10 Years of Mean Girls

No, I didn't see Mean Girls 10 years ago when it first came out. I do remember it popping up in all of the little pre-tween magazines that I used to hoard, but I never saw it until it popped up on TV one day in 2007. I recorded it off the TV on one of those gigantic fossils we used to call videotapes. Unfortunately, the first three minutes cut out of my recording, so I never saw those first three minutes until I bought it on DVD a year later. Yet, I didn't need those three minutes. Mean Girls was, and forever will be, my favourite high school comedy of all time. Hell, probably even my favourite comedy of all time. Why?

Because 7 years since I first saw it, I'm pretty positive there hasn't been a day go by that I haven't quoted it in some way. Like seriously, there is a quote for every life situation:

When someone does well with something: "You go, Glen Coco!"

When someone asks someone else why they're white: "Oh my god Karen, you can't just ask people why they're white."

When you're a mother: "I'm not like a regular mom, I'm a cool mom."

When it's raining: "There's a 30% chance that it's already raining!"

When you don't want to go out with someone: "I can't go out *fake coughs* I'm sick."

When someone annoys you: "Boo, you whore."

Possible valedictory speech: "I'm sorry that people are so jealous of me...but I can't help it that I'm so popular."

When needing to do a rap: "Yo yo yo all you sucker MC's ain't got nothing on me! From my grades, to my lines you can't touch Kevin G! I'm a mathlete, so nerd is inferred, but forget what you heard I'm like James Bond the third, sh-sh-sh-shaken not stirred - I'm Kevin Gnapoor! The G's silent when I sneak through your door. And make love to your woman on the bathroom floor. I don't play it like Shaggy, you'll know it was me. Cause the next time you see her she'll be like, OOH! KEVIN G!"

Literally the entire script is quotable. The entire thing.

Do You Hear the People Sing?

Les Miserables (2012) / UK / Out in cinemas now / Directed by Tom Hooper / Written by William Nicholson, based on the musical by Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Boublil and the novel by Victor Hugo / Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter / 157 mins

Les Miserables is a tough egg to crack. For any newbies, going along for a quiet Tuesday matinee of Tom Hooper's film adaptation might find themselves a little disconnected, jaded by the amount of topics it burns through and wondering how people got to be where they are. I am one of those people who are a Les Miserables 'veteran'. A couple of years back, I did the make-up for the stage production that was in town. This was a huge deal for Dannevirke, since the cast could probably be made up of our entire population, the budget was high and we were putting on one of the most professional productions this town has ever seen. While I never actually got to see the production on stage as I spent most of my time backstage, I'd seen enough rehearsals and heard enough of the songs to have them etched into my memory. Going into Les Mis, I was in the mindset that I'd love it - to be honest, this was another one of those War Horse cases but since the end of my blogging is nigh I won't be defending it quite as vociferously - and I did. That's because I knew what the story involved. People must bear in mind that the book is over 1000 pages long, and then the musical is over 3 hours long. So condensing this enormous story with lots going on into a cinematic spectacle for a modern audience was always going to be difficult, and it succeeds, for the most part - probably just for us Les Mis fans.

A Conversation with Mean Girls

Earlier this evening, I felt like I'd failed you all because I didn't have a movie to converse with. And then the brilliant Nikhat came to me at my hour of need and said "Oh you should totally do one with Mean Girls. It'll be so fetch ;-)" Fetch it would be. In case you don't know, I freaking love Mean Girls - it is definitely one of my absolute favourite films of all time. And not a day goes by where I don't quote it. This should be fun...

CHRISTOPHER: After being tormented by Greek Gods, robots, and a cat wearing boots, I'm ready to talk to a movie about normal people. 
MEAN GIRLS: You go Glenn Coco!

C: My name is not Glenn Coco.
MG: Well then, what is it?

C: Christopher. 
MG: What? Crisp-oaf-her?

C: No, just Christopher. As it sounds. 
MG: My apologies. I have a nephew named Anfernee, and I know how mad he gets when I call him Anthony. Almost as mad as I get when I think about the fact that my sister named him Anfernee.

