Flickgrrl

A friend of mine and I made plans to see "There Will Be Blood," both us being residents of Los Angeles and lovers of stories of its history. Being that it was the movie's opening weekend, and that it was then showing at only one theater, we were chagrined, but not too surprised, to discover all showings were sold out. So, at the very last minute, we decided to see "Juno," instead. As we walked into the theater, my friend said, "This better not be full of precocious one-liners."

I say all that to explain that we were tough sells, given that we walked in feeling both disappointed and wary. And for about the first fifteen minutes, the movie gave us exactly what my friend had been worried about: an unbroken string of one-liners, as if we'd stumbled into some bizarre Neil Simon comedy about emo slackers.

But then it settled down, the writer seeming to have proven whatever point she felt she needed to make, and - happy surprise - it got steadily better. The last third, starting with a conversation between Ellen Page and Michael Cera while standing at her school locker, was really good. Both my friend and I walked out pleased at how much better it was than we'd expected, and reasonably happy at having seen it. Not a great movie, but a thoroughly enjoyable one.

I was most pleased by the way the characters played by KJ Simmons, Allison Janney, Jennifer Garner, and Justin Bateman were portrayed. In a lesser movie, all of them probably would have been caricatures, and most likely would have been objects of derision, as well. Here, they were well-rounded and sympathetic, even when they were making bad choices. (I have a theory that how a director treats a character played by Allison Janney is a pretty reliable test of that director's taste: if he treats this intelligent, gifted, but unconventionally attractive woman as a joke, then he's probably a jerk - see Mike Nichols in "Primary Colors" - but if he treats her with respect, then he may be a contender.)

So, as far as the "love it or hate it" debate goes, I'm in the "like it" camp. (Plus, I give it major points for using Buddy Holly's "Dearest.")

Hey, Carrie. I'm one of those in the growing minority who wasn't charmed by "Juno," which is too much of an "indie darling" for my taste. I know there's been a contingent nagging on Ellen Page's annoying performance, but what eludes me is the appeal of Michael Cera, who is definitely overrated on the basis of this film and "Superbad." Are the critics that enthralled by "Arrested Development"? What got me through the film was the solid work of the supporting cast - Simmons, Janney, Bateman and especially Garner. Personally, I thought the film should have been about the Garner-Bateman characters, with Juno as a supporting (very supporting) player.

Eh, I'll wait until it comes out on video. The trailers left me cold and it does seem to have a certain hipster preening quality about it that I so detest. Then again, I though Rambo IV was more enjoyable than There Will Be Blood, so what do I know?

I fall somwhere between you and Dave Kehr, Carrie, on the subject of "Juno." It's pleasant enough, but award-worthy? Is this what we've been reduced to? I also don't think of it as an indie film as one of your posters here called it. "Juno" is about as mainstream as a movie can get. Tuesday Weld could have made it in the '60s.

Hey, I llove Juno, as I'm as easy to please as Ol Roger E. Still gotta catch up on the other four befor I pick a best one.

I don't watch "Arrested Development," but, Mike, I find soft-spoken Michael Cera compelling. He draws you toward his character. And about the film's focus: I like that it traces the many kinds of love and families -- whether bio-, step- or adoptive.

I think Juno is a classic example of a movie being such a "pleasant surprise" that word-of-mouth hype will influence you before you even enter the theater. That being said, the musical references were too intentionally obscure- the equivalent to name-dropping to prove your hipster cred. I agree that a separate movie could have been made about the Garner/Bateman characters, they had an unexplored depth and a backstory that seemed more interesting than a smartmouthed pregnant girl and her geeky baby daddy.

I made the mistake of checking out Roger Ebert's review of "Juno," which I liked. The film, that is, not the review. Ebert really overstates it, exaggerating the modest qualities of the movie. How come a really great film like "United 93" didn't warrant this kind of exclamatory discussion? I realize they're different types of movies. You can't compare them. But the adulation for "Juno" seems a bit overboard. Just my opinion.

