wimp.

So I just saw this again, and my opinion hasn't changed. I'm pretty confident in my good-but-nothing-special attitude regarding this film. The performances were strong all around, the soundtrack was pretty nice, and the screenplay was mostly funny, but never particularly clever or innovative. It's a shame this is basically a shoe-in win for Best Original Screenplay, as something like 'The Savages' really deserves it over this. So yeah, I'd be fine with a Best Actress nom from Ellen Page and a screenplay nom for Diablo Cody, but anything more is really pushing it. I'm still kind of in shock that this was Ebert's #1. I mean, Ebert has picked way worse films (see: Crash), but at least he had a reason to pick it. This was just so generic to me. I don't know. Still, somewhere around a high B to a B+, mostly because of the great cast (minus Bateman) and an entertaining but hardly memorable screenplay.

you saw it again within two wks, translation: the film is fuckin awesome

First of all, not within two weeks...I saw it for the first time nearly a month ago. Actually, I saw it in the first general public showing nationwide (non-prescreeining). Secondly, I saw it again in hopes that I just didn't fully appreciate it the first time (and some friends were dragging me), but my hopes were wrong, and sadly, this film isn't fucking awesome. It's fucking above average.

And would it not be possible to herald its emotional core without citing its realism?

In general, I don't think the film is realistic. I don't think Juno herself is that realistic. But I don't think either of those things runs contrary to the tone or spirit of the film.

This was...something of a disappointment for me. I had heard all these terrific things about it, people said it was the future of comedy writing, but in my opinion, the writing of the comedy was by far the weakest element of the film. I only laughed a few times, but I never laughed at the Napoleon-Dynamite-esque humor that took up much of the beginning of the film. It just didn't work for me. People all around me were laughing their asses off at "home skillet" and "shut your effing trap" and such, but in all honesty, the humor in this movie is identical to the humor that I would have used if I wrote a script when I was thirteen years old. It just didn't work for me. Luckily, I really liked a lot of other things about the movie. It had a great overall story, working in a lot more than just pregnancy but also a look at a lot of different people and how they change over time. It had a fantastic ensemble performance, bringing out what are easily the best performances I've seen from Jennifer Garner or Jason Bateman, considering I've seen them both in many other places. Ellen Page does deserve an Oscar, for all the fantastic enthusiasm she brought to her character and how well she handled the dramatic aspects of her character. Which brings me to the drama. When this film was serious, I thought it was so spot-on that it bothered me how they wasted so much time early on with the hit-and-mostly-miss humor. From the point Juno tells her parents she's pregnant and on, things REALLY turn around. So: I give it a C for the beginning and extremely weak attempts at humor, but I give it an A for the latter part, the acting, and the handling of the serious aspects of the film, so overall it comes out to a solid but disappointing

B

Shocking!

I found the film disappointing, very disappointing, but it's undeniable that all of the performances ranged from very good to superb. Garner gave by far the best performance of her career, to the extent that it didn't feel like watching Jennifer Garner at all, but actually watching her character [which rarely happens with actresses who are in the business because of their looks].

I wasn't as impressed by Garner the second time I saw it. I think the first time I was just so in shock that she could actually act that I thought she was great. Watching it again, she was good, but nothing special.

I agree. It is soooo much better than Knocked Up. Though I also find it quite a bit better than Waitress, which I also really enjoyed.

There's only one stupid part that annoyed me and that's when they run into Garner's character at the mall and she says she was just there shopping with her girlfriends and Juno's friend says something like, "I didn't know you were gay." My mom said, "That was a stupid thing to say." My thoughts exactly. I actually did laugh at first too, but am not sure why. It could have actually been fine had she only said girlfriend and not girlfriends.

And IMO Jennifer Garner's performance is not as amazing as it's made out to be. She's good and for now one of my favorite supporting female performances of the year, but she doesn't do anything terribly special. And as much as I enjoy Bateman, his performance is certainly nothing special. The real winner here is Ellen Page.

I think people sometimes expect an actress to have to shake and quiver and sweat and roar and cry and be dressed as a man for a "special performance". Garner's role in this movie is to add an emotional core and to be subtle and believable, and if im totally sold on an actor as a person then i think thats the best kind of performance there is. I of course am going to support her in whatever she does though, but with such an anti-garner forum, even this kind of admittance that she can act is kind of a leap and bound.

I have only seen about 1/4 of the film though, so i reserve judgement for now.

Garner can definitely act, I'm not saying that. I loved her on ALIAS, and I think her performance on that show is better than her performance in JUNO. She's still good in JUNO, but not amazing like some are saying. It's not her fault either, she just doesn't have that much to do. And I don't think an actress needs to do those things in order to give a great performance, because Ellen Page does nothing of the sort in this movie, for the most part, and she's phenomenal.

I liked Garner. I've always liked her. Good stuff here - better than usual for her.

This was the cutest movie. Ever. And while I agree with the Loyal camp that it shouldn't be the comedy to finally win Best Picture, should that split between No Country and Blood happen, I'd be fine with this winning. This is just a darling little gem. It's not a masterpiece, but I adored it. It's like Libs when it comes to Clueless. That type of adoration. C'mon!

I'd love to see it win Best Picture . It isn't likely though, so I'll be fine with it just being nominated. Would love to see it win some other awards though.

when it came to the dramatic aspects, this was possibly a bit stronger than Knocked Up, but when it came to the humor, I was laughing nonstop during Knocked Up and never more than chuckled a few times at Juno. The jokes were [for the most part] SO LAME.



I mean....is this really what we consider clever now? Is this really what people consider funnier than Knocked Up and even Superbad?

So loyal and I are sexist because we found Garner to be completely out of her league at coming off as motherly? For starters, you should really see the movie before you make any judgements, though I have no doubt you'll be far kinder to her performance than I. Still, I'm hardly the only one who feels this way - it was actually my buddy who pointed out to me after the fact how unconvincing she was, and others who I've mentioned it too have all agreed that she's the weak link in the cast.

There is a CAM out, could be it.

He was 20 minutes in, and needed to stop just to vent about how mindblowing Garner is? Is she even in the first 20 minutes?

Did you guys see her on Letterman? Akward...

Eh, I bet he stropped 20 minutes in to vent anyways.

I have the Paulie Bleeker is totally boss t-shirt.

its awesome

I do too.