C: ...Okay. Tell us all a bit about yourself.
MG: I am the guide to being a girl. I will teach you everything. For example:
-Butter is a carb.
-Halloween is the holiday where a girl can dress up like a total slut and no-one will say anything about it.
-You can't do to Taco Bell if you're on an all-carb diet.
-Everyone in Africa knows Swedish.
-Fetch is not going to happen.
-Joining mathletes is social suicide.
-Jingle Bell Rock is the best song you can perform at Christmas time. 
-Ex-boyfriends are off limits to friends. That's just like the rules of feminism.
-Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die! Don't have sex in the missionary position, don't have sex standing up, just don't do it, OK, promise?

C: Sounds very...interesting.
MG: Oh, and there's a 30% chance that it's already raining. 

C: Really? How do you figure that?
MG: I'm kinda psychic. I have a fifth sense. It's like I have ESPN or something. My breasts can always tell when it is going to rain. Or, at least, when it is raining.

C: That's a real talent. 
MG: I know, I bet you're jealous. I mean, I'm sorry that everyone's so jealous of me. I can't help it if I'm popular.

C: I'm sure you can't. 
MG: You want to hear a rap?

C: I'm sure you're going to do it anyway.
MG: Yo Yo Yo! All you sucka MCs ain't got nothin' on me! From my grades, to my lines you can't touch Kevin G! I'm a mathlete, so nerd is inferred, but forget what you heard I'm like James Bond the third, sh-sh-sh-shaken not stirred - I'm Kevin Gnapoor! The G's silent when I sneak through your door. And make love to your woman on the bathroom floor. I don't play it like Shaggy, you'll know it was me. Cause the next time you see her she'll be like, OOH! KEVIN G!

C: Wow, that was inspiring. But I thought joining mathletes was social suicide.
MG: Only if you're a girl. And preferably don't make up rap songs. So not fetch.

C: And I thought fetch was never going to happen?
MG: People thought that Lindsay Lohan was going to happen, but she didn't.

C: So fetch is going to happen?
MG: It is going to happen just like Rachel McAdams does in dreary romantic dramas.

C: But Regina George said it was going to happen...
MG: And of course you'd believe that. You've probably felt personally victimised by Regina George.

C: Yes, I have. Who hasn't?
MG: Exactly. Her face smells like a foot, anyway.

C: So in this interview, we've covered the rules of being a girl, that your breasts can tell when it is raining, and you've performed a rap song. Anything else you need to say?
MG: On Wednesdays we wear pink.

What I got (obviously):

I like you, but I don't like your movies: Amanda Seyfried

When I was thinking about my chances of see Red Riding Hood, I could only put it down to one thing: I like Amanda Seyfried, and she is the prime reason as to why I'd see this. I've always admired Miss Seyfried, and usually always watch a movie which she's in. But then I had a little think. I don't really like any of her movies. And that got me thinking even further. Can Amanda be one of my favourite actresses even though I don't like any of her movies? Let's take a look at the movies of hers that I have seen, and I'll weigh up my options: to like or not to like?

Tier One: I actually do like this one.

Mean Girls is one of my favourite movies of all time. While Rachel McAdams is undoubtedly the stand out in this movie, Amanda does a brilliant job in her first feature film as the really stupid Karen. There's dumb, then there's so dumb air is the only thing in ones head, and then there is Karen. In an ethical world, we shouldn't really laugh at ones misfortune, Amanda makes Karen Smith kinda likeable, but still really stupid. Like, a lovable kind of stupid. And, without our Karen, we wouldn't have known that this wasn't true:

"So, you have your cousins, and then you have your first cousins, and then you have your second cousins..."

 And, of course, if all else fails in life, you can use your breasts to find out whether it's raining or not. Karen is like the forgotten heroine of Mean Girls.

Tier two - I don't mind you, but I could do without you.

Okay, I admit, I do like Mamma Mia! Well...I did. I haven't seen it in two years. But seriously, I watched it a lot back in 2008, and I could sing you every one of the songs in that goddamn movie. Oh, and you wouldn't want to try and beat me at ABBA Singstar, because I rock at that. However, because half of the cast can't sing, Mamma Mia! is a painful experience for many. However, Amanda can sing, even though she comes across as trying a little too hard. She's pretty sweet in this movie, as she is in any movie, which is probably why she has built up this persona as the 'sweetest girl on the block'. She's a likeable heroine for such an annoying story, and the fact that her and Dominic Cooper click so well makes it so much easier to watch. I did feel like she couldn't quite stand up to all the talent around her (The Streep, Pierce 'I can't sing' Brosnan, Colin 'King of the World' Firth and Eric off True Blood's daddy), but she made a good effort. And that's all we can ask of Amanda. No matter what everyone says, Mamma Mia! is still great fun.

