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

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

Holiday in Handcuffs (2007)

Directed by: Ron Underwood

Starring: Melissa Joan Hart, Mario Lopez, Timothy Bottoms, Markie Post, Kyle Howard, and June Lockhart

Genre: Made for TV, Romantic Comedy, Christmas

Rated: Not Rated

Trudie Chandler is having a terrible day. Everything seems to be going wrong, from her Do-It-Yourself perm frying her hair to missing an important job interview. On top of that, the handsome, successful boyfriend she was bringing home for Christmas breaks up with her. In the midst of a nervous breakdown, Trudie kidnaps David Martin, a customer at the diner where she works, and drags him off to spend the holidays with her equally crazy family.

I have a soft spot for this movie, and I’m really not sure why. It’s a cheesy ABC Family Christmas movie that seems to promote Stockholm Syndrome and kidnapping as the new dating. Yet, it’s so silly, I can’t help but enjoy it.

Melissa Joan Hart is quite funny as the mess that is Trudie. The poor girl can’t catch a break, and she is sick of disappointing her parents time and time again. She kidnaps David and forces him to play along as her boyfriend, Nick, so her parents won’t think she’s a failure yet again. Her desperation does make the viewer pity her, and seeing the way her parents treat her, one can almost sympathize with her temporary insanity. Even David sees this, which is why he begins to care for her on some level.

David’s character is very sweet and charming. He’s more than just the pretty rich boy she thinks he is. It's sad to me that she kidnaps him, and he is more loving toward her than her own family is – with the exception of her brother. Her mother keeps saying Trudie is “trying to ruin Christmas” and her Dad is on her case about the missed job interview. No one has faith in her first true love – art, so they push her to marry rich so she’ll have someone to take care of her. I wanted to knock her parents’ heads together for the way they treat all three of the kids.

The highlights of the movie for me are the horny gas station attendant, David’s girlfriend’s maid, and June Lockhart as Grandma. All made me laugh with their antics. The gas station attendant giving her free fuzzy handcuffs and grumbling about how David was a lucky bastard, Maria torturing her boss and Grandma pulling a gun on the cops all had me giggling.

The ending is predictable and cheesy the way all romantic comedies are, yet I still find it cute. Trudie gets a taste of her own medicine and her family stops being jerks. Happy endings are a must for a romantic comedy.

Overall, it’s a fun little movie if you can suspend disbelief and just go with it. It does have a lot of adult humor, so it’s probably better suited for ages twelve and above, despite it being a part of the ABC Family 25 Days of Christmas countdown. It is a cute film, despite the sexual innuendo, and is a bit of light-hearted fluff to get viewers into the Holiday spirit.

6/10

12 Dates of Christmas (2011)

Directed by: James Hayman

Starring: Amy Smart, Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Jayne Eastwood, Benjamin Ayres, and Laura Miyata

Genre: Made for TV, Romance, Comedy, Christmas

Rated: Not rated

Following in the same vein as Groundhog Day and Christmas Every Day, 12 Dates of Christmas is about a young woman named Kate who is stuck in the past. She is successful in her career, but her love life is a mess. She is still hung up on a guy she dated a while ago, and can’t seem to let go of him when he has clearly moved on. Meanwhile, her stepmother has set her up on a blind date with a sweet, handsome, successful man, and Kate continues to screw it up. Luckily for her, a mystical force has intervened and she will relive Christmas Eve over and over until she gets it right.

I really did not like Kate at first. She was rude to everyone and so stuck in the past that I wanted to slap her. She was rude to her neighbor, who is just lonely and trying to be nice. She treats her stepmother like crap for no other reason than she is not Kate’s mother. Not to mention, she shows up on her date with Miles and practically ignores him for two minutes before rushing off to meet up with her ex. Eventually, she does begin to change things, and gradually becomes more likable, but that isn’t until about the halfway point, so until then the audience has to suffer through her idiocy.

Miles is the compilation of perfection that can only exist in a romantic comedy – handsome, successful, sweet, intelligent, and genuinely loving. Yet Kate turns her nose up at him time and again in her quest for perfection. She is so hooked on the idea of her ex that she can’t see the wonderful man before her.

I began to get frustrated with the plot after a while. She has the cutest date with him about sixty percent through the movie, but obviously the film can’t end there, so she has to relive another six days until we get to the end of the movie. There was so much she seemed to have to do to end the cursed repetition that it was a little overwhelming.

There were also some scenes that were unnecessary and/or confusing. I didn’t think her shopping spree on one of the days did anything for the film and could have easily been cut. She also seemed to have her ex’s dog on all of the days, even when he doesn’t show up at her apartment and give her the dog for the evening. Somehow the dog is just magically there. Also, I want to know what happens with Michael’s puppy.

What I did like about this movie was its message about trying to control the world around you. Life doesn’t work on a schedule; you cannot plan out every major event. Love happens, death happens, friends come and go; all you can do is make the most of each day. Don’t close yourself off to new relationships whether they be neighborly, friendly, familial or romantic, because you’ll never find your way to happiness. It is a very true message, and a lesson the main character desperately needed to learn.

Overall, it’s a fairly predictable, cute little romance, with some character development. It does have a few unanswered questions, and the leading lady is incredibly annoying at first. It’s a little cheesy and could have used some more editing, but it’s not a bad little movie and it has a nice message.

