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

I Spit on Your Grave (1978) Vs I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
AKA: Day of the Woman

Directed by: Meir Zarchi

Starring: Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor, Richard Pace, Anthony Nichols and Gunter Kleeman

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: Unrated

Jennifer Hills (Keaton) is an independent writer from New York City, renting a cottage in the country to work on her first novel. Her relaxing summer getaway soon turns into a nightmare when she is attacked and raped repeatedly by four men from town. After her ordeal, she resolves to make these men pay.

This film is not for the easily disturbed. The rape scenes are very graphic and take up about a quarter of the movie. This flick is actually known to have the longest rape scene in a feature film. I wouldn’t say that is exactly something to be proud of, but it gives potential viewers a scale to measure whether they want to see the film or not. Jennifer is held down and forcibly penetrated, beaten mercilessly for fifteen minutes before being left for dead in the home she thought she would be safe in.

While the above sequence was brutal, drawn out and hard to watch, it did portray how horrific rape actually is. The revenge scenes were where things took a turn for the ridiculous. For instance, in getting back at two of her assailants, she seduces them and performs sexual acts despite the fact that she had been brutalized by these men only weeks ago. One of these men, she had the opportunity to kill out in a field where no one would notice, but decides, instead to bring him back to her house for a hot bath. Granted, this led to a much more vicious death, but it was ridiculous and not something I would think a recent rape victim willing to do. I think these scenes would have been more effective if the seduction hadn’t been a part of it. I also feel that the way she went about killing these men off was risky and left a trail leading right back to her. Maybe at that point she didn’t care anymore.

As for the acting, Keaton does a good job alternating from the carefree writer to the broken victim and, finally, to the woman hell-bent on revenge. Richard Pace is very believable as the mentally disabled Matthew, making him almost pitiable. In some ways, I do feel he was also a victim of his friends’ animalistic behavior. While it was wrong for him to participate, I do feel he was forced to a degree, and was afraid of what the other men would do if he refused. The other men are just common egotistical trash who think they have the right to invade the private parts of any woman they choose.

I didn’t like the style the film was shot in at all. To me, there were way too many wide-angle establishing shots where there should have been medium ones. I felt too far away from the characters when they were introduced for the first time at the gas station. I felt that some moments deserved to be closed in on because the multitude of extra space was simply distracting. The director used maybe three different types of shots throughout the entire film.

Overall, despite decent performances from Keaton and Pace, this film has little to stand on. The cinematography is amateur and Keaton’s behavior in the revenge sequences seemed highly unlikely and more of an excuse to show off the actress’s body. Aside from brutality, this film has little to offer.

4.5/10

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

Directed by: Steven R. Monroe

Starring: Sarah Butler, Jeff Branson, Andrew Howard, Daniel Franzese, Rodney Eastman and Chad Lindberg

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: Unrated

Young novelist, Jennifer Hills, has rented out a secluded country cabin by a lake to work on her next book. She sees this summer retreat as a great way to relax and let her creativity flow. Her summer plans are destroyed when she is attacked, humiliated, beaten and brutally raped by five local men. Leaving her for dead, these men soon discover what it’s like to be terrified when Jennifer comes back for revenge.

I never thought I’d see the day when I’d legitimately say that a modern remake is better than the original film. I especially didn’t think this would be the one to curb my usual anti-remake tirade, as I thought there was no way that this could capture the essence of the original. However, this remake is different from many I’ve seen in the past because it actually has respect for the original subject matter. The original was a bare-bones outline while this version is the flesh to fill it in.

The writing is much better in this version. The characters are more defined and have their own little quirks. Jennifer’s much stronger and smarter in this version as well. She employs many well-known tactics to try to scare off an attacker, she fights back and she tries going to the police for help. (Something that she did not do in the original, which makes her killing spree a little less justifiable.) It is only after these methods fail that Jennifer takes matters into her own hands.

The character of Matthew was even more sympathetic to me in this one than the last. Again, he is almost as much of a victim as Jennifer, herself, because he never would have done anything to her without being forced by his “friends.” He is visibly horrified by the things being done to her and powerless to stop them. His actual participation, no matter the motive is unforgivable, but it can be debated that he was raped too. He is also the only one to feel remorse when the deed is done.

The length of the rape scene is toned down from the original, abiding by the less is more ideal. The audience sees a lot more of the emotional torment and humiliation the men inflict upon Jennifer and less of the violent acts themselves. We don’t need to see each individual man take his turn to get the point that each one violated her. Cutaway shots and dialogue can fill in what the filmmakers didn’t feel necessary to show. Both this technique and the original’s drawn out sequence successfully show the horror of rape, but this film does a better job of addressing the emotional breakdown of the victim.

The revenge sequences in this film aren’t entirely realistic, but at least they’re not insulting like those in the original. These attacks are thoroughly planned out, violent and cruel, and admittedly, reminiscent of the traps in the Saw franchise, but at least she’s not seducing these men to lure them to their demise. This is no femme fatale – this is a brutalized woman, probably half-insane, hell-bent on revenge. These kills are examples of what many people believe men like this to deserve – a fantasy of what some would like to do to such offenders. They also raise the issue that violence begets violence, and the question of whether Jennifer was any better than the men who attacked her when all was said and done.

The gore in this film is extensive and as uncomfortable as the rape and humiliation scenes. The torture these men endure at the hands of this young woman is every bit as detailed as the things they put her through – many of which are twisted around and used against them. This movie really is not for the squeamish.

The acting is also well-done. Sarah Butler really gives it her all in both the scenes where she is victimized and when she is doing the victimizing. Despite her tiny size and the fact that she’d hardly be able to move these guys – at least 180 to 230 lbs of dead weight – she manages to sell it with her performance. Chad Lindberg is very believable as the mentally challenged Matthew, making him less of a source of humor and more a source of partial sympathy. Jeff Branson was incredibly intimidating as Johnny, and I was actually surprised at how believable Daniel Franzese (the lovable Damien from Mean Girls) was as the voyeuristic Stanley. It was also cool to see horror veteran, Rodney Eastman (Joey from A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 & 4) cast in this film as well.

As I mentioned above, this remake truly seems to respect the source material for what it was – an exploitation cult classic of the rape-revenge oeuvre. This version just strengthened the original story and made subtle nods to the original film, i.e. the total price of gas ringing up to $19.78, etc. I also loved that they kept the same creepy harmonica tune from the original film.

Overall, this is one of the rare remakes you will see me value over the original film. The characters are much stronger, the heroine’s motives more understandable and the overall tone creepier. I actually felt a little creeped out being alone in my house after watching this film in broad daylight. That alone earns this film points as that is hard to do. This is not a film for everyone, and I don’t recommend it unless you’re familiar with the sub-genre of exploitation film and enjoy gory revenge flicks. For being the type of film that it is, it did its job well.

7/10