What a waste of my time!!!

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Well, I finally satisfied my curiosity and saw Myra Breckinridge. This movie has the reputation of being the worst ever made. It's not; that dishonor probably belongs to Rabbit Test, by Joan Rivers. What sinks Myra Breckinridge like the Titanic is not the bad taste -- that can be salutary in small doses -- but its incoherence. At no time did I really catch a story line being laid out. Raquel Welch was never as bad as they said, but here she's an embarrassment. Her only function seems to be modeling new, outrageous outfits by Theodora van Runkle. When she does try to emote she implodes. But far more embarrassing is Mae West. I cringed watching this ancient crone simpering and batting three-inch long eyelashes at every man in sight, attempting to look like a siren. With this role she demolished her well-earned early reputation as a sexual joker. In fact, nobody comes out of this movie unbloodied. Certainly not Rex Reed, who while not unattractive, made my skin crawl. Even the film clips from the golden age of movies are defiled by their inclusion here. This movie should never have been made, as Gore Vidal, the original author, knew. I think people who claim to enjoy it are at bottom haters of film, of celebrities, of life.

Myra Breckenridge has everything you don't want to see in a movie from start to finish. The comedy is Disturbing, Offensive, Obscene and just Sickening. I didn't even want to see the ending it was that bad, but I had to keep strong and I'm never watching this move again in my life. Why did all these big star even agree to this movie, huh? Rachael Welch, John Carradine, even George Furth. Although there we Big Star in this movie before they were big stars like: Farrah Fawcett and Tom Selleck, and I say sorry to you two for even being in the credits of this movie. I don't know why some people consider this a Cult Film because there is nothing in this movie that people can relate to, not even the sexual content or the Characters.

THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.

It was a disappointment to see this DVD after so many years. For me the main problem's the uneven script.While some of it is witty and hip, quite a bit of it is dull, unfunny and lifeless. Many of the gags just sit there, lacking spark and energy.Of the cast, Mae West and Rachel Welch come over well. Roger Herren in the role of Rusty shines (too bad he didn't make more films). But for my money, there's just too much of John Huston, and poor Rex Reed isn't hardly given a fighting chance. His character seems relegated to skim around on the sidelines, wondering what he's doing in this film.The low user rating should give an idea as to the public's opinion of this piece. Vidal's original provided much potential that was pretty much wasted. Not even the 'classic' film clips did much. All in all a rather sub par effort, and it's not likely to get much better with time.