AMAZING! It makes sense why David lynch was inspired by this film. It’s truly a beautiful and heartwarming piece of art with some random nightmarish surrealism

When this film came out, I can see why it was so panned. Wood takes not one but two taboo topics and presents us with what is effectively an information film about them. Both of these topics still cause controversy 70 years later, so I can only imagine what people thought then. The film starts with the suicide of a transvestite. The investigating officer goes to a psychiatrist who tells him two stories: Glen/Glenda and Alan/Anne. The stories of both people are told simply and in a straightforward manner - which did remind me of government information films. The really bizarre elements of the field are the segments invoking Bela Lugosi and the dream sequence. Both seem to have been put in to ... hell, I have no idea why they were put in. They're just weird. In the film, Wood explores a lot of misconceptions. He splits transvestism from homosexuality and makes it clear that not all transvestites want, or need, sex changes. The one thing that really jars for me is the ending, when Glen is cured of his transvestism. This is a flawed film, but actually still has enough useful information in it that some bigoted people from the 21st century could do with watching it.

A 'film' that is unintentionally one of the most riotous comedies of the 1950s.

Once lampooned as one of the worst movies ever made; time has been strangely kind to this curio of a movie; it's possible Ed Wood was just decades ahead of his time, and not the lunatic no-talent incompetent he was once thought to be. For this story about a transgender man struggling for respect and normalcy; while technically it's still flawed and hilarious; the subject matter here; the plot; the point; is actually as prescient as ever.

Ed Wood takes on a taboo topic in this film called Glen or Glenda. It was his plea that our American society should be more tolerant on the LGBT community. While the film was progressive at the time as this taboo topic was unheard of in the 1950's, the film was still very much awful. The film is so nonsensical especially all the Bela Lugosi scenes because his scenes have absolutely nothing to do with the film whatsoever. Speaking of Bela Lugosi, he and Dolores Fuller's performances in Glen or Glenda was pretty much wooden. The music at times felt horrendous because it pretty much sounded very annoying. The sets on the film looked as fraudulent as an average middle school play. Last but not least, the film's editing was lazy at times. While it should be acknowledged that Glen or Glenda was progressive for this type of film, Ed Wood still had no idea how to deliver its intended message as it turned out to be unconventional.

I despise the notion that Ed Wood was a horrible filmmaker. Sure, his movies aren't technically proficient and are often pretty maudlin in moments, but he's an actual auteur. For this movie, he didn't just direct and write, he also starred as Daniel Davies. Who else could? After all, Wood convinced producer George Weiss that he was the perfect director for this movie as he was a real-life transvestite. In this movie, Wood takes pains to emphasize that a male transvestite is not automatically a homosexual. He swore that he had never had a single homosexual relationship in his life and was considered a womanizer. He also was given to directing his adult work in full drag and claimed that his greatest fantasy was to come back as a gorgeous blonde. Yet he still would say that he was comforted by the feel of angora. So while the Golden Turkey Awards may give Wood the title of Worst Director of All Time and Leonard Maltin may say that this is "possibly the worst movie ever made," it has heart. An inept heart, but heart. A transvestite who has been to prison four times for cross-dressing has killed themselves, saying "Let my body rest in death forever, in the things I cannot wear in life." This leads Dr. Alton (Wood player Timothy Farrell) to seek out Glen, another man who loves to dress as the other sex, often stealing the clothing of his fiancee Barbara (Dolores Fuller, Wood's girlfriend at the time). Glen is struggling between being honest with Barbara before their wedding or telling her afterward. Through extended dream sequences, he finally comes to terms with who he is and his other side, revealing it to her. As she hands him an angora sweater, she accepts every side of him. The doctor then learns of another person, Alan/Anne. Anne was born a boy, but her mother wanted a girl and raised her that way, which left her abused throughout school. Despite hiding her true self during the war, she has since had an operation to become "a lovely young lady." Let me tell you, this kind of movie is incendiary in 2022. This was made in 1953. A movie with these words, which we should live by: "Give this man satin undies, a dress, a sweater and a skirt, or even the lounging outfit he has on, and he's the happiest individual in the world. He can work better, think better, he can play better, and he can be more of a credit to his community and his government because he is happy." So yes, Ed Wood isn't someone with a cinematic eye. But he put himself — all of himself — on the screen. That's worthy of celebration. The inclusion of Bela Lugosi is as well. That's what takes this movie from message movie to true oddity, as Bela plays The Scientist, a character unconnected to any narrative that begins the film and is not even the narrator, much like how Encounter with the Unknown decides to have a second uncredited voice take the role because just having Rod Serling is not enough. "Beware. Beware. Beware of the big, green dragon that sits on your doorstep. He eats little boys, puppy dog tails and big, fat snails. Beware. Take care. Beware. Wood would bring back Glen/Glenda again in two of his novels. Killer in Drag has Glen/Glenda becoming a serial killer while Death of a Transvestite has Glen/Glenda being executed.

he's really bad, sloppy, jack and jill is a thousand times better than this movie.

