Jul 16 2009
‘Juno 2,’ Sorry I Mean the ‘Whip It’ Trailer Debuts
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cA2ngjW0YQ
I mean come on, don’t act like this movie couldn’t be a direct sequel to Juno, where after she gives up the baby she moves to a new school to avoid the scorn of her fellow classmates. But she’s still a quirky outsider, and her new adventure is to take up roller derby with Drew Barrymore!
But no, it’s not a sequel, and that’s good as it means Diablo Cody had nothing to do with it. Actually it’s all Barrymore, and this is her directorial debut. It looks halfway past amusing I have to say, but maybe that’s just because Maebe Funke showed up and reminded me of happier times.
The best line is when the popular girl asks if she’s “alternative” and Ellen Page says, “alternative to what.” I’m not being sarcastic, I actually laughed.
More Unreal Posts
- He’s Just Not That Into You Trailer Charms My Pants Off
- 10 Hilarious David Cross Videos
- An 8-Bit Rendition of Starcraft
- The Only Facebook Career Analysis Image Worth Posting
- The Final Countdown: Games that Need Sequels, Survivable Injuries and Thanksgiving Movies
Hmm, it sounds like you didn’t care for Juno. I’d be curious as to why. While Juno was not without it’s faults, I found it to be refreshing and entertaining.
Eh, no I thought Juno was perfectly decent (though Best Picture? Are you kidding?)
I mostly have disdain for Diablo Cody’s writing style, as perfectly demonstrated in the new Jennifer’s Body trailer. Juno was good in spite of her.
I disliked Juno quite a bit, actually:
1) The movie went back and forth between a melodrama and a quirky comedy, never really establishing what it was.
2) The dialogue was canned and felt like it was being read, not spoken.
3) As adorable as Ellen Page is, the character of Juno – the progtagonist – was incredibly unlikeable. That’s not good.
@ Madison: I can agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I actually quite liked her character.
@Paul: Jennifer’s Body just looks plain terrible.
@Madison:
Although I think it sounds like it makes sense but when I think about it:
Why does a movie have to decide between genres? I mean mixing something with horror or scifi (like from dusk till dawn) is random. But demanding on a “realistic” movie to have a specific gerne sounds kinda strange to me because most movie try to feel real and having a genre is like the essence of a made up thing.
okay maybe I’m bad at expressing myself but I hope one gets the question.
@ Laplace
I get your question. Perhaps I wasn’t articulate enough in my criticism.
I have no problem with the genre, and mixing genres is fine (like in From Dusk Till Dawn, Evil Dead 2, etc). Those movies know what they are.
My problem with Juno was TONE. I don’t need to classify movies to enjoy them, and they don’t need to classify themselves. My problem was that the tone was inconsistent throughout. It was tough – for me, at least – to stick with the movie, because it kind of went back and forth between a quirky comedy and a melodrama. From Dusk Till Dawn mixes genres, but the tone remains constant – over-the-top fun.
And that “mixing” is OK – Knocked Up is a perfect example of when that works (minus the “quirky” part, I guess). But in Juno, it simply didn’t work, and that’s the fault of the director, I suppose. Unlike the films I mentioned above, Juno didn’t know what it wanted to be.
Hope this helps, and thanks for reading.
dont want to be a stickler.
but maeby