unfortunately common problem, in no small part, because that's what most movie viewers and review readers want; buying guides for instant gratification without any effort involved.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:31 PM on October 31, 2018 [9 favorites]
Boy do you lot have rosier memories of the reception to Jennifer’s Body (44% RT) than I do.
posted by Artw at 12:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [8 favorites]
I wonder how many people here listen to Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review, because Mark Kermode gave it a good review and kept championing it for years. That’s my main source of film reviews. I was aware it hadn’t gotten as good a reception as he thought it should have because he referred to it being underrated, but I didn’t realize it had received a thrashing from the critics.
posted by Kattullus at 1:08 AM on November 1, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 1:08 AM on November 1, 2018 [3 favorites]
Also in retrospect, Jennifer’s Body NAILS the dumb super-patronitc conservative culture of the post 9/11 Bush years - The lets bulldoze Dixie Chick albums era. It’s a little uncanny to watch now we’ve all decided to forget that ever haooened. .
posted by The Whelk at 2:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 2:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [9 favorites]
It’s a little uncanny to watch now we’ve all decided to forget that ever happened.
Speaking of alternate versions of the recent past... what did who decide to forget now? That was the same culture on prominent display during the first Gulf War; and from context clues back then, I assume also among people who actually supported or didn't actively oppose the Vietnam War (yes, such people exist - I've had them try to lecture my younger self about activism); and probably going farther back to previous wars as well. And the fact that it never went away - that the Patriot Act never expired, that Obama didn't really close down Guantanamo Bay, that "The War on Terror" became the new Cold War and terrorists became the new commies - that's part of why we are where we're at now.
posted by eviemath at 4:20 AM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
Speaking of alternate versions of the recent past... what did who decide to forget now? That was the same culture on prominent display during the first Gulf War; and from context clues back then, I assume also among people who actually supported or didn't actively oppose the Vietnam War (yes, such people exist - I've had them try to lecture my younger self about activism); and probably going farther back to previous wars as well. And the fact that it never went away - that the Patriot Act never expired, that Obama didn't really close down Guantanamo Bay, that "The War on Terror" became the new Cold War and terrorists became the new commies - that's part of why we are where we're at now.
posted by eviemath at 4:20 AM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
How well or long Jennifer's Body will keep its status of meriting attention depends on how long it stands out from other movies of its time in providing something worthy of notice.
This is a bizarre comment. It merits attention because it's a righteous feminist Hollywood movie and those are very rare. (Hint: Thelma and Louise isn't notable because they drive off a cliff, you know?)
posted by DarlingBri at 4:25 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
This is a bizarre comment. It merits attention because it's a righteous feminist Hollywood movie and those are very rare. (Hint: Thelma and Louise isn't notable because they drive off a cliff, you know?)
posted by DarlingBri at 4:25 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
It merits attention because it's a righteous feminist Hollywood movie and those are very rare.
But they won't necessarily stay that way and as time moves on, its "era" becomes more amorphous. Today people lump together films from multiple decades in thinking of them as being roughly of the same "time" as that era loses its cultural specificity to those born long after. Our knowledge of history condenses to moments or items of lingering significance, the exact ones of which are hard to predict for those living in the moment. That's how the past lives on and also how it gets distorted, something not at all uncommon when looking at how we talk about film history.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
But they won't necessarily stay that way and as time moves on, its "era" becomes more amorphous. Today people lump together films from multiple decades in thinking of them as being roughly of the same "time" as that era loses its cultural specificity to those born long after. Our knowledge of history condenses to moments or items of lingering significance, the exact ones of which are hard to predict for those living in the moment. That's how the past lives on and also how it gets distorted, something not at all uncommon when looking at how we talk about film history.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:43 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
Today people lump together films from multiple decades in thinking of them as being roughly of the same "time" as that era loses its cultural specificity to those born long after.
I don't think anyone is suggesting this film is a great for the ages. And none of us have a crystal ball so whatever; it hardly matters anyway. The relevant bit is that a film made a decade ago that was an underground feminist hit and a popular flop is resonating more broadly today in the current #metoo culture.
