Foxfire: Confessions of a Girl Gang
France
2434 people rated Set in the 1950s, a group of young girls in upstate New York form their own gang.
Crime
Drama
Cast (18)
You May Also Like
User Reviews
Abdel-oubaid
29/05/2023 22:44
source: Foxfire: Confessions of a Girl Gang
Nelisiwe Sibiya
18/05/2023 20:31
Moviecut—Foxfire: Confessions of a Girl Gang
Luthando Shosha
22/11/2022 11:10
I've read the book and i'm glad that it was so true to it. I also thought the actors were good, they were not amazing but belivable enugh. It was nicely filmed, nothing special but i did enjoy it. I think i would recommend it! If you liked the book it's defenitly worth a watch!
geenyada godey gacalo🇬🇲👸👑
22/11/2022 11:10
It's 1955 upstate New York. A group of young women join together to form a gang, Foxfire, to fight back against their tormentors.
Other than Rita, the girls aren't given introductory time to lay out their characters. Margaret "Legs" is the only one to make an impact after that. It doesn't help that these actresses are all unknowns. They need individuality before they can form the commonality of the group. Compared to the 1996 version, this is missing the big name and big charisma like Angelina Jolie. This is a lower budget indie and it doesn't really rise above that. The time period is intriguing. Legs is intriguing. The general premise is intriguing. The rest is not.
EUGENE
22/11/2022 11:10
It starts off pretty good! You've got the girls standing up to the perverts, but really after that it's just women stealing and breaking shit from innocent people (and like 1 bad guy).
The characters feel undeveloped and everyone only has one or two character trait, I know that it's not possible to write a story behind all of the girls but they just needed to focus on some of them! The "main" character legs doesn't come off like a good person in the end she's just manipulative and mean, in the end they show some stuff from the past and you're supposed to feel sorry about Maggie(or whatever her name was) losing legs but legs just wasn't a like able character.
This was the problem with all of the characters, you just didn't feel for them! I didn't know anything about the character who killed mr Kellogg's!
Some things felt like they were thrown in there! Like the racism, when they built it up it made me think the the gang would realize that things wasn't like they were supposed to be and that they'd change BUT NO! The black girl just went home! Like what the actual *? Now it just feels like it were thrown in there to show that "Oh no racism is bad"!
Another thing whitch they just left was the guy gang! When they were shown driving past each other I really thought there would be some fight between the two gangs! Well nothing happened and they just left it there.
(I also don't get the old man because he didn't really do much)
Well overall I didn't think it was good but watch it yourself and form your own opinion I'm no professional and it might be right up your alley!
Hasse Hansson 43 Denmark
Leidy Martinho
22/11/2022 11:10
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.
Art by Djess
22/11/2022 11:10
This film was only marginally a 2...it 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.
user1017981037704
22/11/2022 11:10
*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-*.
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!
Brenda Wairimu
22/11/2022 11:10
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.
#NNBBX
22/11/2022 11:10
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.