Mean Girls 1 & 2 (2004 - 2011)

Mean Girls (2004)

Directed by: Mark Waters

Starring: Lindsay Lohan, Tina Fey, Rachel McAdams, Lacey Chabert, Amanda Seyfried, Lizzy Caplan, Daniel Franzese, Jonathan Bennett, Amy Poehler, Neil Flynn, Ana Gasteyer and Tim Meadows

Genre: Comedy, Teen Comedy

Rated: PG-13

Based on the book, Queen Bees and Wannabes by Rosalind Wiseman

Sixteen-year-old Cady Heron (Lohan) is going to public school for the first time, and is immediately overwhelmed by current teen culture. At first her only friends are Janis (Caplan) and Damien (Franzese), but soon she catches the eye of The Plastics – the most popular girls in school. At Janis’s insistence, she continues to hang out with these girls to get the inside scoop. However, it becomes war when Regina (McAdams) knowingly steals Cady’s crush, and Cady joins forces with Janis to take down Regina once and for all.

I’m actually surprised how this movie had to grow on me. I first saw it when it hit DVD I wasn’t that impressed. It took me a few years to really enjoy the humor and understand the message of the film. Also I wasn’t as big of a fan of Tina Fey as I am today, and it sometimes takes a bit to understand her brand of funny.

The characters in this film are fabulous. Cady is great as the center focus of the film, but she is pretty much the straight character to everyone else’s quirks. Her character develops while little changes in the rest of them – but we wouldn’t have it any other way. I have to say Janis and Regina steal the show as the true mean girls. Janis has held a grudge against Regina since junior high, when Regina made her an outcast, and she has to use her own defensive humor to get her through the days at school. She jumps at the chance to destroy Regina’s life. Meanwhile, Regina is the typical spoiled little rich girl who gets everything she could possibly want and isn’t grateful for any of it. She’s the girl you love to hate. As Damien says, “She’s fabulous, but she’s evil.”

The rest of the characters are great as well. Damien is the hilarious “gay best friend” and only true friend Janis has until Cady enters the picture. Gretchen (Chabert) and Karen (Seyfried) are giggle-inducing as Regina’s lackeys, and of course the quirky doesn’t end with the students. Ms. Norbury (Fey) has Tina’s dry, self-deprecating wit, Mr. Duval (Meadows) tries too hard to relate to the students, and Mrs. George (Poehler) is the overly exaggerated “cool mom” that tries to be friends with the teenage girls.

The performances are all pitch perfect. I don’t have a single complaint with the casting. In fact, this movie often makes me a little sad because it reminds me of what Lohan could have been if she had just kept her act together. Instead, the film’s breakout stars are actually Rachel McAdams and Amanda Seyfried, who have gone on to make many popular films.

I really enjoy the message of this movie – which is, ultimately, be yourself and you’ll find true happiness. The people who deserve to be in your life will be there anyway. I loved Cady’s character arc as she discovers the awful things girls do to each other, gets caught up in it, and finally finds her way back to herself. The movie lectures against being mean to one another and learning to respect everyone no matter their differences. It’s a humorous look at the evil things girls do to one another in order to be more popular, get a guy, win a crown, etc, and examines if it is all really worth it in the end.

I think this is a great film that should be watched by all preteen to teenage girls and their mothers. It explores the evil of girlhood and explains how it’s best to avoid such behavior, all the while being funny and entertaining.

8/10

 

Mean Girls 2 (2011)

Directed by: Melanie Mayron

Starring: Meaghan Martin, Claire Holt, Maiara Walsh, Nicole Gale Anderson, Jennifer Stone, Bethany Anne Lind and Tim Meadows

Genre: TV Movie, Comedy, Teen Comedy

Rated: PG-13

Jo Mitchell (Martin) is new to North Shore High, having landed at her fifth school in three years. Since her father moves around a lot for his job fixing NASCAR race cars, Jo never stays at the same school very long, thus she has some ground rules: she doesn’t make friends or date because she will just have to move and leave it all behind. But all that changes when she begins her senior year at North Shore and meets Abby Hanover (Stone), the richest outcast ever. Abby’s father offers to pay Jo to be Abby’s friend and Jo agrees, only to find that being Abby’s friend really angers Mandi (Walsh) leader of The Plastics – who makes it her personal mission to ruin Jo’s life.

Aside from being an unnecessary made-for-TV sequel, the first part of this film really isn’t bad. I really liked Jo’s character – she was a badass with confidence and didn’t let the typical rules of social hierarchy dictate her life. She takes shop, loves junk food, drives a Vespa and has no problem telling the bitchy popular chicks where to stick it. Abby is also adorable as the shy outcast, secret artist, and frequent victim of Mandi’s torment.

