Tuesday, 1 May 2012

Jennifer's Body (3 Stars)

I already reviewed this film last year and only gave it two stars. Normally I wouldn't return to a film that I didn't enjoy, but I had a few reasons to do so. First, a friend of mine recently told me it's one of his favorite films. Second, I couldn't remember what the film was about, which was painfully obvious when I tried to discuss the film with him. Third, I've recently developed a sort of crush on Amanda Seyfried, and I'd forgotten she was in the film, so I had to go back and watch it again.

I suppose the very fact that I'd forgotten almost everything about the film is a testament to its poor quality, but I watched it again and made a determined attempt to enjoy it. I've upped the rating to 3 stars, but it's far from being a great film. This time I'll write a plot synopsis so that I don't forget it again.

Jennifer (Megan Fox) and Needi (Amanda Seyfried) are two schoolgirls who have been friends since early childhood. Jennifer is a beautiful cheerleader, Needi is a bespectacled plain girl that nobody pays attention to, except for her nerdy boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons). They live in a small town called Devil's Kettle. Charming name. One day an indy rock band called Low Shoulder come to town to play a concert. The band kidnaps Jennifer and offers her as a virgin sacrifice to ask Satan for fame and success. Unfortunately she isn't a virgin, which means that she comes back to life as a deranged young woman who needs to eat human flesh to survive. Only Needi sees the change in her, so she has to take action against Jennifer even though everyone, including her boyfriend, thinks she's mad.

Despite a certain amount of gore and bloodletting, the film just isn't horrific. Nothing in it made me jump or shudder or want to turn away. For me Megan Fox wasn't credible as the school sexpot. I'm sorry, to me she just looked average. I fail to see why people make a fuss about her. And maybe I'm biased, but I can't accept Amanda Seyfried as the school's Plain Jane. Even in her spectacles she's a lot more attractive than Megan. It's something about her big eyes that change colour in the light, turning anything from blue to grey to green.

Isn't Amanda gorgeous? I wouldn't say that she's an outstanding  actress, but she's delicious to look at. Please check the photo below as well. Amanda is supposed to look dull next to Megan, but however they make her up she still looks a lot better.


  1. I have to agree that I didn't like this film all that much either. I don't know if it's because I just shudder at movies dealing with teenagers in a high school setting or if it was just the really bad plot and awkward acting.

    I have to sort of disagree with you on the point that Megan Fox is average. I would say she's beautiful but in that way that it seems you've seen it a lot of times while Amanda is striking with arresting features. She made a believable plain jane for me though. Megan, ugh, I'm still debating whether I can see her as a credible actress rather than some pop-fad that will be over soon enough - she has no depth to her acting that draws me in. This was a great example of that fact because it was wholly superficial and she was far from believable as a monster or demon. So you're right that it just didn't cut the muster in the Horror genre although I wonder if they meant it to be more serious or somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek type of film. *shrugs*

    Either way, I think your first choice to give it 2 stars was right on the money - 2.5 stars at the very best if you want to be generous about it.

  2. I personally like teenager high school films, especially if they're horrors. High school is such a perfect setting for horror, isn't it? I've enjoyed this niche of cinema ever since I watched the first three seasons of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". But the films have to be good, which this one isn't. What do you think about "Heathers", to name just one example?


Tick the box "Notify me" to receive notification of replies.