Bad Girls (1994)

best movie i've ever seen.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

That would have been a more appropiate title for this garbage.Now I'm not a sexist and in these "me too" times, you gotta tread carefully. To prove that I can enjoy an actionmovie with a female lead, I love The Quick And The Dead with Sharon Stone in the lead. This movie does not work. Not because the women are doing a bad job. Well Mary Stuart Masterson and especially Andie McDowell are terrible. Madeleine Stove delivers a solid performance as always. And Drew Barrymore is just eyecandy and shows her very nice tits in two scenes.The women are not the problem here. It's the script. It cant decide wether or not it wants to be a comedy, a feminist movie or a serious western. So it's a little bit of everything, which is annoying. And the story is nonsensical and the women keep making bad decisions, so they get caught by bad men so that they can get themselves saved by the good man. Also funny how the women look good as does the two good men. But the bad men all look like people did back then., With rotten yellow teeth and bad skin. I guess, so we, the dumb audience can tell the badguys from the goodguys. It's like reading a Disney comic book, where the badguys always have stubbles and the goodguys are freshly shaven. There is not nearly enough action and what little there is is lame and boring. Which suggest a low budget. The movie is R-rated, but aside from Drews tits and a little blood, it might as well have been PG13. The badguy, who is a terrible actor as well as over the top evil. So when he is finally killed, with only one shot, it's dissapointing. Evewnthough he is not nearly menacing enough, to trly hate him. He should have been riddled with bullets. You cant set up a badguy like that and not give him a long painful death. But Im guessing ( not knowing for sure) that the goddamn MPAA made them reshoot several scenes, because it was too violent. Either that or the director was simply clueless, how to shoot a western. The badguys crew are impossible to tell apart. They're just there to be rapists and be killed in the end. The only two good men in the movie are push-overs and one of them dies for a woman that don't want him anyway. The other one falls for a clearly much older McDowell. Oh and The Pinkerton detectives, which was real, are also in this movie, but they never catch Madeliene Stowe and are evidently too stupid to catch anyone, so why they are in this movie, I dont know. One of them is played by Jim Beaver, known for his role as Bobby singer on Supernatural. I didn't even recognize him which proves how bad this movie is. I recommend avoding this crap and find the scenes with Drew toplesss. Theyre the only parts of the movie worth watching.

This silly story of four sexy hookers on western take a ride in "the Quick and the Dead" which had more best reviews,Bad Girls use a sexual oriented direction,but not too seriously,surviving on this sexploitation kind,one best scenes when Drew Barrymore as Lilly try seduce the Deputy to distract him to your mates have enough time to set free Eileen from the jail....best scene of the picture,the bad guy played by James Russo is a crap with all gang members,anyway the movie summarize on sexual appeal from the four bad girls!!Resume:First watch: 1996 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6.25

My summary line sounds a lot more risqué than it actually is. Turns out Kid Jarrett (James Russo) was talking about his hostage McCoy (Dermot Mulroney), while Cody Zamora's (Madeleine Stowe) offer in trade was a new fangled Gatling gun. So all you readers with a dirty mind, you don't have to go back and look it up.Quite out of habit now, I enable captioning while watching movies because even though I got hearing aids recently, I've realized that sometimes the person doing the captioning will go out on a limb and have some fun at the expense of his employer. (See my review for "The Telegraph Trail"). In this picture, there was a scene in which the Pinkerton Detectives were questioning Josh McCoy, and the term was used twice, but captioning had it as 'Peckerton Ditinctives'. Once might have been a goof, but someone, somewhere had to work at being consistent. If you're watching this flick on Encore Westerns, check it out for yourself before someone is called to task for it.Tell you what, I like it when a story line has their principals stay in character at the expense of personal safety. This one had two neat touches, the first was when McCoy shot Frank Jarrett (Robert Loggia) for bad mouthing McCoy's mother; the other was when Lilly (Drew Barrymore) shot scumbag Ned (Neil Summers) for being just that, a scumbag. Both instances were problematic for completing the mission, but turned out well enough for the good guys, should say gals, to come out on top.So maybe not the most credible of Western movies, but kind of entertaining in it's own way. The female leads are in it for their eye candy appeal, with Drew Barrymore taking top honors in that particular department. That they started out as harlots working an Echo City 'parlor house' didn't seem all that credible once the action started, since virtually every close-up of the girls was carefully framed to highlight their glamorous looks. In Barrymore's case, the camera guy probably needed a cold shower between takes.

A decent enough film missing some key story and dramatic elements. The film takes no time getting into the meat of the matter, but the characters suffer because of it, ergo the film carries those same burdens.Were given the background of the four characters in question, but budgetary considerations scale down what could've been an epic western with its characteristic sale's point being fully explored. Regrettably it's somewhat cliché both in terms of a western and female oriented film. Because of this the film strives for an A+ but winds up hitting moderate B territory.A well shot pic with respectable acting, but not enough expose on the characters' origins, nor on how they developed into the outlaw clique they create for the film.Minor quibble; it's been over thirty years since I picked up a weapon of any-kind, but seeing the four leads handle their weapons shows the director wasn't too concerned about "girlish" overtones intruding on a traditionally masculine venue. It's a minor point, but an important one because Nimrods of both sexes understand how to handle firearms, and it puts a wry grin on this viewer's face to see the lead characters intimidated by their own weapons (even though they get off spectacular hip shots, a la the tradition of many other westerns).Acting and cinematography are respectable, as is the directing for what the shooting schedule allowed. Not an extraordinary film, but one that entertains on one level. That and the sexual component really didn't need the exposure it received in this film. In other words it could've been handled more tastefully, or axed altogether. Whoever thought seeing Barrymoore in a compromising position was way off base.I bought the thing at K-Mart for seven dollars, and given what I saw I think I got my money's worth. But what turned out to be a minor savings could have been a really bargain had FOX just allowed full development of script and story for this film.