Glen and Randa (1971) User Reviews

Very different...

[aeowen-03398 · 5/10 · 26 May 2019]

...but unique by it's own right.

I had heard of this movie years ago, but always had an interest in watching it. It wasn't until about 15 years ago when I bought a VHS tape of it. What I saw was quite different and very unique for the time it was released, in 1971. I had read long ago that it was about a couple of teenagers surviving a nuclear holocaust and after several years, go on a quest to find the fictional Metropolis of Superman fame.

Here's where I was wrong. The couple come across some characters along their way, which kind of muddled up my thoughts of what I read. I wanted to research it, but by the time I wanted to, my ex-wifer threw it out in a yard sale.

My quest goes on to find it again...but it still very different and quite unique.

Sotto-voce futurism, definitely not made by the usual nitwits.

[EyeAskance · 2 September 2003]

Unjustifiably ignored sci-fi indie is a lovingly handled little gem, and provides one of cinema's less trenchant visions of post-apocalyptic Earth.

Glen and Randa are young lovers, born years after the nuclear decimation of worldwide civilization. The nth-generation of a handful of survivors are tribal, searching daily for life's most basic essentials. Glen has seen a tattered Wonder Woman comic book, and believes that the fictional city of Metropolis in its pages does, indeed, exist. With his curiosity piqued, he and pregnant Randa embark on a journey to find it.

Not an action-packed film by any stretch of the imagination, GLEN AND RANDA is an otherwise very solemn, thoughtful film which won't be appealing to everyone, but will leave some to chafe inwardly. I was personally quite moved by it, and would recommend it without hesitation to anyone looking for a unique film born miles away from the questionable influence of Tinseltown.

6.5/10

Long forgotten zero budget movie

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 6 October 2015]

Bizarrely, GLEN & RANDA was shown on late night TV here in the UK, so I decided to give it a watch having never heard of it before. I'm not exactly sure what I watched; ostensibly this is a post-apocalyptic movie dealing with mankind's struggle to adapt in a ruined world, but it's also an incredibly slow moving film in which very little incident actually happens.

The film begins with a couple of naked hippies strolling around and moves on from there. The female character falls pregnant and this sub-plot takes up a lot of screen time. The performances, shall we say, naturalistic to say the least, and there's a lot of waffle and philosophical debate as the characters interact with others in their landscape. I did like the way the central twosome are searching for a mystical comic book city and the cinematography is quite good on a zero budget, but there's too little meat here to sustain a proper movie.

post-apocalyptic knuckleheads

[raegan_butcher · 9/10 · 18 December 2005]

I thought this was a really interesting antidote to all of the mow-hawked and black leather-wearing silliness that seems to occur after the apocalypse in every other movie of this type. There are no marauding gangs of motorbike riders here. The innocence and ignorance of the titular characters is alarming enough; seeing them foolishly expend all of their wooden matches because its amusing to them before they attempt to cross what looks like the Cascade Mountain range is painful to watch! I happen to think that if anyone ever did survive an Extinction Level Event,they might behave something like Glen and Randa; what has destroyed the world is never explained; no mention of nuclear war is made and when the characters stand at what is obviously the west coast of either Oregon or California and explain that ..."about ten miles that way there used to be a city called Boise!" you realize that whatever happened, it was massive;nuclear warheads don't re-shape the coastline! The found sets--wrecked cars sunk in sand, mobile homes that look as if Godzilla stomped on them, a rusty derailed train half submerged in a river--lend a sense of surrealistic realism to the film, if that makes any sense. This movie moves at a slow pace but i was captivated by it, wondering what would happen next. I think one of the most powerful aspects of this film is the fact that there are NO characters who provide a sense of sanity and strength; all of the older characters seem to have been driven into a sort of semi-schizophrenic absent-mindedness by whatever it was that slammed the crap out of the old civilization and the 2 youngsters seem so ignorant and unaware of the inherent dangers of their travels that you seriously worry about their safety as they tramp barefooted thru the mountains, across deserts, etc etc. I would recommend this film as an example of what can still be done with the post-apocalyptic genre. This one was a breath of fresh air.

