You won't be disappointed!

Best movie ever!

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

This film is indeed a morbid curiosity, and persistent viewers will be left with a sour taste in their mouths. Unquestionably awful, it should come as no surprise... Consider the source. The book is vulgar and pornographic, with Vidal revealing his prurient fantasies and his disdain for Jews. Fortunately, the film removes the author's prejudices and arrogant demeanor, limiting itself to the satiric aspects. It still doesn't work.The acting is dreadful, especially Raquel's, but I began to feel sorry for her after a while. She soldiers on, undaunted and eager to please, obligingly spewing insane dialog and looking beautiful despite every effort to dress her up as a clown. The participation of Mae West in this project should have assured it cult status, but like everything else here, her part is startlingly disjointed. John Huston plays it way too broadly and is never amusing. It's sad to watch Farrah Fawcett as an innocent bimbo knowing how it ended for her in real life. The whole film, in fact, is a sad, dismal experience.The one redeeming feature is the title sequence, an oddly inspired bit (the only one in the entire film) which captures Myra/Myron's mad obsession with Hollywood. There's nothing like dancing down Hollywood Boulevard to feed one's skewed, celluloid-drenched imagination.

The only reason I was tempted to see it was that I have aspirations of seeing every film from Harry Medved's book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time". What a creepy and god-awful mess of a film! It truly was an incredibly bad film (and a deserving selection for the book) and when you see it today you are left wondering "what were they thinking?!?!".The film begins with a scene where film critic Rex Reed is about to undergo a sex change. The whole thing is done in a strange and surrealistic way as an audience sits nearby to watch. Despite Rex transforming through surgery into Raquel Welch (truly an impossibility), you keep seeing BOTH incarnations of the same character (Myron and Myra) as they set on adventures designed to bring him/her hot sex as well as irritate their hated uncle (John Huston).Now had any of this been handled with any degree of finesse, it could have potentially been an interesting sex farce--certainly NOT family material, but still entertaining. However, instead of finesse or style, the entire effort is handled in a ham-fisted manner with all the style and grace of a production created by sexually frustrated 7th graders! For example, some bizarre necrophiliac urge pushed the producers to resurrect 78 year-old Mae West from the dead. She utters an amazing string of double entendres that MIGHT have been funny coming from a 20 or 30 or 40 year-old. However, seeing Miss West (who is very reminiscent of Lon Chaney in PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) deliver these lines made me feel rather queasy--it was like watching granny trying desperately to score one final time before meeting the Grim Reaper! The film is written in such a broad and sophomoric way that there really is almost no discernible plot and the acting, if you want to call it that, if sadly unprofessional. Plus, in a very bizarre move, the film is often permeated with usually irrelevant footage from many, many classic Hollywood films. Seeing Laurel and Hardy, Carmen Miranda, Claudette Colbert and countless others spliced into a smarmy movie is just sad and it should be criminal to abuse the dead or those unwilling to be in a smutty film.If you think seeing a "comedic" anal rape scene or a geriatric nympho is funny or interesting, then by all means see MYRA BRECKENRIDGE. Otherwise, think twice before viewing--your brain will thank you for saying "no" to this film!!By the way, don't you think that since Rex Reed starred in this bilge the idea of him being a film critic is a bit hypocritical? It's sort of like making Michael Jackson a camp counselor!

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.

Much like Orson Welles thirty years earlier,Mike Sarne was given "the biggest train set in the world"to play with,but unfortunately lacked the ability to do anything more than watch his train set become a train wreck that is still spoken of with shock and a strange sort of awe. Despite post - modern interpretations purporting somehow to see it as a gay or even feminist tract,the fact of the matter is that it was a major disaster in 1970 and remains one today.How anyone given the resources at Mr Sarne's disposal could have screwed up so royally remains a closely - guarded secret.Only Michael Cimino ever came close with the political and artistic Armageddon that constitutes "Heaven's Gate".Both films appeared to be ego trips for their respective directors but at least Mr Cimino had made one of the great movies of the 1970s before squandering the studio's largesse,whereas Mr Sarne had only the rather fey "Joanna" in his locker. Furthermore,"Heaven's Gate" could boast some memorable and well - handled set - pieces where,tragically,"Myra Breckinridge"s cupboard was bare. Simply put,it is overwhelmingly the worst example of biting the hand that feeds in the history of Hollywood.