Ordinary 15-year-old teenage girl, feeling like an outcast at a new high school, falls in with the stoner crowd after being offered hallucinogens at a party. Eventually, she's a runaway living on the streets and, after returning home to her well-meaning but naïve parents, is stuck with a bad reputation among her peers--and labeled a 'fink' when she turns in a fellow teen druggie. TV-made "message movie", adapted from the fictional cult book by Anonymous (Beatrice Sparks), purports to pack a punch, but instead seems tentative and a bit awkward (this mostly due to the inexperienced younger actors in the cast). William Shatner (as Alice's natty father) and Andy Griffith (as a priest who works with dopers and drunks) seem to be cast for their name value, although both do solid work in small roles. Jamie Smith Jackson handles the lead with sensitivity and sincerity, and the picture gets a solid B for effort.
57 Reviews
Opinion
uninhibitedarchitect26 September 2016
I don't think this is some writer in a room making this up. Her descriptions of her trips are incredibly accurate she was a wordsmith as the way she describes things iv'e never heard/read anyone describe the same. I wish I could've ben there in her time of need as i'm sure most of you do who've read the book. What Saddens me Greatley is that she mentions she sells DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) but never tries it... I say with deep confidence, as when you read this book you almost establish a familiarity with her as if she was a sibling or friend and anyone who's tried DMT cannot contain themselves as there is no other drug trip that can compare with it. Anyone who has tried DMT cannot help but SCREAM OUT and let the world know.. here s a good example (youtube "Jim Carrey Talks about his DMT experience" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ogCISYBZM DMT kills addiction and takes All of that pressure and weight off of your mind... that war that feels like is waging in your mind that weight and pressure of going sober or coming off a mass bender is completely erased your mind is reset and all addictions are cured... I quit everything for months after my first hit of DMT including cigaretes but admit (patheticly) I am not brave enough to do it again and all my other highs hold me back as if they feal threatened. I have tried almost everything there is and what she mentions, except the difference is I am a guy and the social implications of addiction do not affect me as much, anyone elses opinion of me (except people I care about ((which is like 2 people)) do not phase me as it's easier to bear compared to a girl, I think.when I have being pushed or threatened like she was I would push and hit back and that is why it doesn't happen as often. Another big difference is that she vents into her diary, I do not write in a diary which keeps me writing in my mind constantly and I couldn't risk anyone finding it. I'm sorry to see such a beautiful soul erased and would love to have had some guidance and wisdom from her. If anyone is in a similar situation and needs an ear I just created this account anonymously and would love to hear what u have to say and swap stories. only the good die young. I love you all. K.
Not the best acting, half-truths but it did it's job with many of us
mythicallyenchanting1 March 2009
When this film first came out I watched it and it scared the crap out of me. There are a few movies in my life that had a real impact on me and this was one of them. I hadn't seen it since then but recently watched it again and thought I didn't understand really why although saying that when I hear the music that was played during it sang by Grace Slick I still get that sinking, sad, depressed feeling that it originally gave me. Is the quality great compared to today's movies? No, I can't say it is and I've seen better telling of this type of story. Is the acting the best? No, again seen better? Is the storyline based on half-truths? Yes it is. Did it do it's job to scare the crap out of me when I was a youngster. Heck yes and I think was a big influence in the fact that now at 48 years old, almost 49, I never touched a drug in my life. So it may not have been the best acting, most truthfully storyline, the best quality but I think in it's way it saved many of us from ever even thinking about starting down the path of drugs.
pretty bad
sarasnapps27 August 2005
Well, I for one actually believed that "go ask alice" was the true story of a teenage girl. But it turns out it was written by an older woman as a cautionary tale on the evils of the day. As a result, for me at least, I had a hard time sitting through the movie. The acting was not very good, either. Though it was interesting to see Mackenzie Phillips in her first starring role. I think she should have written the script, seeing as how she did a lot of drugs at the time.It probably would have been a little more believable.Robert Carradine plays Bill. You may remember him from Revenge of the Nerds and Lizzie McGuire. Or you may not remember him at all. Oh, yes, they DID cast William Shatner as the father. AND Andy Griffith as the priest. But the one thing the movie didn't include was the best line from the book---"another day, another blowjob"
Darth Marc says:
iquestionmarc12 April 2006
When the book came out in the late 60's or early 70's it was promoted as non fiction. The author hoped to inform, educate or scare kid's about the dangers of drug use. At that time in the 60's and 70's drugs were considered cool and hip and the dangers of it weren't really known on a wide scale as they are now. The author went onto pen more books about the perils of teens going down the wrong path. She did a popular one almost as popular as go ask Alice and it was on teen prostitution, and another on aids. Decades later the author was revealed (Beatrice Sparks?)and Go ask Alice was changed to being classified as fiction. The book is still either way a great read and written so amazingly sincerely that after finding out it was fiction it is still hard to believe. The movie doesn't do the book justice, but it is fun to watch for 70's kitsch purposes. However when I watched it at 12 after shortly after I read the book, it sort of freaked me out but that was before I got HBO. The movie should really be remade as a time period piece of the late 60's early 70's, and not set in todays world.
