Bad Girls

Another example of family and friends that writes the reviews to rate the film up. First of all the three leading actresses are all horrible at acting which of course makes it one of those movies hard to even watch through. I did it to give it a fair shot but it didn´t get any better and as stated above, such poor acting can´t save any movie. The only good thing is that the girls seems to have a fun time doing the movie. Good for them that they enjoyed it because i bet it will be a long time until they get casted again.

Christopher Bickel's second feature builds on what he learned from his directorial debut, The Theta Girl, to create a modern-day grindhouse classic that owes more to that genre than its more existential predecessor. In doing so, it has its own strengths and weaknesses, but is no less impressive an effort.

Working once again on a shoestring budget ("the cost of a used car," as Bickel often puts it), Bickel takes us on a 90-minute drug-fueled journey with three ex-con strippers hellbent on carving out a dream existence for themselves while laying nightmare waste to all standing in their way. Plot and character exposition are given minimal service in favor of machine-gun visuals, notable quotables, and buckets of blood and guts.

The film moves along at a fast pace with little drag, and there's solid acting throughout, even if the characters and characterizations tend toward the one-dimensional. And kudos for the repurposing of an old-school roadside attraction as "Mexico."

The Theta Girl, Part II, this isn't, which is admirable in itself. In not playing it safe (and in taking an active role in co-writing this film, along with Shane Silman), Bickel has paid full-throated homage to his grindhouse influences that were only hinted at in his first film. That may have its drawbacks in terms of story and narrative, but Bad Girls is a much faster-paced and ultimately more engaging cinematic experience as a viewer. Between the two films, though, it's clear Bickel still has more to offer if he can put it all together in his next film.

Full disclosure: I've known Bickel for 20 years and I had a "blink and you'll miss it" bit as an extra in Bad Girls.

One of the strangest genres of films to review -- or even watch! -- are the so-called "grindhouse" knockoffs where the film-maker deliberately set out to recreate the sort of films you would have found in the early 70s playing at theatres where a double or triple bill (of similar films of course) was the norm, and often the most exciting part of the experience was wondering if you would survive the trip to the restroom and back. Here is the paradox. If the film-maker (Bickel in this case) fails, then the film is flawed. But if the film-maker succeeds at essentially creating a loud, raw, and massively imperfect film -- does that deserve praise??? Several reviewers here seem to have thought YES, and rated this film on par with Matrix and Avengers and Godfather. Not this reviewer, however. Like most things today, a matter of personal choice.

Skip this one. I can't think of anything good to say... the acting, makeup, direction, editing, all a mess. I lasted 16 minutes, which pushed my patience but I wanted to find out if there was something redeeming or interesting, maybe a movie in a movie or a dream or.... nope, nothing worthwhile detected. I rarely give a 1-star rating; it's probably a 3, but minus 2 points for the obnoxious fake 9 and 10 star reviews that only cause disappointment.

Most movies I find are predictable and follow the rules. This movie is wild and has no clue there are rules. Anything can and often dies happen. The characters are unique and I have met people that make bad choices and imagine most of this could happen. I would certainly watch more from the creators.