Bad Girls (1994)

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Beautifully underrated film. Maybe that's a good thing, keeps it a hidden gem. This film portrays rich sensitivity and human relations told through the story of woman as protagonists who have gone' bad'. You really feel for the main characters and want them to succeed. The men play as side lines to the women but the 2 male characters are portrayed as sensitive and caring even though they are masculine and rugged. The actors and actresses are beautiful to look at, aesthetically pleasing to the eye especially the guy who plays Josh and drew Barrymore. The acting is excellent and believable. The characters make you cry and really connect with them. A true test of good quality acting. It made me cry in the end and left me feeling nostalgic. The cinematography is stunning too and the sound track matches the films emotional tone. It's amazing how great films get underrated and poorly rated, yet mind numbingly stupid violent films for the sake of violence and sex, get very highly rated on IMDb and elsewhere. Similar to the trash churned out in the music industry that gets all the air play, but the quality artists get pushed to the back. That's fine, it leaves them for the highly intelligent and highly evolved humans to enjoy like rare fruits.

This is actually a fairly handsomely mounted and rather traditional western, if it wasn't for the unrelenting glamorousness of the protagonists. Even when they are dirty, you get the impression that it's designer dirt.But that's OK, because the glam factor is one of the things which sells this western.It sure isn't the story, because there are few surprises (although, to be fair, there are a couple of moments which aren't entirely expected).The confusing thing is that the movie is resolutely feminist, yet trades on the very un-feminist element of hot chicks. I suppose this enables it to appeal to two apparently contradictory demographics.The movie is a romp, which makes it a touch puzzling that Madelyn Stowe plays it very straight and serious.But, taking everything into consideration, it is entertaining, undemanding, and easy on the eyes.

It's a western thus the most restricted genre in movie: it's one location at an exact time: the Wild Wild West during the 19th. Technoclogy is lacking, horses are the only way of traveling, the daily life is harsh, homes are rusty, dusty.So it's not vacations and unless a great idea or great talent, when you see 1 western, you have seen all! Here, the surprise would be that the main characters are 4 strong willed women, bound together by their cruel past of male domination. To affirm themselves, they got to beat a vile bandit! But, the trick doesn't work: The bandit is dull and boring and the bad girls are rare: Madeleine Stowe is the only one, having a grumpy face the entire movie! The others are rather kind, especially MacDowell.In conclusion, I prefer "Bandidas»!

Madeleine Stowe, as Cody Zamora, is a hooker who shoots a man in self defense. Being what she is, that is to say, not being Mother Teresa, she doesn't generate much sympathy in this rough-riding town and the good citizens decide to hang her. "Get on with it," she tells them with Promethean contempt. They're about to do just that when three other young women of dubious repute rescue her at the last minute and ride off. In pursuit are a variety of justice seekers, including Pinkertons and other law types, one or two of them, such as Dermot Mulroney and James LeGros aren't too bad. On the trail they run into the Jarrett Gang. Some of the bad girls, and some of the pursuers as well, carry baggage with them related to the Jarrett Gang. There is a violent shoot out.Now, we must note here that the writers weren't reaching too far for original character names. The leader of the girls is Cody Zamora, whereas the leader of the Gang is Kid Jarrett. I'd be surprised if the writers hadn't seen James Cagney in "White Heat" as a gang leader named Cody Jarrett. At least there were no Wades or Coles or Lukes or Matts, although there was a bad guy named Yuma, which is pretty bad.In fact, though, all four of the bad girls could as easily have been men, or more easily. They WOULD have been men back in the 1950s or 1960s. But then I suppose the Jarrett Gang wouldn't have had an opportunity to treat Drew Barrymore to a lesson in Tough Love. At that, though, this is a BIG improvement over "Westward the Women," with Robert Taylor as a sadistic wagonmaster hired to cart a caravan of would-be wives out to a female-starved Western outpost. Taylor consistently treats his wards like dirt and actually whips some of them when they don't work hard enough. There's nothing original here except the gender of the four leads. There is some suggested nudity but no simulated sex or anything else to pique one's interest. They just seem to have rounded up four popular actresses and thrown them into a well-worn dusty rut. The climactic gunplay is lifted straight out of "The Wild Bunch", as are a couple of slow-motion gunshots. No reason for it, except that it had been done before.I thank the whole tenor of the pitcher is captured when there is a scene of them four hoorah gals a-settin' around the camp fire and a-havin' a peaceful chat. All four of them is exquisitely dressed and unimpeachably groomed with modern hair styles and make up in full panoply. Not a hair out of place, y'know? But the make up department has very carefully brushed a comely taupe area on one cheek or a smear of raw sienna across some otherwise impeccable forehead. That's dust and dirt from the road. They been on the trail fer quite a spell. And they talk like they just graduated from Wellesley. (That's this here classy college back East, kids.) Not a single "g" is dropped at the end of a word like "nothing," or -- as we rawboned cowboys like to call it -- "NUTHIN." How can writers and directors be so careless, so contemptuous of viewers? Or maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe they have a different audience in mind. But if so, what is it?