Go Ask Alice
|
List Price: Our Price: $8.70 You Save: $6.21 (42%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Go Ask Alice
Movie Review: GO ASK ALICE
Summary: 4 Stars
great movie about kids gone wrong, drugs etc.. a must see if you grew up in the 1970sMovie Review: Go Ask Alice
Summary: 4 Stars
Very good movie. I had seen it many years ago. Still as good as ever.Movie Review: "I know I'll always be one pill away from being an addict again..."
Summary: 3 Stars
Based on the supposed diary of an anonymous fifteen year old girl published as a book in the early 1970s (there is some speculation as to whether or not the diary is real), the made for TV movie Go Ask Alice (1973) was directed by John Korty (Class of '63) and features Jamie Smith-Jackson (Satan's School for Girls) in her very first role. Also appearing is William `The Shat' Shatner ("Star Trek", The Devil's Rain), Julie Adams (Creature from the Black Lagoon), Jennifer Edwards ("Heidi"), Ayn Ruymen (Private Parts), Wendell Burton (The Sterile Cuckoo), and Andy Griffith ("The Andy Griffith Show", "Matlock"). Appearing in very minor roles is Robert Carradine (Revenge of the Nerds), Charles Martin Smith (American Graffiti), and Mackenzie Phillips ("One Day at a Time"), as a skeevy drug addict runaway, which was kinda creepy since it foreshadowed the problems she would eventually suffer with substance abuse.
As the film begins we meet a fifteen-year-old girl named Alice (Smith-Jackson). Seems she and her family, including father Sam (Shatner), mother Dorothy (Adams), and little brother Tim, have recently moved, as Sam's gotten a position with a university in the area. Alice shares the normal concerns of a young girl going to a new school, the main one being the desire to fit in...as school begins, which, by the way, seems to be populated by hippy remnants, Alice is desperately lonely, but she does make one friend in a squarish brainiac named Beth who sports ridiculously huge eyeglasses. Summer comes and Beth goes away to camp, leaving Alice alone again, naturally (in the word of the Gilbert O'Sullivan). As a result, she falls in with some bad seeds, one of who slips her some acid, which begins her journey into the world of illicit drugs and promiscuity. Once school begins again Alice is `too cool' to hang with Beth and finds difficulties in dealing with her parents. After realizing her boyfriend is using her to push drugs, Alice and a friend run away, but find life on the road particularly difficult when you have a habit, as are forced to support it by turning tricks and eating from garbage cans. Eventually Alice hits bottom and turns to a priest (played by Andy Griffith of all people) who operates a dilapidated inner city mission. She gets in touch with her parents and gets help, after which she returns to school, but now she's somewhat of a pariah, as the straight kids know her from before when she used dope and see her as `tainted', while her `freaked up' former friends no longer trust her, given the fact she finked on one of them after a specific incident. As a result, one of her former friends slips her some acid, sending Alice back into a world she so desperately tried to escape...
Now I've never read the book the film is based on, but I have read a little about it, and it seems the one, main, obvious difference between the book and the film seems to be the book, which was supposedly a diary, the author writing the diary is never actually refers to herself by name (the author is known simply as `anonymous'), while in the film, the main character, who is supposed to be the author of the diary, is known as Alice. Apparently the title of the book is taken from the Jefferson Airplane song `White Rabbit', so the filmmakers just adopted the name Alice for the main character in the movie. As far as the veracity of the diary, I'm not going to get into that too much, but based on the material in the film I'd guess it was written by an adult posing as a teen, the intent being to provide a cautionary tale, one that the youth of the time would readily accept given the assumption it was the writings of one of their own. My reasoning for this? Well, first off I'm a natural skeptic, and secondly Alice's odyssey seems a little too structured and well laid out, providing explicit documentation detailing all aspects of her journey, prior to, and after, her becoming involved with illicit drugs. Perhaps it doesn't matter, as if it helps scare some kids straight, then so be it, but I remember how many people were put out when it was revealed that James Frey's book `A Million Little Pieces' wasn't quite the memoir it was presented to be...anyway, in terms of the movie, it's not bad, as far as made for TV movies go. There were a couple of aspects I found kind of hard to buy off on, especially in terms of Alice's parents and the fact they were so oblivious to the obvious changes that developed in their daughter once she started using drugs. For those with children let me give you some of the warning signs, as offered up in this film, signs that may indicate your child is indulging in and/or selling the dope...
1. They start ditching their old friends for new, `cool' friends.
2. Their grades drop ff significantly, and they don't care
3. A change in appearance, in terms of clothes (if they start wearing a lot of patchy, tight fitting denim and slinky knit tops, you might have a problem).