Very funny and interesting movie. Watched it over and over

Give some credit to director Edward Wood for making a film about transvestites at a time when this wasn't typical dinner table subject matter. Now take the credit just given to Ed Wood back for making such a mess of a movie. While he has made a couple of films that are so bad, they are entertaining, this isn't one of them. It starts as a docudrama, veers sharply towards drama, then swings back to docudrama, and then becomes a flat-out documentary before turning…well, you get the idea. Highlights include Bela Lugosi repeatedly saying "pull the string!!", weird stock footage throughout (love the herd of cattle), and a psychedelic dream sequence that includes a devil, bondage, and sexual assault. None of these highlights are really worth watching. Maybe highlights was the wrong word.

IT's like Reefer Madness except about transvestites!

Ed Wood was supposed to make a film about Christine Jorgensen, and largely hijacked the film to focus on his own transvestism. He inserts his new friend Bela Lugosi as a sort of God figure controlling the destinies of people. This is not a conventionally good film. The dialogue is strange, convoluted and tortured. Although Lugosi is good ... I guess ... he seems totally convincing as whatever the hell he's playing, and Wood himself is a passable actor, most of the actors are just terrible. But ironically, this is not a terrible film, and it's largely because Wood basically threw out the original concept and went with his highly personal vision of what this film should be. It's a touchingly sincere plea for tolerance with a strange, accidentally avant-garde structure. It's a strange bit of outsider art that was supposed to be just another tedious bit of cheap exploitation. It doesn't really sustain it's momentum. It runs for barely over an hour and it's still quite a bit too long. But when it is humming on all cylinders, which it really is for about 40 minutes, it's really kind of delightful.

One of the worts/good films of the cinema history.

Now that I'm reading "Nightmare of Ecstasy" I decided to finally watch this famously awful Ed Wood film, and it does not disappoint in being unbelievably atrocious. It is additionally interesting for being autobiographical, starring Ed Wood himself, and being pretty bold in its subject matter. Of course this is an Ed Wood film though, and it's got all the nonsensically moronic devices that are baffling to anyone who knows the first thing about cinema. Like Ed Wood himself, "Glen Or Glenda" is all heart and not an ounce of brains.

All I can say is this: "PULL THE STRING! PULL THE STRING!"

Probably best to watch it stoned! In some ways brilliant and avant-garde, with a subject ahead of its time, but with inexplicable stock footage (wild buffalo stampeding!), Bela Lugosi. It is so bad, but not "so bad it is good," like Attack of the 50-foot Woman. Dolores Fuller (real-life wife of Wood) is possibly the worst actor of all time, basically reading memorized script. Junior high plays have better actors!

Good movie for what it was; a flawed, offbeat documentary/drama that also doubles as a movie that may have been ahead of its time. This film was written and directed by Edward D. Wood junior, an enthusiast in life and film as well as a cross dresser. He added to Glen or Glenda what no other director would have been brave enough to do at the time; he added sensitivity and sympathy to the subject of LGBT that set most people off, at the time it was made and released. The movie bombed, but has become a cult hit and is considered a bad-good movie. At least by yours truly.

After seeing Tim Burton's "Ed Wood", I decided to watch an actual Wood film. "Glen or Glenda?" is such a bad, poorly done film that it actual serves as comedy. Everything about it is dismal, from the clunky narrative to the bad acting to the random cinematography; the list goes on and on. Don't take it too seriously, and you'll definitely enjoy it.

The "documentary" portions are rather boring, but everything else is delightful!

Fuck this movie! The only person that has entertainment value is Bela Lugosi!

When cross-dressing gets the Hollywood treatment it typically results in either situation comedy or cross-dressing done well resulting in the protagonist "passing" (e.g. Boys Don't Cry or the Crying Game). With Glen or Glenda, once you get past the usual Ed Wood level of production values, you're provided with a fascinating insight into the world and the mind of the cross-dresser in 1950's America; and an atypical level or reality where the cross-dresser carries out everyday, mundane activities whilst "dressed". It might not be particularly well made, and may not be Ed Woods most notorious film, but it may prove to be his most important when seen as a historical document dealing with the subject of gender identity in film. For those interested in film history or gender issues this is a film you should see. For those just wanting to pass an hour or so, you may find it interesting...or you may think it's awful.