Foxfire

I have not read the novel, nor seen the 1996 version, so I cannot base my review on any sort of comparison. Filled with newcomers, this film really surprised me. I was hooked from the first scene and my interest continued for the length of the film. This is a long film, over two hours but it did not feel like it. The performances were outstanding, especially by the actress portraying legs. With so many lousy films and independent attempts that are failures, it was a pleasure to be rewarded with this viewing. I would guess that several promising careers have now begun. Kudos to all involved with the making of this film!

Laurent Cantet director of the Cannes palm D'or and Oscar Nominated "The Class" latest effort "Foxfire" did little to impress me a film about a group of teenage girls in upstate New York in 1950's who call them selves "Foxfire" they are angry and out to cause trouble and who can blame them I blame the director of this film and the dialect coach and casting director. The ensemble performance by the female cast played out like amateur actors in a B film the dialogue sounded to Canadian who can blame Laurent Cantet he is French he probably couldn't notice the difference and the dialect coach must have been deaf. The film itself stretched out its welcome running 2hours and 20minutes I felt the film was going no where after watching it for 90 minutes. And the fact that the film won a best actress prize at The San Sebastian International Film Festival Katie Coseni the jury must not have had much to choose from to give a best actress award.

I've read the book and i'm glad that it was so true to it. I also thought the actors were good, they were not amazing but belivable enugh. It was nicely filmed, nothing special but i did enjoy it. I think i would recommend it! If you liked the book it's defenitly worth a watch!

It's 1955 upstate New York. A group of young women join together to form a gang, Foxfire, to fight back against their tormentors.

Other than Rita, the girls aren't given introductory time to lay out their characters. Margaret "Legs" is the only one to make an impact after that. It doesn't help that these actresses are all unknowns. They need individuality before they can form the commonality of the group. Compared to the 1996 version, this is missing the big name and big charisma like Angelina Jolie. This is a lower budget indie and it doesn't really rise above that. The time period is intriguing. Legs is intriguing. The general premise is intriguing. The rest is not.

One of my favourite stories about a group of teenage girls who form a group to get back at their society, which they feel is very unfair towards them. This film is a much more realistic adaptation to the novel by Joyce Carol Oates than the original 1996 version. I love the storyline and was very excited to watch this film, having seen the original and read the book. However the acting is no where near as good as the 1996 version (you must be mad to make a new version of an Angelina Jolie movie?!), and I would also suggest reading the novel before watching, as it makes everything a lot clearer. If I had not read the novel prior to watching, there are some parts which I doubt I would have understood properly. Definitely recommend this film to anyone who loves a film with a great female lead.