As a human rights person who likes to revisit Mean Girls (2004), I can tell you that I didn’t like the 2011 version for the first time. After revisiting it now, I came to a slightly different conclusion: this film is a common alternative story that fits the theme of school “star life” of teenage girls, but has nothing to do with the cult film of 2004.
We were offered this film as part 2, but I didn’t feel anything to do with the first part. Despite the general essence, when viewing there is no feeling of similarity. To begin with, on the one hand, we have a film where the actresses (Lindsey Lohan, Rachel McAdams, Amanda Seyfried, Lacey Shaber, etc.) perfectly coped with their roles, conveying all the features and features of their characters. They had a strong sense of emotion. For me, in that film, music is a separate love, so organically chosen. The story is predictable, but that doesn’t make the movie bad. If Mean Girls (2004) became a cult film of the 2000s, which many still review and praise, then Part 2 failed as a sequel at all!
But like I said at the beginning, I changed my mind. This film, Mean Girls 2, has the right to exist, but as a separate story, not related to the original version. Comparing these parts, the 2nd appears flat and damp compared to the 2004 version. The actors here are generally good, for example, Chastity (Claire Holt) or the same Mr. Duval (Tim Meadows), but, frankly, it did not work out.
In fact, I’m thinking right now, ‘If you asked me how I could rate Part 2 by linking it to Part 1, I wouldn’t recommend it. But if we talk about as a separate movie, one time it will go, and then you will forget in a year what happened there. I gave a neutral assessment of this film, because I don’t see anything wrong with it, but I can’t highlight anything. We can say that this is another attempt to continue what once brought success, but, as a rule, such "continuations" tend to fail. Therefore, it is better to leave the film as it is, to be able to finish the story without diluting incomprehensible additional parts.
The actresses are beautiful, but everything is so banal and stamped that I do not see the point of watching this film at all - you will not see anything new.
The popular opinion is that the sequels are in most cases worse than the originals. Yes, if you start from the original story - then it is, but if you consider the second part of the picture as a separate film, the emotions from watching will change from negative to completely neutral. So here's the foreword:
Mean Girls are at the very origins of cinema for teenagers, where, along with the main GOOD heroines, ordinary bitches perform. It was this movie that generated a lot of clichés by type: all mean girls wear pink and the struggle of the unpopular with the popular is not hopeless. Were those stamps bad? Well, not exactly. If they are still in use today, that says a lot. Well, the movie has become iconic, which means it needs a sequel, a remake. If you put the number two in the title, it doesn’t make the movie a sequel on automaton.
Mean Girls 2 is an independent story that you can watch without getting acquainted with the original. You won’t get those emotions, but you can kill time for cliches. Yes, there's a killer batch of stamps, but the questions raised in the film are actually worth it. Can I buy a friendship? How far will you go for your dream? Is it important to be popular at school?
And everything would be fine if not for the cast and the characters themselves.
Unsuccessful castes, insufficient study of characters have done their dark work.
You can see it, but you won’t get much.
The story of the second part of the film “Mean Girls” turned out from the category of obvious-incredible. If in the first everything was more or less like real life plus funny and dynamic, then the second is called a comedy about school. A couple of mediocre jokes, unnatural hugs and even more far-fetched, thumb-sucking situations. Especially outraged by the so-called "Queen of the school" Mandy. In the first part, there was a beautiful, intelligent, cunning intriguer, played by Rachel McAddams. It was really hard to get her off the pedestal of fame. What do I see in the second movie? An ugly girl with an angry expression in all pink, who gets thanks to the main character in all sorts of ridiculous situations (some spills something, then something yells out of the question), that in a real school she would have long ceased to be respected. In addition, respect for her, if it can be considered such, is based more on her wealth than on personal qualities. But then, in theory, we should extol an even richer Abby, who is just being gnawed by our “supercool” queen. It is impossible to say anything good about the girlfriends of this “star”, whose names did not even make sense to remember, one is a worried cheap woman, the second is a girl with a lot of phobias and a lack of brains. A ridiculous parody of the normal heroines of the first film. Nowhere are such “queen” to drive a damn broom!