That's it. It isn't complex.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:48 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
I don't think anyone is suggesting this film is a great for the ages. And none of us have a crystal ball so whatever; it hardly matters anyway. The relevant bit is that a film made a decade ago that was an underground feminist hit and a popular flop is resonating more broadly today in the current #metoo culture.
That's it. It isn't complex.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:48 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
All right, I'm just confused because nothing I said contradicts the idea that Jennifer's Body is right now deserving of attention, it is, whether it stays that way is an open question.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:53 AM on November 1, 2018
posted by gusottertrout at 5:53 AM on November 1, 2018
I'm open to watching this again, but my two lasting memories of the film are that Satan chose an emo band as his instruments of evil and that they, while seeking a virgin, opted for the hottest girl in the room. But I'm way better in tune with feminist messaging these days than I was a decade ago, so maybe both of these things will make sense in context when I re-watch. Which I will. Pinky swear.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
Well I certainly hadn't heard any of the positive press surrounding it, either when it came out or since, up until now, so I'm glad it's getting some mentions if only because now it's on my Netflix list.
I had a hard time remembering the film at all until I watched the trailer (embedded in the article) and recalled seeing it ahead of some other movies. But the trailer... well, now after reading the article I get why the actors were not huge fans of the way the movie was promoted. Because I more or less wrote the thing off on that basis. The way it's presented definitely leads you down the garden path of believing that it's just another highschool (inexplicably filled with twentysomethings) horror flick—traditionally an excuse for thinly-veiled softcore porn—with the rather unsubtle twist of having the "hot" girl be the monster and the "nerdy" girl be the protagonist. I'm not saying that's actually what the film is, but that seems to be how it was promoted to audiences. So, naturally, they got butts in seats looking for that; presumably disappointed.
FWIW, I don't know if it's exactly the case that 2009 just wasn't ready for a feminist or at least not-traditionally-antifeminist horror movie; a couple years before Jennifer's Body, we had Teeth (currently 80% fresh on RT—though only 45% audience), and I recall it getting pretty good critical reception, even if it did make some male-gaze-y viewers (one assumes, intentionally) rather uncomfortable. It is, uh, not a subtle film. But it could have laid the groundwork for Jennifer's Body if the latter had been promoted differently.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:31 AM on November 1, 2018
I had a hard time remembering the film at all until I watched the trailer (embedded in the article) and recalled seeing it ahead of some other movies. But the trailer... well, now after reading the article I get why the actors were not huge fans of the way the movie was promoted. Because I more or less wrote the thing off on that basis. The way it's presented definitely leads you down the garden path of believing that it's just another highschool (inexplicably filled with twentysomethings) horror flick—traditionally an excuse for thinly-veiled softcore porn—with the rather unsubtle twist of having the "hot" girl be the monster and the "nerdy" girl be the protagonist. I'm not saying that's actually what the film is, but that seems to be how it was promoted to audiences. So, naturally, they got butts in seats looking for that; presumably disappointed.
FWIW, I don't know if it's exactly the case that 2009 just wasn't ready for a feminist or at least not-traditionally-antifeminist horror movie; a couple years before Jennifer's Body, we had Teeth (currently 80% fresh on RT—though only 45% audience), and I recall it getting pretty good critical reception, even if it did make some male-gaze-y viewers (one assumes, intentionally) rather uncomfortable. It is, uh, not a subtle film. But it could have laid the groundwork for Jennifer's Body if the latter had been promoted differently.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:31 AM on November 1, 2018
i don't really see how whether or not critics find it "deserving of attention" forever and ever until the end of time could possibly mean anything to people who feel a strong and delightful connection to a movie where one character says "but you're KILLING PEOPLE" and the other character responds "no, i'm just killing BOYS".
posted by poffin boffin at 7:34 AM on November 1, 2018 [13 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 7:34 AM on November 1, 2018 [13 favorites]
I know it's mentioned in TFA and other FAs, but I'd just like to stress what a raw deal Megan Fox has gotten from Hollywood.
posted by signal at 7:47 AM on November 1, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by signal at 7:47 AM on November 1, 2018 [8 favorites]
I remember the online sentiment being really anti-this movie, but I enjoyed it... then none of my friends saw it so I just never really thought of it again. I think it was mostly anti-Diablo Cody because some movies were REALLY trying to be Juno at the time. Jesus... how is this movie 9 years old though? Am I...… getting old...……? No, no, it is the children who are getting old.
