She knew it'd be a bad idea to bring the kid into a loving environment with her parents, herself and Polly?



When? When did it become hard for her? In the car? See, I have a slight problem with that scene. The entire movie to this point makes Juno out to be a cavalier of sorts. She's committed to giving the kid to someone else because she feels she can't take care of it. So is she crying that she's seeing her surrogate family go up in flames now forcing herself to possibly take care of it? Or is she crying because she wants the kid? Personally, I'm not sure. The film though to that point makes it seem like she's thinking the former, which I believe isn't very realistic for the reason you just brought up.



Two things. Says who? Her mother at one point in the film reminds her that she doesn't know a lot about adults when she thinks she does. How does she know that once she gives birth, she'll want to give the kid away? How does she know it'll ruin her life, at that point? And second, it's her fault and Polly's fault. They were dumb enough not to have any birth control while having sex.



I never said I didn't like Juno. I only said that I found her to be unlikeable in spots, and only a little bit of it had to do with her feelings toward her pregnancy. The screenwriter took it in this direction and once that happens you kind of have to go with the rest of the film. That saying, it's her kid when all is said and done. Even though it would've broken the heart of Garner's character, it's Juno's kid in the long run. And with the way the film was shaping up down the stretch, it kind of seemed like the film betrayed itself. Yes she left the note, but the film's ending wasn't shaping up to go in that direction. Yes it sticks with how Juno felt from the beginning, but I think it betrays the viewer somewhat.



You know what's funny? Before I wrote what I did above, I was pretty content with the grade I had given it. I thought the problems I had with the film were kind of minor. Even though I went into detail over some of the things I didn't like, I didn't really have a major problem with them (the "wit", the Mark character, etc.) they were minor. But after writing what I just wrote, it's not an A- movie. I have more of a problem now, than I did after last night. The film (for me - remember, me, just my opinion) twisted itself all over the place too much. It seemed like it wanted to please everyone, and for me, even though I still think it's a good movie, it didn't work as well as I think it could've.

New Grade: B+ (Because it's very funny and the acting is extremely good)

Rainn Wilson: I know there was not much more his character could've brought to the film, but as soon as he appeared on screen, the film began to turn out of that Dynamite aspect, into the "it's a good film afterall", territory. His five minutes or so of screentime, are perfect.

Technically, The Kingdom pretty much trys that and fails a couple times. Making the characters comfort scared little brown kids, you know. As a matter of fact they try it with numerous characters numerous times, and it doesn't come close to working with any of them... It was truly one of the worst attempts at audience manipulation and "emotional depth!" I've ever seen. Especially when you have Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner as your actors. Just ouch.

I can't understand why people don't like Jennifer Garner.
It's not like i just decided to love her for a hobby.
And my other favourite actresses are all very talented and respected women within the film industry. So for me to like an actress without talent would be against what i stand for.

I just can't get why some of you guys on this site have always have had it in for her so much.
Shes just an actress in movies. Its not like shes giving you cancer, jesus.

And Shack, wasn't there a time you praised her as an actress too? Growing up doesn't mean being pretentious and looking down on thespians who don't constantly star in uppity bullshit.
Some people go to movies to be entertained rather than having their life-force sucked out by something about an 8 year old kid getting raped in afghanistan.

It annoys me to see some of the younger members on KJ growing up and moulding themselves based upon what this site dictates is good film. I have seen many movies applauded by this entire website and been entirely underwhelmed, I have watched many independent movies recommended by some influential people on this site only to find them ridiculously bad. I am not afraid to have mainstream tastes sometimes, and off kilter tastes other times. And call me crazy for not spending $600 going to the movies every year, but some of us can't afford to visit our cinema weekly, and if that means actually selecting movies i want to watch out of the pile of shit that comes out every year then so-be-it. I really feel sometimes like if you haven't seen a zillion movies a year and you haven't seen some really obscure releases then this website looks down on your film tastes a little. I do tend to look into arthouse fare every year, infact i have a stack of 07 arthouse releases to watch on dvd in my room, but i truly believe the best movies of the year have been mainstream and some of the best actors of our time star in broad comedies and big budget romance movies with regularity.

Just because an actress kicks butt in one movie does not mean she is ANY less deserving of acclaim for her work in another. So get over this Jennifer Garner hate and give her dues where she deserves it.

I've only ever seen it here. Almost everyone i know is a Jennifer Garner fan. Guys think shes hot, girls find her great for 13 Going on 30 - a movie which has a lot of goodwill towards it.

My friends in the states all speak very highly of Juno, and a resounding theme both from them and from other message board and communities im on is that Jennifer Garner really surprised them with her abilities in this movie. It's on the IMDB boards, it's on the ONTD site, it's on lots of major media and film sites, this woman has earned respect for her acting here, if you guys agree with it or not? Really not relevant.

I find it ridiculous that so many people here praise prestiegous actresses for lackluster perfomances, but cant bring themselves to praise a mainstream actress for earning a little prestiege and turning in a strong performance.

Other big actresses have faced this problem on this board including Sandra Bullock for Crash. Typical, a male orientated site is so quick to cut down the best paid actresses, and award the ones who seek prestiege.

I don't hate Jennifer Garner. She's reasonably attractive and seems to have a decent head on her shoulders. I just don't think she can act. At all. Like for serious.

WORTH IT

See thats what i have issue with. I don't know how you can actually write that phrase in seriousness. When you see the way she is in interviews and then the way she is in shows like Alias then you cannot tell me she can't act, shes a completely different person entirely.

