|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||19 reviews in total|
i thought this movie was unreal.it is certainly Brooke shields vehicle and she does an amazing job with it,she was totally impressive,endearing and mind blowing-ly gorgeous as the ace comic book reporter.her comedic abilities really shine through here so it is a shame that this film didn't become more recognized than it was. the editing in a certain part is terrible-witness Brenda Starr falling from a balcony in slow motion-but the rest is a hell of a lot of camp fun. Diana Scarwidis awesome in this role as is the Russian woman on Brenda's trail. i have watched this film over and over again and it gets better every time. do yourself a favour and dust it off a rental shelf and watch it.
I searched for this for years, sniffing after it's bad reputation.
Surprize-it's not that bad. The scenes with the comic strip artist are
painful but brief. Most of the action is period 40's and the costumes
are fun (Bob Mackie?). Brooke is just gorgeous, of course, and makes a
plucky Brenda. Diana Scarwid is her nasty rival and Timothy Dalton her
sexy love interest. If this had been done for TV (which it looks like)
I think the critics would have been far kinder. If I recall, no one
crucified Jill St. John for the 1976 version. This movie is strictly
for comic book buffs or Brooke Sheilds fans.
I am one of perhaps a couple thousand people to actually view this film in
theater and not on video-tape. I attended the premiere in the Florida
Theater in Jacksonville, Florida. From the cast and crew, only the
director, Robert Ellis Miller, managed to attend, introducing his film that
was made in the Jacksonville area a few years before.
Overall, it's a fairly good film. The tongue-in-cheek acting is right on, with Brooke Shields and a pre-007 Timothy Dalton having a lot of fun with the material. Unfortunately, a couple of scenes were really hard to believe... especially when our heroine Brenda Starr waterskis on the backs of a pair of alligators!!!
The other effects in the film were nicely handled, including the animation and the scene showing an older New York City behind the historic Ritz Theater which played host to a scene early in the picture.
It's not a great film, but deserving of a viewing if you'd like an adventure flick without much seriousness. 7 out of 10 stars.
This movie is great, campy fun! Light-hearted fluff, but
They say I need four lines, so I guess I'll say it again, because it really says all that needs saying.
This movie is great, campy fun. Light-hearted fluff, but wonderful!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Brenda Starr is a wonky, wacky, campy good time at the movies. Based on
the classic comic strip, this movie captures all of the fun and
innocence that saturated the childhoods of the seventies. Brenda Starr,
brilliantly portrayed by the effervescent Brooke Shields, is a reporter
who goes that extra mile for a good story, and when she gets fed up
with the artist who draws her, he jumps into her comic strip world of
instant outfit changes and convenient plot segues and helps her on her
newest search for a scoop.
This movie blends real story with caricature quirk and you will not be able to stop smiling from start to finish. The movie is aware of how ridiculous some of the misadventures are and instead of looking the other way it playfully points it out. Brenda Starr is a hidden gem that should be viewed by children and adults everywhere. It is reminiscent of The Goonies and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Both silly and over the top and completely lovable. 8.5/10
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Despite its troubled production & release history and its low reputation, "Brenda Starr" is a movie with a lot going for it: a lively jazz score by Johnny Mandel, colorful cinematography by Freddie Francis, lots of comic-book-style flourishes by director Robert Ellis Miller, and one fabulous costume after another for Brooke Shields (this may not be a great movie, but it's a great fashion show at the very least!). Speaking of Brooke Shields, she's gorgeous with a great body: the director seems fetishistically obsessed with her legs - there are many frames with only her legs in them - and who can blame him? There are weak spots, too: the story has little drive, Tony Peck (who?) doesn't have enough charisma to be a leading man (on the other hand, Timothy Dalton is perfectly cast), and the cartoonish Russian villains are unfunny, but if you're a Brooke fan, you do not want to miss this film. **1/2 out of 4.
