User reviews

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a great film. The characters are two-dimensional, the plot is clunky, the sound is spotty, the directing is uneven... but "Foxfire" is worth watching because a previously unknown young actress named Angelina Jolie waltzed onto the set and completely stole this movie.

From her memorable entrance, with the camera panning slowly up from her boots, this movie belongs to Jolie. Part riot-grrl James Dean, part goth Ingrid Bergman, smoldering with sexual tension-- she's simply perfect in this part.

The rest of the cast is pretty solid, the indie rock soundtrack is great, and the story manages to avoid being completely predictable... which is pretty rare for a teen flick. "Foxfire" is a schlocky movie, to be sure, but it's definitely a guilty pleasure.

When Foxfire first came out, I had no interest to watch it at all.

Recently I became a huge Angelina Jolie fan. The main reason to watch the movie was her.

Jolie is great as usual. She gives everything into her character and is very good. Not a surprise.

Besides Jolie, I was shocked as to how entertained I was while watching it. It gave me a sense of longing for that kind of rebelliuos female companionship.

Foxfire has such reckless abandon that makes for fun ride. From Angelina's mysterious entrance into the science lab, to the end credits, I stared at my screen. And smiled. I had so much fun I watched it again the next evening.

Hedy Burgess (as "Maddy") and Angelina Jolie (as "Legs") give the best performances. Everybody else, are cardboard cutouts of girls for the most part.

"Legs" is everything "Maddy" wants to be. Self sufficient, drifting, taking no **** from anyone.

"Maddy" has the loyalty and values that "Legs" longs to have. The ability to hold friendships, love, conscience.

Like someone else once said, the sexiest scene is really Legs and Maddy talking on the rooftop, and its not even about sex.

The soundtrack is a great adrenaline ride. The music has the same spirit as the movie and is really fun.

A must for Angelina Jolie fans.

An entertaining movie.

6 out of 10

Not a perfect film, but I got a great feeling from it. I love movies about girls together, being strong and being friends. Not being intimidated and even laughing when the football team shows up to threaten them. Some of the things they did were not ideal, but they were kids, and they made mistakes. Legs was a cool character, and she meant well even when she was acting nuts. But it showed girls sticking together in the face of a "man's" world, the boys visiting their house in the woods, the boys attacking them and the girls commandeering the truck... dancing in the house, driving fast and music blaring... when girls are together, laughing and feeling great in their own skin, nothing else in the world matters, and no opression can hold them. That's the feeling I got from this film.

Maddy Wirtz (Hedy Burress) can't wait to graduate and go to art school. She has no connection to anyone in school other than her boyfriend Ethan Bixby (Peter Facinelli). Then rebellious Legs Sadovsky (Angelina Jolie) shows up and turns her world upside down. Legs comes to the aid of beaten down Rita Faldes (Jenny Lewis). In the bathroom, Rita tells the girls that teacher Mr. Buttinger keeps her in detention where he gropes her. School slut Violet Kahn (Sarah Rosenberg) backs it up with a similar claim. The girls with spaced-out Goldie Goldman (Jenny Shimizu) confront the teacher. The girls are suspended. They find a gathering place in an abandoned home.

This movie is adapted from a novel of a girl gang in the 50s. The movie starts out great. It builds up to the confrontation with Buttinger. It's terrific. While the movie diverges from the novel, I wish it diverge more by concentrating on the Buttinger situation. The girls aren't the same as the girls in the novel. It seems to me that these girls in the movie would narrow their focus on Buttinger. It's a question left hanging. The further away the movie goes, the less compelling it becomes. The movie tries to hit the big notes in the novel but it may be better off rewriting more of it.

As an adaptation of the novel by Joyce Carol Oates, this film doesn't work in the slightest. On its own terms (the terms it should be taken on, of course), it almost realizes its potential.

I won't deny that the difficulty of making the film as a period piece (the novel is set in that peculiar Oates version of the 1950s) would probably have proven quite impossible. I think the general updating of the story to the 1990s was actually handled quite well. However, some of the character changes seem like forcing square pegs into round holes.

The character of Goldie is my main problem with the film. She's an utterly unbelievable character no matter which angle you study her from. The actress tries valiantly, but nothing could save that dimensionless piece of cardboard. The film also suffers from some major pacing problems, particularly in the midsection (it would appear that some heavy editing may have been involved).