I saw Juno on the weekend of its initial release back in December. At that time, there was no hype, no word of mouth, nothing really except for an excellent trailer I had seen a couple months before. I walked out of the theatre thinking that I had never seen a better movie.

I find it amusing how some critics are now calling it over hyped. If it is "over-hyped", it's in the best way possible; not with constant television trailers, magazine ads, or radio spots, but by good ol' word of mouth. I like to think I was part of that.

There's a running belief in the critical world that the more approachable a film or book is, the less worthy it is of acclaim. I believe that is one of the reasons why "No Country.." or "Blood" will take home a lot of awards, while Juno, more than likely, will be left out in the cold.

Still, to think it's even in the running is amazing, given that it doesn't have a top flight star like Michael Clayton(Cloony) and Blood (Lewis), wasn't based on a bestselling "critically" acclaimed novel (Atonement and No Country) and was barely advertised before it's release, says a lot about the quality of the film.

sidenote- can someone tell Cormac McCarthy that the quotation marks are right next to the enter key

I really liked "Juno". I didn't expect much except for an indie movie that turned out to have a great storyline - so many times, the indie movie of the year fails to properly wrap up a story, or creates so many subplots that the viewer just feels stupid for not knowing what's really going on, as if only hip and super-indie people can "get it". But "Juno" was a lot more than that. It didn't dwell too much in the gravity of the situation - a pregnant teenager - and the movie seemed to present things as Juno herself saw them and interpreted them. If we're to sit there and judge her and her decisions, I think that's the point - we're all quick to judge. I loved the ending and I felt that it was the only way the movie could have ended while keeping the spirit of the movie and the character. As for Michael Cera, yes, he's a little bright-eyed and a little like a deer in headlights at times. But when you're an awkward teenager around a confident spirit such as Juno, wouldn't you be that deer in headlights as well? The movie looked at this issue on a personal and private level - from the perspective we've never seen in more agenda-laced movies. Juno's not the popular girl who sleeps around, she's not a stupid girl who made a bad decision, she's like us when we were 16 - curious, thinking that she knows everything, and assuming that she can do everything on her own. The movie ends with her still curious, but having gone through a lot.
I can't recommend this movie enough, and its one of those movies that I sort of thought "why haven't we made this before?" because it just seemed so self-evident when it was finished.

"Juno" has struck a chord with people the same way that "Friends" did on TV. What I'm saying is that it is basically a glorified sitcom. I simply did not believe in any of the characters that everyone else finds so endearing; none of them seemed recognizably human. It needed a laughtrack. Sorry but it left me cold.

My take on Juno: First two-thirds were good, last third was excellent, that's when Juno became a human and not an overwritten kewl teen character who belonged on some network sitcom. When she finally is torn, that's when I liked Juno better.
I just wasn't blown away by it. The voices - her dad, step-mom, friend and Juno - all seem to speak the same. Again, that changed up in the third act.
Not in the love it nor hate it group. File me under liked it.

OK, I'll be the bad guy and ask the $64,000 question. Would "Juno" have been as endearing to so many people if the lead character decided on an abortion? I know that abortions are no joking matter. But neither are unplanned pregnancies and I sat through three movies last year that treated unplanned preganancies as cute, jokey affairs - "Waitress," "Knocked Up" and "Juno." ("Knocked Up made the least sense. I still can't believe that a smart woman would settle for that immature guy.) Think of much how more complicated and cutting-edge "Juno" would have been if its makers decides to tackle a taboo subject head-on. As far as I'm concerned, they took the easiest, most audience-pleasing way out. But this country isn't ready for a film, let alone a comedy, about abortion. "Juno" is like a soft, reassuring fairy tale. I'm surprised Disney didn't make it.

