question about Juno

Branoic

So the critics seemingly love this, but the review thread here on Boards is far from glowing.

I've heard that the Irish Independent called it "The next Little Miss Sunshine only better". Just wondering how true this is in people's opinions? I loved LMS and if this is in the same style then I'll probably go see it.

c0rk3r

Ignore the critics and ignore the reviews. At best just check out the plot synopsis and the score on Imdb.com. You'll generally get a good gauge to measure the film on. These reviews are just one persons opinion which means nothing to me whereas imdb thousands of votes are cast. Standard deviation (want me to draw a curve)

Juno: positive, quirky, bright film dealing with tough subject areas.

el dude

c0rk3r wrote: »

Ignore the critics and ignore the reviews. At best just check out the plot synopsis and the score on Imdb.com. You'll generally get a good gauge to measure the film on. These reviews are just one persons opinion which means nothing to me whereas imdb thousands of votes are cast. Standard deviation (want me to draw a curve)

Juno: positive, quirky, bright film dealing with tough subject areas.

what he said. But check RottenTomatoes rather than imdb. Mostly dumbass Yanks that vote on that website.

standbyme

You can be your own worst critic at times, just follow your heart & not your head.

It was a film on a small budget, not expecting to do much, but is reaping the rewards now with 4 Oscar Noms & other awards already won.

Here's a quote:

Juno grows more into a woman, yet she is still a teenager with all the same problems & few more.

Driver 8

Oh lord, how much myth and hype do people want to wrap around this film? It's the little film that could? No, sorry, it's not, it's a perfectly mainstream film from Fox, who most of you bitch about when they run news stations.

That, coupled with all the Diablo Cody hype, about her previous careers (which she now wants to distance herself from seemingly, after it's helped to get her publicity) leaves a sour taste in the mouth. I know you're probably sick of my Juno-bashing, but then i'm sick of an over-hyped, smug film taking so many awards

Juno is an average movie with a somewhat good soundtrack. Definately doesn't deserve much awards. Ellen Page nominated for best actress at the oscars. What a joke. But never mind that.

If you want to watch a movie about unexpected pregnancy, watch Knocked Up. If you want to watch some angsty teen acting 'hip' watch Juno.

Havermeyer

If you want to watch a movie about unexpected pregnancy, watch Knocked Up. If you want to watch some angsty teen acting 'hip' watch Juno.

I second that. Knocked Up is a much better movie. Much Funnier etc. Juno isn't that funny, and the lead character is a little irritating in my opinion.

FunkZ

I really enjoyed the film, check it out anyway, maybe wait till you can watch it somewhere that's not the cinema...

Ho-Hum

Just watched this and thought it was very good, not quite as brilliant as the hype would have you believe but then again what is?

standbyme

Driver 8 wrote: »

I know you're probably sick of my Juno-bashing, but then i'm sick of an over-hyped, smug film taking so many awards

Yeah, you just hate that dont ya, thats the underdog for you

Driver 8

What did I say above? The underdog? It's a myth about this film. It's mainstream film, by a mainstream director, made by fox studios.

meriwether

Driver 8 wrote: »

What did I say above? The underdog? It's a myth about this film. It's mainstream film, by a mainstream director, made by fox studios.

So what?
Im a harsh critic of films, and anything that doesn't measure up usually ends with me labelling it rubbish, but Juno is very, very good.
The lead actress is excellent, the plot is 'been there, done that' (but havent we seen it all at this stage anyway?) but well approached, the characters are engaging and well acted, and the soundtrack is ace.

tvnutz

Personally I thought Knocked Up wasn't funny and was far overrated. Juno on the other hand was a great little movie. It is not stunning by any means and it is not as good as Little Miss Sunshine but it is a very good little movie that seemed to come from no where and is better than the majority of big budget movies you will see this year. Ellen Page is solid,some may find her annoying but I also love Jennifer Garner,Allison Janney and of course how can you not like the Arrested Development boys. All of that coupled with a great soundtrack and it is well worth seeing.

faceman

tvnutz wrote: »

Personally I thought Knocked Up wasn't funny and was far overrated. Juno on the other hand was a great little movie. It is not stunning by any means and it is not as good as Little Miss Sunshine

i agree with this statement.