Somehow in my mind Teeth was made after Jennifer's Body so perhaps my memory is scrambled.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
Somehow in my mind Teeth was made after Jennifer's Body so perhaps my memory is scrambled.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
The Juno backlash was intense and, in retrospect, weirdly aimed.
posted by Artw at 8:24 AM on November 1, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:24 AM on November 1, 2018 [4 favorites]
One of my favorite podcasts, Faculty of Horror, has an entire episode about Jennifer's Body (which was the first place I heard of it... my focus is British Folk Horror):
Faculty of Horror Episode 3: Jennifer's Body
And Megan Fox was great on New Girl!
posted by lefty lucky cat at 8:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [5 favorites]
Faculty of Horror Episode 3: Jennifer's Body
And Megan Fox was great on New Girl!
posted by lefty lucky cat at 8:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [5 favorites]
The article had already convinced me to rewatch simply by reminding me it was a film by Karyn Kusama.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:26 AM on November 1, 2018
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:26 AM on November 1, 2018
I'm reading a book that sounds like Jennifer's Body, actually. My Best Friend's Exorcism.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 8:28 AM on November 1, 2018
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 8:28 AM on November 1, 2018
The Juno backlash was intense and, in retrospect, weirdly aimed.
Juno was celebrated for weird things, like it's too-precious use of language, and overlooked for the things it did well, like its deep dive into the psyche of Jason Bateman's character, who was largely based on a friend of mine (Cody's ex) and is both a little unfair to him but also a really sharply drawn picture of being a person whose idea of cool was cemented in your early 20s and what that means when you are now in your 30s.
posted by maxsparber at 8:39 AM on November 1, 2018 [11 favorites]
Juno was celebrated for weird things, like it's too-precious use of language, and overlooked for the things it did well, like its deep dive into the psyche of Jason Bateman's character, who was largely based on a friend of mine (Cody's ex) and is both a little unfair to him but also a really sharply drawn picture of being a person whose idea of cool was cemented in your early 20s and what that means when you are now in your 30s.
posted by maxsparber at 8:39 AM on November 1, 2018 [11 favorites]
I love Jennifer's Body and don't really understand the confusion. The movie is obviously about rape trauma and the ways teenage girls are sexualized and judged by their appearances - I've had to warn several friends not to watch it because it will hit them too close to home.
Reading the article, it gives me the screaming creeps that a movie about rape trauma got panned for not being fun enough for cis straight men. The whole demonic possession thing is such a thin and obvious metaphor, and Jennifer's behavior is so obviously about her trying to process her trauma in the only way available to her.
There's also something truly brilliant in casting Megan Fox as a hot girl who has nothing else going for her, and then having the relationship in the movie be a competition between Jennifer and Needy's boyfriend for Needy's attentions. I'll normally be first in line to complain about two women kissing to titillate men, but the kiss between them is the only tender moment in the whole movie and I felt like it offered a lot of insight into the characters.
Anyway. I'd recommend this along with Ginger Snaps (all three of them) and Teeth.
posted by bile and syntax at 9:06 AM on November 1, 2018 [12 favorites]
Reading the article, it gives me the screaming creeps that a movie about rape trauma got panned for not being fun enough for cis straight men. The whole demonic possession thing is such a thin and obvious metaphor, and Jennifer's behavior is so obviously about her trying to process her trauma in the only way available to her.
