Foxfire (1996)

*This film is the girls answer to Stand By Me* I saw the 1996 version because, I LOVE ANGELINA JOLIE! I read the book because I liked the movie! (I do things back wards, if I like the movie I read the book, while most other people do the opposite.) I liked the book because it gave better backstory to certain characters and was more dramatic! I liked the 1996 film because Angelina Jolie was in it was set in a contemporary setting and was more upbeat! The pros of the 2014 film, It is a lot closer to the book, except two or three scenes that were in the weren't in the film, (which may be a good thing) The cons of the 2014 film, Goldie is a lot less likable in the 2014 film vs the 1996 film, the tattoo scene in the 2014 film is non-nude.The 2014 film is a bit more depressing and drawn out than the 1996 film.If you want a modern upbeat quick feature w/ nudity! watch the 1996 film.if you want a story to play on you're emotions I recommend the 2014 film.the 1996 version is re-watchable and you walk away from it empowered and uplifted the 2014 isn't as re-watchable and leaves you feeling emotionally drained and a bit depressed! I also have the soundtrack to the 1955,1985 (SHOW)1996 film With the same name! including episodes from Call of the wild and the Russian Spy

This is a great movie. one of the best of Angelina Jolie. I love her. She does an excellent job of portraying the bad girl, and even better of making the movie what it is. She helps to push it to its full potential. Angelina has amazing talent. This movie is recommended for any girl who has never been the wild child. any girl who has never had the guts to do anything too drastic. excellent movie. I like Maddy. She is unique in that she is not your average teenage girl, but she is not drastic like legs. And who has a name like legs. It's like, once these girls have stood up for themselves, they can never go back. Like they are changed some how. I love this move and give it a excellent rating.

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.

first of all to correct two previous commentators....Rita says, after getting her tattoo, "we're like those girls who run with foxes." she says this to mock the comment made by the HS principle when he suspended them. trust me, i've seen this movie a hundred times.anyway, i came across this movie quite by accident. i was supposed to go out partying, but I fell asleep waiting for my always late friend. I woke up right after they beat up the teacher. I think what made an impression was how deep the friendship was between the girls. that time of my life wasn't the best, and I didn't have close friends like that. i saw parts of myself in some of the girls, and characteristics I wished I had possessed in the others. I own the movie, I watch it on occasion. The only part I think everything falls apart is the kidnapping of Goldie's father. that was kinda dumb. i have not yet read the book, but i have heard for years that the book is far different and better than the movie. Usually I am one that has read the book prior too, and usually find the movies disappointing. I tried reading the book after seeing the movie "Where the Heart is" and the exact opposite happened, I HATED the book. but from the reviews, I don't think this is going to happen with this one. I will be going to the library tonight.all in all, I think it was a good movie. i didn't particularly care for Jolie at first, but now that I've seen other work of hers, I have changed my mind about her in this movie. I liked the Maddie character the most, but the first time I watched i was more like Rita, the awkward virgin, while I longed to be a little more like Violet, the slut. Goldie represented what I could've become, had I not been as strong as I was and let situations and circumstances lead me to embrace drug addiction. I wish they would've gone a little deeper into some of the girls's background. all you really got to see is goldies dad slapping her around, and maddie's parents, and a couple of small glimpses into Rita's family. but the friendship and the bond with the girls is central focus, I felt for the movie, and I think that came across very well in the movie. maybe i'll have a different opinion once i read the book. we'll see.