Brenda Starr
Brenda Starr
PG | 15 April 1992 (USA)
Brenda Starr Trailers

Fearless reporter Brenda Starr needs a big scoop if she wishes to retain her lofty status within the world of journalism, so she ventures deep into the Amazon to investigate a story involving a mad scientist's plot to blow the planet to smithereens. Her investigation pits her against a collection of dastardly villains and the myriad dangers of the jungle.

Reviews
gridoon2018

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.

... View More
Kraig Simpson

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!

... View More
Wizard-8

The most that people know about this movie was that it was filmed in 1986, then spent six years on the shelf before being (barely) released to theaters. Was it deserving of its fate? For that most part, yes. Though obviously not a big budget exercise, the movie does boast (for the most part) passable production values. However, the rest of the movie falls flat. Brooke Shields looks the part of Brenda Starr, but her performance simply isn't very good. In fairness to Shields, her role is strangely not written to be a smart and resourceful woman, but kind of a bubblehead - such a demeaning role would make anyone reluctant to give a good performance. In fact, just about every character is written to be kind of stupid. The movie seems to think that the whole thing should be some kind of joke, when in fact this kind of movie needs a SERIOUS treatment. It doesn't help that there are several instances where key linking footage or entire scenes seem to be missing, leading to some very confusing moments. I'm willing to be that Dale Messick, the original cartoonist of the "Brenda Starr" comic strip, wasn't very pleased by this cinematic adaptation of her work.

... View More
randwolfray

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.

... View More