reaseltbim i seriously cant believe the script for this was even green lit and actually filmed, what a strange movie to make. I get that because it was a comic movie maybe they didn't know how to handle it... But There were Other movies based on comics before this one and those movies did a better job. So I really do not understand why they went with the way they did. The movie started off really strong actually, we get to meet the character of Brenda Starr and we get to see her world (Which I loved) I actually loved the city a lot. But like many people have said before, once they leave the city the movie becomes a mess. The movie felt hard to follow at times and some of the characters were really cheesy. The movie felt really boring. This could have been amazing if it was done in a more serious manner.

madbandit20002000 What the hell were the people behind "Brenda Starr" thinking (or were they even thinking to being with) when they made this…film based on the long-running, now-defunct newspaper comic strip by the late Dale Messick? Sure, comic strips, let alone comic books, weren't treated seriously then (Hollywood still had the Man of Steel on their brains), but if you make a film based on a fictional, antiquated female reporter (thanks, Gloria Steinhem), you have an embarrassing cine-wreck.In the supposed real world, comic strip artist Mike Randall (Tony Peck, son of the Oscar-winning legend Gregory) toils on the "Brenda Starr" strip for Messick. In an odd fourth-wall smashing fashion, Starr (Brooke Shields, "The Blue Lagoon") refuses to be drawn by Randall and "quits". Randall, in some unexplainable way (one of the film's problems), goes into the strip to convince Starr to return before the deadline. She's busy, though, with tracking down a scientist in Puerto Rico and Brazil. Seems the egghead has invented a unique rocket fuel that has attracted both a bumbling band of Russian spies (What? No Nazis?) and Starr's rival newshound, Libby "Lips" Lipscomb (Diana Scarwid of "Mommie Dearest").Intrigued? If not, congratulations. You have better sense than me, who saw the film for free and still wants the 94 minutes of my life back! The. . .film tries to be cute and campy so much, it descends.Directed ineptly by Robert Ellis Miller, who used an obviously first draft script by James David Buchanan, Noreen Stone & Jenny Wolkind (a pseudonym for Delia Ephron, Nora's sister), "Starr" dims to black than shines, from start to end, especially from the start. After the women's liberation movement, the novelty of a female reporter seems dated, and those who know and enjoyed Brenda Starr are either dead or collecting Social Security. Who the hell is supposed to watch this film, let alone enjoy it? Casting then-hot fashion model Shields as the title role was a bad attempt to get young audiences. The fact she goes through silly, implausible costume changes (I didn't bother to count how many. Sorry, Bob Mackie!) did next to nothing to help her in a flat, cardboard role. It's not one of her best moments. Doe-eyed Peck's no help, awkwardly being both comic relief and potential love interest. When he tries to make Starr utter a foul profane word, instead of "jeepers", it comes off a fact to the film's datedness. Also of no real use, aside of being beefcake with a eye-patch, is the dashing, mysterious Basil St. John (a pre-James Bond Timothy Dalton) who captures Starr's heart. At least poor Ms. Scarwid shares the sentiment of any unfortunate viewer when referring to Starr: "Oh! I wish I could kill her!" Interestingly, the film was shelved to distribution disputes before premiering in 1986. Three years later, it bowed in France, where Shields was popular. Another three years, it came back here and bombed, without much publicity and wallowing in the shadows of better comic book/strip adaptations. If anything can learn from watching "Brenda Starr", it's to make a better film involving a more interesting female comic book/strip character (Paging Wonder Woman…).

ccarhart I searched for this for years, sniffing after it's bad reputation. Surprize-it's not that bad. The scenes with the comic strip artist are painful but brief. Most of the action is period 40's and the costumes are fun (Bob Mackie?). Brooke is just gorgeous, of course, and makes a plucky Brenda. Diana Scarwid is her nasty rival and Timothy Dalton her sexy love interest. If this had been done for TV (which it looks like) I think the critics would have been far kinder. If I recall, no one crucified Jill St. John for the 1976 version. This movie is strictly for comic book buffs or Brooke Sheilds fans.CC

MARIO GAUCI Witless adaptation of a comic-strip revolving around the titular female crime reporter (which had previously been the source of a 1976 TV movie with Jill St. John); Brooke Shields looks good throughout but seems undecided whether to approach the role straight, or else play it for laughs! Indeed, this dilemma afflicts the entire production to its ultimate detriment – with the result that the film was shelved for some three years (it was, in fact, shot in 1986 i.e. prior to co-star Timothy Dalton's brief stint as James Bond)! At least, the latter seems to have had a good time making it for he subsequently tackled the part of the villain in another comic-strip adaptation with, again, some powerful gizmo as the object of contention between various factions (and nationalities) – namely ROCKETEER (1991; which I watched a day previously and found to be vastly superior)! Dalton's character here is actually enigmatic – dashing in spite of an eye-patch, he always turns up at unexpected moments to save, guide or otherwise romance the heroine.The chief villains are a gang of incompetent Russian agents (including a bald-headed goofball and the pint-sized cigar-smoking female leader), though also hindering Shields is the ambitious and vaguely vampish rival reporter played by Diana Scarwid. Incidentally, the plot involves a fantasy framework in which animator Tony Peck inhabits the world of his subject (they keep quarrelling about how he isn't fit to design Brenda's exploits because he continually looks down on her, something of which the film-makers themselves are guilty!) – this doesn't really work and is actually rather pointless.I was surprised to learn that renowned veteran cinematographer Freddie Francis (a beloved minor genre director in his own right) was behind this one in the former capacity; his craftsmanship at least renders the silly and positively dreary goings-on (which relocates to Brazil during the second half) pleasing to the eye. A number of guest appearances (including Eddie Albert as the Police Commissioner, Charles Durning as Starr's flamboyant boss, Henry Gibson as the obligatory eccentric scientist and Ed Nelson as the piano-playing American President) add nothing of substance to the film.