Juno picks up the teenage love story where most films finish off.

johnny_ultimate

Driver 8 wrote: »

made by fox studios.

OK whatever about the film, why are you so worked up that it is by Fox Studios? Fox Searchlight (the independent / niché film wing of Fox studios) has actually produced some terrific films recently. List here. You can't have not enjoyed all those fine films.

Pretty much every American film has some input from one of the major studios (all of which have independent offshoots: Warner Classics, Paramount Vantage etc...). Just because Fox has produced the ****tiest news station of all time doesn't mean that it's film wing is morally objectionable poison. Like Futurama? The Simpsons? Any of the other numerous shows Fox have made over the years?

A discussion about the film is great (always nice to see debate), but honestly your repeated dismissal of the film based on it being produced by Fox is puzzling. Juno is still in many ways an underdog: a relatively small-budgeted, quirky comedy with offbeat subject matter that managed to do well. Rupert Murdoch's probably non-existent interverence hardly changes that fact.

Fysh

I know this is going off-topic somewhat, but I can kind of get what Driver 8 is getting at regarding Fox Searchlight. Though it's the "indie" wing of Fox and has been the home for various great movies, it's still basically a major film studio. And that's fine, given that the nature of cinema is such that you can't really have a widely-distributed film that's also entirely made on some DIY ethos.

However.

Some of the media commentary about Juno would have you believe that the production team behind it had to fight every step of the way against Evil Hollywood Dictators who wanted instead to turn the film into American Pie Seventeen : The Pie-Rapist Diaries or some such. This is patently not the case. It's a bit tiresome to read stories that present films that quite obviously have a lot of appeal and have attracted funding as "the little indie that defied all expectations".

Primer is an example of a tiny independent film that managed, despite the odds, to achieve something fantastic (I only just watched it recently and still can't get over the fact that the whole damn thing was made on $7000). Compared to that, Juno with its $6.5M budget is decidedly mainstream. And that's fine, except there seems to be a certain section of the media pushing the "indie" aspect in some sort of quest for credibility. It's at best a bit strange and at worst downright irritating. Who cares whether the film is an indie production or not, is it any good?

(I can't answer on that part, I haven't watched the film - what little I have seen hasn't appealed to me much, and that coupled with Ellen bloody Page was enough to put me off shelling out £10 to see it in the cinema)

johnny_ultimate

Good points, but the difference between Primer and Juno is that Juno has actually gained mainstream success. Primer is a great film, but remains an extremely cult film, with most people who have seen it film enthusiasts (and I know my video shop had a single copy when I rented it, hidden on the bottom shelf). Juno was a box office success.

So yes, Juno @ 6.5 million is comparatively mainstream, but is still tiny compared to most successful films these days.

The small-budgeted films that actually capture the public imagination are few and far between, the Blair Witch Project being probably the most obvious exception to the rule. That and Primer - small budgeted films that gain some sort of success - are some of the very few examples I can think of of relatively well known films with budgets below six figures.

Fact remains though, that very, very few fully independent films garner any sort of success. Being produced by a mainstream studio shouldn't be used as a criticism though, otherwise it would be very few films that would be lauded.

Fysh

"Success" is putting it a bit lightly - according to Wikipedia Juno has made back 17-odd times its budget so far

But yes, the fundamental issue with the marketing is the whole "anti-dollar dollar" crap of trying to spin "independent" as a sign of quality, as if any films that make it to widespread cinema distribution are really independent of studios and distributors. Being mainstream shouldn't be seen as an automatic negative any more than being independent should be an automatic positive, but them's the breaks with over-simplistic international press I suppose.