Here's another guilty Amanda entry...I did quite enjoy Jennifer's Body, but only to a certain point. I would never watch this shit again. Ever. I mean, it has Megan Fox in it. She was horribly terrible in that film. Absolutely horribly terrible. Then there's lots of strange sexualized horror in there which doesn't make any sense at all, and the story is effing terrible. Plus, not being homophobic at all, but there's random lesbian kissing which doesn't make any sense at all to the story. And the end is bloody annoying. Even though everything is so goddamn awful, now I remember it, I really quite enjoyed it. I don't know how, but I did. And I believe that most of that enjoyment came from Amanda Seyfried, because out of everyone in the film, she was the one who could act the most. Not that she had much competition. This is quite a random film to have on her filmography, as it required her to go back to high school long after she'd left, but the fact that it was written by Oscar winning Juno scribe Diablo Cody does give it some credentials. Anyway, this, on paper, must be one of her worst flicks.

Tier three - Dear God, you suck!

Alright, alright. I get why a lot of people would dig Dear John. It has a sad story, I admit. It has a father with mental issues, which is the kind of character I always get attached to. It has that hot buff guy from Step Up. BUT IT'S WRITTEN BY NICHOLAS SPARKS. Therefore, it is awful. Before I launch into a huge rant on why Nicholas Sparks is the most annoying man to have anything to do with literature, I'll say this: how is it that this man can ruin our lives with his horribly schmaltzy pieces of work and still give us enough to get a wee bit emotional at the end of all his films? I hate myself every time I feel like crying at the end of a Nicholas Sparks movie. Which is why I avoid them like the plague. I thought Dear John would somehow be different, since it has such likeable stars like Amanda and Channing, along with back up from Richard Jenkins. Mind you, The Notebook had suck likeable stars as Rachel McAdams, Ryan Gosling and James Marsden, and it was still annoying. Dear John was just so boring. And to think that this was the film that knocked Avatar off the top of the box office. Do cinemagoers really like being bored like that these days? Amanda shone, though, which was the main thing.

Ah...it's like deja vu. Amanda seems to like her letters. First she stars in Mamma Mia! which opens with a scene of letter postin'. Then she stars in Dear John, which is like a romance told through letters. To round it all off she stars in Letters to Juliet, which is pretty much a film about letters. God help us when she discovers emails. I actually regard this one as a better film than Dear John, even though you could pretty much watch the trailer and know exactly what was going to happen in the film. But, like Dear John, this movie is bland. Just really, really bland. And totes forgettable. Because, since when were a whole lot of letters to someone who never existed in the first place an interesting plotline? Never. But when you have Amanda in the lead role, things just seem better already.

Chloe must be one of Amanda's better performances. The movie is pretty bland, and pretty awful (even though it has Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson in it), but Amanda's out of character turn as a high class hooker was actually pretty good. Even though I'm sure 55% of her performance is based on her being so good looking. Chloe is such a strange character, which I think Amanda played with really well. And this film managed to take all the sweetness out of her and make her a less than innocent being. Which was nice, considering that this is such a change of scene for young Amanda, but the rest of the film was pretty stupid, so it doesn't exactly offer fireworks and what not for her career. Though, to the minority of people who did check this Atom Egoyan flick out, she'll remain as the most memorable thing in this otherwise forgettable work.

What lies in the future for Amanda? Is she better than all of this?

I know that Red Riding Hood is a very present movie, but it's very futuristic for me since I'm waiting for the DVD release. But I've heard quite a bit of praise for Amanda's work, even though this looks like crap. Which is exactly why I thought of this post. She's always good, but her movies? No. Her next movie is one called Now, previously known as I'm.Mortal, which also stars Justin Timberlake, Olivia Wilde and Cillian Murphy. If it has Cillian Murphy in it, it has to be good. And I like the look of it's plot: a world where aging stops at 25 years old. Yeah, Nicole Kidman would like a world like that, too. Then she wouldn't have to use all of that botox.
P.S. Notice how Amanda is sitting in Cillian Murphy's chair? She's great, but not that great.

