Foxfire

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.

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!

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.

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.

This film was only marginally a 2...it really deserved a 1. A few of the actresses were decent some of the time...but overall this was a total waste of film, and a total waste of my time to watch. There was nothing about the plot or the characterizations that made me want to keep going after the first 30 minutes...but I kept persevering, although I should have gone with my first impulses and stopped then. The only thing in the whole movie which wasn't a waste of time was the soundtrack--some good choices of more obscure '50s jump boogie contrasting with the more mainstream pop of the era. As for the more recent music in the movie, I don't have anything good to say about Taylor Kirk except that he seems a Leonard Cohen wannabe. Poor scripting, marginal acting, bad accents...and although I've never read the Joyce Carol Oates book on which it was based, I know now why I don't want to. I've also never seen the earlier movie based on the book, but I certainly saw nothing in this movie that would make me want to watch another crack at the same material. If you have any interest in good filmmaking, don't waste your time watching this trash.