Girl Fever (2002) User Reviews

It works sometimes

[Dave-330 · 4/10 · 7 June 2004]

Michael Davis' third straight film with the same basic premise, is the worst of the three. The reason it just doesn't work is because 8 Days and 100 Girls did this earlier, better and more believably. It has it's moments (most involving the attractive Erinn Bartlett), but the problem is that it shifts from dramedy to just stupidity with Clint Howard. Also, most of the dialogue is lifted from the other two films, in some form or other.

Ignoring the existence of the first two films, Girl Fever (100 Women), trucks along in a weird state of being. The first half is not really funny and by the time you get to the heart of the story, it feels like you have wasted time getting there, BUT at the same time, the film is amazingly watchable in it's own "cuteness." This is a hard film to judge on it's own merit, which is not shocking to anyone who has seen it. I mean any film that goes from explaining how someone feels, to a nose-dual (don't ask), to a guy that gets screwed over and then forgets about it, all within such a short time-frame, is hard to really look at objectively. The entire plot is so hard to swallow and the lead's reaction to the plot-twist is so unreal, but at the same time it still is entertaining.

There are only two things that are clear: first, Eight Days a Week deserves a DVD release in the states, so I can purchase the BEST Davis movie AND more importantly, Erinn Bartlett is smoking hot and at some point will break-out in Hollywood. Her performance in this film makes you almost forget the bad parts of the movie... I said almost.

Similar to 100 Girls

[Walls Of Jericho · 5/10 · 16 December 2003]

Almost flipped past this one because I thought it WAS 100 Girls at first. This is a cute date movie, nothing more. It has almost the same premise as 100 Girls, with a guy hanging around a women's boarding house, getting to see all the different personalities of females while pining for one in particular. I didn't really buy the ending, and I thought they spent too much time on the setup, then resolved the major conflict in 10 minutes. Plus the "secret" surprise isn't really well hidden, it's even more obvious than who was the mystery chick in "100 Girls". Still, it's a cool flick, I say check it out with a lady friend, she'll probably like it.

Once More, with Feeling

[BlackSox1919 · 5/10 · 23 July 2003]

If you've already seen "100 Girls," then you've seen this movie. The names and locations are changed, and a few minor plot points are altered, but it's still the same discourse on gender relations wrapped up in a hook-driven romantic comedy. It won't change your life, it won't make you a better person, but it will provide about 100-odd minutes of fluffy, carefree entertainment. Sometimes, that's just what the doctor ordered.

Which is to say that I liked the film, for all of its flaws. I liked "100 Girls," too. My only real complaint with this movie is its use of the gross-out to keep it from being a total date film. I could have done without the Clint Howard character completely.

Not a good movie, but I couldn't shut it off

[donegreg · 3/10 · 4 April 2004]

There's definitely something a little redeemable about it, but I'm not sure what. The storyline was awful. So maybe it was the acting? Not sure, I did laugh a few times, but I think those were mostly at the movie and not with it.

I didn't find the individual characters' preachy comments on men, women, relationships very witty. The ending was way too forced.

Perhaps the silliness of it all is enough to make it worth a viewing if you catch it on HBO.

Has Michael Davis ever met or interacted with other human beings?

[MBunge · 3/10 · 16 June 2011]

Have you seen one of those stories on the news about apes that have learned to communicate with sign language? Well, one of those apes must be named Michael Davis because that's the only way I can explain the bizarrely bad storytelling on display here. If 100 Women was the work of a non-human primate with a vocabulary of a few hundred words and phrases, it would almost be mediocre even though I suspect your average gibbon could come up with something better than this while picking lice off its mate's fur. As the product of a non-brain damaged human being, this film is flabbergasting in its awfulness.

I have seen worse movies than this in terms of logical plotting or intelligent dialog, but this thing might just take the cake in terms of slapping the viewer in the face with utterly unrealistic characters. These roles are so awkwardly constructed with beyond stupid motivations and borderline pathological interpersonal skills that the best performers in the cast actually end up looking the worst. Jennifer Morrison and Erinn Barlett try to make their parts as close to believable as possible, but the result of their efforts is only to emphasize how their characters are almost surrealistically contrived. The cruder acting from the rest of the cast more easily blends into the background of how much 100 Women sucks.