Driver 8

For gods sake, it's like fysh said, you're misunderstanding me. I have NO problem with Fox/Fox Searchlight or mainstream studios. It's the opposite, it's the people who normally would, seeking to make Juno the underdog and the "little movie that could" by trading on it's indie cred (cody, the self indulgent soundtrack etc.) that are bugging me.

And why is the screenplay getting the awards anyway? It's, to my mind, the weak link of the film by far. Fingers crossed for an oscar upset, michael clayton or ratatouille had far, far superior screenplays. Honest to f'n blog

senordingdong

It's a p.c. version knocked up.

faceman

Fysh wrote: »

Being mainstream shouldn't be seen as an automatic negative any more than being independent should be an automatic positive, but them's the breaks with over-simplistic international press I suppose.

agree completely. Same thing applies to foreign language films. (Just cos something is subtitled doesnt mean its automatically better than a mainstream american film!)

MisterAnarchy

nummnutts wrote: »

I second that. Knocked Up is a much better movie. Much Funnier etc. Juno isn't that funny, and the lead character is a little irritating in my opinion.

I thought both Juno and Knocked up were pretty poor films.
Think I laughed 5 times during each film .
How these films can be categorised as comedies baffles me.
Are good comedies being made anymore ?
Ferris Bueller,Trading Places,Dumb and Dumber,Kingpin,Cable Guy,Beverley Hills Cop,Harold and Kumar etc etc, these are comedies .
Father Ted,The Office,Alan Partridge these are comedies.
Juno is not a comedy ,it is not funny .
"Hilariously funny" it isnt.

Fysh

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Are good comedies being made anymore ?

It's not like comedy is an on/off value. For example, I thought Napoleon Dynamite & Nacho Libre were both hilarious, but there are plenty of people who hated them, or who liked one and despised the other. Just means people have different variations of funny.

As such, I don't think you can complain that "decent comedies" aren't being made any more, I think comedy films are still being made across the spectrum of humour. There is something of a polarisation happening with the marketing of comedies though; a sort of separation of camps with the likes of Juno, Knocked up, & Little Miss Sunshine at one end and Epic Movie, Date Movie, Scary Movie et all at the other. If neither camp is particularly your flavour of comedy, that might explain your perceived lack of decent new comedy...

BlitzKrieg

Oh sweet mericful christ...

I havnt seen Juno but there is some BS being thrown around here

Oh lord, how much myth and hype do people want to wrap around this film? It's the little film that could? No, sorry, it's not, it's a perfectly mainstream film from Fox, who most of you bitch about when they run news stations.

How independent films generally work.

You garner up funding by any means necessary to make the actual film. be this anything from local support, government funding, individual support (who get producer credits) or the dreaded bank loan so on etc etc. this money goes into producing the film.

Looking at the credits of Juno I'd say a director with a good record in filmmaking (thank you for smoking another excellent american indie) with what he considered a good script got a number of influentials to put their own money into the film's production (including John Malkevich).

You then take completed independent film and you:

A) Try and sell it to a studio

Go on the festival run and try and generate acclaim so a studio comes to you.

Said studio then gives you X amount of money so they can distribute the film via cinema release or dvd etc.

The money the studio gave you goes to paying off any big debts you have and the remaining money tend to be divided up among cast and cew as they see fit.

Profits from ticket sales/dvd sales go back to the studio.

Thus

JUNO IS NOT A STUDIO PRODUCED FILM.

That is how independent films work.

Actually its how alot of films work, but a studio film is more defined by cast agreements and franchises and dont have to worry about trying to convince a studio to pick it up (that tends to happen much much earlier in the scripting, casting or even when just the idea is proposed phase [see Halo movie fallout] )

Juno is for all its bells and whistles an independent film, it was not produced as a studio film. It had much more money then Primer (which I might add is Fantastic) but thats probably because it was an no brainer in its appeal, had a strong director or cast already connected and all in all seemed a safe bet. Primer, you'd agree had big f*cking red tape around it screaming very very risky due to its meandering and science heavy plot.