However, aside from Tyler, Jo’s love interest, Jo and Abby are really the only decent characters in the film. While in the first movie The Plastics were mean but still likable, here they are just evil with no redeeming characteristics. They are cliché cardboard cutouts of typical popular girls – I was surprised none of them were on the cheerleading squad. Then, of course, there’s the brown-nosing Quinn (Lind) who longs to be popular and will hang with whoever seems to hold the crown in that department. I wanted to smack her in every scene that she was in.

I didn’t really like the story of this flick. It starts off great with Jo strutting into school with her kickass attitude and the first thirty minutes or so are great. I really liked that Jo held her head high through most of Mandi’s attacks, and didn’t stoop to her level until Mandi sabotaged the car Jo’s father was working on. Jo does not take attacks on her family easily, nor should she. It is only then that she begins to lose herself in “Girl World” and taking down Mandi.

After that thirty minute mark, this film stepped out of the realm of realistic. I don’t believe for a second that Mandi and her dimwit friends would have the first clue how to sabotage a car – they don’t have a techie brain cell amongst the three of them. Nor that these girls wouldn't be charged with crimes such as trespassing and destruction of private property. No need to fight like a girl, just have the brat arrested. Also, as a once-victim of mean girl attacks, they don’t usually go after your family – they just make your life a living hell. This action proves psychotic and out of bounds, even for a “mean girl.” Especially when Jo’s only crime was being nice, confident, and attractive – basically being more appealing than Mandi. In fact, all of the “Crimes Against Mandi” are ridiculous – Abby feeding Mandi’s dog, having a better purse, or getting a better parking spot – is that REALLY stuff that teenage girls attack each other over? Has my five years outside of high school put me THAT out of the loop?

I also don’t understand why Jo challenges Mandi to a football game. What is that supposed to prove? Jo says, “We’re going to settle this like men,” well, then punch her in the face! That is how guys resolve issues, they beat the crap out of each other and then go get a beer. They don’t challenge each other to a game of football  - especially one that gives the players a week or so to prepare for. Jo had nothing to lose at that point, why not just tackle the snob and have it out physically? Oh, because that would promote violence and that’s something we need to avoid teaching kids. I’m not promoting it, but sometimes it is the only way to get a bully off your back. Also, it's a far more realistic reaction to Mandi's attacks than what actually happened. 

There are also some inconsistencies between this one and the first, namely that in the original, North Shore High was located in Illinois, not Ohio. Also, the original Plastics didn’t call themselves The Plastics, that was a snide name for them made up by their classmates. In this version, Mandi and her friends hold the title proudly, and they don’t even come close to being the originals. The writing was mediocre at best, and the three writers on this flick couldn’t match the single talent of Tina Fey.

The acting was amateur, but Martin and Stone stood out among the kids, and Meadows was funny in his revival of Principal Duval. The Plastics were sup-par in my opinion, but that could also be because their characters were so weak they really had nothing to work with. The actors can only do so much with what they are given, and when they are only given one-dimensional characters with few personality traits, there’s not much they can do.

I also found the wardrobe in this movie laughable. The Plastics boast about owning Prada, Versace and Jimmy Choo, yet their wardrobe looks like it came from the junior’s department of JC Penney. (No slam to the company, I shop there frequently.) While The Plastics in the first film looked sleek and put together, these girls look childish. Also, I’ve never seen knee high nylons with skirts being revered as fashionable. Who wears heels when breaking and entering, especially to sabotage a racecar? Lastly, I would think Mandi would have a little more class than to have a giant tramp stamp, but I guess not.

Overall, this is quite the forgettable, unnecessary sequel. The story is weak, the mean girls over the top, and the acting mediocre. It’s okay for a watch if you’re bored on a rainy afternoon or are curious about the Mean Girls sequel, but honestly, I’ll stick with the original.

5.5/10

Extemeties (1986)

Directed by: Robert M. Young

Starring: Farrah Fawcett, James Russo, Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid

Genre: Psychological Thriller, Drama

Rated: R

Based on the Off Broadway Play by William Mastrosimone

After Marjorie escapes an attempted rape and sexual assault, she turns to the police for help. When she learns there is nothing the police can do for her, she reluctantly returns home and lives in fear. Her assailant has her wallet and knows where she lives; he may come back and try again. Sure enough, he does, one day while she’s alone at home. Marjorie is able to turn the tables on her attacker, but then finds herself in a tight situation. Does she call the cops and risk him being allowed back on the streets or does she kill him and rid the world of a sexual predator?