Post-holocaust innocence.

[gayspiritwarrior · 7/10 · 1 July 2004]

I find it interesting that nobody has yet mentioned how much casual nudity there is in this film. It's what got the film its "X" rating, even though there's no overt sexuality connected to it. It's more of a device to underline the innocence of Glen and Randa and their nomadic life. Nothing in the film would get it more than an "R" today. There are no special effects as such, just vistas of nature and of the ruined technology from which the survivors glean their living. The young actors are very appealing, and there's a quiet inevitability to the story's unfolding. I wish this were available on DVD, but given that there's no studio money behind it, this is unfortunately unlikely. This little film has stayed with me for many years since the release. It's too bad so few people know about it; it deserved a better fate.

Just plain brilliant

[roblins · 10/10 · 18 July 2006]

Saw this when it came out and was deeply affected by it. It is a powerful tale of a second genesis, the titular characters being Adam and Eve. I recall the first shot shows a beautiful "garden of eden" grove with a huge tree trunk in the center. The camera pans up as we hear the voices of Glen and Randa playing innocently. Thirty feet off the ground we find them -- in the wreck of a car blown into the tree's branches. Glen is behind the wheel pretending to drive. So the first image is a twisted amalgam of start and finish together that only becomes more obvious and compelling as the film unwinds. Glen comes to embody the flip-side urges of exploration and egotism that got us to the point where the movie starts -- the aftermath of the end of civilization. And it becomes clear that it will happen again. Sorry if I'm not clear enough. The film is much more eloquent in a completely organic way. there's no preaching or messaging. The picture is very funny at times and never overbearing. I'd love to see it again.

Raw, quirky, and kind of clunky

[sunznc · 7/10 · 11 March 2011]

Glen and Randa is raw and has a hedonistic feel to it. The film was originally released in 1970 with an X rating because of (gasp!) full frontal male nudity! Don't want people to see that male genitalia.

The film has a sort of low key, low budget amateurish feel to it at times. There are a few scenes which are sort of strange and silly at the same time. If it had been played serious by all the actors it could have felt sort of sleazy but most of the time it has a slight camp feel to it.

The film also has an innocence to it that makes it feel very refreshing. Glen and Randa like to frolic in the nude at times and after exposed to a traveling entertainer they decide to leave their group and travel on their own and find "metropolis", a city with people dressed all in white but find that much isn't left after the holocaust.

One other element I enjoyed was that there aren't any crazy people out to kill, rape or mame. You don't have to really worry about what will happen to these two as they travel alone.

There are moments that seem very dated and some of the scenes aren't shot that well. It's not a film that makes a huge impact but it does linger in your head a bit afterward mainly because of the youth of the lead characters.

A very offbeat and interesting early 70's post-nuke sci-fi curio

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 26 January 2006]

An intriguingly spartan and offbeat avant-garde early 70's excursion into post-nuke sci-fi survivalist cinema centering on the obsessive Glen (muscular, curly-haired Steven Curry) and his more passive female companion Randa (a sweetly disarming performance by the lovely, willowy Shelley Plimpton), a pair of guileless youths trying to eke out a meager existence amid the desolate ruins following an atomic war. After a wily, lecherous old magician (a wonderfully rascally turn by Garry Goodrow) visits Glen and Randa's camp and fills Glen's head full of tales about a great lost city, Glen and a now-pregnant Randa (the magician impregnated her) embark on a dangerous trek across the harsh, ravaged terrain to discover this great city that Glen first read all about in an old "Wonder Women" comic book. During their perilous quest Glen and Randa meet a friendly, doddering elderly man (an endearingly crotchety Woodrow Chambliss; Uncle Willie in the funky '72 made-for-TV creature feature favorite "Gargoyles") and Randa gives birth to a baby.