So when a film has the Fox Searchlight tag it does not mean the film was made by Fox, it means Fox bought the film at one of the many film festivals and have distributed it.

Fox searchlight DO NOT MAKE FILMS.

They are Like Tarten who distribute asian films in Europe including a number of ghibli films While Walt Disney distribute all the ghibli films in the USA.

standbyme

Hating Juno

How the backlash started

Driver 8

Nice article, sums it all up well

MisterAnarchy

Watch over the next few years as there will be a dozen more drivel films like Juno as the studios try to capture its "magic"
I would dare say that movie producers are searching strip clubs as we speak, trying to find a budding young writer who wants to share her incredibly over-rated, try-hard 'script' with the rest of the air head population.

Havermeyer

Ferris Bueller,Trading Places,Dumb and Dumber,Kingpin,Cable Guy,Beverley Hills Cop,Harold and Kumar etc etc, these are comedies .

I've been at funerals that were funnier than Harold And Kumar. If I was to catalogue that movie, it would go in the criminal section.

However, back to thread. Juno simply wasn't funny. I didn't laugh once. Not even a chuckle, and I saw it before I noticed everyone was talking about it so it wasn't all the hype that spoiled it.

MisterAnarchy

Accurate review of Juno.
http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews.php?id=278

tvnutz

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Accurate review of Juno.
http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews.php?id=278

How can it be "accurate" when at the end of the day it is all a matter of opinion? I could link to a review that says the movies deserves tons of Oscars and claim it to be accurate because I enjoyed the movie. People will like and dislike different types of movies and expressing that is great but getting so emotional about it is pretty pointless.

standbyme

I guess its one of these films, that the more you talk about it, the more you (really) like it
I would have replied earlier, only i was watching a film

monkeyfudge

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Accurate review of Juno.
http://www.fromthebalcony.com/reviews.php?id=278

I actually quite liked the film. But the review is pretty much spot on.

It really does go out of it's way to be quirky and funny and it sacrifices realism for this.. so you really have to turn your brain off to a large degree... But it does finally settle itself down a a bit and is a nice enough little film. But I guess if you didn't like the main character then there wouldn't be much in this film for you at all.

Ghost World did something similar... but in a far, far better way.

kevmy

I've seen the film and have no strong views on either independent films or studio produced films or studio-produced-films-passed-of-as-independent films.

I thought it was good not great and not as good as Little Miss Sunshine. In fact I think that comparison is a little unfair as they are completely different films.

It started pretty well and i thought most of the characters/actors were good (especially Alison Janney and Michael Cera). Yep Juno was a little irritating at times but then most teenage girls are. It sagged a bit in the middle but really picked up in the last 20-25 mins after

the adoptive couple spilt up

kevmy

I've seen the film and have no strong views on either independent films or studio produced films or studio-produced-films-passed-of-as-independent films.

I thought it was good not great and not as good as Little Miss Sunshine. In fact I think that comparison is a little unfair as they are completely different films.

It started pretty well and i thought most of the characters/actors were good (especially Alison Janney and Michael Cera). Yep Juno was a little irritating at times but then most teenage girls are. It sagged a bit in the middle but really picked up in the last 20-25 mins after

the adoptive couple spilt up

tvnutz

So good you posted it twice! One with the spoiler covered and one without!

randomchild

Good film, funny and dramatic all at the same time with an excellent soundtrack and supporting cast. Opening 10 mins were a bit naff though. Miles better than the overrated Knocked Up.

cooperguy

senordingdong wrote: »

It's a p.c. version knocked up.

Since when was Knocked Up un-P.C.? It has drugs and an unmarried couple in it but thats hardly that crazy surely?

senordingdong

cooperguy wrote: »

Since when was Knocked Up un-P.C.? It has drugs and an unmarried couple in it but thats hardly that crazy surely?

Fine it's Knocked Up with alot of vulgarity removed.
For all the family.