On what he claims to be the worst day of his life, failed art student Sam (Chad E. Conella) winds up having this beautiful woman named Hope (Erinn Bartlett) throw herself at him. The fact that it makes no sense for her to do so, given that the movie never gives her or the audience a single reason to give a damn if Sam lives or dies, clearly never occurred to writer/director/simian Michael Davis. After spending just a few ludicrously happy hours together, Hope leaves and Sam loses her phone number. He then comes up with the cunning plan of taking a job as a delivery boy to try and track Hope her. I'm sure you can come up, off the top of your head, with 5 better ways of finding someone other than just wandering around the city as a delivery boy, but that was apparently the best this writer/director/chimp could come up with.

Sam eventually locates Hope in an all-female apartment complex, discovers she's sad for some unexplained reason and devotes himself to cheering her up and uncovering the source of her unhappiness. His efforts are hindered by a cartoonishly vulgar cousin (Steve Monroe) and an assortment of badgeringly kooky chicks and helped by Annie (Jennifer Morrison), another beautiful woman who inexplicably finds Sam to be something other than a waste of space. The film drags its butt across the carpet for a while before simpering away with two completely contradictory endings.

Let me see if I can encapsulate the filmmaking ineptness of writer/director/bonobo Michael Davis. Sam breaks up with his unattractive and abusive girlfriend at the very start of the movie. Then, about halfway through she's arbitrarily thrown back into the story as through she and Sam continued to have a casual relationship after their break-up, which nothing else in the film supports. At this point, 100 Women momentarily digresses into a nature show parody with Sam's cousin popping up on screen to narrate the relationship between Sam and his ex-girlfriend like they were two jaguars in the wild. The cousin looks directly into the camera and makes supposedly humorous comments as Sam and his girlfriend degenerate into intentionally stupid and clichéd actions, which are only marginally stupider and more clichéd than they normally are. None of it is funny, but that's not the point. This short section is totally unlike the rest of the movie. The style and approach of the alleged humor is different and the way the scene tries to engage the audience is different. It's like you're watching another, yet equally terrible, motion picture for those couple of minutes. The whole of 100 Women is writer/director/siamang Davis throwing shtick against the wall like he was egging a house, and then there's this bit which is more like chucking a brick through the window.

Now, Erinn Bartlett does get naked and looks good doing so. The scene where she does so, however, is so jaw-droppingly abrupt that your brain will barely be able to recover and enjoy it.

If you've ever doubted that Judd Apatow and the Farrelly Brothers put a lot of real talent and skill into their raunchy comedies, watch this disaster and you'll never doubt that again. 100 Women is disgusting, but not at all in a good way.

Didn't End Right(I Just Spoiled the end, rest of movie is hilarious!)

[whosthatolboy · 3/10 · 2 February 2005]

By the end of the movie, Chad Donella is forced to choose between an ex-model with a innocent personality, and a Once overweight girl with low self esteem, and a personality that is just as sweet the model, only not as accommodating to rejection. Your sitting there, and YOU couldn't tell him which one to choose. So he decides the low self esteem is his True Love and the Model gave him the half heartbroken, "lets be friends so I can still be around you" bit.It just didn't seem to fit the light-heartedness that prevailed through most of the movie. Other than that, your in for some LOL material that will have you saying "That ain't Right" in between roars of laughter.

Best Movie Ever to use as example of "Worst Movie Ever"

[afterdark_45 · 22 November 2004]

OK seriously. It was 3am and i was insanely bored. Oh i should hit up my 3 months worth of free HBO and cinemax. I find this movie. wow. That's all i say. Wow. I couldn't' believe it existed. Every time my friends will try to claim they have seen the worst movie ever, i can tell them they are wrong. It can't be beat. I would like to have a nice chat with the writer. Just to see how on earth he managed to make something like this. Enough said. I need to cry myself to sleep. Note: "Very good movie to use as a joke for your friends. If ever asked, recommend this movie to your friends, then see how funny it is the next day when they demand their 5 dollars back they wasted on it at blockbuster. Laugh at them."

Hilarious!