4. Look at the hair...a shaggy, greasy, unkempt mane is a pretty good indicator.
5. They use any, or all, of the following phrases...'That scene was far out, man', `Don't hassle me you uptight square', `You're a bum trip', `Let's get turned on', `Rules just ain't my bag, man', `Can I score some junk?', and so on...
6. They possess large, unexplained wads of cash.
7. They possess parcels full of strange pills.
8. If you're still unsure, you can always read their diary...sure, they might feel violated, but since they're your responsibility (i.e. property), you do have a right. Be wary though, as some of the smarter ones may keep a duplicate, `sanitized' version to throw you off.
The performances were decent enough I suppose, although I was a little disappointed with William Shatner's role specifically because I wasn't expecting the Emperor of Emote to be so low key. Heck, I barely recognized him at first as he's hiding behind a Magnum P.I. mustache and a pair of goofy eyeglasses. I did appreciate the present of Julie Adams as Alice's mother. She didn't have much of a role, but she was mighty tasty, especially since she was pushing fifty years of age. As far as Jamie Smith-Jackson, I thought she did very well, especially given this was her first role. The material didn't do her any favors, but she came out well enough. There are a couple of bits to watch out for, including Alice's parents throwing her a birthday party, one that included the presence of her stoner friends. The ending was kind of odd, as initially it seemed positive, but then abruptly changed gears towards the depressing, but given often overly moralistic nature of the story, it wasn't entirely surprising.
The fullscreen picture presented on this all regions Wham! USA DVD release is so-so. It's kind of fuzzy, and looks a lot like the source material may have been a well worn VHS tape, but given this is a made for television movie from the early seventies, this may be the best available. The audio matches the picture in terms of quality, so if you're expecting a strong presentation, you'll probably be disappointed. There are chapter stops, and the only extra thrown in is a still gallery featuring about fifteen still shots taken directly from the video.
Cookieman108
Movie Review: 5 Star Made-For-TV on a 3 Star DVD
Summary: 3 Stars
I remember this movie well from being on TV back in 1973. It's a movie that has withstood the test of time. Some movies from back then were great at the time, but when viewed nowadays, they seem really dated and slow. This isn't the case with "Go Ask Alice". This review is based on the Wham! USA 2006 release currently available. The picture quality isn't bad for a movie that is 37 years old. However, there are periodic white noise bars throughout this classic. It states that this movie is digitally remastered, but you would think that if it really was, there would not be noise bars appearing. It just looks like this DVD was mastered from a semi-worn VHS master. There is a bit of a flicker to the picture too, which really shows when the credits are showing on-screen. The sound quality is OK, considering this movie was recorded in mono. The Quality Video Inc. looks a lot better, judging from the version posted on YouTube. On a brighter note, the Wham! USA version looks 100% better than the Timeless Multimedia release on VHS. This version was recorded in SP, but the picture quality was blurry, grainy, with just a hint of colour. It was really hard on the eyes! Since the Wham! USA version is the only one available currently for this movie, it's passable. Just don't expect a crystal clear flawless presentation of this 1973 classic. It would be great to see other movies from this era like "Sarah T: Portrait Of A Teenage Alcoholic" and "Dawn: Portrait Of A Teenage Runaway" released on DVD someday.Movie Review: Almost Laughable
Summary: 3 Stars
First, the book originally portrayed itself as being the true diary of a young girl who got into drugs. Turned out it wasn't true at all. It was a bunch of adults who decided this is the way they'd get their message of "drugs are bad for you" across to the youngsters. However, no one writes in their diaries in that sort of language. You scribble stuff like "I HATE MY MOTHER" or "why doesn't anyone want me?" Youngster keeping a diary wouldn't use the vocabulary in the diary and they wouldn't even write in complete sentences or with an eye/ear to what that audience will preceive because the diarist is writing to herself and she already knows what's going on. How anyone could believe this was ever written by a lonely, misfit teenager shows just how out of tune adults are. Some of the descriptions of the drug experiences were inaccurate. And this is only the book.
The movie was totally unrealistic and unbelievable. The girl diarist was supposedly so unattractive no one would even talk to her--but the actress playing the part was quite pretty and should have been at least normally popular, even if she was a bit shy. That made no sense (they should have picked a less attractive actress). I know the intention of both the book and the movie was to be morality play to enlighten teenagers but I find this story on a par with Reefer Madness--more a cultist classic because of the phoniness of it all.