Tusky

Driver 8 wrote: »

For gods sake, it's like fysh said, you're misunderstanding me. I have NO problem with Fox/Fox Searchlight or mainstream studios. It's the opposite, it's the people who normally would, seeking to make Juno the underdog and the "little movie that could" by trading on it's indie cred (cody, the self indulgent soundtrack etc.) that are bugging me.

And why is the screenplay getting the awards anyway? It's, to my mind, the weak link of the film by far. Fingers crossed for an oscar upset, michael clayton or ratatouille had far, far superior screenplays. Honest to f'n blog

I haven't heard anyone referring to it as an underdog or 'little movie that could'. Ive just heard people saying that its a quirky feel good movie and is comparable to last years little miss sunshine.

Saw it today and thought it was great. Well acted and scripted with lots of laughs and clever ideas.

Cianos

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Oh sweet mericful christ...

I havnt seen Juno but there is some BS being thrown around here





How independent films generally work.

You garner up funding by any means necessary to make the actual film. be this anything from local support, government funding, individual support (who get producer credits) or the dreaded bank loan so on etc etc. this money goes into producing the film.

Looking at the credits of Juno I'd say a director with a good record in filmmaking (thank you for smoking another excellent american indie) with what he considered a good script got a number of influentials to put their own money into the film's production (including John Malkevich).

You then take completed independent film and you:

A) Try and sell it to a studio

Go on the festival run and try and generate acclaim so a studio comes to you.

Said studio then gives you X amount of money so they can distribute the film via cinema release or dvd etc.

The money the studio gave you goes to paying off any big debts you have and the remaining money tend to be divided up among cast and cew as they see fit.

Profits from ticket sales/dvd sales go back to the studio.

Thus

JUNO IS NOT A STUDIO PRODUCED FILM.

That is how independent films work.

Actually its how alot of films work, but a studio film is more defined by cast agreements and franchises and dont have to worry about trying to convince a studio to pick it up (that tends to happen much much earlier in the scripting, casting or even when just the idea is proposed phase [see Halo movie fallout] )

Juno is for all its bells and whistles an independent film, it was not produced as a studio film. It had much more money then Primer (which I might add is Fantastic) but thats probably because it was an no brainer in its appeal, had a strong director or cast already connected and all in all seemed a safe bet. Primer, you'd agree had big f*cking red tape around it screaming very very risky due to its meandering and science heavy plot.


So when a film has the Fox Searchlight tag it does not mean the film was made by Fox, it means Fox bought the film at one of the many film festivals and have distributed it.

Fox searchlight DO NOT MAKE FILMS.

They are Like Tarten who distribute asian films in Europe including a number of ghibli films While Walt Disney distribute all the ghibli films in the USA.

So you're saying the studio would not have any final re-editing or touching up of the film before distribution? I find that very hard to believe.

Driver 8

Believe me, a lot of the oscar-hype around Juno is related to the either the "little movie that could" syndrome, or the hype around diablo cody. I'd have little problem with Ellen Page getting the oscar, but the idea of that screenplay winning an oscar, especially when there's very good scripts up against it (Ratatouille, Michael Clayton) doesn't fill me with joy.

BlitzKrieg

Cianos wrote: »

So you're saying the studio would not have any final re-editing or touching up of the film before distribution? I find that very hard to believe.

thats how it works.

The film is finished and more often then not already being screened at festivals, the studio probably wouldnt have touched the film until it had done well at a number of festivals (which it did http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467406/awards)


and thats why its under the fox searchlight brand rather then 20th century fox.

thats the challange with making an independent film, you have to convince someone to take it to the wider audiance by proving to them via the festival run to take the film on. while something like transformers or die hard 4 gets that garunteed before production starts.

MisterAnarchy

Anyone see the review of Juno in the View this week ?
Priceless.
It was savaged.
David Norris gave it 'deux points'.:D

Driver 8

Lol, great reviews there on the view. Nailed a lot of my complaints about the film