On the other hand, the two lead characters are very well-drawn and well-played. As a refreshing antidote to macho male-bonding gang films, this is indeed a most welcome addition to the canon. The entirely new ending (which differs significantly from the ending of the novel) is also a knockout. I just can't help but think that somewhere in there was a great film that didn't quite make it out, and settled for being merely good.

Watched this for the first time in 2 or 3 years the other day, having read the book since then. Hate to agree with the popular viewpoint, but it's true... moving from the 50s to the 90s is a bad idea. In 95/96, you don't get suspended for 3 weeks for accusing a teacher of molesting you, the guys aren't all 50s style jock bullies who try to gang rape a character who they have no reason to be concerned about (she's walking one's abused girlfriend home... "let's rape her." The four other guys... "yeah why not." Not one of these supposedly 1996 guys try to stop him. There's at least one, probably three, who realize their coach/teacher is an a**hole who forced himself on a pathologically shy virginal redhead).

However, there's a good performance from Jolie before she became a major annoyance (anything after Gia), a great performance by Burress, able to convey that she is rebelling against the evil male hierarchy of a hick town in upstate New York in 1956 that somehow got transported through the Donnie Darko time vessel into 1996 Portland (why not just set it in Seattle and cut out the middle man while yer butchering a pretty good book for the flannel generation?). She also has great chemistry with the always scenery-chewing Jolie, back when it worked... see Girl Interrupted for a case where Burress woulda been much better (or even Claire Danes, who auditioned and like Burress would be much more compatible with Winona, not resorting to all those notice me Oscar antics) She'd be a way better cop in Bone Collector too.(i saw some show where she played a butch, kinda guncrazy cop or Secret Service agent, damned if i can remember what it was now). Maddy's transformation into walking on top of the bridge thus works way better than it has any right to (the first time I saw it, I was almost as moved as when Jack Nicholson inspires Will Sampson to lift the tub. And just like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, I then read the book).

Had this been set in the 50s and directed by Figgis (who ended up just producing) instead of a casting director it probably coulda been a classic "chick flick that guys like too." If Figgis could remake it with the original 50s story (maybe Jena Malone as Maddy, Lauren Ambrose or Christina Ricci as Legs... no they're both 23 or 24 now. i'm no casting director, but Carter could stick to that job)...

6 outta 10. It's not mediocre because of the very good leads but too unfaithful to the source and poorly directed to be considered good.

Wow, I'm a guy and made it thru the review without talking about the scene where Jolie and Burress take their shirts off. Woops. I just did.

think "Foxfire" is trying to make a positive stand about young women defending their rights. The problem is...it goes about it all wrong.

The fresh, young cast is wonderful. Yes, Angelina Jolie shows what kind of talent she has. Jolie plays a character nicknamed Legs. Legs literally shows up out of nowhere and struts into a high school biology class. She pulls the pins out of a live (!!) frog that is about to be dissected and tosses the frog out a window to freedom. She then climbs out the window herself. Legs has this odd habit of showing up at the school even though she apparently has no connection to it.

Anyway, she befriends four girls at the school. She soon finds out that the scummy biology teacher has been sexually harassing and fondling some of his female students. They decide to get a bit of revenge and end up beating him up. The girls are then suspended for a few weeks. They find an abandoned home in pretty good shape and they decide to make it their hangout.

Some female bonding and hijinks take place. They give each other tattoos. They break into the school and carelessly start a fire. Implausibly, one of the girls is almost abducted by a bunch of guys from the school. Luckily, a couple of her friends had been hiding behind some bushes or something and one of them pulls a knife on the guys. Then they steal the main abductor's vehicle. They end up being arrested and charged with several serious felonies. Extremely weak plotting if you ask me.

Ultimately, the film tailspins out of control. As the movie progresses, the viewer loses more and more sympathy for the girls. It should be the other way around. You should care more about characters once you get to know them. These girls make such awful and selfish decisions that you end up feeling that they deserve whatever comes to them. Sadly, the fabulous cast can't save the fatal script they were given. 4/10

I've always loved watching Angelina Jolie on screen... but watching her in "Foxfire" quite literally gave me *chills* (and still does). When Legs first walks into Maddy's classroom and they do that long, slow pan up - from head to foot - of Legs, you can instantly feel Angie's incredible magnetism and presence.

As much as people would like to point out the negative aspects of this film - that violence of any sort is "unladylike" or just plain wrong coming from females - "Foxfire" has got many more positive ones on its side.

