OK, I get the point. This is supposed to be about girl bonding in a patriarchal society that values stories only about boy bonding. As nice as the idea sounds, I don't think it was executed all that well. The set-up is flimsy. I'm not convinced by the abusive teacher's performance that he's all that scary. The characters are barely sketched out, so it's hard to feel attached to them, or like their bond is terribly genuine. Angelina Jolie's Legs might be interesting, but she hardly gets to talk. The other characters' lines are so simplistic and cookie-cutter,they sound almost like a teenager WROTE them -- rather than a mature writer who understands teenagers. What they say, in fact, sounds almost interchangeable in places, which heightens the sensation that the characters are extremely two-dimensional. There are also distinct lesbian undertones in the film, which is fine, but the movie feels incomplete by not coming out and actually acknowledging the lesbian theme. It's almost like a bad editor hacked out the love scenes. I wish I was able to compare this to the written work by Joyce Carole Oats and know whether the flaws are the fault of the screenwriter or inherent in the source material. I don't know. I haven't read it. But I do think that the reason why this movie didn't get much publicity is not because it was incredibly avant-garde. Critics and the press LOVE avant-garde and risky themes. Hello -- Brokeback Mountain?!! It just wasn't a well-made movie.
Review of Foxfire