Director Jim McBride (who later helmed such better known big budget films as "The Big Easy" and "Great BAlls of Fire") skillfully uses an extremely plain, basic and unpolished no-frills cinematic style to plausibly create a vivid depiction of the banality and hopelessness of day-to-day post-holocaust existence, thus giving this bleak, albeit strangely haunting and affecting apocalyptic vision an unshakable sense of gritty, lived-in conviction. The bare-bones, but eloquent and sometimes wittily droll script by McBride, Lorenzo Manns, and Rudolph Wurlitzer (who went on to write "Two-Lane Blacktop" and "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid") relates with deceptive simplicity and straightforwardness a lyrically powerful parable with provocative religious allusions (Glen and Randa's odyssey could be interpreted as Adam and Eve's fall from grace after leaving the garden of Eden) about lost innocence and a futile search for an irrevocably vanished past paradise. Kudos as well to Alan Raymond's flat, spare, minimalist cinematography, which uses long, lingering, unedited takes, stately tracking shots, and elegant fade-outs to convey a wealth of striking visuals: the rusty hulk of a car with tree branches growing out of it, a horde of grimy survivors glumly rummaging through the rubble for cans of food, Randa ravenously devouring grass and worms, Glen savagely beating several fish with a stick, and the oddly poignant final shot of Glen and the old man drifting out to sea on a rickety boat are all indelible moments that stick in your memory after seeing the movie. A pleasingly quirky and truly novel one-of-a-kind experimental oddity.

Totally unique low budget Sci-Fi/Fantasy gem

[m_bryce74 · 10/10 · 25 October 2010]

Science Fiction/fantasy is a genre different in certain ways from other genres. In order for its ideas to be communicated a physical world usually needs to be constructed, and in order for this to happen, big dollars need to be invested. The most high brow concepts fall in a heap when the sets start wobbling or the cheesy music starts. There are not many low budget Sci- Fi/fantasy success stories. Glen and Randa is an exception. On an absolute shoe string budget a work has been created of genuine vision. In terms of a narrative there isn't much to speak of. The story tells of two teenagers who, after being visited by a traveling merchant in a post apocalyptic world, trek across the country side in search of a city. Something they have read about in comic books but never seen. It is never alluded to what caused the breakdown in society, but people live in it's remnants, in a kind of stunned simplicity. The story is told in a long series of scenes, which tell a story, but they are really there to give impressions of a world devoid of social structure and technology. Rather than creating elaborate sets and situations, Glen and Randa explores this through examining the internal world of the two main characters. They experience the world around them with a mixture of innocence and ignorance. They have a horse but no idea that it can be ridden, They aren't able to understand what a minute is, and when Randa becomes pregnant, they have no understanding of what that means, or how to deal with it. The internal logic of the film plays out without any flaw, always a real acid test for any work in the genre. Situations are often troubling, but not illogical. And through use of whatever locations were handy, an otherworldly reality is effectively created without a dime spent on lumber. It took a while for the film to work it's magic on me, because it was such unusual story telling. Because of it's early 70's origin I figured it would have a Hippy kind of naturalist message like Gas or wild in the Streets, but it became apparent that it went much deeper than that, which, to me is why it is such a crime that this film has been so completely overlooked. My advice is if you enjoy the genre beyond Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, then take any opportunity you get to watch this film, if you can bond with its ideosyncratic style of story telling you definitely won't be disappointed.

Glen and Randa (1969)

[Drago_Head_Tilt · 14 November 2011]

A young, naive post-nuke couple (Steven Curry with Sideshow Bob hair, and Martha's mother Shelley Plimpton) leave their commune to search for "the city" (using Wonder Woman comics as a reference). They never do find it, and she dies during childbirth at the end of this mostly dreary, low-key 16mm American Film Institure-backed effort that received an X for casual nudity when released in '71. The best part is early on with Garry Goodrow (a jobbing character actor who later co-wrote HONEY I BLEW UP THE KID) excellent as a lecherous motormouth travelling "magician" who puts on a show (great use of The Rolling Stones' Time Is On My Side). Shot in California and Oregon. The first screenplay attempt by then-hip novelist Rudy Wurlitzer, he wrote TWO-LANE BLACKTOP next. McBride had already made a couple of documentaries and David HOLZMAN'S DIARY. He made HOT TIMES (also with Curry) next.

