Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

How sad is this?

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this movie even after watching it twice- which is about three more chances than I typically give movies that frequent lists of the worst. Usually, back story doesn't matter to me (just read my review of Heaven's Gate as an example), but it would help in this instance. If it was bankrolled by a church group, its wealth would likely put Joel Osteen to shame given the people involved. If it was always to be exploitation, then it has managed to transcend the genre. The acting is more wooden than the Amazon rain forest ever was, the direction (by The Perils of Pauline director Louis Gasnier) is at best static, the plot is way over the top, it distorts the facts royally, and it generally looks cheap. Then again, maybe all of the above- especially its distortion of facts- is the appeal. If it was done intentionally, I personally say, "Bravo." I'm generally not a "bad movie fan" to the degree some seem to be, but I can make an exception here. I'm only giving it a five rating because I don't know if it's supposed to be bad or supposed to be serious.

You can laugh, you can puff while watching.. You can even reminisce about the first time you watched the dog but know this.. This rag was the definitive flick that was shown as evidence in that kangaroo court which turned around and passed the law of illegality of marijuana and it has lasted all these years as if it were truth. It was a MOVIE! and our idiots in g'meant used it to suppress otherwise 'free' Americans from enjoying it... for OUR protection. What an injustice!.. What a suppression.. What a bunch of BS!! and here you are watching it in glee as if it hadn't contributed in suppressing an inalienable right. Oh well, at least I'm not laughing (and never will).

Sure I was laughing! I laughed about the bad, baaaad acting; the absurd premise and the horrible directing, convincing me that the crew must have been stoned. I laughed at the piano being played too fast, the maniacally laughing and the accidental shooting. I cracked up at lines like "one puff and you're hooked", the ludicrous supposition that Marihuana (apparently pronounced "Maahr-Wanna" in those parts of the world) is a narcotic and the assumption that THC, similar to thinking-too-hard-and-too-much, will drive you psychotic.And sure, I had just smoked a huge joint, having watched this during a holiday in Amsterdam and was high like a kite (though I have to admit: I didn't feel like playing the piano too fast, nor did it inspire me to gun anybody down).But then I began to reflect: this movie is almost 80-years old and there were still people who believed the hackneyed nonsense it propagated. I thought about all the ruined lives of those who had been caught with a few joints. I thought about Aids, cancer and multiple scleroses patients who are denied alternative medication and about all the lives that have been lost in the so-called "war on drugs" that keeps the mafia and drug-cartels alive and prosperous.That's when I stopped laughing.

Very funny, exaggerative, yet informing film on how society classified marijuana use in the first of half of the century. When the characters in this movie smoke marijuana, they react extremely, killing others, and acting completely insane. This movie also portrays the use of reefer as an addictive act, and directly stresses that marijuana be kept away from our youth (as defined by a scene in which an adolescent school-boy smokes marijuana at an apartment jazz party, finds his girlfriend being taken advantage of by another man who is acting marijuana-crazed, and then gets blamed for shooting them). This movie is a complete contrast to the way marijuana use is commonly viewed today. Like previously stated, it exaggerates the use of this drug purposely to be used as a scare-tactic to society of that time period. I would give this movie a 7.0 based on humorous portrayals, classification information, and comedic depiction.