Cheap Glen or Glenda? (DVD) (Edward D. Wood Jr.) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Glen or Glenda?

GLEN OR GLENDA stars Wood himself (under the screen name Daniel Davis), as Glen, who has a secret fetish for angora sweaters and occasionally dons female clothes to become Glenda.

His fiance Barbara (Dolores Fuller) has no idea of his secret life, which is observed from afar by an all-powerful science god (Bela Lugosi), and a droll, sleep-inducing narrative by a psychiatrist.

There is also a bizarre dream sequence where Glen is tormented by plump women prancing around in lingerie, whipping and gagging other females and generally acting pretty weird.

However, Wood's most self-expressive and most controversial film is considered so bad that it's good. GLEN OR GLENDA is a fascinating, off-the-wall cult classic.

Open your eyes and mind
Ed Wood's continuing reign as the so-called 'worst director of all time' has earned him many fans, but it has also done his work a disservice: few reviewers dare to go against the tide and write constructively about his movies, preferring instead to hop in the so-bad-it's-good bandwagon. This is unfortunate, because his most interesting films are worthy of critical scrutiny - especially his first project, 'Glen or Glenda' (1953). Whereas most of his other films tackle a specific genre, this movie creates its own: an unlikely but personal blend of documentary and fiction, horror, romance, police procedural, and more. There isn't a single storyline throughout but rather a set of imbricated tales that feed off of each other. The bulk of the narrative is devoted to a couple of case histories which are recounted by a psychiatrist to an inspector, but the film is frequently punctuated by Lugosi's enigmatic character. His 'Scientist' name, much like an early scene in which he prepares a potion, is a nod to his past roles: he is a Demiurge-like figure whose utterances often have anthropogonic connotations and can affect people's lives. Lugosi's performance in this film is quite underrated, and arguably one of his most effective. (He was not quite as memorable in Wood's subsequent 'Bride of the Monster' [1955].) To further complicate the narrative, one of the two case histories related by the psychiatrist - that of Wood himself - features an elaborate dream sequence whose images are suitably bizarre and full of strange symbols. The film always operates on multiple levels at once, since Wood constantly shifts between characters while using a proliferation of contrasting techniques (voice-over, documentary, fiction, stock footage, image juxtapositions, etc.). Some have deemed this cinematic cacophony confusing and/or confused, but I find it fascinating, and sometimes even mesmerizing - this is automatic, stream of consciousness filmmaking that remains stubbornly indifferent to conventions. I strongly recommend this film to adventurous cinephiles.

It's rubbish but entertainingly so
Normally I'd give films 1 or 2 for something that was terrible and that I didn't like. Ed Wood however is an exception. His films are bad but so bad they're good. Basically I could tell you all of what the other reviewers have said here. But I won't other than to say that I got this DVD really cheap in Tower Records ( €6 ) and I can say that this really was cheap entertainment. Lugosi's role in this is somewhat silly given that the film doesn't know whether it wants to be a genuine film or a shockumentary! And in some ways that's part of it's charm while it harms the whole process. It gives Lugosi the chance to spew wannabe crypto mumbo jumbo. In a way, he doesn't really " pull ze strings " so much as cut them off from him.

But give credit to Ed on this. This was a genuine attempt at trying to be risque and his heart was really in this and you can tell that - it just didn't translate as well as it could have. His real life fiance Dolores is in this and well.....she's not exactly a great actress. But in some ways the script is just embarassingly naive on Ed's part that in some ways you just can't really believe in it at all no matter how much heart was put into this.

Another thing you'll notice is the dubbing and it is pretty poor. There's a clear 1 and a half second delay on everyone's speech which can be amusing. In fact some people will be in hysterics and just take the piss out of it

But god bless Ed - he tried, honestly he tried