What specifically did they find deceptive?

One of my favorite blogs, written by a woman who, along with her partner, have domestically adopted 2 little girls, had this to say: [link] Here's the summary:

Though one might say the movie was not "unrealistic" (Juno's lack of legal or other representation, her isolation from others who share her experience, her detachment from grief after placement), neither did the film problematize any of this or suggest any alternate versions of the story.

In the end, the film heartily endorsed the agenda of a return to the bad-old "baby-scoop" days and thus yes, a return the days (if they are indeed over) of women's sexuality being shameful and not within women's own control. And thus yes, a return to the days (if they are indeed over) when abortion was not readily or safely available.

If you knew nothing about adoption going into the film, you'd learn that adoption is sweet and birth mothers have no issues. If you had fairly mainstream knowledge of adoption, you'd leave with nothing new. But if you know about adoption from any part of its the insides, you might well judge, like me, that it does a terrible disservice to the field

I just thought the different reactions were really interesting. Obviously, she has way more invested in adoption than the average viewer, but her description of the movie makes it sound so...I don't know...like Juno just drops off her baby and rides off into the sunset to live happily ever after.

Perhaps I need to wait until I'm not pregnant to be able to enjoy a movie like this.

They don't really make it explicit, but if Juno didn't have any feelings about giving up her baby, the movie would lose an awful lot of its conflict. It would be a really weird movie if it was like Juno was giving up some kind of object that meant nothing to her.

If Juno wasn't very much invested in her baby's future she wouldn't care so much about the parents she chose for him and their marriage. She loved the idea that her baby would be raised by someone who loved music and horror movies, etc., because she cared about how her child would be raised.

In the end, the film heartily endorsed the agenda of a return to the bad-old "baby-scoop" days and thus yes, a return the days (if they are indeed over) of women's sexuality being shameful and not within women's own control. And thus yes, a return to the days (if they are indeed over) when abortion was not readily or safely available.

I came away from the movie thinking quite a bit about this, but I'm not sure what I would have liked the movie to have done differently in terms of dealing with it.

I just noticed looking at the ad in the Phoenix that CLOVERFIELD was written by Drew Goddard. Huh.

Okay, not that I had any intention of seeing it anyway, but Manohla Dargis's one-sentence review of Cloverfield:

Rarely have I rooted for a monster with such enthusiasm.

[link]

Interestingly enough, Willie Waffle gave Cloverfield four waffles. High praise. He thought the monster was very well done. Now, I'm curious to see the movie just to weigh in on the monster factor. From what he said, it sounded more like what you don't see of the moster for the most of the movie is what builds the tension and that he didn't find seeing the whole monster a let down. The local morning DJ asked him if it was a King Kong level of believabilty (I'm thinking the Fay Wray version here) and Willie said no, better.

I should say, that's the only line in Dargis's review that talks about the monster at all, really. She hated it because she wanted to beat all of the characters to death with a shovel.

I just noticed looking at the ad in the Phoenix that CLOVERFIELD was written by Drew Goddard. Huh.

Dude, that's part of why I've been so excited to see it all these months!

I wanna see it, but apparently it has the whole "hand-held-camera-induced nausea" factor. I had to move to the back of the theater for Dancer in the Dark and leave the theater for 5-10 minutes during The Blair Witch Project due to this, so I'm a bit wary....