Read the book.
theatre_134 February 2004
The movie was decent, but it left so much of the amazing imagery out. Also, the book really examines Alice's relationships with people and her feelings of loneliness. The movie was not personal enough. There is an intimacy in reading Alice's diary that draws you in and makes you really experience what she felt. I thought the movie approached this too much as a public service announcement.
In it's time, it was edgy for broadcast TV
terryshilo30 May 2015
I remember watching this with my sister and parents when it was first broadcast on TV. For it's time it pushed the envelope though realizing by today's standards it's kitschy with innuendo and a carefully crafted script to keep it within broadcast standards of the time. It was very good, and did a fair job of scaring some kids to not try drugs. I think the most our group did as teens was 8 people sharing a joint which had no effect; though, sadly I did know friends and kids in school to totally screw up with drugs, a couple died. It served it;s purpose at the time, it would be fodder to today's teens that hear much worse watching television commercials, that are barraged worse than the drug culture of the late 60's early 70's. I love Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplanes original version of Go Ask Alice "White Rabbit" which they did not use in the film.
The book was A FAKE!!!!!!!!!!
jwpappas17 June 2003
Before any discussion of this turgid made for TV flick there MUST be the inclusuion of the fact that the book was revealed to be a work of fiction back in the 1980s. It was written by a middle aged therarpist named Beatrice Sparks who was also involved in the satanic cult hysteria of the 1980s. So right off the bat the very origins--or what the book claims to be its origins--are a complete fraud.
This precursor to the After School Special is great for unintentional laughs if you have first imbibed in the very substances that this hysterical screed warns against. After a while though the typical lousy 1970s made for TV melodramatics become wearying. If you want a fun stoner film check out REEFER MADNESS or one of the old DRAGNET shows. Let this fraudulent bummer whither away & die like it deserves to.
This precursor to the After School Special is great for unintentional laughs if you have first imbibed in the very substances that this hysterical screed warns against. After a while though the typical lousy 1970s made for TV melodramatics become wearying. If you want a fun stoner film check out REEFER MADNESS or one of the old DRAGNET shows. Let this fraudulent bummer whither away & die like it deserves to.
Not good for drug abuse prevention, but good historical context.
dacc_mbc_200120 April 2005
I had to view this movie as part of a drug prevention program in junior high school('73-'74). I was between 12 and 13 years old at the time. The early 70s were turbulent and the drug culture was making its way to small town America. Unfortunately, the movie, in my opinion, made the drug scene seem cool while the straight kids were portrayed as "geeky". I personally thought that Alice was the coolest person in the world! I think the film could have achieved more balance and probably been more effective as "drug prevention" material had it presented the straight kids in a more appealing light. While I cannot say that it was the catalyst to my own "issues", it certainly did fan flames that were smoldering. I rated it 9 because watching it is nostalgic and I do think it is a fair representation of the drug culture during that time in history...not a 9 for it meeting its original intent...in that respect I don't think it succeeded. Most of the girls I knew wanted to be like Alice...including me!
The dark side of the hippie drug culture of the late 60s and 70s
Wuchakk2 August 2018
RELEASED TO TV IN 1973 and directed by John Korty, "Go Ask Alice" tells the sad drama of a mid-teen named Alice (Jamie Smith-Jackson) who inadvertently gets addicted to drugs and suffers the consequences. William Shatner and Julie Adams play the oblivious parents while Andie Griffith plays a priest/counselor who's seen it all. Ruth Roman is on hand as a psychiatrist while Mackenzie Phillips has a small part as a runaway.
The movie's based on the international best-selling young adult book by "anonymous" and is still in print to this day. While the book was promoted as the diary of a real teenage girl, albeit edited, over time people have come to the conclusion that it's a fake memoir by Beatrice Sparks, a therapist, (with Linda Glovach possibly co-authoring), although many still believe it's based on an authentic teen diary.