Maddy and Legs' relationship is one of the warmest, most heartfelt I've ever seen portrayed on film ... Legs is not so much a maternal figure as she is a supportive driving force. She teaches each of the girls to respect themselves and not be ashamed or afraid to be who they are. If anything, I think it's Maddy that's the maternal one ... directing her loving and protective instincts towards Legs. Maddy teaches Legs to open up her heart and stop *running* long enough to realize that some people *can* love you and not abandon you (like her father) or die (like her mother). She teaches her to care again... to love again.

"Foxfire," directed by Annette Haywood-Carter from a screenplay by Elizabeth White, updates Joyce Carol Oates's 1950s novel and updates its characters from a grim working class to a suburban world. In so doing, it transforms a mythic fable of pre-feminist rage into an elegant Hollywood fantasy of female rebellion. The film, like Oates's novel, is narrated by Maddy, a likeable and level-headed art student who falls in love with Legs but cowers in terror when the opportunity for a serious kiss presents itself. The film zigzags nervously between telling the chaste love story of Maddy and Legs (whose eyes fill with tears whenever Maddy is around) and recounting the gang's adventures, which range from breaking and entering to car hijacking.

Annette Haywood-Carter's drama exists on the scale of exceptional productions. These productions have a crucial influence on the lives of young women. The lives of four high school girls change irrevocably in Foxfire. The catalyst for this transformation is Legs Sadovsky (Angelina Jolie), a rebel with no family to bring them together. When Rita (Jenny Lewis) confesses that she was harassed by her biology teacher, Maddy (Hedy Burress), Violet (Sarah Rosenberg) and Goldie (Jenny Shimizu) join her. Spurred on by Legs, they expose the teacher, but are suspended from school. The girls form their own private society in an abandoned house where they share stories, invent various pranks and engage in a bonding ritual.

The students beat him up and run away along with Goldie, who witnessed the scene. The event causes suspension, but at the same time brings the protagonists together. The incredible bond they create starts with fighting for their rights as women, but it doesn't end there. This single scene described above represents the union of women and their extraordinary strength. It may be simple, ordinary, but for a young viewer, the scene can be critical. This unit pictured there can move mountains, and "Foxfire" proves it. While the five spend all their free time together, Legs introduces them to the world of womanhood. Her sanctuary is an abandoned house. They rebel against the boys at their school and Goldie's overprotective and violent father (Chris Mulkey). Maddy invites Legs to sleep over at her house. The young women discover each other's biggest secrets and dreams. After getting closer to Legs, the other girl matures but also questions her sexuality. If I said I love you, would you get it wrong? She asks Legs during one of their deep conversations. As the girl grows closer and closer, Maddy seems to distance herself from her boyfriend (Peter Facinelli). The boy, however, tries to respect the girl's privacy.

The montage sequence behind the opening credits, stylistically deceptive in its frantic pace, is nonetheless thematically appropriate. A fully dressed Maddy (Hedy Burress), who turns out to be the narrator and central character, is taking pictures of her naked boyfriend Ethan (Peter Facinelli) in the woods. This simple inversion of the usual objectification of women in cinema translates into a marginalizing, two-dimensional treatment of men throughout the film: a teacher who paws the girls in his class, an intolerant principal, an incomprehensible father, and police and security guards are all portrayed. In the stereotypical and reduced way usually accorded to women in films about rebellious boys. In other words, they are stock figures rather than characters; even Ethan, who is relatively sensitive, can be described as a sensitive piece of meat.

This gang of girls that Legs unconsciously creates is imperative to the characters' maturation period. Though short but still memorable, their time with Legs transforms them forever. Margaret (Jolie's full role name)'s short existence in their previously stable life stirs something in their minds. The young character becomes a symbol of female empowerment and femininity for other girls. She is a leader, a mentor on her crooked road to adulthood. She teaches them to face themselves to defend themselves. In one particular, highly metaphorical and emotional scene, all five are in the abandoned house - the asylum of their male-dominated lives. In a candlelit space filled with their photos, they decide to unite forever. One after another, each girl tattoos a little fire on their bodies - a symbol of struggle, freedom. In the scene, nudity is nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary - it is a celebration of women's bodies, of their autonomies. The scene depicted is a metaphor for a rebirth - katharsis. Like phoenixes from the ashes - Maddy, Goldie, Rita and Violet transform into independent, thinking women who can overcome anything.