[Lozbee2000 · 7/10 · 14 April 2002]

This film was hilarious Chad Donella did a great job as Sam, a guy surrounded by beautiful woman and trying to win their hearts. I wouldn't call this film the best I have ever seen but it's a film for anyone that wants to have a laugh and to not take the film seriously. Go rent a 100 Women today.

Target Demographic: Foul-mouthed 11- yr.-old children or mentally retarded adults

[jefferyanderson-1 · 1/10 · 28 April 2007]

This is one of the worst shows I've ever attempted to watch. I was recently traveling in Latin America and came across this English-language show on cable, so I decided to try to watch a few minutes.

While laced with mature themes (masturbation jokes, sexual urination, etc.) it contains pitiful acting, an unbelievably lame story, and the kind of plot you'd expect in a Disney Family Channel movie.

Chad "E" Donella (that E makes him so classy) and the rest of the crew/cast from this movie should step in front of a bus.

Avoid watching this movie like the plague - it is far from being even remotely entertaining.

The movie was good, but not great.

[icman-1 · 7/10 · 28 February 2005]

The dialogue in this movie was excellent, and the story was told exceptionally well. The director/writer is at the top of his game, to be sure. But I cannot agree with the conclusion of the story, and think that this movie is a poor example of one that will positively influence it's youthful audience.

What level of respect can either of the two girls in the movie have for this boy, both of whom developed relationships with him that were duplicitous and fictitious? Yet he jumps into each relationship with both feet and no reservations. He has no sense of betrayal, no sense of having been wronged by these two girls, even after they have the gall to implicitly expect him not to be upset by their behaviour.

This leads to the story running onto the rocks of unbelievability, which is a big disappointment at the close of the film. Had there been some acknowledgment of the way that their respective relationships had developed badly, had the girls acknowledged their poor behaviour and somehow learned from it, only then would they be worthy of his unremitting attention and friendship. Had he shown that he understood the nature of the development of his relationships with the two girls, but forgave them, that also would have indicated character growth. His character is diminished by being a loyal puppy dog, blind to the nature of the relationships he is in and at the mercy of his adoration. The girls' characters are diminished by their inability to recognize how they have mistreated him, and seek to better themselves.

One could argue, perhaps, that the moral of the story is that love is worth pursuing no matter the obstacles that are placed in the way, and that the main character did not let anything prevent his quest from reaching fruition. However, the longevity of a relationship based on deception and that has not developed trust cannot survive without an airing out of the deceit and the rebuilding of trust. There is no closure to this issue within this film.

Thus, despite the dialogue, the acting, the story telling, and everything else that makes this an intriguing and entertaining film to watch, an inspiring "coming of age" movie should have characters that learn lessons about life and come out the other side stronger and more mature. In this vein, the film fails to deliver.

Horrendous

[maxxx-3 · 1/10 · 29 September 2004]

This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

The story is moronic, the actors are horrible, I don't see anything rewarding in it other than Erin Bartlett's casabas.

The way the 2 leads throw around the LOVE word toward the end makes my stomach turn. Was this movie actually written by a 15 year old?

Hopefully the 18 year old girls this movie is aimed at are too busy to watch it...its PATHETIC!

I'm sorry I couldn't give it less than a 1, because that is overrating it considerably.

Light Hearted and Sweet

[Inches_72 · 9/10 · 28 April 2004]

Let's face it, no one will rent '100 Women' with the high hope that it's going to be an unforgettable and revolutionary look at love and comedy. If you want that- go out and rent something like Love, Actually or Intolerable Cruelty.

I saw '100 Women' before I saw its predecessor '100 Girls'. I seem to be in the minority when I say that I preferred this version. Whilst the storylines are similar, we're not forced to tolerate the smarmy overacting of of Jonathon Tucker. Whilst '100 Girls' does have a far better know cast, I find that it was more enjoyable to see a movie where you didn't associate the female cast with movies they'd previously done. Erin Bartlett is a relative unknown, and incredibly beautiful. Some of her scenes with Chad Donella are just plain sweet.

The real highlights of the movie are the philosophical discussions on women and masculinity held by Sam (Donella) and his disgusting cousin Holden (Steve Monroe). Viewers of the first movie will have heard it all before, but I found Monroe's grossness far more amusing and far less disturbing than James DeBello's.

