Foxfire (2012) Poster


User Reviews

Add a Review
9 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
An excellent film!
iraz27 March 2014
I have not read the novel, nor seen the 1996 version, so I cannot base my review on any sort of comparison. Filled with newcomers, this film really surprised me. I was hooked from the first scene and my interest continued for the length of the film. This is a long film, over two hours but it did not feel like it. The performances were outstanding, especially by the actress portraying legs. With so many lousy films and independent attempts that are failures, it was a pleasure to be rewarded with this viewing. I would guess that several promising careers have now begun. Kudos to all involved with the making of this film!
26 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than original
Jinxgirl3618 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Definitely the 2012 version of Foxfire is much better than the 1996 Version and more faithful to the book. The 1996 version was set in the 90's with mid/upper class girls with intact families who didn't know abuse, poverty, and oppression against females as was so showed in the book. The 1996 version was more about girls who had little connection to each other suddenly deciding to get together and party more so than girls with history together and genuine affection for each other forming a club that became their obsession and their life, a club with a true purpose to help and protect causes, avenge wronged females, more than just cause mayhem. The 2012 did show the heart of the book as it should have, and the relationship between the girls and Maddy and Legs was better shown and fleshed out than the first movie. 2012 movie showed the girls in the proper 50's era, that they were all poor, neglected and abused and that they were oppressed for being female. The majority of the important plotting of the book was in the newer movie, as well as direct quotes from the book and dialog, and all this made this a much better and more faithful film.

The casting was also pretty accurate; Maddy, Rita, Lana, Goldie, Marianne, and V.V. were more or less accurately chosen in their portrayals and in the physical looks of the girls, and the acting was adequate. Violet in my opinion was ill chosen and portrayed. Violet in the book was a stupid, very helpless and desperate girl who was dramatic and constantly getting herself into trouble. Violet in the movie is pretty and well put together, controlled and quiet, and she certainly didn't have the emotional outbursts and dramatics of the Violet in the book. But most damaging of all to the movie, in my opinion, is the casting and portrayal of Legs.

To me, teen Angelina Jolie is the one thing about the 1996 film that completely trumped the 2012 version. In that movie, she was androgynous and clearly impulsive, passionate and intimidating, capable of softness and emotional showings all at once, as Legs should be. Angelina's acting and portrayal were not "perfect" to the book but her physical description was good and her persona was as well. I could understand, watching Angelina, why the girls would find her charismatic and intriguing and want to follow her and idolize her.

This was not the case with the girl who played Legs in the 2012 version, Raven Adamson. For one thing, the look was all wrong. Though I appreciated that she was not wearing makeup, as she very well shouldn't have been, she was a small, delicate-looking, very pretty and feminine looking girl with no remarkable features. Legs was in the book described basically as a wild-haired, bonier teenage Angelina Jolie, as beautiful and bold-featured but androgynous, always dressing in men's clothing and so uncomfortable with her femininity that she actually bound her breasts. 2012 Legs was a pretty little girl who looked no remarkably different than the other Foxfire girls. I couldn't see how anyone could find her to be physically imposing.

More than this, her portrayal was just wrong. She was high- voiced and matter of fact most of the time, showing little exuberance of Legs or charismatic posture or gestures or even facial expressions. She wasn't very emotional even when she was supposedly emotional, and she didn't come across to me as someone so remarkable that others would clearly see her as their leader. It was as though they put Legs's words in her mouth and told her to do the things Legs did, but she wasn't becoming Legs at all.

Some important aspects to Legs were left out as well. There was no mention of her love of heights, just a couple of times where she sat on a roof with Maddy, and she didn't win a contest for pole climbing or get shown to be respected and intimidating of the boys their age. Legs's father was not shown to be physically abusive, and there was no scene where she accused him of murdering her mother. Her mother is in fact never mentioned. Legs's baby sister was never born, and Legs's love and concern for her sister was a large part of what drove her to want to kidnap Kellogg in the first place- to be able to get enough money to provide for her and the rest of Foxfire. We never saw her inside the prison at all, so we have no idea of what really happened to her in there other than the two sentences she told Maddy about it later which did not in any way capture the horror of her experiences as the book did and how vulnerable and helpless she felt inside there. The prison major changed Legs's character in the book so that she came out shocked and yet harder afterward, and there was little show of this in the movie except that she talked to Maddy on the roof about her surprise that women could be the enemy too. Legs seemed to be the same person the whole way through the 2012 movie, and this is over the course of several years.

