Fox Atomic »

A few weeks ago, I asked "Will Chicks Dig Jennifer's Body?" and the responses were mixed. Unfortunately for fans of the movie (like myself), its opening weekend box office results were equally mixed, with JB bringing in $6.8M, putting it in fifth place, right behind the execrable and boring Love Happens.

Plenty of people have immediately written off the movie because they loathe Diablo Cody or Megan Fox. Fox is an especially contentious figure among women because she's young, she's hot, and she's as eager to be "exploited" by the Hollywood machine as she is to give it the middle finger. And Diablo Cody, well... As the talented and smart Karyn Kusama, director of Jennifer's Body said in an interview with Cinematical's Todd Gilchrist, "I feel like the issue of [Cody's] voice being strong and people having a problem with it is very interesting to me because I think there are plenty of writers whose work generates that discussion. I have just never heard Quentin Tarantino or David Mamet or Shane Black be called a whore in people's blogs; I am shocked sometimes by the vitriol."

The cycle of slavering adoration and vicious backlash Cody has been the subject of since she was the Next Big Thing with her book Candy Girl makes my head spin, and if I were her, I'd have hocked my Oscar and headed for the hills long ago. But she hasn't, and thank goodness for that because Jennifer's Body is the coolest, weirdest thing to happen to women in horror (and the women who love horror) in a long time.

Just by virtue of her gender, Karyn Kusama is considered a feminist director; while the subject matter of her three films has certainly revolved around strong and interesting women, however, their stories certainly transcend the condescending and reductive designation of being called "women's movies." This is especially true of her latest, Jennifer's Body, which is an examination of teenage female sexuality that should certainly have considerable mainstream (i.e. male) appeal thanks to the person playing the body in question, Megan Fox.

Cinematical recently sat down with Kusama to talk about her career, the themes that have run recurrent in her movies, the impact of studio politics and feedback on her films, and how much she thinks her gender plays a role in career and the creative choices she makes. (Make sure to check out Part One of this interview, where she discusses her collaborations with Megan Fox and Diablo Cody, and gives fans a first-person account of the film's infamous make-out session between Fox and co-star Amanda Seyfried.)

Cinematical: Were there any specific elements of the different relationships, both personally and socially, in the film that you knew you wanted to explore or examine? There's the interaction of the two girls with one another, and Jennifer with her victims, but there's also the idea of this being a sort of monstrous version of teenage girls exploring their sexuality.

There's a sort of amazing nexus of visibility that Jennifer's Body is enjoying as it moves towards its opening day: men and women alike are obsessed with any- and everything Megan Fox does, and critics and audiences are curious to see how successfully Diablo Cody will follow-up her Oscar-winning script for Juno. Meanwhile, director Karyn Kusama bears the burden not only of shepherding the result of their efforts and the test for those expectations into theaters, but is in herself in search of a project that can both fulfill and overcome the preconceptions of viewers familiar with her two previous films, the acclaimed independent film Girlfight and the decidedly less-acclaimed studio opus Aeon Flux.

Cinematical recently sat down with Kusama for an epic conversation about her latest film, Jennifer's Body. In addition to discussing the project's origins and inspirations, she talked about tapping into expectations without acquiescing to them, examined the high-profile careers of her collaborators, and offered a few insights into her own creative process. (Check back tomorrow for part two, which further delves into her own feelings about the film's themes and her execution of its ideas.)

Cinematical: How did you process Diablo's writing style when you were directing and maybe even editing? Because she was kind of an unknown quantity when you started working on this but now she obviously has a style that polarizes audiences.

What is Jennifer's Body, and what is it supposed to be about? I don't know, and the film doesn't seem to, either: It's not really a horror movie, because those are usually scary. Nor is it smart or self-aware enough to be a treatise on teenage girls or male fears of female sexuality. And it's not even a swing-for-the-fences, spectacular enough failure to be a death knell or even deconstruction of the severely limited appeal of either its star, Megan Fox, or its screenwriter, Diablo Cody. Jennifer's Body substitutes hipster credibility for emotional currency, confuses pop-psychology insight with substantive social commentary, and measures terror on a scale that ranges from the word boo to a dead spider; in short, Jennifer's Body just does not work.

Fox plays Jennifer, a sexpot alpha female who mercilessly presides over the boys in her high school, but only has affection for her childhood friend Needy (Amanda Seyfried). After the two of them narrowly escape a fire while attending the concert of an up-and-coming band, Jennifer takes off to parts unknown in the lead singer's tour van, only to turn up later that night ravenously hungry in Needy's kitchen, covered in blood and God knows what else. It turns out that Jennifer has been mysteriously turned into a literal man-eater, and subsequently decides that her male classmates will serve as a more than suitable smorgasbord for her feasting pleasure. But when the homicidal homecoming queen decides that Needy's boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) is next on the menu, her mousy friend musters all of her own inner strength and decides to take Jennifer down a peg or two, even if it comes at the expense of their friendship, or even their lives.