There's also something truly brilliant in casting Megan Fox as a hot girl who has nothing else going for her, and then having the relationship in the movie be a competition between Jennifer and Needy's boyfriend for Needy's attentions. I'll normally be first in line to complain about two women kissing to titillate men, but the kiss between them is the only tender moment in the whole movie and I felt like it offered a lot of insight into the characters.
Anyway. I'd recommend this along with Ginger Snaps (all three of them) and Teeth.
posted by bile and syntax at 9:06 AM on November 1, 2018 [12 favorites]
I'm a huge fan of Ginger Snaps and Teeth, so seeing this movie mentioned alongside them only reinforces the idea that I missed the boat the first time through.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:26 AM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
i don't really see how whether or not critics find it "deserving of attention" forever and ever until the end of time could possibly mean anything to people who feel a strong and delightful connection to a movie where one character says "but you're KILLING PEOPLE" and the other character responds "no, i'm just killing BOYS".
That's a great line, yes, but it's not in the film. Cut before release for some reason.
But, as you point out, of course it's possible for Jennifer's Body to be a critical and commercial flop and a feminist cult classic simultaneously. The point of cult classics, I think, is that they are not recognized as such by the mainstream. It's also possible to think Jennifer's Body is absolutely on point thematically but too much of a mess in terms of tone and execution to qualify as a classic, which is pretty much where I fall on it — I'm 100% on board with its politics, but I don't think it necessarily works as a movie, smart and interesting though the metaphors may be.
posted by Mothlight at 10:01 AM on November 1, 2018 [3 favorites]
That's a great line, yes, but it's not in the film. Cut before release for some reason.
But, as you point out, of course it's possible for Jennifer's Body to be a critical and commercial flop and a feminist cult classic simultaneously. The point of cult classics, I think, is that they are not recognized as such by the mainstream. It's also possible to think Jennifer's Body is absolutely on point thematically but too much of a mess in terms of tone and execution to qualify as a classic, which is pretty much where I fall on it — I'm 100% on board with its politics, but I don't think it necessarily works as a movie, smart and interesting though the metaphors may be.
posted by Mothlight at 10:01 AM on November 1, 2018 [3 favorites]
It may have been one of the first films to run into the weird cultural gatekeeping around horror that has been digging the genre recently, with a segment of the horror critic old guard freaking out about It Follows, Babadook, The VVitch etc...
posted by Artw at 10:32 AM on November 1, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:32 AM on November 1, 2018 [3 favorites]
And Megan Fox was great on New Girl!
I think you mean terrible, but they never gave her anything to work with and her character had no personality.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:03 AM on November 1, 2018
I think you mean terrible, but they never gave her anything to work with and her character had no personality.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:03 AM on November 1, 2018
Jezebel was a pretty big promoter of this movie, and I always thought they got this one right. Jennifer's Body is such a great movie! I think it fits into the same difficult niche of "horror genre, but not especially frightening" as Crimson Peak. Horror fans get mad at these movies for not being scary enough, while non-horror fans avoid because they don't want to risk a month of nightmares. This is actually my sweet spot, but I understand why it can be hard to market.
(That said, it really did receive a lot of terrible reviews. You can call it a Diablo Cody thing or a Megan Fox thing, and both of those are surely a factor, but it also had a female director. A good director...who has mostly been doing TV in the decade since this movie came out.)
posted by grandiloquiet at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
(That said, it really did receive a lot of terrible reviews. You can call it a Diablo Cody thing or a Megan Fox thing, and both of those are surely a factor, but it also had a female director. A good director...who has mostly been doing TV in the decade since this movie came out.)
posted by grandiloquiet at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
with a segment of the horror critic old guard freaking out about It Follows, Babadook, The VVitch etc...
I didn't know this was a thing but of course it is. Now at least I have another red flag to watch out for when trying to avoid poorly socialized young-ish white men terrified of losing the privilege they've been told they were entitled to since they were boys.
posted by treepour at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2018 [4 favorites]
I didn't know this was a thing but of course it is. Now at least I have another red flag to watch out for when trying to avoid poorly socialized young-ish white men terrified of losing the privilege they've been told they were entitled to since they were boys.
posted by treepour at 11:34 AM on November 1, 2018 [4 favorites]
I think you mean terrible, but they never gave her anything to work with and her character had no personality.