That, and some of the downright sweet and romantic stuff that goes on, makes 100 Women a different, more intellectual look at an often overdone genre. Jennifer Morrison is wonderfully sweet, Donella delightfully screwed up, and every female characterisation provides a different view on the fairer sex. Maybe not a flattering one, but a view all the same.

Worth a look if you feel like being cheered up about love and life- but don't rent or buy it expecting to be forever changed. It's just a fun movie.

My Rank: 7 out of 10 stars

Hit-or-miss, to say the least.

[Tenchi64589 · 6/10 · 25 August 2009]

I went into this movie knowing that I've seen both Eight Days a Week and 100 Girls in succession and liking both of them; unfortunately, I was taken aback when I saw this movie.

First of all, the formula for this kind of movie was tampered with: usually, you have a reluctant hero who just happens to be attracted to one girl. In Eight Days a week, the love interest was Erica (played by the talented and beautiful Keri Russel), in 100 girls, we didn't know at first, but it later turned out to be Patty (played by yet another cinematic stunner, Emanuelle Chriqui.) In this one, we were all tripped up, me included.

Secondly, I was used to seeing Johnny Green as the main dick-weed antagonist. That's all I have to say.

Lastly, sure I understood the message: that we men need women to truly become reformed versions of ourselves, but it was done so disgustingly.

In summation, it was just a lesser version of its predecessor and nothing more.

This movie wasn't terrible, but it wasn't very good. It's worth a 6 out of 10.

Terrible

[haveck · 1/10 · 17 April 2004]

Cheesiest, sappiest, pathetic... caught this on HBO at 3am, only timeslot it could ever fit. BUT, I'd rather watch the Girls Gone Wild infomercial I've seen on Comedy Central 20 times at this time of night rather than this. This was a poor attempt at something to the effect of "100 Girls." The acting was typical for a movie in this genre.. nothing much there to complain about, if you're going to willingly watch a movie like this in the first place. This movie needed some actual nudity to make it worthy of watching just for the girl-factor, cause there is definitely some eye-candy, but the plot/dialog is just so grating that it becomes painful at times. I think this is the first comment I've been compelled to write, and I use imdb all the time - the last scene with the girls in slow-motion jumping around for the papers just p***ed me off that much. Wish I'd fallen asleep two hours ago. Maybe I'm just grouchy. ;)

UGH...worst. movie. ever.

[gotmlk · 30 December 2003]

I really loved Eight Days a Week, and I really liked 100 girls, but this movie is very close to the top of the worst movies I have ever seen list. I have no idea what they were thinking with this one...seriously. It was just...inexplicably BAD. Avoid it.

pathetic

[sandcrab277 · 1/10 · 22 September 2021]

Nothing in this film made me laugh but it did make me retch with total revulsion at the producers, writers, directors and actors all except two young women that helped make it bearable ...erinn bartlett and jennifer morrison.

So unfunny it's boring.

[insomniac_rod · 3/10 · 20 August 2006]

As easy as this: "Girl Fever" is NOT funny. When a movie tries too hard to be funny , then it's a bad movie. The humor is terrible because it tries to be like "American Pie" but in such a not so funny manner.

The sex related jokes just don't work and the rest of the humor is really dumb. The acting...oh the acting. The actors are really bad and look very uncomfortable.

I agree with many other reviewers who say that this is a very boring movie. To be honest, I couldn't watch it until the end. I fell asleep but I'm sure that even if it was a good ending, it isn't worth the watch.

Stay away from this not so mainstream teen comedy that tries too hard to be funny. Avoid it!

This one gives you fever all right..

[ThomasDK · 1/10 · 7 March 2003]

Erinn Bartlett is in this movie, the only reason for me watching it to the end. Do not compare Girl Fever with 100 Girls, no matter what. The story in this one makes no sense at all. On top of that it's vulgar & gross most of the time, without being the least bit funny. It might be good if you're about 11 years old, even though I doubt it. So if you have a choice between watching Girl Fever & a different movie, choose the other one. Even if you don't have a choice, don't waste your time watching this awful film.

for some reason i liked it...