More or less, the film saves Megan Yette Martin (Joe). Of course, it could have been better, but at least she is not as overplaying and fake as the others. Abby also played normally, but did not like the character himself - some kind of smear, entangled in life and their own complexes.
Men's roles are mediocre, I don't remember anyone. I probably shouldn’t have hired an unknown actor with zero experience. And then neither charisma, nor talent, nor even pretty faces came out.
The meaning of the film was also lost: the trio of “queen” did not disintegrate, although they ceased to rot, but for a long time. The main character realized his mistakes too late. The deposed "school star" never got better at all. In the first film, everything ended much more logically and better for all the characters.
The score is as follows: 1 point for the plot (it is good that we did not repeat everything completely for 1 part, but it is bad that many situations are far-fetched), 1 for Abby, 2 for Joe. Total:
Excuse me? What year's the movie? 2011? Where does the film take place? Is it not in a village with a real name "Trump"? Let me point out that the movie may be glued together well, but it's as normal as being able to eat a spoon at the age of 30. Otherwise, it seems that the lines and episodes of the plot were written on the knee in the clumsy handwriting of a fifth-grader who raves about Barbie’s life. From that, apparently, the main “villain” the whole room is not just a nasty pink color scheme, but also absolutely tasteless for her age furnished. That's why I put quotation marks. The whole film made me extremely unnerved, if not infuriated Mendy, with her skinny legs and handles, colorless face and problem teeth. But especially I acted like a red cloth on a bull her bow on a straw mane, and these caps, frills ... A typical rural disco. Someone said that the sequel was supposedly more youthful, I ask – why and where did you see so disgustingly dressed girls who position themselves as the queens of the school? Oh yes, the queen is one, but next to her even more inconspicuous retinue, not just comical, but even force majeure, since in nature such characters simply do not exist, they are too exaggerated! In addition, the main “hero in a skirt” looms before us, showing how cool she is, what she can drill, saw and mount. She is so brutal that even her chosen one seems more feminine against her background. But this is the outer shell...
I don't see the real meanness that the movie was supposed to be about. There is no dark side of maiden nature, no meanness, no typical female mischief. The whole movie doesn't happen. Where's the intrigue? Where are the tricks, where is the deception and hypocrisy? Where, your division, is everything you could say about Regina George? She was not just a beautiful "narcissistic bitch," but a pure evil. Girlfriends really played the role of henchmen, in the soul hate her, but at the same time extremely dependent on her. The new two, whose names and faces I can hardly remember, are walking next to each other in slow motion mode, and their brilliant role ends there. And the insanity is just beginning. They are trying to convince me that the school where the headmaster communicates with his students live via video broadcast does not have elementary video surveillance, that profane people penetrate it and at the click of their fingers steal her own property? Are you serious?
I’m tired of talking about how pathetic this movie is.
1 in 10
- just for director Duvall, I'd give him all 10, but it's too much for this movie.
I watched the first part and just squeaked with delight, looking at the four “Bounty”. I immediately decided to watch the second. I will say without exaggeration, almost threw up aki guy Mandy with poisoned pizza.
In this film (sequel or prequel to the first part, I do not quite understand such concepts) there are only 2 pluses, and I will immediately name them: the main character is not bad, although it is clearly not Cady from the first Mean Girls, but she pulled the entire film, making it from the terrible mediocre. And the plot is normal, not particularly predictable and does not duplicate the first part.
But the plot needs good performance and good actors. I didn't see it.
The trinity of the "Queens of the School" is such, sorry, disgusting, that I do not understand, but how did they become leaders?! Mendy is a mean girl with a very mediocre appearance and empty ambitions (as a comparison, remember Regina from the first part, a smart calculating young lady of a very attractive appearance). Chastity is a blonde with a bias towards concern (in the first film, the prototype heroine is a cute fool who causes a good smile). Hope is a fan of whining with a bunch of phobias, what kind of character is this in general, how does it correspond to real life? I won’t even call it Gretchen from the first DDs, as there was a typical gossip girl singing along with the Hive Queen with—attention!—a normal mind. Add the inability of the entire trio to dress normally (panties, ribbons, all pink and kindergarten), when the first part of the girls were stylish. I understand that the director wanted to show modern teenagers. But they just wear too bright makeup and too short skirts, not the cheap glamour that put on Bounty 2. About the design of the room Mendy and pink accessories are silent, many have written about it, I will not repeat.