I think Amanda is still a pretty cool actress, but I'd place her well outside my most favourite actresses since her filmography isn't anything to scream about. But who knows? I think she could pick up an Oscar nomination before she retires.

What are your thoughts on Amanda Seyfried? Is she a yay or nay for you?

DVD--Chloe

or: Getting the wrong idea.

One word to sum it up: Strange.

Julianne Moore. Liam Neeson. Amanda Seyfried. All very good actors. Especially Julianne Moore. Putting them all together in a film would seem like one of those once-in-a-lifetime ideas which would require some really special material, right? And especially seeing as this isn't a film with a guy trying to find his identity or kicking ass, it would have to be special to get Liam Neeson hooked in, yes? That's the odd thing about Chloe. It is a strange film, and it is about as strange as it is awkward to watch. It seems Hollywood has decided to churn out more and more psychosexual thrillers by the year and the more they have, the stranger and more confused they get. Chloe is a perfect example of that.

Catherine (Julianne Moore) and David (Liam Neeson), she a doctor, he a professor, are at first glance the perfect couple. Happily married with a talented teenage son, they appear to have an idyllic life. But when David misses a flight and his surprise birthday party, Catherine's long simmering suspicions rise to the surface. Suspecting infidelity, she decides to hire an escort (Amanda Seyfried) to seduce her husband and test his loyalty. Catherine finds herself 'directing' Chloe's encounters with David, and Chloe's end of the bargain is to report back, the descriptions becoming increasingly graphic as the meetings multiply.

Don't get me wrong, Chloe is an alright movie. It's premise is interesting. But unfortunately, it doesn't quite equal the sum of its parts. Everything just feels crumby and hard to get into. Like, the characters were really strange. Catherine was so unsure of herself that at her age it seemed strange. We never really learnt whether David was a good person or not. And Chloe? Well, Chloe was a whole other phenomena. The way she 'dealt with things' and was obsessed with this 'business transaction' was something that is completely possible in film, but there were all these fragments of her which were missing. Those fragments were some standard pieces of characterization, and that kinda dragged things down for me.

Atom Egoyan directs this with some eerie shots which is backed up with some echoey music that makes the film seem even more hollow, if that makes any sense. There is no denying that Egoyan has a lot of talent, but he perhaps makes this movie more 'dreamy' than it needs to be, but come to think of it, that is a nice a touch considering a great deal of what is in this movie is entirely fictional to the story. As for the performances, they are good. Amanda Seyfried really comes into her own and doesn't fall behind next to her co stars. I'm really liking the look of her future career from here on, but there's that certain part of her, especially in this movie, that won't ever see her become a serious Oscar winning sort of actress. I guess time will tell. Liam Neeson is barely in the film, due to the fact that most of it was cut out when his wife unexpectedly died while he was on set. However, when he's there, he is Liam Neeson, and that's all that matters. Julianne Moore, however, is our knight is shining armour. She is luminous in this role, and even though her character is poorly written, Moore rises above like she does in any one of her films. And this was a hard film for her to rise above on.

THE VERDICT: Being as confused as it was, Chloe feels like a missed opportunity and feels below quality.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

DVD--Boogie Woogie

or: Life imitating art.

One word to sum it up: Off-the-mark

No, Boogie Woogie isn't a musical sequel to Mamma Mia!, even if it does have Amanda Seyfried and Stellan Skarsgard in it. Rather, it will say it's one of those films which adopt multi plots so try and represent a certain happening (in this case, the London art scene). In reality, it's just all about sex. Because, allegedly, that is what art is, these days.

Directed by Duncan Ward, Boogie Woogie is a comedy of manners set against the backdrop of the London contemporary art scene. It begins with Elaine (Jaime Winstone), who is a video artist, trying to get her big break. Her friend Dewey (Alan Cumming) is desperately trying to help her, but when she uses Beth (Heather Graham) to get there, Dewey is hit hard. Beth works for an art buyer, Art (Danny Huston), who is trying to buy a painting entitled 'Boogie Woogie' off an ailing millionaire (Christopher Lee) and his wife (Joanna Lumley), but he has competition: Bob (Stellan Skarsgard) and Jean (Gillian Anderson) Maclestone. However, the bitter divorce that comes for Bob and Jean puts their entire art collection at stake, and the future of the 'Boogie Woogie' is put in jeopardy. Paige (Amanda Seyfried), the new assistant to Art, has an agenda of her own.