[awhyte2323 · 7/10 · 27 April 2004]

It's not a good movie, that's for sure and I watched it at 2 am on hbo but there's something i really liked about it... i think it was the cartoons. the way they used the cartoons reminded me of 80s comedies, u know how they do the cartooning at the beginning credits in a lot of them? that just reminded me of, like, one crazy summer or something and it gave the film an overall atmosphere that i liked. its a pretty bad movie, story wise but theres something kinda cute about it. i think the cartooning redeemed it in my eyes, reminded of better times in teen romance comedy.

In a movie of unbelievable crap, this was the worst for me.

[lobbyguy · 2/10 · 26 February 2005]

Every other commenter has covered almost every aspect of this movie, so I'll focus on the part that cheesed me off the most.

When the male lead finds out that the woman he was chasing and the woman that was helping him had been stringing him along for *MONTHS* to see if he was worthy.

They humiliate him, get him arrested, label him as a pervert in his neighborhood and almost kill him with a flower pot among other injuries. When they are finally forced to revel their treachery and the one he has been pining for declares him worthy of her love, he says "Okie Dokie" and forgets about getting his penis crammed into a Chinese finger trap then pushed out front of an audience.

Yeah, right. A real person would have given up on both of those women since they are obviously defective.

A different approach to "100 Girls"

[MihaiSorinToma · 7/10 · 7 September 2017]

Sam lives the worst day of his live. He gets dumped by his girlfriend and thrown away from art class but in the same day, he meets the only person who managed to make him smile, Hope. Wanting to stay in touch with her, he looks for her, but in that night, something strange had happened. She became sad, cheerless, almost unwilling to go on. From there, he starts the "detective job" of finding out what happened to her before it's too late (obviously for their relationship).

It's a story very similar to the one from "100 Girls" but in my opinion not as deep or as complex. You care less about the main character or about his faith because you aren't really convinced that he's actually doing the right thing. The ending is also a bit disappointing but it gets sorted out fast. It wasn't as funny as the precedent title which somehow left me wanting more...Still, it's a good movie, let's say another approach regarding a similar plot!

Garbage

[Scoats · 2/10 · 6 December 2003]

I loved the first Michael Davis movie, Eight Days a Week. It was charming and cute. The second one was mostly a rehash of the first but pretty good. This one though is truly awful.

The movie tries really hard, all Michael Davis movies do, but the level of humor for the most part is really crass and hackneyed. What was cute and clever in the first two is now bland and bitter.

I wanted to at least like this movie, but there is so much here that is truly awful and/or stupid. I could go on, but I won't.

Check out Eight Days a Week and 100 Girls. Avoid this clunker.

Adorable

[dancing_neonate · 8/10 · 28 March 2021]

Seen this movie so many times I LOVE IT! Lighthearted, unique and fun for a movie night in with significant other.

Very funny

[TheGunde · 7/10 · 27 August 2002]

Girl Fever is a very funny film. It's not quite as funny as 'Eight Days A Week', but there are many great lines and hilarious scenes. One negative thing would be that it borrows from 'Eight Days A Week' a few times too many (our hero won't stop until he gets the girl, the sexoholic best friend, etc..).

If you liked 'Eight Days A Week', there's no doubt you'll like this one too.

Tongue firmly in cheek

[allfunandgames · 4/10 · 25 August 2002]

100 Women (as it is called here in New Zealand) is touted as "the sexy follow up to 100 Girls". Well, while both movies have no relation directly to each other, 100 Women is practically the same story... but with 'Women' that are only a couple of years older than the 'Girls'! 100 Girls is the better of the two movies, and is not essential prior viewing , but it does give you an indication of what to expect from 100 Women.

The story basically resolves around a loser (Donella) who meets the perfect girl (Bartlet, who is very easy on the eyes), but then loses her number, so does everything he can to find her. An interesting premise, but very similar to that in 100 Girls.

The main character is very unlikeable and there are some terrible gross out gags (pulling out nose-hairs anyone?) and it even has Clint Howard in a cameo. But the dialogue seems forced and coming straight from the screen-writers pen, rather than from a real life character.

Overall, an average 'teen comedy', but to enjoy do not take it seriously, or else you will feel as though your life has been wasted.

4/10