What justifies this stylization is not a tit-for-tat adjustment of feminist scores, but the dreamy adolescent subjectivity that informs the entire film, including the spotty lighting. Since the film is about teenage bonding, I suppose it has something to do with feminist empowerment, but Foxfire is much closer to a lyric than a treatise: It's too on topic to sound boring. As with much of Joyce Carol Oates's fiction - or so a friend told me - the action is organized around the appearance of a mysterious stranger. Usually this stranger is male, as in Oates' story "Where are you going, where have you been?" But in this case, the outsider is Legs, memorably played by Angelina Jolie.

The fact that Legs is initially mistaken for a boy by a (male) security guard as she enters a school to get out of the rain - thus setting the plot in motion - is probably the closest the film gets to a commentary on gender papers. Most of the time he is so completely immersed in the atmosphere of his closed world that such questions seem like distant thunder, and in this dream world Haywood-Carter's enchanted lighting schemes and magical staging become wholly his own. In an interior night shot, Legs is lit in blue light as the other girls flutter around her like moths; in another indelibly intertwined configuration, the five heroines gather around a sink in the school bathroom; and Maddy's darkroom glows with as many mysterious points of light as a planetarium.

The script, while set in the present, the murky narrative betrays the book's original setting - the 1950s. This is especially evident in the way the girls' complaint is handled by school authorities and their male peers. It is inconceivable that any principal in the 1990s would suspend students for weeks without further factual investigation, without giving them a chance to voice their grievances. Another issue is the conflicted and confusing portrayal of Legs. There is physical intimacy and the exchange of vows of love and loyalty between her and Maddy (Hedy Burress), the central and sympathetic figure. However, lacking honesty and courage, the filmmakers simply drop the subject - as they do with numerous other subplots. The film spirals out of control when Legs kidnaps the father of one of the girls, at gunpoint, and blackmails him into paying for his daughter's drug rehabilitation. The last half hour is an inferior imitation of countless male bonding photos, filled with stolen cars, wild driving, police chases, arrests and so on.

Elizabeth White's script is confusing and misguided. Without exception, all male roles, from school principal to Goldie's father to Maddy's boyfriend. For bullies, they are defined so narrowly that they seem borderline and laughable caricatures. Things aren't helped by helmer Haywood-Carter, who can't decide whether to emphasize the social message - that it's okay. To challenge the status quo and question the patriarchal system - or make it a fun film about the adventurous coming of age of "rebellious" girls, misunderstood by their parents. The picture's richness of beautiful imagery exaggerates the material so much that it almost annihilates any emotional resonance. Night shots are perfectly lit, with the girls often silhouetted against streams of blue light. Playing a glamorous anti-heroine, Jolie is given the star treatment by the director, with the camera caressing her sensual lips and beautiful eyes. The set is attractive but very uneven. Jolie is obviously a talented actress, and Burress has natural charm, but Shimizu looks and acts like she's still a Calvin Klein model.

In the end, "Foxfire" is a story that will delight many young women who are entering an age of maturity and growth. It's not about amazing action and full of twists. It's about the surprising story and well-crafted female characters that Annette Haywood-Carter and Elizabeth White created. The female friendship featured in "Foxfire" is unique and one of a kind. We might even call the film "ahead of its time". Back in the 90s, productions often depicted female friendships as artificial, where one woman looked down on the other and often stabbed her in the back, stole her boyfriend, cheated at work, etc. Like a beautiful pearl in the ocean.

The film's lore is still very much present and relevant to today's world. One would think that 1996 was a long time ago and a lot has changed in twenty-three years. This, incidentally, is unfortunately not true. Women still fight for their rights - freedom of reproduction, equal pay, right to abortion, etc. This happens not just in the United States, but all over the world. The stories told in other films with similar themes positively influence the development of young women. They prove and show an authentic and healthy image of femininity and true female friendship, which is not fake, but rather the opposite - it can last a lifetime.

Unfortunately, in the case of "Foxfire", it's time for Legs to go. The girl is not the person who stays in one place for a long time. "You're in my heart, Maddy" is the last thing Legs says before getting on the bus and leaving. The scene is very emotional, not only for Maddy's character, but also for the audience.

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.

Four teenage girls are joined by Legs (played by Jolie). Experiencing various teenage anxieties and failed communication with parents, they form a strong emotional bond which is augmented by events in which they take part together and into which they are drawn. Supporting each other, they play the role of both friend and family to each other.

The plot deals with the isolation of late teenage from mainstream society and one's parents' generation, and the communication divide which neither parents nor children seem to be able to bridge easily during these years. Another theme is what too much pain and abandonment in the early years can do to you, and how good people can clash with a society trying to do the right thing, but getting it wrong.