I feel that the lack of understanding of either the actress or the director of who Legs was as a character hurt the movie in comparison to the book. It's not a bad movie, but if you read and loved the book as I do, Raven Adamson and her portrayal of Legs simply can't live up to the Legs of the book.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A perfect women's tale
Warning: Spoilers
I confess that I have always loved men's stories: hard, brutal but also touching, poignant. Stories about pure manhood. And believe it or not, but that doesn't make me hate the same schemes with women only. Mixing up of men and gals is not always appropriate. I love features such as John Ford's SEVEN WOMEN, A GUN FOR JENNIFER or Paul Henreid's GIRLS ON THE LOOSE, and so many other movies. Tales where women have strong and powerful characters, harder than males. All this shown with a perfect sensitive talent. This movie makes no exception.

Tha characters in this feature are most brilliant, described in a flawless way. It is a 143mn film and there is no length. A delightful movie. I guess it is based on actual events. I don't know the actresses, but I repeat, they are absolutely outstanding. I particularly loved the lead character: Legs.

Laurent Cantet gives here his best performance.
21 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Awesome film
Steve Sou18 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
With so much independent garbage smothering red box & Netflix, I approached this movie with expectations being real low. But almost instantly you get hooked and want to know who these characters are. The movie is a very long watch, but I forgot about the clock and just enjoyed the thrill ride. This movie has the fill and look of a big budget movie and you forget instantly that it's a independent film. I enjoyed the book and the film real gives a great visual to a perfect story. The acting was great by everyone, the fresh talent they collected for this movie was spot on. I feel this movie will launch a lot of great talent into the stars. If you have the time and your even thinking of watching this movie, do it.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
less than impressed
fellini_5870124 September 2014
Laurent Cantet director of the Cannes palm D'or and Oscar Nominated "The Class" latest effort "Foxfire" did little to impress me a film about a group of teenage girls in upstate New York in 1950's who call them selves "Foxfire" they are angry and out to cause trouble and who can blame them I blame the director of this film and the dialect coach and casting director. The ensemble performance by the female cast played out like amateur actors in a B film the dialogue sounded to Canadian who can blame Laurent Cantet he is French he probably couldn't notice the difference and the dialect coach must have been deaf. The film itself stretched out its welcome running 2hours and 20minutes I felt the film was going no where after watching it for 90 minutes. And the fact that the film won a best actress prize at The San Sebastian International Film Festival Katie Coseni the jury must not have had much to choose from to give a best actress award.
8 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Foxfire 1996 - Foxfire 2012
i-spookie10 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Now - this is a totally different film from the 1996 version - that was an Angelina Joly display - and I loved it. The 2012 film is so much darker and has so much more integrity than film nr. 1 - yet the sexual sphere was less in this film. The boys got away totally - I mean the high-school thugs - but it concentrated on the promiscuous dirty old men. But than again that would not have worked without the gangs physical involvement. I do'nt get that - "dirty old men" are formed in early years- why not address it - like nr. 1 did. I have not red the book, only seen both movies but I am bewildered. I liked nr 1 because of Angelina Joly, but I liked nr 2 better because of it's message - STAY OUT OF CRIME !!!!
9 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as good as the original
Maddie Oglaza24 April 2016
One of my favourite stories about a group of teenage girls who form a group to get back at their society, which they feel is very unfair towards them. This film is a much more realistic adaptation to the novel by Joyce Carol Oates than the original 1996 version. I love the storyline and was very excited to watch this film, having seen the original and read the book. However the acting is no where near as good as the 1996 version (you must be mad to make a new version of an Angelina Jolie movie?!), and I would also suggest reading the novel before watching, as it makes everything a lot clearer. If I had not read the novel prior to watching, there are some parts which I doubt I would have understood properly. Definitely recommend this film to anyone who loves a film with a great female lead.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2 hours and 15 minutes I'll never get back.
ready4fun0115 January 2017
This film was only marginally a really deserved a 1. A few of the actresses were decent some of the time...but overall this was a total waste of film, and a total waste of my time to watch. There was nothing about the plot or the characterizations that made me want to keep going after the first 30 minutes...but I kept persevering, although I should have gone with my first impulses and stopped then. The only thing in the whole movie which wasn't a waste of time was the soundtrack--some good choices of more obscure '50s jump boogie contrasting with the more mainstream pop of the era. As for the more recent music in the movie, I don't have anything good to say about Taylor Kirk except that he seems a Leonard Cohen wannabe. Poor scripting, marginal acting, bad accents...and although I've never read the Joyce Carol Oates book on which it was based, I know now why I don't want to. I've also never seen the earlier movie based on the book, but I certainly saw nothing in this movie that would make me want to watch another crack at the same material. If you have any interest in good filmmaking, don't waste your time watching this trash.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fox Fire Burns and Burns and Burns!
cTitus92414 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
*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 1996 film!

this is no-way relation to the 1987 film of the same name!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews