Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Clarissa Mora The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Alex da Silva At the beginning of the film Rex Reed (Myron) gets the snip in front of an audience and changes into Raquel Welch (Myra). We then follow Raquel as she visits uncle John Huston (Buck) to claim her half share of his acting academy. While there, she gets a job teaching a class about emotions and at the same time Huston tries to discredit her claim to her share of what he has. After all, there are no records of his nephew either marrying or dying, so where on earth has Raquel appeared from. Well, he's in for a surprise.As are the rest of the cast who come across Welch. She is on a mission to humiliate the sexes on her own personal quest both as a man and as a woman. This film has funny moments and you get some great film clips from the 40s thrown into the mix. You can tell that this is a crazy comedy from the beginning sequence of the operation which is very funny. If you don't like the film at this point, you probably won't enjoy the rest of what follows. The casting has some mis-fires - Calvin Lockhart (Irving) who is an unlike-able homosexual film student and Mae West (Letitia) who is a very sad parody of herself. You cannot help but question if she herself is transgender. In real-life. The film ties up neatly at the end and explains the kitsch, campy tale that you have just witnessed. It's a better film than that other trashy camp fest "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" also released in the same year.

falco12351 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.

bluekarma06 Great groundbreaking movie that was so far ahead of it's time that it was trashed by critics and viewers alike! Perhaps only a handful of us get it! I think for the most part, the movie got across it's point that Hollywood was changing. The world was changing! Using Mae West to show that sex has been the driving force behind movie-making was brilliant! The old film clips are to convey the emotion or response of the viewer and were cleverly used. Most viewers have a limited range of intelligence and miss the point! The movie also was a very good take on the liberal attitudes that were taking over Hollywood at that time. A response to movies like Midnight Cowboy with their anti-heroes. They even mention that in the movie actors like Clark Gable and John Wayne are gone and have been replaced by this new breed of leading males. I think the movie was way ahead of it's time. Just look at what er have now running Hollywierd!

phillindholm 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.