The Devil and Miss Cody

Edward Champion's review is an absurd piece of drivel. Sure, I don't know any real people who talk exactly like Juno, but I know some who would talk like her if they were a little more clever, and isn't that usually what film dialogue is? Juno (the movie) isn't a movie about name-dropping pop culture references, it's a movie about a character who name-drops pop culture references because that is the kind of person she is. She doesn't express intense emotions all the time, not because Diablo Cody doesn't feel like writing that stuff, but because Juno (the character) can only go through this pregnancy situation if she remains, to some degree, emotionally distant from it.

Jason Bateman's character is the same way, I think, and it's important to note the differences between his character and Juno, and how the two of them end up. That is a good part of the key to this movie.

Perhaps Edward Champion can't relate to these characters because he's out of touch, but he cannot make the claim that these characters are artificial or irrelevant. I know plenty of people who hide their true emotions under a blanket of smarminess and pop culture references. I could definitely name a few friends who Juno reminded me of.

I take the most issue with his statement, "This is a film designed for people who do not feel or embrace the world in any genuine way." First of all, just because some of the characters in the movie keep their life problems at arm's length, that doesn't mean that the only kind of people who will like this movie are those who do the same. Second of all, and more importantly, isn't the ending, where Juno does embrace her love for Bleeker, all about her learning to let her guard down a little bit, to show some genuine emotion, to actually embrace the world? Isn't that, well, the point of the movie? Did Edward Champion walk out of this film before the last twenty minutes?

Those two incidents do indeed happen in the film, along with a number of other scenes that will leave you rolling your eyes.

I think Champion's criticism is valid, but only to a certain extent. He clearly doesn't like the current brand of quirky indie films, so it's no surprise he takes issue with Juno, as the dialogue in Juno comes across as artifically quirky at times. No teenager talks the way Juno does and it's obvious with the name-dropping that Diablo Cody is injecting herself into the script. No teenager would reference bloody Thundercats, someone old enough to have seen it as a kid (like Cody) might.

The screenwriting is somewhat of a cheese-fest, but the film is somewhat entertaining. It's not nearly as 'wizard' as many are claiming it to be, however.

I completely disagree with EC. I have way too much to attack that review on for me to even begin. I think he totally missed the point on Juno.

I DID think the characters expressed genuine emotion. I don't understand what his problem was with having a snarky, flippant 16 year old. Has he ever been 16? Or were things really that different when was that age? 16 year olds are very often snarky and flippant and know an absurd number of obscure references, and will often use them to express their emotions: by relating them to something. Intelligent 16 year old often do talk like Juno - I knew a few myself (I'd like to think I was one, but who knows?). As if "Thundercats are go!!!" wasn't genuine emotion. There WAS fright, and it WAS second thoughts. And it was funny.

As for Jason Bateman not emoting over the difficulties of getting older...has EC actually seen the film? Bateman is continuously expressing doubt, confusion, and second thoughts about his settling down in life throughout the film. His character's personality drips holding on to younger days, and in the end, this is his undoing: it's a part of the obvious plot!

There's so much more I can attack this review on. But I think after reading the review that EC just doesn't understand comedy. Either that, or he's looking for attention by playing the "I'm going to be controversial and disagree with every other critic regardless of whether or not the film is good" card. Similar to the late-reviewing critics who support Uwe Boll films and call them "not nearly as bad as it was supposed to be."

I would understand if he called the film over-rated, or not an absolute masterpiece, but to call it one of the worst films of all time and say that Diablo Cody should be shot like an old dog is a bit absurd. I'm not saying he has to like the film, but to miss that there were at least some definite charms and at least some depth? Please. (I think there was a lot of charm and depth, but to miss ALL of it is really stretching).