Juno made me extremely worried for the first 1/3rd, but I agree with most of you, that it settled down, that it worked and struck me as quite poignant and quite touching. It was well-made all around--well-acted, strong music, and wonderful writing.

Ultimately though, There Will Be Blood is the movie that sticks with me, haunts me, and occupies my thoughts the most. It really was powerful, potent stuff--any chance that PT Anderson could win Best Director?

Donna, how can it be a "feel good movie" if the baby dies" I do not support the anti-abortion movement, but come on!

I would never call "Juno" a feel-good movie. That's your expression, Brian, not mine. I'm just saying that it would have been a tougher, more daring film if it played with some real risks, that's all. For me, it's just a notch above an afterschool special.

Seriously, can't we fire these worthless reporters and actually get some real news? Philly.com has turned into a gossip site.

Juno is not "over-hyped." The acting, void of affectation, carries the movie--a rare feat in a parade of mindless blockbusters resting on the power of their special effects. In this sense the movie is a little closer to a Danish Dogma film, where characterization is everything (not unlike Italian for Beginners). I disagree with those who don't see the talent in Cera. He's understated and natural: I think they are confusing his natural quality of acting with who he really is (whoever that is--we don't know nor do we need to). I think No Country deserves the Oscar for its depth, intelligence and powerful acting. But Juno is an excellent, entertaining film with memorable performances. Comedy is difficult, even more so because it has to look easy. I laughed through most of it, whereas most Hollywood comedies are mindlessly diercted at the lowest common denominator.

The best movie of the year? What on earth is Roger Ebert putting on his popcorn? Look, I liked "Juno." It's a nice movie, funny in some spots and tender in other spots. But it's not the second coming. It is a modest, likable film that for some reason, some people feel compelled to elevate. Maybe it's because it's reassuring and lulling. I agree with Dave K. that it appeals to the worried parent in all of us and tells us not to worry, that everything will turn out fine. The guy who made it may deserve Citizen of the Year award but not the Oscar, for heaven's sake.

"There Will Be Blood" is this year's masterpiece. "Atonement" was fine, too, among the films nominated for Best Picture. I loved how "Atonement" showcases a historic English mansion, and if I had a vote, I'd struggle between those 2 choices for Best Picture.

"No Country for Old Men" was memorable and Carrie is right in that it probably will win for Best Picture.

"Juno" has been seen by many more moviegoers. I saw it, but it seemed to me that it would appeal more to young people because of its sassy attitude.

Everybody loves the underdog, and "Juno" is this year's underdog - the little engine that could. It's the film that came out of nowhere and charmed everyone with it sass. But let's not mistake sass for art, as the Academy clearly has. My take: In 10 years, "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" will look like timeless classics, while "Juno" will seem dated - like an artifact form 2007. I highly doubt it will age well and, for me, the most embarrassing Oscar winners are those films that haven't aged well.

Juno is an incredible movie. That is all. Most people who don't like it are those who think there cool for not liking it.

I think that Juno will win for Best Picture
since the Oscar voting for No Country and There Will Be Blood
camps will cancel each other out. The actors were all
well cast with an excellent supporting team of Allison J. and the rest, the direction was a great
team effort on the part of its young director, star, and screenwriter.
The music and screenplay was as well chosen and well written as any of the other nominated films,
and the appeal can be to both "Republicans" and "Democrats" with the films subject matter.

Daniel Day Lewis is a shoo-in for best actor for his role
in There Will Be Blood.

Julie Christie will win best actress.

Ruby Dee will win for best supporting actress.

The rest of the major roles are much harder to call.

But I think Diablo Cody will win for her screenply
for Juno, and if there is any justice
the two kids should win for best song
from the Irish film "Once".

The director award might go to the Coen Brothers,
but since I'm not sure No Country For Old Men
is going to win for best picture, and the best director usually is won by the same film that wins for best picture.. it would follow that the young Juno director might win an Oscar for best direction. That would be some upset !

It looks to be a fun Oscar show to watch.