MovieChat Forums > Jennifer's Body (2009) Discussion > uh, 5.1 rating, my gosh, what's wrong wi...

uh, 5.1 rating, my gosh, what's wrong with the world.


this is such an inspired and accomplished film. it's so creative and so much better than 90% of the mainstream, Hollywood horror films coming out nowadays. everyone has forgotten about this gem of a film. what a shame but how typical and how right this is as this always happens with good films which are understood or just never appreciated for the good films that they are. this is a very underrated film.

reply

Yes, and the some other horror flick will get 6 or even 6.5. But hey, don't worry, as many people say, this will become a cult classic in time. Just wait.

I'm demanding. I may hate Casablanca and enjoy Freddy vs. Jason

reply

but why should it's status among every best films ever made be what gets it a high rating on here? this film is now a cult classic.

reply

it already has, as said in eli roth's history of horror show this film when first released got mixed reviews but now in it's unrated form is enjoying cult favorite status.

reply

It's similar movie of Ginger Snaps and they have 6.8
I wonder why not 6.0

reply

you wonder why Ginger Snaps isn't 6.0 or you wonder why Jennifer's body isn't 6.0?

reply

Jennifer's Body! It should a higher rating, for sure. I can't choose which one is better.

reply

Ginger Snaps is in a different UNIVERSE from this dreck. It makes my skin crawl to see Amanda Seyfried in it.

Ginger Snaps - inventive, seriously
funny, seriously horrifying, well-edited, spawned a series, a low-budget indie home-run

Jennifer’s Body - Diablo Cody

reply

A bunch of chump ass men who NOTORIOUSLY UNDERRATE every female-centered film on these boards. Just go through the 3 pages here and note the openly misogynistic posts and thread titles, including the ones that needlessly personalize hatred toward Diablo Cody. It's one thing to dislike a film but how often do people do so based on the director's gender and blatantly write about it as seen on IMDB? I think Nate Silver's team even did a study on how men routinely low-score women's work and work where they are centered.

reply

^^^^THIS

This movie is so fun and quotable.

reply

so what do you think this film's rating should be? for me it's at least 9.2. this is one of the rare horror films that doesn't have any flaw and is so emotionally affecting and the most impressive to even the most jaded, seen it all, snobby, cynical, desensitized people.

reply

I agree. You should get a spoken word Grammy just for saying that

reply

so why is this film so criminally underrated? i mean this is how powerfully affecting it is: i just watched it for the third time and it packed so much of a punch that i was devastated by it and i was watching it with a friend so that means it has a lot less of an effect on people than watching a film alone.

reply

What did you learn the third time that you missed the second time

reply

nothing

reply

The movie is cheesy and has a bad dialogue. The only thing that makes me remember it is how beautiful Megan Fox's face (and body) were in it. But unfortunately her acting was pretty off putting.

reply

I think Megan fox puts people off, there are some very beautiful classy women and she aint one of them.

reply

It should be 1.5

reply

Bingo. To be fair, the women were hot, Seyfried ‘way more than Fox, who’s always had too much of a skank vibe around her.

reply

true, amanda seyfried was more beautiful in jennifer's body than megan fox, which is interesting because they had to really dull amanda's beauty in this film to make her less hot and less beautiful but even with her glasses on she is more beautiful than megan fox. that's ironic how that worked out. but also keep in mind that just because megan fox is almost always presented in a skanky way that doesn't mean that that is how she is in real life. heck, maybe that is why her career was so short because she was usually presented in a skanky way. but not in transformers.

reply

No Amanda's looks were out shined by Megan Fox in the film. However in the film ''Chloe'' Amanda literally blows Fox out of the water in the beauty department.

reply

you're wrong. just because a girl has nerdy glasses doesn't really make them less attractive than a girl who doesn't wear glasses. i mean you do realize the same girl in jennifer's body is the girl in chloe right? it just makes them a slight bit less attractive.

reply

1. Wrong! To me, putting eyeglasses on a beautiful woman makes her more attractive. I love a woman who is so self-confident that she knows the world will see HER through her eyeglasses. Confident men are sexy? (Well, yeah, we are.) Confident WOMEN are sexy, and classy, and have my undivided attention.

2. Jennifer’s (Megan Fox’s) Body? Do a net search for adult star Holly Body, who makes Fox look like a Ken doll, and tell me this movie wasn’t miscast.

3. I’ve no problems with Cody being a woman. I’ve severe problems with her claiming to be a writer. I’ve the same problems with Joe Estzerhas, as big a misogynist as has ever waddled on the face of the earth. My issue is with talent, not gender.

reply