Let me start off first by saying that this movie is not very good but I
would put it against other movies of the same era and say that it is
better than average.
It certainly doesn't deserve the bad rap that it has gotten over the years and isn't a terrible movie either, however. I'm not sure why so many people hate this film. The direction, writing and acting are all just fine.
Brooke Shields looks great and does a fair enough job of playing the main character.
The story is also very unique and fun with her literally coming out of the comic strip as a real life character. Maybe the strangeness of that turns some people off.
But it's a fun movie and worth seeing... if you can find it that is, it's not super well known or loved!
I can't say much more than what other reviewers have said here, so I'll
try to be brief.
Things I liked about this movie: Brooke Shields was a good choice for the lead role, mainly because she really looks like Brenda Starr as I remember her from the Sunday morning newspaper comics, especially in close-ups. I do remember Brenda Starr being a bit more edgy, but Brooke was OK. Timothy Dalton was a good choice for her mysterious lover Basil St. John. The musical score is great. The fashions are gorgeous, the settings beautiful. Some of the humor works, but...
Things I didn't like about this movie: It totally misses the "spirit" of the comic strip. Some people like tongue-in-cheek "camp", but I hate it because to me it makes fun of the story rather than just being humorous. If they had given the movie a serious plot but added in lots of humor, that would have been OK; but no, they have to make the story an unbelievable joke. Also, to have the cartoonist popping in and out of the strip as a rival to Basil St. John was just pathetic.
As another reviewer said, the first part of the movie is the best. By the time it gets to the second half, it seems like they lost all direction and just decided to have some Marx-brothers style lunacy. It's fun, but when I couldn't believe in the story anymore it got boring real fast. Also, I don't recommend this movie for kids (if you see it, you'll know why).
My comments reflect my taste, of course, and you may see things differently. As for myself, I'm going to explore some of the other versions of Brenda Starr that are out there to see if they have a story I can believe in.
As a comic-book fan I'll take the time to review this mess, because
there were some good intentions and thoughts on display here.
First, the pros: The switch from comic strip to life action was a good idea, and the plot element of the creation trying to escape her creator's whims has enormous potential. Timothy Dalton is perfectly cast, here (as in Rocketeer) he's completely believable in a comic book way. Brooke Shields looks good in her various outfits. Many of the sets and support roles have that comic-book simplicity and cardboard character to match the strip style. And some of the gags do actually work.
Now, the cons: Pretty as she is, Brooke Shields is missing that mischievous glint in her eyes the role would need - in most scenes, she more feels like another extra than the main part. Tony Peck as the artist is a complete non-entity. As a consequence, the promising idea of the creator trying to coax his creation back into service never catches fire and in fact completely collides with the incongruous 'plot', which in itself has no momentum and kind of meanders along to carry Brooke from one exotic location to the next. But the most annoying thing are the lame tries at physical comedy and slapstick - to pull that off, you need a well-rehearsed team and actors capable of such a kind of comedy and an editor with an eye for rhythm. Not a single requirement is met here so I ask myself, seriously, why they didn't go the other way and just show setup/result which would have played well on the comic strip theme, too (panel one: guy approaches banana peel - panel two: he's sitting on the floor). Instead, virtually every single instance of physical comedy in "Brenda Starr" is painful to watch.
I can (and do) recommend this solely for comic book enthusiasts, and only for the good intentions they had, not the boring mess which ended up on screen.
i seriously cant believe the script for this was even green lit and actually filmed, what a strange movie to make. I get that because it was a comic movie maybe they didn't know how to handle it... But There were Other movies based on comics before this one and those movies did a better job. So I really do not understand why they went with the way they did. The movie started off really strong actually, we get to meet the character of Brenda Starr and we get to see her world (Which I loved) I actually loved the city a lot. But like many people have said before, once they leave the city the movie becomes a mess. The movie felt hard to follow at times and some of the characters were really cheesy. The movie felt really boring. This could have been amazing if it was done in a more serious manner.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|