Male roles are creepy. All heroes are emotionless. Plus significantly inferior to the external data of the heroes of the first part (as well as girls, however). I’m not talking about beauty, I’m talking about individuality. Such “notable” guys should stand out, don’t they?
In the end, because of the terrible acting that ruined everything, I just have to put not zero just because of Megan Yette Martin. Total:
I want to say right away that the film was wonderful. Interesting plot, wonderful actors and, which is very rare in American comedies, the film makes sense.
However, I will not do without comments, for which I write a review.
First, the creators of the comedy too much with the "pink" color. Mendy's room is all pink, as if there is not a teenage girl living there, but a two-year-old child who only plays with dolls. I understand, of course, that this room is an element of the essence of Mendy, but not so much as to turn the room, but at the same time all the clothes of the girl and household items into a bunch of bows, ribbons, flowers and hearts of “I am blonde, I am glamorous”. Here in the first "Mean Girls" pink was in moderation, and his presence was not annoying.
Secondly, I still wonder how a blatantly bitchy, angry, poisonous, bile girl, besides a rather scary one, managed to take the place of the queen of the school. Again, I will draw a parallel with the first film: Regina behaved like a true queen, and Mendy - like an ordinary meanie who hates everyone and everything. There are many such people, but they are not in the most honorable place in life, and for Mendy for some reason made an exception.
And so, I liked the film, although the first “Mean Girls” he clearly did not surpass. That's why I'm evaluating
When I saw the first movie, I was thrilled. I thought the second part was just as interesting. It’s certainly not bad, but it pales in comparison to the first film.
The plot is interesting, but many actors spoiled (in another way and can not say!) the whole impression. Mayra Walsh (Mandy) portrayed her character more as a hysterical bitch than as the Queen. Plus, her looks aren't royal in themselves, but her glamorous pink dresses have turned her into a silly little girl, you know, who listens to pop and reads glossy magazines on how to meet the guy of your dreams. Yes, as far as the theme of pink-prerose glamour is concerned, the decoration of Mendy's room left me in a quiet horror. I was stuck in the screen with the question: "Here lives a two-year-old baby?" Probably, many who watched both films, noticed: in the first “Mean Girls” pink color was in moderation, but in the sequel to the movie.
The male cast of Mean Girls 2 leaves much to be desired. Joe's guy plays with that look on his face, like he's really into the drum. And the “great love” Mandy kisses the “Queen” with such an expression on his face as if he was going to throw up. More or less coped with the role of the actor who played the guy Abby, but he also a little underplayed, he lacked some zest in the image to be remembered for a long time.
Apart from the above, the film is very good. And his storyline is not a “copy,” as many say, but a separate original story.
8 from 10
If anyone doubts whether to watch or not: when there is nothing to do or is not set for a serious film, watch Mean Girls 2.
I started watching this movie and liked the beginning. I wish I hadn't kept watching. The first part was interesting with these African stories and comparisons. Here the main character, although it gets worse, but realizes it too late.
I really felt sorry for her father, who tried to do everything for her daughter, and she sometimes showed herself too demanding and ignorant.
Mandy doesn’t look like the sexy bitch who’s always ahead. Her strange mental instability is too much played.
Although, the very idea of such a rivalry between two rich girls Abby and Mandy, is quite interesting, just played not too successfully, in my opinion.
There is a lot of playfulness in the main character.
The heroine Claire Holt Chessity caused a mixed reaction. The joke is that Claire played her really well. But! Her outer type... Something more intellectual and tough. She is purely outwardly not like a stupid fool, and here even a good acting does not save, alas.
The one who played Hope for me was not a very successful "hobby" she invented. So I understand that they did not want to repeat the last film, where there was a “stupid” and “gossip girl”. But, to be honest, that’s not good.