5.5/10

I Saw What You Did 1965 Vs I Saw What You Did 1988

I Saw What You Did (1965)

Directed by: William Castle

Starring: Joan Crawford, John Ireland, Leif Erickson, Andi Garrett, Sara Lane, and Sharyl Locke

Genre: Horror/Thriller

Rated: Unrated

Based on the Novel Out of the Dark by Ursula Curtiss

When Libby’s (Garrett) parents go away for a night, she and her friend Kit (Lane) are left in charge of little Tess (Locke). As the evening wears on, the girls get bored and decide to prank calls to entertain themselves. They decide to call random numbers and say, “I saw what you did, and I know who you are,” to whomever answers the phone. Unfortunately for them, they wind up dialing Steve Marak (Ireland) who has just killed his wife. Suspense and murder ensue.

I really liked the premise for this film. There is something terrifying about someone thinking you know too much and that you must be silenced. However, Marak never would have known who was calling him if the girls hadn’t decided to drive by his house to get a look at the “man with the sexy voice.” I found this part of the story ridiculous because I couldn’t believe the girls to be that foolish. Still, it served its purpose and provided a nice suspenseful moment between Libby and Marak.

There are two other complaints I have about this film: 1.) Joan Crawford’s irritating character and 2.) the musical score. Joan’s character of Amy, the lonely next-door neighbor and mistress of Steve, oozes desperation. She is willing to be with him no matter what and will do anything to ensure that they are together. She throws herself at him again and again, promising to take care of him in ways his wife could not. It was really quite pathetic and I felt the urge to reach through the screen and slap her.

The musical score was terrible. It did not match the tone of the film at all and often ruined what would otherwise be very tense scenes. The music was bouncy and almost cheerful while people are being stalked and/or killed. The viewer is supposed to sense danger is lurking and fear for the characters, but that tension is reduced greatly by the mismatched score.

What I did enjoy about the film was the cinematography. I loved the use of shadows in several of the scenes – it created more suspense and a darker atmosphere. The shot where Libby can be seen peeking through the window in a mirror near Steve Marak was also a nice touch. The best scene in the entire film has to be what I call the “reverse Psycho” within the first twenty minutes of the film.

The acting was also decent for a low-budget B-movie. Ireland was very creepy as the desperate, murderous Steve Marak. Crawford made Amy believable despite her sickeningly pathetic adoration of Marak. Garrett and Lane seemed like regular teenage girls of the period – despite the scripted drive to see the man they’d spoken to on the phone.

Overall: The film was a decent little B-movie with some nice cinematography but annoying music and character behavior. It’s worth a watch if you can get your hands on this rare little flick, if only to say you’ve seen it.

6/10

I Saw What You Did (1988)

Directed by: Fred Walton

Starring: Shawnee Smith, Tammy Lauren, Candace Cameron Bure, Robert Carradine and David Carradine

Genre: Horror, Thriller, TV Movie

Rated: Unrated

Based on the novel Out of the Dark by Ursula Curtiss

This remake follows the original storyline fairly closely. When Kim’s (Smith) father goes away for the evening, she invites Lisa (Lauren) over for dinner. Soon the girls get bored, and along with Kim’s little sister, Julia (Cameron Bure), begin making prank phone calls. Lisa is the one who suggests “I Saw What You Did,” and they wind up dialing Adrian Lance (Robert Carradine), who has just killed his girlfriend.

Once again, it is the girls driving by the killer’s house that gets his attention and enables him to track them. In both films the girls are so obsessed with seeing the “sexy man” on the other end of the line; they don’t think that he could possibly be dangerous. I don’t know why they insist on making these girls, who seem intelligent in every other way, idiots when it comes to men.

In this version, the character of Amy is replaced by Stephen (David Carradine), Adrian’s concerned brother, who drops in for a visit to make sure everything is okay. It’s clear from the moment we meet Adrian that he has some sort of mental issues, and as the plot progresses we get to know the his back story.

I felt the characters were more believable in this version, aside from the stupidity of the car-ride to Adrian’s house. Maybe that’s because the 1980s is closer to my generation and I can relate to the girls a little better. Smith, Lauren and Cameron Bure all gave convincing performances as the young ladies making the calls. David Carradine delivered a decent performance as the concerned older brother. It was Robert Carradine as the killer that I had a hard time buying. I know him best as Hillary Duff’s father in the Disney show Lizzie McGuire, so to see him attempting to be intimidating was almost humorous to me.  His performance was just starting to be believable in the final scene between Adrian and Kim, but that scene felt so rushed that the tension didn’t have a chance to build up.

The cinematography in this film wasn’t nearly as well-shot, but the score was much better. It almost had a rock and roll feel to it, music that the girls would listen to, but it flowed with the mood of the film as well.

I do feel the scenes between Kim and Adrian are rushed far too much. Just when the viewer begins to feel any tension at all, the scene either ends abruptly or charges on through, leaving what little suspense had been built in the dust. My last complaint is the twist ending, it felt like it was just tacked on to be like every other horror film from the 1980s, and it wasn’t necessary.

Overall: It’s not bad for a made-for-television remake, but nothing to write home about either. The girls are just as foolish, the killer is not as believable, and the twist ending annoying and unnecessary. Still, it was a fun little watch with decent acting and it remained true to the original film for the most part.

5.5/10