Foxfire is Annette Haywood-Carter’s first feature, made two years after her debut with The Foot Shooting Party, a short film starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Bradley Gregg. The story follows five girls who form a bond after a mysterious drifter helps them confront a teacher’s misconduct. This outsider quickly becomes the catalyst for the group’s formation, pushing them to stand up for themselves in her own unique way. It marks the first screen adaptation of Joyce Carol Oates’s 1993 novel Foxfire: Confessions of a Girl Gang.

Though Foxfire isn’t perfect, it leaves a strong visual and emotional impression. The film’s main strength is a strong cast that delivers very solid performances across the board, with Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Legs standing out as a magnetic mix of strength and vulnerability—she commands attention in every scene, yet you can feel the weight of her past dragging just beneath the surface. The direction delivers some striking visual choices, capturing the raw tension and quiet intimacy between characters with confidence. The composition of the film screams nineties in the best way, having clear influence of the grunge scene’s aesthetic that was so prevalent at the time. This setting compliments the atmosphere and the dark themes the movie touches on, and adds an eerie feel of abandonment present during most of the film.

Michel Colombier’s soundtrack (known for The Inheritor, Surrender) blends seamlessly with the film’s mood, balancing energy and introspection. Tracks from Rose Chronicles, The Crossfires, and The Cramps enhance the era’s edge, while the audio mix supports the film’s naturalistic tone.

Though the pacing wavers at times, occasionally feeling like it’s dragging or rushing, but the atmosphere remains compelling.

However, the film diverges heavily from its source material. Originally, with Mike Figgis attached to direct, the script aimed for greater fidelity to the novel. After his departure, Haywood-Carter requested a new draft, aiming to update the setting and themes for a 1990s audience. She believed a direct adaptation of a 1950s story wouldn’t resonate with contemporary viewers, so the focus shifted toward modern themes that girls could relate to. Ironically, the film’s R rating prevented many young women from seeing it in theaters.

While the novel spans years and explores the gang’s broader evolution, the film condenses events into a few weeks and centers more on the relationship between Legs and Maddy. This choice brings intimacy but sacrifices the depth and complexity of the group dynamic, making some interactions feel forced or underdeveloped. These changes also reduce the urgency of later plot points and dilute some of the social commentary present in the book. The relationship between Maddy (Hedy Burress) and Legs was intentionally portrayed much less ambiguously than the novel does, with a strong undercurrent of affection—whether platonic, romantic, or both.

Despite not being an accurate adaptation of the novel, the film works quite well on its own as a standalone experience. It captures a unique kind of female rage and solidarity that feels raw, flawed, and very human. Jolie’s performance alone makes it worth watching, mostly if you’re into gritty 90s dramas or underappreciated cult films.

I personally enjoyed this movie a lot, it’s a good blend of drama and everyday life with some emotional bite. The movie’s composition, although simple at times, looks stylish and has some fantastic shots. Besides, Jolie looks way too stunning in it not to like.

I’d rate this movie a very solid 7 out of 10. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