I really, really wanted to like this movie, but the best I can give it is "4" of 10.

Rating: Null/10 (15 February 2001)

This is one rare example where Imdb "user reviews" led me to seeing a film that, to me, is mostly a waste of 90 minutes. No where as good as such "teen" films as "Dick", "Election", "Rushmore", "10 Things I hate About You", or "8 Days a Week." Where do I start??
I saw "Bring It On" on DVD, and the picture and sound are fine. The "extras" add a lot in terms of explanation. The writer, director, and actors all come across as nice, well-intentioned people, and the story's premise has pretty good potential - the new head cheerleader (Dunst) finds out that all their award-winning routines were stolen via videotape from a better but financially-poor team from L.A., and on short notice they are forced to come up with a new routine for nationals in three weeks.
The nice lady who wrote this had no prior movie experience and it shows. The dialog is mostly unrealistic. The script is intended to be mostly comedy, but most often I was simply embarassed for the film. There were very few times I actually chuckled because of something funny. The script is full of genuinely juvenile stuff like "giving the finger", "farting", complex lines like "whatever", very silly sexual references, those sorts of things. Or the hackneyed cliche' of the young black girl displaying "attitude", talking as her head is going back and forth? Old, old, old... A well-written script could have dragged this film all the way up to a "7" on my rating scale.
The second problem is the director. In many sections the film did not flow smoothly. One very poor scene involved one cheerleader paying a surprise visit, bringing money, in the form of a check, to help another team get to nationals. Although in total the resolution was correct, it was exceedingly poorly done. The girl walks in virtually with her hand extended, no normal greeting, no build-up, and the other girl's actions were equally abrupt. There are other examples where it seemed that the writer and director were so focused on the outcome of scenes that they forgot to ask themselves, "does this seem real?", and most of the time it doesn't. When you witness a really good script, and study it a bit, it is a marvel of correct choice of words, and timing. In this film, it is most often just the opposite.
I appreciate very good films, and feel cheated when a poor one like this is put out. It was obvious on the DVD interviews that all involved thought they were making a pretty good film, but to me it all came across as a pretty amateur effort, when put up against all the fine films being produced these days. The director went so far as putting his wife in as a character even though she is not an actor, "just so family and friends could see her in a movie." That in itself is not bad, Ron Howard does it all the time, but in this production just illustrates part of their amateur approach.