Whether or not one has previously watched the 1973 feature of the same name, of which this is a remake, 'Satan's school for girls' immediately gives a certain impression - not a good one, I'm afraid to say. From the start it dresses up the narrative with its own flavor - small moments or scenes to round out the narrative with an updated sense of style. As it does so there's a direct frankness to the writing and direction that's dubious, and only worsens as the picture stretches on. The emphatic use of special effects seem to reflect a clear effort to cash in on supernatural-themed TV series of the late 90s and early 00s including 'Charmed,' 'Buffy the vampire slayer,' and 'Angel.' These and other visual effects are a little questionable - fine, I suppose, when employed sparingly, but the more we see of them (especially at the climax), the worse they look.
The 2000 TV movie readily dates itself with songs heard in passing on the soundtrack, and a pointed reference to a government leader and relationships with interns. Beyond the special effects, even the small touches of flair with which scenes are presented feel particular to the timeframe, and ham-handed: insertion of additional male characters (a love interest, because of course), the requisite scattering of birds to startle the protagonist, kitschy expositional dialogue, and more. The camerawork and editing is less than subtle, and plot development no less.
Though I'm not specifically familiar with her, Shannon Doherty has a long list of credits in film and especially television that makes her a prime candidate to be this feature's protagonist. I like Julie Benz, and I'll happily take any opportunity to watch her in something; indeed, here she obviously relishes the space her role allows her to play in, and it's a joy to watch her. Still, however - Doherty, Benz, and their co-stars are limited by the terrible blunt forthrightness of the screenplay and otherwise execution, showing everything to us with unwelcome brazen plainness. More than that: the 1973 version of 'Satan's school for girls' exceeded the bounds of its format with strong writing and performances. This 2000 rendition works so hard to embellish the core narrative with its own distinguishing flourishes and flashy effects that the story and the cast get lost in the process. What then was a brisk and engaging tale is here mostly reduced to tawdry, middling pablum.
It's not all bad. The slight twist that 2000's movie puts on its progenitor's narrative had its own potential. The assembled actors do the best they can under the circumstances. But there is simply not enough value here to outweigh many other elements that range from suspect to subpar. There are worse things you could watch, and if you're an especial fan of someone in the cast - sure, have at it, I guess. If you're a particular fan of the 1973 film I'm less certain about a recommendation, and likewise for viewers at large. 2000's 'Satan's school for girls' is a very mildly entertaining remake that just tries too hard, and is worse for it.
The 2000 TV movie readily dates itself with songs heard in passing on the soundtrack, and a pointed reference to a government leader and relationships with interns. Beyond the special effects, even the small touches of flair with which scenes are presented feel particular to the timeframe, and ham-handed: insertion of additional male characters (a love interest, because of course), the requisite scattering of birds to startle the protagonist, kitschy expositional dialogue, and more. The camerawork and editing is less than subtle, and plot development no less.
Though I'm not specifically familiar with her, Shannon Doherty has a long list of credits in film and especially television that makes her a prime candidate to be this feature's protagonist. I like Julie Benz, and I'll happily take any opportunity to watch her in something; indeed, here she obviously relishes the space her role allows her to play in, and it's a joy to watch her. Still, however - Doherty, Benz, and their co-stars are limited by the terrible blunt forthrightness of the screenplay and otherwise execution, showing everything to us with unwelcome brazen plainness. More than that: the 1973 version of 'Satan's school for girls' exceeded the bounds of its format with strong writing and performances. This 2000 rendition works so hard to embellish the core narrative with its own distinguishing flourishes and flashy effects that the story and the cast get lost in the process. What then was a brisk and engaging tale is here mostly reduced to tawdry, middling pablum.
It's not all bad. The slight twist that 2000's movie puts on its progenitor's narrative had its own potential. The assembled actors do the best they can under the circumstances. But there is simply not enough value here to outweigh many other elements that range from suspect to subpar. There are worse things you could watch, and if you're an especial fan of someone in the cast - sure, have at it, I guess. If you're a particular fan of the 1973 film I'm less certain about a recommendation, and likewise for viewers at large. 2000's 'Satan's school for girls' is a very mildly entertaining remake that just tries too hard, and is worse for it.