It’s been a couple days since I watched this film and I’m still not quite sure how I feel about it. It had me pulled in different directions. On the one hand, I wanted her to take him out, when he was attacking her and dangerous. After he was restrained, I didn’t think killing him was necessary, but I was also afraid that the police wouldn’t do squat after she turned him over to them. Still, some of Marjorie’s actions rubbed me the wrong way.

I get that it was the point of the film – animalistic behavior begets animalistic behavior – but that didn’t mean I had to like her actions. I was rooting for her when she managed to flip the situation and incapacitate Joe (her attacker), but she progressively becomes more and more crazy. She refuses to go to the police because Joe has her convinced that it would be his word against hers and she wouldn’t have a case. She forces her roommates to go along with her psychotic ideas and threatens to kill Joe if they don’t help her. It’s one thing if you’re willing to go down with a possible murder charge, it’s quite another to drag your friends into it.

The acting in this film is solid. Farrah does a great job with the role, ranging from terrified to certifiably insane throughout the movie. Russo brings Joe to life as a believable sleazebag who can be both intimidating and vulnerable. The roommates were okay, but not outstanding.

The film definitely carries a lot of suspense, as the viewer is always wondering just what is going to happen between Marjorie and Joe. It feels claustrophobic in places, despite the fact that it takes place in a relatively large house for the majority of the runtime.

I thought the film was well-written with each character filling a specific role. Marjorie and Joe both display animalistic traits while her roommates Pat and Terry represent different view points on handling the situation. Terry just wants to stay out of it, while Pat wants to call the police and sort everything out the lawful way. Still, I don’t really understand what Terry’s revelation towards the end of the film has to do with anything. It was kind of jarring and could have been left out – I don’t think it did anything for her character.

Overall, this is a well-acted, well-written psychological thriller dealing with sexual assault and revenge. It’s tense, claustrophobic, and holds up well today. It’s not exactly a pleasant watch, and probably not a film to view multiple times, but it is worth it.

7/10

The Burning Bed (1984)

Directed by: Robert Greenwald

Starring: Farrah Fawcett, Paul Le Mat, Grace Zabriskie, James T. Callahan, Dixie K. Wade, and Penelope Milford

Genre: TV Movie, Drama, Domestic Violence

Rated: Not Rated

Based on a True Story and the book by Faith McNulty

Based on the true case of Francine Hughes, the story follows the tumultuous relationship between Francine and her husband, Mickey. A relationship that gets progressively more violent and abusive over time and one Francine is unable to escape from. Her efforts to leave are thwarted, either by Mickey or those she turns to for help. On the night of March 9, 1977, after being beaten and raped by her husband, she got the children out of the house, and as her drunken husband slept, doused him in gasoline and set the bed on fire. Thus setting into motion one of the first cases to ignite the idea of Battered Wives Syndrome as a credible defense.

This film is very emotionally gripping. I truly felt for the character of Francine – the fear she lived with, the lack of help or places to go, and the learned helplessness she developed throughout her life with Mickey. I sympathized with her because I understood her reasoning for doing things that others would deem stupid, even when I was frustrated by her choices. However, for the most part, the film just made me angry; angry at Mickey for being a drunk, abusive jerk; angry at his parents for looking the other way when they know he’s beating the hell out of her; and most of all, at Francine’s mother – who told her that she had to “take the good with the bad” and she’d made herself a “hard bed and now she must lay in it.” This woman was spineless and wouldn’t stand up for her daughter, begging Francine to go back to Mickey, and even giving her grandchildren to Mickey when he’s drunk, violent and belligerent. 

Yeah, because that’s a smart move, lady! 

Her behavior was so unfathomable to me because I was raised by a strong woman who would do anything to protect me from harm. She would kill the guy long before I did. When I was done with this movie, I was in serious need of something with a strong heroine kicking some butt.

The acting in this film is what was the most compelling to me. While Farrah’s performance is a little overrated, she does do very well with the material and bringing her character to life. It certainly does prove that she’s a talented actress. Paul Le Mat also did a great job as Mickey – a role many remember him for and hate him for the same reason. He made Mickey a villain, and when his victim is one of America’s Sweethearts, that role is not easily forgiven. The other performances were great as well, with Grace Zabriskie standing out as Mickey’s cold fish of a mother. She made me hate her just as much as Mickey, so she did her job well. The worst acting had to be from Francine’s lawyer – he was so monotonous and dry. In the court room, he is supposed to be appealing to the jury and making them sympathetic to Francine’s experiences – but he’s so bland and unemotional that it’s hard to believe he managed to get any reaction at all.

The production values are dated by today’s standards, the picture’s grainy in areas, but overall it still holds up. The lighting and audio are fine, and no scenes seemed out of place. The film was well edited so it showed just enough violence to get the point across, but not too much. Still, it was hard to stomach in places, especially in the scenes where the kids witness the abuse. Yet, it doesn’t have the made-for-television feel that many TV movies do.