I just find that notion that someone can actually think of her as a bad actress ridiculous, because whilst I believe there are a few actresses who outstrip her in acting abilities alive today, i certainly think she is one of the stronger actresses of her bracket.

The birth scene in Alias was probably one of the best i've seen on tv and it was hers alone.

That said, Halle Berry is an allegedly good actress and i'd argue she can't act her way out of a paper bag, so each to his own i guess.

Whoa whoa whoa

Half the movies in my top 10 are audience blockbusters Mike (Transformers, Knocked Up, I Am Legend, American Gangster, Ratatouille, Stardust if you count it) I'm not that snobby yet

And honestly... I'd like to think my taste is my own, there's been lots of cases where I'll end up feeling on the opposite side of the scale from everyone else and will say it. I'm not the kind of person that concentrates on internet perception and changes reviews or comments to fit them, I think people that do are fucking retarded. I see people like that, but me, personally, I don't care. Makes no difference to me.

For the record btw, I don't think I've ever been pro-Garner. If I have, I'd be surprised, I never watched Alias and I didn't like 13GOT. I actually haven't even seen Juno, I was just insulting her The Kingdom performance, which was... really bad. I couldn't resist a jab at the worst movie I've seen this year.

I saw Juno recently and thought Jennifer Garner's performance wasn't anything special. On top of that, her wax lips bother me. Really enjoyed the movie, despite that. It was my first time seeing Ellen Page's work, and she was enjoyable to watch in all her scenes, especially those with Michael Cera.

Michael, I get the feeling that a lot of the Jen Garner hate around here throughout the years has been a result of, basically, your strong, vocal love for her. And people find it a bit... strong. And a little too vocal.

You know I love Garner and Alias, but if we all just toned it down a bit, I think we'd all be a bit happier. Oh, and by the way, if anyone actually watched Alias, they'd know that Garner is, indeed, a fully capable actress. (Cue the naysayer.)

Very charming and funny movie with good performances from all involved.

***1/2

I know i can't contain my garner lovin. It's a problem. Like my lack of gastric control.

After a 2nd viewing at the theater, once again 100% sold out fo sho, Juno reinforces it's A+ status and concretes itself a spot in BJs top 20 of all time.

It's not a bad film, there is always whiplash for films that overperform and get overhwhelming praise, because they're never actually that good, but people feel like they need to compensate by completely bashing it. You're kidding yourself if you think this is a straight up "bad" movie. It's just not. But people are right in saying it is not as 'on the mark' about teenage life and their relationship with their parents. Juno is not the typical teenager. And no parent would ever respond as nonchalantly to her revelation as those two did. (I still think about those two parents just about every day I get yelled at by mine for doing something that not NEARLY as bad as that) But that's just kind of the spirit of the whole film. I don't think it's trying to be a documentary, it's aiming to be entertaining, heartwarming, funny, and new. And I think it succeeds on each one of the levels extraordinarily, which makes it a good movie to me.

I don't think we'll see an overload. I think we'll see more focus on movies that are aimed to hit all demographics though, which isn't a bad thing. It's not like Blair Witch spawned a ton of handheld camera movies, or My Big Fat Greek Wedding spawned...more....movies....like that?

The only thing LMS and Juno have in common is that they were heavily advertised indies. That's about it.

finally saw this last night. It was good but nothing great. The first half was awesome but the second half really fell apart.

B+

LMAO!

how so?

correct. It just didnt work.

The dramatic 2nd half rocked hard and turned what was a funny movie into the best movie of 07

I think it's the other way around. The movie worked best when it was trying to be sincere. I think it tried way too hard to be funny in at least the first third of the running time, and it just made the experience underwhelming.

Pretty good movie, but Oscar worthy? No. Ellen Page does a very nice job and deserves a nod, but that's it. Here's my brief review from Filmgasm:

In some ways, Juno lives up to the hype, but in other ways, it doesn't. Ellen Page really carries the film in the title role. Though she's 20 (which granted, isn't that much older than the character she's portraying), Page's Juno seems like the kind of person I'd expect to walk by in the hallway at my high school. The thing that really makes the performance work, however, is how Page plays up the vulnerability of the character. Seeing her doubt about the possibility of a relationship truly lasting forever seals the deal on a performance that is one of the best offered by a lead actress this year. As a film about relationships, Juno works very well most of the time, but has spots of slight challenge. Page and Michael Cera are great in their scenes together, particularly in their heartbreaking hallway scene. Cera did such a fantastic job that I really wish we'd seen more of his Paulie Bleeker character. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner are both good in their roles, but their story didn't really seem to have a lot of development to it despite being a major component of the film. The humor works a fairly good amount of the time, though there's probably been just a bit too much made of the script. At times, it seems like it's trying to be funny just for the sake of being funny, which weakens the production. The dialogue is good and has some bite to it, but it works best when it's not trying to be funny. It's when the focus is on the issues that define the characters that it really shines. All said, the film is an effective teen dramedy, and much of it comes from the touch of making the characters so relatable.

Grade: B+

The last 1/3 is decent stuff. The rest is contrived lazy bullshit. If this wins BP at the Oscars I'll cry.

Idendikit Indie comedy at its most clinical and soulless.

I knew I was in Election wannabe hell the moment I got the double wammy of Ellen Page talking about nice furnature and the shop clerk that sounded like a failed comedian.

Sigh, I really wanted to like this, but damn its so ordinary.

your opinion is 150% soulless