New Best Friend (2002)

This film follows the established template for a successful "chick-flick" very closely. It's story, written by a woman, is about an exclusive young ladies finishing school. It is directed by a woman, has a largely female cast, and is designed to appeal most to maturing young women at the time when they leave their protective homes and move into a tempting and exciting world that they probably appreciate may be hazardous; at least until they understand it better. Sensible girls who were brought up by mature mothers are generally duly cautious, but obviously remain curious and plan to paddle a little once they are sure they will not get out of their depth. Such films help them develop a perspective from which they can establish a behaviour pattern that will hopefully be appropriate for their personality, ambitions and life objectives, and there will always be a big enough demand for them to make any appeal to other segments of the movie going population optional. Why then should I, an elderly widower have watched this film; and what right would I have to write comments such as this afterwards, or to pass judgement on its success or otherwise?The answer to the first question is simple - I had not even heard of this film when a librarian I know well chanced to remark whilst shelving their DVD's that it was a very similar story to "Cruel Intentions". This piqued my interest so I looked up other comments in this database. At least two IMDb users have referred to it as reminiscent of both "Cruel Intentions" and "Wild Things", two films I very much enjoyed, so I borrowed the DVD to assess it for myself. Unfortunately, despite quite high expectations, I was very disappointed; whether the fault lay with me for watching the wrong film or reflects more general problems, is for others to decide but I will comment briefly on it whilst answering my second question above. "New Best Friend" certainly showed similarities to both "Cruel Intentions" and "Wild Things". Some of its more extreme characterisation reminded me a little of David Lean's "Wild at Heart" (which I also enjoyed watching), and I also found its emphasis on drug culture reminiscent of "Total Romance". All five of these films (yes I can count - there were two parts to "Total Romance") had one thing in common. After viewing them I felt I had been watching a slice of real life - not just reel life (only an enjoyable story). Unless the acting is really poor, which I do not think was the problem here, this is a very intangible distinction. Ultimately it arises when the viewer never forgets he or she is watching somebody play a part. This may not be due to the actors but to a poor script, bad direction, improbable locations, faulty cinematography or any one of a number of other factors. In this case I believe it was the life experience of the principal members of the cast that was the problem. I did not feel they were too old - good actors can and do often overcome considerable age barriers in the parts they undertake (consider for example Krystal Nausbaum in "The Memory Keeper's Daughter"), and can also simulate many characteristics, such as violence, hatred, piety, devotion, etc. which may not be natural to them, when required for a part. However some things mark a person in ways which are difficult for even the best of actors to emulate, and one of the most important of these is the experience which comes with maturity. These remained a cast of mature actors playing young ingénues and it was never possible to be unaware that they had been out in the world for quite a bit, totally unlike young girls who had been sent straight from protective homes to an exclusive finishing school. Some of these problems of course were due to the script requiring the characters to think and act unrealistically, but I believe the impact of this would have been less with a much less worldly wise cast, with only the detective old enough to give any appearance of having post-schooling experiences of life. How can I give a helpful and appropriate rating to this film? I enjoyed watching it enough to avoid any feeling that I had wasted my time. The cast had obviously tried very hard and I would like to simply thank them for their efforts. This was not designed to be a memorable film carrying an important message. It was one of the 95% of films designed to be enjoyed and then, like most paperback books, forgotten. If almost perfect, it might have qualified for a maximum rating of 5 or 6, badly made probably 1 or 2. As it stands my rating - which I recognise would be of no interest or value to the young viewers forming its potential audience - would be 3. I do not enjoy being destructive about other peoples creative efforts and submit this only because I recognise that IMDb ratings may be helpful to future script-writers or directors considering similar movies.

This film may be a bit derivative of the two titles I hint at in my one-line summary, but it by no means a truly bad film. It's a tad misdirected, somewhat dragged out and definitely not all-around well-acted, but it is not bad movie. I won't claim I watched this for any other reason than the fact that it features some of the hottest young actresses in newer times, but I will make a point of what happened when I sat down to watch it. I didn't take my eyes off the screen. I didn't get up for a minute or two, and I never really felt like I was wasting time by watching it. For a while, the last couple of weeks, I have had trouble finding a film that really got my attention and kept it. Not since watching Requiem For a Dream have I been following a film so intensely. I didn't want to miss a thing watching this movie, and that says a lot, considering my almost ADD-like short attention span. The plot is not particularly original, but it is interesting. The pacing is mostly good, but around the middle and near the end, it seems to slow down, in order to drag out the material in order to reach the minimum limit for the length of a feature film, something that really hurts the film(it probably should have been a short... or maybe there should have been written more story or more characters). The acting isn't all good, but the four leads give good performances(even Meredith Monroe of Dawson's Creek fame... who saw that coming?). The twists and plot developments are interesting, but the mystery of who committed the crime is almost impossible to solve for the viewer until the very end, where it's revealed. Even worse, it makes said mystery seem very simple, since it turned out to be the very person I suspected from the very beginning. The non-linear time-line works fairly well, but it does get somewhat confusing in several parts, because it's not perfectly clear if we're seeing a flashback or something that goes on 'right now'. There is a fair amount of sex and drug use in this film, so it's not for the easily offended or the faint of heart. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I believe most people will too, if they give it a chance. I recommend this to fans of the genre, and I urge anyone watching it to give it a fair chance to win you over. It's uneven, but it's not a bad film. 6/10

I would have to disagree on most of the user comments on this movie. Most insist it is a piece of trash, not worth viewing. And yes perhaps they're right about the trashy part but in my humble opinion, New Best Friend is in the same kind of league as 90210 - entertaining trash that as much as we hate to admit it, we actually find ourselves engrossed in.Yes, the story is unoriginal and the script poor but the performances by the key actors are good enough to keep viewers interested. Mia Kirsher (Exotica, The Crow:City of Angels) delivers a stellar performance despite the bad material she was given to work with. An actress of her calibre should be choosing better parts in significantly better movies but I'm willing to forgive her for making one bad decision (but that's only because personally I didn't find New Best Friend a complete waste of my time). Meridith Monroe, Dominique Swain and Rachel True are all effective in their roles however one bad performance has to come from Taye Diggs as the officer in charge of investigating Alicia's (Kirsher) overdose which has suspicious circumstances. Diggs usually turns in fine performances but in New Best Friend he just looks bored. Perhaps that's due to the lack of good material he had to work with.Overall I found New Best Friend to be an entertaining movie. Sure there was a lot of things wrong with it and it certainly won't go down as one of my favourite films of the year but it succeeds for what it is - great trash!

Bonner (Taye Diggs) is the sheriff of a sleepy New England town. The major attraction of the town is an exclusive college for the rich and trust-fund babies and when an OD happens he must get to the bottom of it as "quietly' as possible. The girl at the epicenter is Alicia (Mia Kirshner), a poor financial-strapped girl trying to make it as a law major who suddenly finds herself in the circle of the rich kids. Everyone becomes a suspect of wrong-doing as she cuts her way through the group taking what she wants and playing them against each other."Wild Things" meets "Cruel Intentions" would be the easiest way to summarize "New Best Friend". It plays pretty well as a mystery. The script itself is nothing original or special but the sexy cast (Kirshner, Meredith Monroe, Rachel True, and the always cute Dominique Swain.) pull it off. The direction is pretty decent. The film uses the camera well with interesting angles and lighting but the music is really fairly standard with it being mostly "hip and trendy" songs by no-name bands. If you like "Wild Things" and "Cruel Intentions" give this one a shot.