Overall, this is a moving portrait of one of our country’s most famous domestic violence cases. Whether you agree with Francine’s actions or not, the film is still worth a watch for the performances alone. It’s not a movie you’ll want to watch again and again, but it is very well done.

8/10

Cheerleader Massacre (2003)

Directed by: Jim Wynorski

Starring: Tamie Sheffield, Charity Rahmer, Erin Byron, Lenny Juliano (as Leonard Johnson), Summer Williams and April Flowers

Genre: Horror, Slasher, B-Movie

Rated: R

A group of cheerleaders, their coach, two male classmates and their van driver suffer car trouble on the way to a meet. Stranded in the mountains with a blizzard coming, the group hikes into the woods taking shelter in a random cabin. Unbeknownst to them, there is an escaped killer on the loose and heading their way.

I chose to watch this flick looking for a fun way to round out a night of movie watching. I love B-horror: the cheesiness, the bad special effects, the lame acting – but I was not expecting something this God-awful. Everything about this film is terrible, and not in the funny kind of way.

The plot itself isn’t that bad – a little clichéd, but still a fun premise for a low-budget slasher flick. Having teenagers trapped in a mountain cabin during a blizzard is a fun idea and one not often adopted. There’s something about a winter setting that makes slashers creepier to me, normally, but not with this film. For one thing, the blizzard talked about throughout the flick never comes. There is snow on the ground once the characters are in the mountains, but no snow begins to fall. The escaped killer isn’t scary in the slightest, and the climactic twist is extremely predictable by character name alone if you know your 80s slasher villains.

The acting is absolutely atrocious. These are supposed to be high school cheerleaders, yet they are obviously being played by women in their late twenties to early thirties. The coach doesn’t look any older than her students. They all act like they’re in a very bad high school play – like they’re reading their lines off of a cue card next to the camera. The only time they seemed to act naturally was during the nude/sex scenes – which shouldn’t be surprising since the imDb profiles for many of the actresses list porn titles.

There really was a lot of unnecessary nudity. There’s a locker room shower scene where all the girls are naked, a sex scene between one of the girls and one of the douchey stoner guys who tagged along, a shower scene for the coach, and a girl-on-girl three way scene dreamed up by the pervy van driver. None of these scenes were tastefully done and I felt like a voyeur watching these girls run their hands over their bodies and do things to each other. The three way with chocolate sauce in the bathtub was over the top and gross – not because it involved three women, but because I imagined the overpowering scent of cocoa filling the room and the awful yeast infections to follow. I know the male viewers will love these scenes – the women are attractive and do have great figures, but as a straight woman, they were not for me and served absolutely no purpose in the story whatsoever. I don’t like to mix porn with my horror, thanks.

Not to say there really was any horror. I get that the budget was very low and there was probably little room for special effects. However, they could have gone the route of many classic low budget slashers and used bloodless kills – such as the plastic bag kills in Black Christmas (1974) or strangulation deaths like those in Halloween (1978). Instead they stuck with off-screen kills which aren’t necessarily bad, but when you have no suspense or characters to care about, it doesn’t work for the film. What little blood they did use looked like fruit punch. I’ve made better fake blood for my Halloween parties.

The costuming was also ridiculous. These girls are supposed to be cheerleaders but there are no uniforms to be seen. They practice in regular street clothes rather than sweats or workout gear, shower, and then put those same clothes back on. I know the budget was low, but the actresses couldn’t have supplied their own clothing changes? Every girl has at least one pair of sweats or yoga pants hanging around. A goof like this could have easily been avoided, but I guess the director really wasn’t looking to be taken seriously. Also, the aforementioned blizzard is coming, yet everyone is walking around in skimpy cotton shirts, many of them not even having jackets to keep them warm when the van breaks down. If there’s a blizzard coming, how is it warm enough for t-shirts? Maybe it’s a different climate where this movie was based, but where I live, if there is going to be a snow storm, it’s way too cold for summer clothing.

The entire flick looks like it was shot on someone’s camcorder. The style is very amateur and reminded me of the in class Public Service Announcement I filmed for my intro to production class in college. As my excuse, that was the first time I’d ever gotten behind a camera. However, Jim Wynorski is an experienced director who has done projects such as the classic B-movie Chopping Mall (1986) but has apparently also worked on some porn since then. Here’s a hint, Wynorski, keep the two genres separate, and go back to making cheesy goodness like Chopping Mall when venturing into the horror realm.

Overall, if you’re looking for a fun, cheesy B-movie, this is not it. If you want a soft-core porno with mild violence and a crappy slasher story bookending it, this is the flick for you. 

1.5/10