Material Girls

Wow. This movie was bad. Terrible acting, dumb plot, unbelievably boring. I wanted to leave after the first 10 minutes! The Duff sisters are normally bearable (i loved A Cinderella Story and Raise Your Voice), in this, they weren't. I think there were about 10 people in the theater, and about 2 people laughing at the "jokes". I suggest not seeing this. Unless you can see it for free. Even then, maybe you should think about it... I want my hour and 40 minutes back. And my money. Kids might enjoy it... but none of the kids in the theater i went to were really acting like they liked it. So i can't tell you for sure.

As a huge Hilary Duff fan, I've always enjoyed her work because she's so lovable. Unfortunately, Material Girls was almost the type of thing I would expect from Disney Channel not MGM Studios. On the plus side, the Duff sisters were likable in this movie and I came out thinking that Haylie was quite a good actress because she really brought something special to her character. Hilary also took a step up and proved herself a little bit more as an actress in certain scenes. If you really like the Duff girls, go see it and have a good time because this movie does pick up and get kind of fun but if you're looking for a really great movie, I would suggest you look elsewhere.

I give this movie a solid 2. The acting is terrible. The plot is horrible. The sets are boring. You could turn the sound off and follow along without any problems it is so idiotic. What little plot there is, is predictable. There is really nothing redeeming about this film - except - the Duff girls. They are smoking hot. Based on those two pieces of eye candy alone, I give the "two".

Without their looks I would give it a 0.

If you want to watch a better chick teen flick, try Mean Girls. Or watch a real movie like Animal House or Bullitt or Gladiator or Apocolypto or Cinderella Man.

First let me say that I like the Duff sisters, so I was not looking to hate this movie. In fact, we own Hilary's previous movies on DVD and I figured we'd eventually own this one too. Now that I've seen ("wasted money on" is another way to say it) this movie, I can tell you I will not ever buy this and will never watch this again.

The only reason I gave this a one instead of a two is that I genuinely like the Duff sisters. I was looking forward to a movie that my daughter would like and I would enjoy, if not just tolerate. I think the sisters should fire their agents, advisers, producers, or whoever put them up to this. It did nothing to enhance their careers. And I'm still not sure who they thought their audience is. Certainly no adults would (or should) choose to see this movie if they weren't going for their daughters, but neither was this movie properly aimed at young girls (the Duffs' main fan base.) As far as the PG rating, I am not a prude - I actually own Mean Girls, and I am fairly liberal about what my children watch (e.g., we love Friends, even though others think the material is not always appropriate for kids) but I squirmed in my seat for the moms that had younger children in the audience, as well as for my 11 year old daughter. Without going into detail - no spoilers - there were blatant references to adultery, gang banging, and sex that I did not think appropriate at all. There was some foul language. There was outright prejudice against all sorts of people. Referencing an earlier review, yes the comment was about "I Love Lucy" and not a Hispanic nanny, but nonetheless, annoying anyway.

Most importantly, the movie was mindless, and it didn't have to be. The Duff sisters aside, there were some genuinely talented people in the cast (Anjelica Huston, Maria Conchita Alonso) but the script was so bad that there was no saving this movie. There was a shot at redemption near the end, but the screenwriters blew that too. (How do these things even become movies?) It's almost as if the creators know that this movie won't last but a nano-second in history, as evidenced by the constant mainstream references and advertising plugs. Technically, there was bad continuity (Check out Hilary's hairstyles - in the beginning there is one scene where her french braid magically disappears with a camera angle change; or the lips moving out of sequence with the dialogue)and the jarring special effects editing were distracting and juvenile.

Like the characters themselves, this movie is all form with no substance.

Material Girls

reviewed by Sam Osborn

rating: 1 out of 4

There's a moment in Material Girls when the infinitely wise and humble lawyer at the Free Legal Clinic bears down on the equally infinite stupidity of Ava Marchetta (Haylie Duff) and coolly snarls, "you're all frosting, without the cupcake." Granted, this one-liner is of no great wit or intelligence it does hold a kind of all-encompassing truth about Material Girls. Except, in saying Material Girls has as much density as a cupcake's frosting is probably giving the film a world of credit it has no business deserving.

The gimmick of Material Girls is in the Duff sisters. Whatever film photographed behind them on the film's posters is immaterial. For all we care, this could be Hong Kong Kung Fu Fury, just as long as it stars the Duff sisters. So in the same way people go to see Snakes on a Plane just to see some actual snakes on an actual plane, people will go see Material Girls only to watch they're adolescent idols bouncing and hopping and giggling about in front of the camera. The quality of the film behind them is irrelevant; just a prettily painted canvas for a blonde hullabaloo. But for all those parents goaded into bringing their ten-year old daughter, I suppose a synopsis is appropriate. Ava and Tanzie Marchetta (Haylie and Hilary Duff) are the faces of Marchetta Facial Products. They're glistening socialites in the vane world inhabited in reality by Paris Hilton and her partying cohorts–minus the sex tapes. They're father, Victor Marchetta, passed away two years earlier and the company will soon be left in the girls' hands. But when a cut-rate newscaster breaks a scandal on Marchetta products causing cancer, the girls' stock plummets and they're left, gasp, without their credit cards. The girls must unite and disprove the accusations in order to save the image of their father. In the process of course, Ava and Tanzie must learn humility and sincerity through the conduit of their loss of funds and fortune.

Director Martha Coolidge stumbles in her approach to the material. The film's intention bounces between parody and sentimentality. Sometimes it strives to ooze sympathy for its ditzy protagonists and rolls out the morals by the bushel. But other times, Coolidge ravages her characters with a volley of farcical gags. There's a happy middle-ground between the two intentions that a better director would likely find: where the believably clueless socialites learn to interact with the similarly convincing world of middle-class American society. But Coolidge veers more towards the feel of a sitcom, sans laugh-track. Without it, the jokes fall flat. Neither of the Duffs have a sense of comic timing and the screenplay doesn't bother with helping them along. Material Girls is so woefully unfunny that not even the heaps of twelve-year girls could be heard laughing.

Just before the film started, I mistimed my restroom break and admittedly missed the opening minute or two of the movie. I asked my girlfriend, who'd been kind enough to sit through its entirety, what I'd missed afterwards in that opening minute. She explained it to me and I felt a deep sympathy for her. She was subjected to two more minutes of Material Girls, and the thought of any more torture was physically painful to me. That's essentially the effect Material Girls has: it is physically painful to endure.

-www.samseescinema.com