Initially I thought she merely did a good job of keeping up on a show where the cast are both really strong comedy performers AND very settled into their characters, but after a few more rounds of re-watching (New Girl is my comfort food in these trying times) I came to really like what she brought. More than Jess, sometimes.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 11:38 AM on November 1, 2018
Initially I thought she merely did a good job of keeping up on a show where the cast are both really strong comedy performers AND very settled into their characters, but after a few more rounds of re-watching (New Girl is my comfort food in these trying times) I came to really like what she brought. More than Jess, sometimes.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 11:38 AM on November 1, 2018
Hah! I've been defending Jennifer's Body on Metafilter for a decade. I am a trailblazer. You bandwagon jumpers.
It's pretty good! One of those films I always leave on in the background if I notice it's playing.
posted by Justinian at 12:15 PM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
It's pretty good! One of those films I always leave on in the background if I notice it's playing.
posted by Justinian at 12:15 PM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
Call me when you start defending Jason X.
posted by maxsparber at 2:16 PM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 2:16 PM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
Jason X is the perfect movie that is Jason X. No Jason in space movie may better it.
Also it shows that Jason’s brain burns with the literal fires of hell.
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on November 1, 2018 [3 favorites]
Also it shows that Jason’s brain burns with the literal fires of hell.
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on November 1, 2018 [3 favorites]
Jason X had the freezing scene and also the simulated campers as high points. "We love pre-marital sex!" plus when I saw it in the theater, a mom had two small children sitting front row. I recommend it more than Leprechaun in Space.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 2:45 PM on November 1, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 2:45 PM on November 1, 2018 [5 favorites]
Jason X is the best, and only, Friday the 13th movie I have ever seen.
posted by Earthtopus at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Earthtopus at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2018 [2 favorites]
Now that it's popular I must turn my back.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 3:09 PM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 3:09 PM on November 1, 2018 [1 favorite]
I rematched it just now. On second watch, I give it bonus points for ambition and I definitely see how the rape culture undercurrents were pretty bold. I'm even willing to admit Megan Fox was pretty great. This is the kind of thorny, but gutsy misfire that earns its cult following.
That said, the things that bothered me the first time are still there. It winks and smirks when it should be stone faced. Cody's dialogue is still overly precious. (The only thing that keeps that narration from going in a time capsule as a perfect example of a particular kind of smarmy pseudo-meta BS is that it came about five years after that actual trend.) As rich as the underlying thematic content is (and as sharp as Kusama's direction often is) the actual story feels like Cody working through some influences--Kevin Williamson and Michael Lehmann.
I still like it far better than I did the first time. I'd rather see an ambitious misfire from talented young artists getting their feet under them than... well, than most things, really. Especially if it's horror.
Totally worth reconsidering.
I still don't believe that even human sacrifice would make Satan take interest in an emo band though.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:05 AM on November 2, 2018
That said, the things that bothered me the first time are still there. It winks and smirks when it should be stone faced. Cody's dialogue is still overly precious. (The only thing that keeps that narration from going in a time capsule as a perfect example of a particular kind of smarmy pseudo-meta BS is that it came about five years after that actual trend.) As rich as the underlying thematic content is (and as sharp as Kusama's direction often is) the actual story feels like Cody working through some influences--Kevin Williamson and Michael Lehmann.
I still like it far better than I did the first time. I'd rather see an ambitious misfire from talented young artists getting their feet under them than... well, than most things, really. Especially if it's horror.
Totally worth reconsidering.
I still don't believe that even human sacrifice would make Satan take interest in an emo band though.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:05 AM on November 2, 2018
« Older In the Ocean of Night | Miffa Miffa Meeka Moo! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by muddgirl at 10:31 PM on October 31, 2018 [21 favorites]