The film's guys are stamped. That's it. Even the one who liked Abby, but he set her up.
It's just an ordinary movie. Something went wrong, something went wrong, as always.
In general, I don’t watch such purely youthful banal films, only if they are played by an actor who I like.
With Mean Girls 2, that’s exactly what happened. The reason I watched it was Claire Holt.
The first part of “Mean Girls” turned out to be very successful, people decided to make more money, and released the second part. Only now they did not take into account that the picture will be in the fly either way. After all, Lindsey, Rachel, Amanda will not be surpassed.
The second part should be considered as an independent and independent film. So it is not bad, but to perceive as a continuation of one of the best comedies - no, no, and again no!
Despite that, I liked the movie. I can't even remember the last time I watched a youth comedy, and it was a good thing to get it thin. Here and bright shooting, and the winding soundtrack, and cool cars, without extreme money, and everything else. The plot... of course it is everywhere. High school leaders and outsiders, fashion, money, guys, set-ups, rebirth from the ashes. Nothing new.
I liked the actors except for the reason I watched the movie. Claire is very good in the role of serious Emma, resentful Rebecca, but not in the role of a naive fool kissing every guy. She was terrible. She doesn't play dumb. I wish she hadn’t played in this movie.
What can I say? Is there a better comedy? - Of course. Should I watch this one? - I wouldn't dare advise.
A purely girlish film that is not worth the attention of film lovers. “Mean Girls 2” is a movie for those who are not interested in movies. I mean big movies. Popcorn and all.
6 out of 10
I'll give you green. You also need to take a break from smart movies. That's the kind of discharge, and "Sky Ferreira - Obsession" plays the whole evening in your head.
I decided I didn’t have to watch the second part, to be honest, I was very bored during the film. I never understood why I would shoot a ridiculous parody and waste money. In comparison, the first part was better.
First, there were slightly different stories, which is very good. At least they tried to do something, despite the monotonous cover. Secondly, the actors disappointed me terribly, as if everyone was paralyzed. The only Claire Holt did her part, maybe not by all 10 points, but much better than the others. The main character did not surprise me at all, maybe in the beginning acting appeared, but in the middle and in the end I saw only an open mouth.
Anyway, I wasted my time. I wish I had seen the first one.
If it had been called differently, if it had changed a few lines in the script, I don’t think it would have caused so much distress. With the original, it has little in common, but it is very similar to most stamped American comedies.
Revisit it is unlikely to want, but, nevertheless, the film is easy to watch and leaves only a few comments. They're different for everyone. For example, I didn’t like Mandy’s “joke” on Joe’s father, which was disgusting of her. Plus, Mandy doesn’t look like a “queen,” but rather like her friend who should be in the shadows. And smoothly moving on to the topic of friends, I want to say this: the heroine of Claire Holt was not very pleased. Too stupid, even for the image of a fool. She looks more like our Svetka Bukina from Happy Together. And the second girl, Hope (Nicole Gale Anderson) is too concerned about the absence of microbes around her. This seems very unlikely.
The cast was not very impressed, but also did not disappoint. Actors in places did not play, although American youth comedies such an effect is quite characteristic, so there is nothing to be particularly disappointed.
Again, this film should not be treated as a sequel to "Mean Girls" otherwise, your disappointment in it is guaranteed by 85%.
7 out of 10
A very sweet and touching American comedy about school. Undoubtedly, it is nothing outstanding, such films about the American school Americans themselves shot a lot. Despite this, comedy has its charm and charm.
I was surprised by the title, Mean Girls 2. The cast is completely different, but the beginning is the same - most likely, for the first part of the film was invented two options for the development of events, and the creators could not choose one, so the light and there was a sequel.
Despite the fact that the ending was clear at once, and that the ending is the plot itself, the film is pleasant and easy to watch when there is nothing to do and just want to relax. This film is about teenagers and for teenagers, shot in the best traditions of this genre, but nevertheless it is an ordinary dummy. If you try not to compare it with the first part, it is quite an interesting final product.