One of the things I really dislike about multi-plot films is that some stories seem to get lost among the more prioritized stories. Boogie Woogie seems to fall into this trap, but handles the several stories quite well, admittedly. What becomes the undoing of this film, though, is the weird, slightly warped, satirical view it has on the art scene. It's undoubtedly filled with many misrepresentations which come straight from the way Hollywood has built a stereotype for these types of people. This sees every single character in this movie trying to claw their way to the top, which is kinda annoying because there aren't any straight down-to-earth people. It's missing that right sense of balance, and doesn't really give you an indication of whether this is a film to be taken seriously or not. If you take it seriously, then it becomes quite an interesting ride through these horrible stock characters lives; even then, there are those moments which are telling you not to take it seriously, so it's easy to get confused.

The cast in Boogie Woogie is beyond fantastic, and their performances just about match that. They offer all that you could expect, but feel somewhat let down by the really bad cinematography and second rate script. There is one scene where Charlotte Rampling is telling Gillian Anderson about taking all she can get off her husband, which is simply fantastic. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie can't live up to that one scene, especially when it starts throwing sex around like a tennis ball and even tries to use shock value as a way to draw the viewer in. Luckily, it goes at a very fast pace, which is at least refreshing, and doesn't seem to dwell on one thing for very long.


THE VERDICT: Going at a fast pace with many characters, Boogie Woogie often gets lost in the message it's trying to convey, and proves too cynical for some.

4/10

DVD--Letters to Juliet

or: Another Amanda Seyfried movie with letters.

One word to sum it up: Ummmmmmmmmm.

If you have seen the Letters to Juliet trailer, I think you may feel like you have already seen the whole movie. I mean, I didn't know how they could possibly turn that 2 minutes of trailer into a whole 100 minute film. To my surprise, the trailer was missing some of the film, but you could get the basic storyline, from beginning to end, in the trailer. So instead of doing a plot synopsis, here's the trailer. Oh, and I guess I should put here *spoiler alert*.

While Letters to Juliet had a nice enough story (by that I mean the actual 'letters to Juliet' and Vanessa Redgrave finding her true love), that didn't excuse how cliched it was. One of my friends asked me how the movie was, and this is what I said: "It was amazingly cliched, as predictable as our main street in town, and the script was so awkward it made Paulie Bleeker look normal." Then I later tweeted: "Wow...Letters to Juliet has some of the bigest twists and turns I have seen since...Valentine's Day." I think either of those two statements rightly sum up Letters to Juliet. It may offer a little more than the usual romantic film, but it sure doesn't strain itself to set itself apart from the crowd.

I wish Amanda Seyfried would take on some better roles. I mean, look at this: three of her films, Letters, Dear John and Mamma Mia have all had letters playing a more prominent role than her. I say send an email and get it over with. There are only so many times we can see Amanda all puffy from crying over love. Also, I think the film over did the role that Gael Garcia Bernal had. If he was really that ignorant, then why would Sophie stay engaged to him? Christopher Egan wasn't that much better. If anything, this film suffers from some bad characterization and limp dialogue, but there is still Vanessa Redgrave's story to swoon over. That's true romance, right there.

THE VERDICT: Romance fans will love it, but even they might have a hard time not noticing the outward awkwardness of this film. And they may feel like they have seen it all before.

4/10

Dear John

"Love brought them together. Fate will tear them apart."-the tagline which launched Dear John, another shamelessly romantic adaption of a cliched Nicholas Sparks novel. This and The Last Song confirm 2010 to be just another year where all the romance movies are pretty much the same: shallow, below-average and curiously chesmistry free.
One summer, a soldier on leave, John (Channing Tatum) meets a sweet girl on holiday from college, Savannah (Amanda Seyfried). In the two weeks they are together, they fall madly in love, but John soon has to leave Savannah to return to Iraq. To keep in touch, they write letters to tell each other what they have been doing so they don't feel so apart. But being apart for so long definitely strains their relationship.
There were two major faults with this movie which let it down immensely: Firstly, I simply couldn't believe in this relationship that John and Savannah had. Whether it was because Amanda Seyfried just didn't look right with Channing Tatum, and Tatum himself isn't cut out for a romance movie; or maybe this movie doesn't give their relationship a lot to chew on. To be honest, I was more interested in John's relationship with his father, who was wonderfully played by Richard Jenkins. Secondly, throughout the whole movie, nothing substantial happens. There is basically nothing to it. I felt like it hadn't started even though I had been watching it for an hour. All I knew was that John and Savannah were together, then they grew apart, and they found each other after a while.
Despite these two flaws, I still enjoyed it a bit, especially Richard Jenkins performance and the sweetness of Amanda Seyfried. I guess guys will get something out of this too, since there are some war scenes. I mean, this isn't The Hurt Locker, but they are perfectly adequate for a romance film. If anything, I came out of the film less than satisfied, but I definitely liked it a lot more than The Last Song. It's just a shame that director Lasse Hallstrom has reduced himself to directing stuff like this, unlike his best work What's Eating Gilbert Grape.

