Bad Girls

The idea of making a Western with women in the leading roles was an interesting one, but the casting was not exactly ideal. Don't get me wrong, the women in "Bad Girls" look great in their Western outfits, and they do a fine acting job as well, but only Drew Barrymore really convinces as a "bad girl" - you can see the fire of intensity burning in her eyes (Madeleine Stowe is a close second - at times she is convincingly defiant). And for a "feminist" Western, the women get mistreated rather frequently. But the biggest problem with this film is an unfocused script that never really takes off. "Bad Girls" was a big commercial and critical flop, but I don't think it's such a bad movie - it's just not as good as it should have been. (**)

Agreed, the acting could have been a bit less melodramatic but the actresses concerned did a good job when they weren't looking like supermodels.

The trick about it was "they had to look good" and they did look good. Madeleine Stowe's "Cool Cody", Andie McDowell's Elegant Eileen, Mary Stuart Masterson's "Arch Anita", and Drew Barrymore's tomboyish "Li'l Lilly", were fetching and gave rise to Girl Power credence.

I couldn't take my eyes off Barrymore who had come a long since E.T. and her drug/alcohol fuelled periods of teen angst/pain.

The fight at the end in the corral blew me away, those girls proved they could outshoot anything on two legs!!!

There should be a sequel!!!

4 out of 5

Despite all the negative criticism it's fun to watch these four leading ladies play badass girls in the West It turns westerns on an opposite, and trite, formula. Watch the four leading ladies kick ass on Western stereotypes Enjoy

Ridiculously and dreadfully stupid film set in the Old West. Do you really need a plot summary? You asked for it: Four prostitutes (Drew Barrymore, Madeline Stowe, Andie MacDowell, Mary Stuart Masterson) decide to fight back or something stupid like that.

Skip it. Please, save yourself and skip this mess that is worse than a made-for-TV movie.

1/5 stars -

John Ulmer

Jonathan Kaplan's Bad Girls leaves an interesting taste in my mouth. It is an energetic and fun film, offset by its ridiculous characters and plot. The believability factor in this flick is low, which encourages its audience to view it as a swirling maelstrom of metaphor and symbol. Woman, as defined by the early 90's, can overcome any impediment and still be beautiful, no need to become manly (and lose her femininity) to assert herself. The Western genre serves as a perfect tableau for this discourse because it is one traditionally dominated by men. Likewise, the men in Bad Girls each represent an institution of American culture that is dominated by men and their mentality, conveniently dispatched by the bad girls.

Four whores raise hell by killing a Colonel and running out of town, complete with unnecessary slow motion of Drew Barrymore shouting "heeyah!" and the humiliation of every man who crosses their path. The military, traditional justice, and Christianity are trampled upon, left wondering how these motivated and hard working women could escape their clutches. The film from here takes some twists and turns, and several complete circles. In short, the whores chase a dream of establishing a home for themselves around a mill that Mary Stuart Masterson's late husbands owned, countering the murderous advances of men with their own sexual flaunting. Gunfights, smarmy dialogue, pseudo-lesbianic encounters, and female flesh fill the film to to a near bursting capacity, much like Barrymore's bosom.

It is not what I would call a smart film, however it does present itself as an interesting fable about the empowerment of women by women who remain women. I would liken Bad Girls to that of the Freudian dreams of those who struggle against "the man." I feel that it deserves to be seen at least once.