It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

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.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

As a comic-book fan I'll take the time to review this mess, because there were some good intentions and thoughts on display here.First, the pros: The switch from comic strip to life action was a good idea, and the plot element of the creation trying to escape her creator's whims has enormous potential. Timothy Dalton is perfectly cast, here (as in Rocketeer) he's completely believable in a comic book way. Brooke Shields looks good in her various outfits. Many of the sets and support roles have that comic-book simplicity and cardboard character to match the strip style. And some of the gags do actually work.Now, the cons: Pretty as she is, Brooke Shields is missing that mischievous glint in her eyes the role would need - in most scenes, she more feels like another extra than the main part. Tony Peck as the artist is a complete non-entity. As a consequence, the promising idea of the creator trying to coax his creation back into service never catches fire and in fact completely collides with the incongruous 'plot', which in itself has no momentum and kind of meanders along to carry Brooke from one exotic location to the next. But the most annoying thing are the lame tries at physical comedy and slapstick - to pull that off, you need a well-rehearsed team and actors capable of such a kind of comedy and an editor with an eye for rhythm. Not a single requirement is met here so I ask myself, seriously, why they didn't go the other way and just show setup/result which would have played well on the comic strip theme, too (panel one: guy approaches banana peel - panel two: he's sitting on the floor). Instead, virtually every single instance of physical comedy in "Brenda Starr" is painful to watch.I can (and do) recommend this solely for comic book enthusiasts, and only for the good intentions they had, not the boring mess which ended up on screen.

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.

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…).

Brooke apparently put on 20 pounds to more "realistically" play Brenda Starr (after Robert Dinero put on weight to play Jake LaMotta, this was for a while the "in" thing to do--I am not sure she just did not pig out). I am not a big fan of the Comic Strip, but I do not remember Brenda Starr being particularly plump. Well Brook never really got the weight off her thighs (although the face is still gorgeous, but puffy) and this movie is where I lost the Brooke I used to adore, now I just love a hell of a lot.For fans of Brooke that want to know "What the hell happened to her after 'Blue Lagoon', this is her watershed (fat gain) public moment.Brooke, this movie was not worth sacrificing your figure for!