Movie reviews at: spinegrinderweb.com

Cormac McCarthy's The Road by way of National Geographic

[Quinoa1984 · 8/10 · 11 November 2014]

One thing's for sure about this movie - you won't think of The Rolling Stones' "Time is on My Side" the same way again, following a scene where the few remnants of society in a post-apocalyptic wasteland - we don't see the apocalypse, it just happened - are sitting around at night and there is this strange curiosity called a record player that somehow, despite electricity and power being something of a rarity, can play a record. They have a single of the Stones song, and it sometimes goes a little in and out of track, warbling a bit, and everyone just sits around listening to it. Impassive, just taking it in. What is this thing called 'Music' after all?

It's one of those oddball moments, which is funnier perhaps on paper than how it's played, that comes out of Jim McBride's film of Glen and Randa. Watching this film you get the impression that it's almost like a bizarre, wild-child style documentary on what would happen to people years and years down the line after society had been broken apart with no infrastructure to set it up. Oh, and there's sex between these two crazy kids and lo and behold Randa becomes pregnant. So that becomes an issue as the two of them go wandering around, trying to find food, shelter, and some place they can call home.

McBride's film is a true oddity, shot in grainy film and done to look like some sort of artifact of a time and place (maybe intentional, maybe not), and the two leads are non-professionals. You know, for example, when Steven Curry is shouting out the same 'TIME IS ON MY SIDE' over and over, as it's in his head, this is a performance that is stripped down to its essentials. It's either a very good performance or a bad performance it that makes sense, but this guy is always in it, always showing this crazy kid's curiosity about the world, about the "City" that could be out there - he learns this through his tattered comic book remains he carries with him - and Shelley Plimpton is the same way.

As with the McCarthy book The Road we don't get many other people here. There is the tribe early on, but Glen and Randa can't stay there as it's too unstable and Glen wants bigger and brighter things. The last "act" as it were of this gangly narrative takes them to a beach where Randa may finally deliver her child into the world. The ending itself is as bizarre as anything else in the film, but less logical. Why does Glenn do what he does, or Randa, or the baby, or the old man who has another few remnants to help them? In some ways the movie has not stood the test of time, but in a way it has.

It's longish-freaky-looking characters are out of the late 60's, victims of the Flower Power movement, but they're also real and tactile and are fascinating to watch just from an anthropological point of view. In other words, it's not like a Mad Max post-apoc future, there are no motorcycle gangs or the like, it's, again, stripped down to where nature has taken over the Earth in major ways. If anything it's low-budget-ness shows a little too much, but the script via Rudy ("Two Lane Blacktop" Wurlitzer makes this experimental and low-key in good ways. What they don't got, they make it an advantage.

Simply put: one of the stranger films of 1971.

A solid, moody post-apocalyptic drama.

[fedor8 · 12 January 2007]

A downbeat post-WWIII film that has practically no soundtrack; there is an old pop hit being played on a record player, and some of the characters briefly sing a bit, but basically there is no music. A very silent, calm film which takes a little while (10-20 min.) to get interesting. The gloom isn't realized with dark scenes and depressed faces; it's realized with the lack of music, the miserable living conditions of the characters, and by the events.

Whether it's realistic or not depends on how you look at it; it's realistic enough within the framework of the world that is envisioned here. However, at least 20 years have passed since the Armageddon, and people still live like rats which is an underestimation of humankind's ability to re-organize. I mean, all that the group of people (the ones Glen & Randa belong to) in the movie do is collect cans of food. Also, there is a ridiculous scene where Randa holds a piece of raw fish and lights it briefly with a match, then eats it! Surely, even cave people would have more culture than that. Surely, Glen and Randa - as super-naive as they are shown to be - at least ought to know that fire is used to prepare meat.

But otherwise the realism achieved is far greater than in most post-apocalyptic films, and there are no other exaggerations that I can think of.

After seeing the fish-hunting scene (literally "hunting fish") it's safe to say that the movie can make no claims that "no fish were killed during the making of this film".