User reviews

This movie was extremely well done. The story is told using a great many flashbacks. I don't usually like flashbacks, but in this film they are well done, and more to the point, they work.

Recommended.

I saw this movie and thoroughly enjoyed it, however few today seem to know anything about it. Ever since I have had a VCR, I have looked for it on video and now I would like to have it on DVD. I am sure there would be a market for it if someone would release it!

Can't speak to the version pictured here as I'm not sure I've seen it but it sounds suspiciously like a bootleg version that's been floating around Internet for years.

Several people who have reviewed it have commented on the atrocious transfer, which was case with disc I saw--everything reduced to fuzzy pastels, suggesting it was duped from multi-generational video that wasn't very good to start with. Plus, I may be one of the few people who actually saw this in a theater in 1970 and DVD version I viewed was obviously missing numerous key scenes, if not entire reels. "Plot" now simply lurches from one incomprehensible sequence to the next and makes no sense.

This seems to be one of those movies that has been out of circulation so long that it has somehow built up a reputation way beyond its actual merits. Not even enjoyably cheesy, it's simply a totally amateurish sexploitation cheapie that can't begin to hold a candle to the campy heights of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Myra Breckinridge or The Christine Jorgensen Story, films to which it is frequently compared, usually by those who haven't seen it.

Charm-free cross-dresser that plays Dinah is on sleepwalk mode, Warhol protégé Ultra Violet appears absolutely bored with her small cameo and most of cast looks like they were recruited from happy hour at a Santa Monica Blvd. hustler bar.

Despite its rep, this curio is just not very much fun and is frequently flat-out dull. Not that this review will probably discourage anyone who wants to see for himself. But you've been warned.

I saw this movie in 1970 in Boston,Massachusetts, and I absolutely loved it. I wish it were available on VHS as I feel it was so ahead of its time it would now be a great inspiration for young movie makers. It also would be greatly appreciated by the gay and lesbian film goers and film buffs.

I, too, saw this film in Boston in 1970. For many years I have sought out the film or even any mention about it. About a year ago, I read a footnote in one of the movie review books, that Mae West instituted legal action against the film shortly after its release. Apparently the settlement resulting from that action included the permanent withdrawal of the film from distribution. During Ms. West's lifetime there were recurrent, albeit ridiculous, rumors that she was a male. This film, in a kind of docudrama, relates the life of an actress, Dinah East, whose male gender was only revealed after her/his death. I had hoped it might reappear now that Mae West is dead, but so far that is not the case. I would like to receive more information on all of this from anyone who knows more than I do about it. Meanwhile, I eagerly await its reappearance.

This movie was totally before its time..A great adaptation of what Hollywood was like way back then, when there were limited acting parts for men ...A very early Tootsie!!! Can't wait for it to be available on video and or dvd!!

First, this movie has nothing AT ALL to do with Mae West. It is not even a veiled story of her life, and she did NOT "force the studio to pull it out of distribution and burn all the copies." Whoever made up that tale was an idiot. The East/West surname coincidence is ONLY a coincidence. You might as well say that East of Eden is about Mae West as say it about this movie. It's just stupid. This movie owes more to A Star Is Born than to anything involving Mae West.

Second, this movie also is not meant to be campy or any of the other dumb adjectives people try to apply to it. Maybe campy people see themselves in it, but that's in THEM, not in the movie.

True: it was made with very little money and with no talent AT ALL, anywhere, either before or behind the camera. But it was made with a huge amount of heart, and its sincerity, its openness and generosity of spirit are what make Dinah East well worth watching.

This is a love story about two misfits, and despite all its flaws it is sweet and moving and honest. It's not a joke. Laugh at if you want to, but if you do you're depriving yourself of something a lot better than a good laugh.

But if you do want to watch it, be VERY DILIGENT about which of the two DVD releases you buy. The DVD most earlier reviewers saw is a semi-pirated 2006 release of ABOMINABLE quality in a chopped-off 3:2 full-screen (old TV) format, almost surely copied from a VHS tape released briefly in the 1980s.

It has a rather dull cover, with a photo of Diana East at the bottom and "A superstar actress is really a man... Hollywood's strangest story! DIANA EAST" at the top. That is the DVD you DO NOT want to buy. It's nearly unwatchable. Amazon in the US says it's currently unavailable, and let's hope it stays that way. But Amazon in the UK still sells that version; and it is the version the large American DVD-by-mail renter has, so don't bother putting it in your queue.

There is a MUCH better 2010 DVD from Kit Parker Films, distributed in the US by VCI Entertainment and possibly other distributors in other markets. It has remastered video and audio and is in the original 16:9 wide-screen format. It has a more modern, glitzier cover, with "UN-CUT THEATRICAL VERSION" in a black banner across the top and "KIT PARKER FILMS" in a black banner across the bottom. That is the DVD you MUST buy if you want to see this movie. Amazon sometimes groups the two very different versions (and their reviews) together, so you have to be diligent about buying the right one.

This is not a particularly good, but certainly interesting artifact from the early 70's. I won't rehash plot too much, but it was obviously "gay interest" with a trans lead,(Andy Warhol hanger-on Ultra Violet), which was very unusual at the time. There is also a lot of gay male interest and nudity, which was much less common then than it is now. There is also a LOT of lesbianism and female nudity, which was definitely NOT unusual at the time, including the young-looking Kitty Carl ("Carhops") and Susan Romen ("Weekend with the Babysitter"), who in 1970 may not just have been young LOOKING. I guess you can say it has something for everybody as far as exploitation goes. But it is kind of a weak story that is all over the place without being as memorably awful as similar fare of the time like the bigger-budgeted "Myra Breckenridge" or "Sextette".