When film was invented, the new medium was quickly compared to literature - written literature, to be absolutely clear. Accordingly, the first feature length pictures, in the silent time, were divided in scenes and acts like in theater pieces. Theater pieces too, although they simulate scenes of everyday life, are dominated by text which have be written first - like the scenarios of the movies. However, is this "logo-centrism" not astonishing? Simply the English word "motion picture" gives the much more appropriate comparison of film not with written text, but with painted (or photographed) pictures.Therefore, it makes much more sense to compare films with paintings. But what are the criteria according to which somebody can decide about its quality? Does it speak for bad quality if in a painting by René Magritte, there is day and night at the same time? Is this one a bad director who changes day and night in a short cemetery scene like Ed Wood did? Do we really believe in the reality of paintings so that we consider eyes being outside of faces pathological like in some early works of Picasso? Why do we scold Ed Wood when he forgets to take off the price-tags of his Walmart-plates that he used for UFO's? We know that eyes cannot be outside of a faces as we know that UFO's do not exist - where is there a border of credibility? Everybody know that humans with over-proportioned necks and empty eyes like the ones that Modigliani painted do not exist. But do we laugh at these works as we laugh at Ed Wood's Zombies? Peter Greenaway has recently said that in the near future we will be able to film what we think. Great! But before, I suggest, we should learn to accept that one can film what one SEES independently of criteria of literature whose relationship to film is about as small as the relationship of a technician to a physicist."The Sinister Urge" is an absolutely disgusting example of how pseudo-funny "editors" can destroy 71 min. of a movie that is 71 min. long, by uninterrupted "jokes" that strive racism (the comparison of a colored actress with Benazir Bhutto). As a matter of fact, most parts of the dialogs of this movie are completely not understandable because of the stupid sexual, political and other comments. I therefore suggest that the complete edition of "The Sinister urge" is confiscated and destroyed. Ed Wood's work deserves a critical edition without comic strip covers on the DVD hulls and disgraceful comments, but with introductions and commentaries by renowned American film historians. I would like to look forward to seeing soon Ed Wood's work edited in a dignified looking package of carefully crafted DVD-collections.

Don't fall into the evil world of pornography!This movie is classic Wood. For some reason, I have a hard time seeing it as being made in 1961, however.It's great going through, looking for how many errors due to budget constraints there are, continuity errors, all the usual. Add to this the stiff acting and memorized lines, and you're all set. I enjoyed this movie, and see new stupid errors in it every time I watch it, it can supply you with hours of entertainment. Don't expect Ben Hur, but if you enjoy Ed Wood, or haven't seen anything else by him but want a classic example of his work, this is one you'll want to see.

One of Ed Wood Jr. lesser known works about the smut racket where Wood himself has a cameo role in it. Not as the cop in drag with a tight womens wool sweater, which would have been more like it for Wood, but as a smut peddler having it out with his rival at a pizza joint that fronts for a porno distribution site. With a number of young women found dead in and around a local park their deaths are connected to a local smut ring headed by Gloria Henderson. Things get real bad for Gloria when the cops take into custody her top smut photographer Jaffe together with all the canisters of porno films, that he hid in his closet. Leaving her racket on the verge of being shut down not just by the cops but by the syndicate who are bankrolling her smut operation.The weak link in Gloria's smut business is one of her enforcers Dirk Williams who becomes so hopped up and morally corrupted by having a hand in her smut racket. Dirk he goes bananas when he sees porno films and pictures that he's peddling supplied by Gloria's right-hand man in her business the former legit Hollywood film maker Johnny Ryde. Dirk's uncountable urge for sex and violence is touched off just by the sight of smut photos and that drives him to commit rape and murder. The local cops know all about Gloria's operation but need solid proof and evidence to put her,together with Johnny Ryde, out of business. In the end it's Gloria herself who provides all the rope that they need to hang her without Gloria even knowing it. Director Ed Wood does the best he can to show the evils of pornography and how it effects naive and innocent young girls who come to Hollywood looking to make it big in the motion picture industry. Only ending up getting talked into making porno films by the likes of Gloria and Johnny Ryde to just pay off their bills. We see the tragic story of Mary Smith who ended up making smut films and photos for Gloria and finally fell victim to Dirks sinister urge. When he caught Mary alone in the park, by the duck pond, and ended up raping and murdering her. We also see in the movie "The Sinister Urge" how difficult it is to arrest the likes of Gloria Henderson and make the charges of the crimes she committed stick.Admittedly a laughable venture, which of his movies aren't, of Wood's because of the cheap budget and in some cases non-actors in it. The movie "The Sinister Urge"is still years ahead of it's time thanks to the foresight and vision of it's director Ed Wood Jr, in showing the evils and horrors of the then, in 1961, underground and illegal smut business in and out of Hollywood. That destroyed the lives of thousands of young girls like Mary Smith in mind as well as body.

its true, this film is one of the worst i have seen yet that Ed Wood did. i will never get that hour and 11min back. once again there was the on going repetition of police, baddies, women in distress, cross dressing and insightful wisdom from our elders. however, the stock fotage was minimal so big up. i am beginning to realise that once you've seen one Ed Wood film, you have as good as seen the rest. it makes me wonder why people who knock his films continue to hunt down new ones. it makes me wonder why i still watch them. i think Ed Wood was a man who lived, made films, lived his life happily and then died probably happy despite being an alcohlic and penniless. to be honest i don't think he cares anymore, why should we?