New Best Friend (2001) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

Scoop's notes in white:

Mousy good poor girl turns evil under the tutelage of campus rich-bitch goddesses. There is an overdose. There is foul play.

The story is told in whodunit form, as a flashback, with each of the witnesses narrating her own version of the past. There is some mystery, but you will not care at any time who did it.


Dominique Swain shows her breasts in two scenes, the first a lesbian encounter, the second with a couple in a threesome.

There is a large-breasted anonymous women whose bosom is uncovered in Swain's second topless scene

Scott Bairstow shoes his buns in the locker room, along with two or three anonymous male extras.

DVD info from Amazon

Commentary by director Zoe Clarke-Williams
Theatrical trailer(s)
Full-screen and widescreen anamorphic formats

A critical and box office fiasco (7% good reviews, Metacritic summary 6/100), and rightfully so. 

Unwatchable except for the nudity and sex scenes.

Tuna's thoughts in yellow:

New Best Friend (2002) is a girl from the wrong side of the tracks tries to fit in with the beautiful people story. The setting is a southern college, and, as the film starts, Mia Kirshner, the girl, is in a coma caused by an overdose of cocaine. The investigating officer is a black temporary chief who is expected to investigate to keep the mother quiet, but not make any waves. The entire film is flashbacks showing how Kirshner was paired with one of the in crowd for a school project. They took her in, cleaned her up, and introduced her to their friends. They also taught her about sex and drugs.

Dominique Swain as one of the girls shows her breasts during and after a lesbian scene with Kirshner, and again at the end of the film, waking up with a man and a woman, in what was originally intended to be the title sequence at the beginning of the film. It didn't matter where you stuck the nude scene, nothing could help this film. What is supposed to be a mystery thriller is neither mysterious nor thrilling, and is not even a good character exploration of these southern bell coeds. Reviews are universally bad, and IMDB readers say 4.6 of 10. The film does look very good, with a campus draped with Spanish moss, and good set decoration in the interiors. What a shame they couldn't come up with a story to make the technical achievement worthwhile.

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: 1/5


The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 5.0/10
  • with their dollars ... It grossed $28,000 on 100 screens; was reviewed mercilessly; was pulled. Assuming a ticket price of seven dollars, 4000 people saw it. Assuming 21 showings per screen per week, it was shown 2100 times. That is slightly less than two people per screening!
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a E. This thing is awful, whether viewed as a whodunit or a youthploitation pic. (Tuna C-)

Return to the Movie House home page