Poor New Orleans! As if the real-life horrors of Hurricane Katrina and the broken levees weren't bad enough, now the beautiful city must suffer from the devastation wrought by Danny Fisher, played by former * WWE wrestler / entertainer John Cena in 12 Rounds, the latest train wreck from director Renny Harlin. "Damn the property damage! I'm going to save my girlfriend, whatever the cost!" is a noble sentiment, especially when you don't have to pay the bills.

Danny isn't really responsible for the carnage he causes, of course, even though he politely apologizes whenever he crashes into other people's vehicles or accidentally kills people. (Cena furrows his brow and turns his smile upside down, just so you know he's not happy with himself.) The real blame lies with Miles Jackson, who is seeking revenge on Danny for the death of his girlfriend. Jackson is described as an international arms dealer, but he spends much more time blowing things up and changing SIM cards in cell phones than any actual dealing of arms.

Aidan Gillen, who was superb as a cagey, ambitious, well-intentioned politician in The Wire, has much less to play with here, but it's fun to watch him try to juice up the role of an exceptionally-nasty master criminal with absolutely no scruples or second thoughts. He provides one of the few true pleasures in 12 Rounds, which should be a lot more fun than it is. Instead of embracing its loonier plot elements -- a fire engine crashing across town, a ticking time bomb on a public bus, an out-of-control street car -- 12 Rounds insists on playing it straight as a sober drama, ending up as Speed without the flirtations or thrills.

Up until yesterday I was having trouble keeping track of all the movies that were contenders for the worst of 2009, and I couldn't decide which one topped the list. Now my head is clear of such decisions. I've seen Miss March. In the film, high school boy Eugene (Zach Cregger) practices abstinence but reluctantly agrees to sleep with his girlfriend Cindi (Raquel Alessi) on prom night. Before he can seal the deal he falls down some stairs and goes into a coma. When he wakes up four years later, Cindi is the new Playboy Centerfold. So he and his idiot best friend Tucker (Trevor Moore) take a road trip to the Playboy Mansion to find her.

How they're friends is one of the movie's greatest mysteries, aside from, you know, the one about how it ever got made. These two morons react to everything with bug eyes and jaws agape, sometimes comically screaming and sometimes not. Cregger is a self-righteous, hypocrite prig, and Moore does a barrel-scraping Jim Carrey impersonation that comes much closer to Jim Varney; he even makes those old "Strip-O-Rama" comedians look elegant and refined. (These two cretins are the co-creators of a TV show called "The Whitest Kids U Know," which I am proud to say I have not seen.)

I can think of at least three movies in the coming two weeks that feature scenes that are strikingly out of tone with the film they're a respective part of and yet seemingly included as a means of getting people to tell their loved ones how ridiculous Bit X in Movie Y is. And so today's Cinematical Seven list will be an arbitrary, far from ultimate compilation of the most distractingly disgusting and supremely superfluous parts in recent movies. Sure, most of these are comedies, and yes, most of them seem to have been released from the year 2000 on, and as always, we welcome your comments below. Just make sure they're not too gross.

(Speaking of which, NSFW clips follow after the jump.)

In Utah -- the state so pure that some theaters owners refuse to show the relatively tame Zack and Miri Make a Porno but haven't given Saw V a second glance -- one theater moved their audience for the weekend's #1 movie, High School Musical 3: Senior Year, into a larger auditorium that had been showing the raunchy Sex Drive ... and promptly continued to do so once the lights went down.

This isn't a terribly uncommon mistake to be made. Just last year, a Long Island multiplex exposed children to the gruesome opening of The Hills Have Eyes 2 instead of The Last Mimzy, and back in 2005, I found myself attending a Saturday night sneak of Zathura in a theater where The Fog proceeded to begin instead. (Childless and intrepid as I was am, it took my fetching a manager to correct the situation, not any of the number of vocally concerned parents in the surprisingly full house.)

(No, please, it was nothing.)

I just hope that some giddy HSM3 fan let loose with "Go, Wildcats!" regardless. They wouldn't have been too far off...

It's a familiar tale: Hitch a falling star to a rising talent ... and see what happens. This week's iteration comes in the form of a Variety story that sees Juno director Jason Reitman teaming with Jim Carrey on a new comedy titled Pierre Pierre. The film -- budgeted at a fairly-modest $13 million -- is pitched as the tale of a "self-indulgent French nihilist who transports a stolen painting from Paris to London." In his heyday -- Ace Ventura, The Truman Show, Liar, Liar -- Carrey's salary alone would have exceeded the proposed budget of Pierre Pierre; however, as any viewer of The Majestic, The Number 23 or Fun with Dick and Jane can tell you, those bright days are far in the past.

Pierre, Pierre is going to be released under the Fox Atomic specialty banner, and also features a script from first-time writers Edwin Cannistraci and Frederick Seton. I guess the question I'm pondering is which Jim Carrey will show up -- the tired, makeup-coated hack of Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events or the more interested, more invested Carrey of The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? And does new talent Reitman have the skills, and vision, to coax the latter kind of performance out of an actor many consider a fading funnyman?