I am totally shocked that so many here have raved about what a wonderful movie this is! It was so choppy and the more the story went on, the less I cared about the characters! The only good thing about the movie was Jolie (considering what she had to work with, but even she can't produce a miracle!) I must admit that I liked the cool house they hung out in. Otherwise, all I can say is run, run as fast as you can away from this junk!! Don't waste your time on this. It's a shame they didn't stay true to the book. It could've worked if there'd been a better script. It would've also been nice if they set it in the 50's or 60's. The characters would've been more believable in a different time.

I bought this movie without ever hearing of it before. After seeing the cover and reading the back, I was intrigued. I was not disappointed in the least. Angelina Jolie is acting's best kept secret...or was at least. Now she is starting to finally get the recognition she deserves. The storyline, acting, and camera work was splendid. The bond that forms between the group of girls is touching as is the bond between Maddie and Legs. True, many may not like this movie after reading the novel, because the two are so different, but the movie is more modernized and appeals to a larger audience. The end of the movie never fails to get me choked up. 10/10.

I have loved this movie ever since I first saw it. It forces you to think for yourself. What would happen if you acted on the impulses in your heart, instead of what you were told was right? Jolie gives a stunning performance as the free-spirited Legs, and Hedy Buress (Maddie) portrays the coming-out-of-her-shell part of us all extraordinarily well. The other characters are well thought out, but don't overwhelm the script. This movie speaks to the rebel in all of us, and it will make you laugh, cry, yearn, and hope. I believe that every generation of girls should see this movie, and realize that they have the ability to think for themselves as well. There is nudity on the part of 3 out of the five actresses, and partial nudity in the very beginning, but it is not distasteful or even sexual at all. It's more about being comfortable. Bless you, FoxFire.

One of the realest pre-social-media tales of young women banding against sexual assault, bonding over their own sexual identity, stepping into personal power. The only reason this film as a low rating on IMDB is from men who watched it hoping to find an exhilarating lezzy flick but instead found something that successfully challenges male power.

The most important moments feel real enough to touch, getting lost in these young incredible actors.

Please don't call this movie a "coming of age" tale; its content is stuff that most people don't experience in their whole lifetimes. It's closer to stories that many women have in their 20's, superimposed here on teens for a bigger emotional punch.

Plus, for those of us who were too young to relate to its content when it was released, but old enough to remember what living in 1996 was like, it's a perfect nostalgic rewind and rethink.

This movie is very predictable and it has no surprises! This movie is as terrible as the old lifetime movies! Perfect movie for the me2 movement in which men are evil and women always get the short end of the stick! Charles Angels and Wonder Woman are far more better than this crap! Watch it for Angelina Jolie's performance because the rest stinks!

I have seen this movie in 1996 when it was released. We didn't know who Jolie was back then but I think this is where producers discovered her even though she'd already made a few movies. This film is mostly about different human beings meeting and changing the life of each other. Just like in real life, you meet someone that has nothing to do with you or your interests but this person will make you feel alive, make you do and beleive stuff you never thought possible. Legs is there only like a tornado sweeping off everything on it's path. And sometimes it can be a good thing. Of course there is many subject related to womwn solidarity, girl power, and bla bla bla. But really a movie is what you see but what comes out of it and what you learn is entirely up to you.

but do read the book. especially if you did not like this movie.

this movie was dumb, but angelina jolie and hedy burgess make it okay to not be too ashamed by the fact that you like it.

it is much like 'center stage' in that regard.

but in every other respect, it is much like someone tried to adapt a novel about girl gangs in the 50s into a movie about giggly juvenile delinquents in the 90s.

it doesn't work, but like i said no one is watching it for the incredible story or acting chops.

we're watching it to see if maddy will ever grow some metaphorical balls and kiss legs already!

While the novel, written by Joyce Carol Oates and first published by Plume in 1994, originally takes place in the early 1950's, the story was perfectly adapted for the modern screen. The casting of Angelina Jolie as Legs was a brilliant move, and with her recent celebrity status a wider audience has been persuaded to view the film. Modernizing the story also increases audience appeal, but the primary reason the movie is so successful for me is because of the "real" feeling I get from the settings, costume design and camera work. I felt that I could identify in part with each of the main characters at some point, yet the movie was able to maintain that Hollywood-ish sense of magic and mystery that is so important in good film-making. Finally, I would like to give praise to Hedy Burress, Jenny Lewis, Jenny Shimizu and Sarah Rosenberg for masterful performances in such an amazing film.