Cliched and plotless, Dear John just doesn't quite get started and the end leaves you less than satisfied.
4/10

Things I love about Mean Girls...

Mean Girls has to be one of the funniest high school movies ever made, and has completely defined my generation. Sure, it could have just been another teen comedy, but being written by Tina Fey, it's not. It is smart and captures what high school is all about: bitches, bitches, and more bitches. Hey, my high school doesn't really have a group as harsh as the Plastics, but there are people like them in every school.

Instead of going all out on a review, coz you have probably seen it (if you haven't, GO GET IT OUT NOW! You better be gone now...come back later!), I will unleash another 'Things I love review' (maybe a recurring feature on this blog??). I know that most of the following five things are mainly cast related, but that's because the cast is so amazing and they are the biggest contributors to the greatness of the movie. So anyway, enjoy=)

Wow, Lindsay Lohan used to be an actress?
Hard to believe. I'm really thinking that the Lindsay Lohan in this is completely different to the Lindsay Lohan that we see nowadays. It's a real shame because she used to be an alright actress, and the jobs she does manage to scruff up (i.e. Labour Pains) aren't very well received, and basically, no-one even knows they exist. I guess people kinda went off her after I Know Who Killed Me. However in Mean Girls, she makes the role of Cady someone to sympathize with...she is really just a jungle freak who somehow manages to make herself popular. Without the Plastics she probably would have been the same jungle freak.

Rachel McAdams as the mean girl.

She was 27 years old at the time of filming yet still managed to play the part of a teenager so believably, and I'm sure she is a lovely person, but I don't think I have ever hated a character as much as I hated Regina George. Okay, maybe it wasn't hate, because I loved watching her. But Rachel McAdams was definitely the stand out in this movie, by far. Like Regina George, whenever someone was near her, they shrivelled up and were soon forgotten. It's hard to believe that this is the same girl who was in The Notebook in the same year. What a fine, under-rated actress she is. She should so play another super-bitch.

Let's not forget the other mean girls.

I don't think Lacey Chabert has ever had another film like Mean Girls, as I have only seen her floating around the dark corners of straight-to-DVD-land. But she is perfect in this film as Gretchen Weiners, a girl who has everything from her rich daddy but will do anything to make sure she stays in the Plastics and doesn't look like a loner. I know a few people who are like her...they don't like who they are hanging out with but they feel they have to so they can get higher social status. Pretty sad, but that's the way 'girl-world' works. Then there is Amanda Seyfried, who plays dumb girl Karen. I think Karen is perhaps the most entertaining character out of the lot, and believe it or not, I actually know some people as stupid as her. This is definitely Seyfried's finest hour, as the romantic drivel she has been starring in lately (ah, Mamma Mia!, Dear John and Letters to Juliet) have only proved her sweetness but not her talent.

Tina Fey wrote a funny script and then she played a funny character.

Ms. Norbury is a teacher I would like to have. She's just so unsure of herself but can be really funny at the same time. She is like the other characters in this film, and I think what Tina Fey has done with this film is taken real life and made it funny. Everyone is unsure of themselves, and they have to find ways to get over that. And they get over it in different ways, but the outcome is always funny.

I watch it all the time and have never, ever, get bored with it.
Just everything about it is so funny and so easy to relate to. Trust me, I could watch this 1000 times and never be bored. I think you get the point.

I absolutely love Mean Girls. I don't think that it is wrong to say that this is one of the best films of the last decade. They really shouldn't have made a sequel.