Whether it really was based on a real diary or not is irrelevant because the movie cogently reveals the awful truth of a teen girl converting to the drug culture of the early 70s. The director and writers really grasped what it was like and this is conveyed in many ways in the film; for instance, the challenge of going to a new school at 15 and the self-consciousness thereof. The opening with "White Rabbit" by Grace Slick & Jefferson Airplane is true-to-life and unforgettable. There's another scene of the teens high with "Dear Mr. Fantasy" by Traffic that's just as effective.
The movie condenses heavy real-life issues into a mere 74 minutes and divulges numerous truths: peer pressure to drink & do drugs, being stoned while the parents are oblivious (but the little brother KNOWS something's not right), the social divide between druggies and non-druggies, peddling, mental illness, getting clean, going straight, relapses, running away, homelessness, sexual promiscuity, prostitution and the desperation to get help.
"Go Ask Alice" conveys the awful truth of SOME youths who got addicted to drugs in the late 60s and 70s; and is still relevant in many ways to this day (e.g. the meth and heroin epidemics). The movie never suggests that EVERYONE who experiences the drug culture becomes addicted, etc. For example, I did all the alcohol/drugs shown in the movie and overdosed a few times, but never became addicted and easily quit when I was 19; yet I know friends who became addicts (including addicted to narcotics, as illustrated in the movie), died after an overdose, committed suicide, ran away or ended up in prison.
Needless to say, to argue that the movie is "sensationalist propaganda" and "lies" is absurd.
The narration is taken from Alice's diary, which helps us get to know her via her inmost thoughts and care about her welfare. She's beautiful and has so much potential. We WANT her to overcome her addiction and move on to a productive life. Can she? Will she? All I'll say about the ending is that it's potent: I was utterly floored.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour, 14 minutes and was shot at Universal City, California. WRITERS: Beatrice Sparks (book) and Ellen M. Violett (teleplay).
GRADE: B
The movie's based on the international best-selling young adult book by "anonymous" and is still in print to this day. While the book was promoted as the diary of a real teenage girl, albeit edited, over time people have come to the conclusion that it's a fake memoir by Beatrice Sparks, a therapist, (with Linda Glovach possibly co-authoring), although many still believe it's based on an authentic teen diary.
Whether it really was based on a real diary or not is irrelevant because the movie cogently reveals the awful truth of a teen girl converting to the drug culture of the early 70s. The director and writers really grasped what it was like and this is conveyed in many ways in the film; for instance, the challenge of going to a new school at 15 and the self-consciousness thereof. The opening with "White Rabbit" by Grace Slick & Jefferson Airplane is true-to-life and unforgettable. There's another scene of the teens high with "Dear Mr. Fantasy" by Traffic that's just as effective.
The movie condenses heavy real-life issues into a mere 74 minutes and divulges numerous truths: peer pressure to drink & do drugs, being stoned while the parents are oblivious (but the little brother KNOWS something's not right), the social divide between druggies and non-druggies, peddling, mental illness, getting clean, going straight, relapses, running away, homelessness, sexual promiscuity, prostitution and the desperation to get help.
"Go Ask Alice" conveys the awful truth of SOME youths who got addicted to drugs in the late 60s and 70s; and is still relevant in many ways to this day (e.g. the meth and heroin epidemics). The movie never suggests that EVERYONE who experiences the drug culture becomes addicted, etc. For example, I did all the alcohol/drugs shown in the movie and overdosed a few times, but never became addicted and easily quit when I was 19; yet I know friends who became addicts (including addicted to narcotics, as illustrated in the movie), died after an overdose, committed suicide, ran away or ended up in prison.
Needless to say, to argue that the movie is "sensationalist propaganda" and "lies" is absurd.
The narration is taken from Alice's diary, which helps us get to know her via her inmost thoughts and care about her welfare. She's beautiful and has so much potential. We WANT her to overcome her addiction and move on to a productive life. Can she? Will she? All I'll say about the ending is that it's potent: I was utterly floored.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour, 14 minutes and was shot at Universal City, California. WRITERS: Beatrice Sparks (book) and Ellen M. Violett (teleplay).
GRADE: B
Ineffective
keshlam-nospam10 April 2007
I saw Go Ask Alice as a high school student, shortly after it was made. Admittedly I was a relatively sophisticated film viewer, but my reaction to it was that it was a weak effort. I found the acting wooden and the script heavy-handed. One of the scenes where the girls discover something that shocks them completely failed to shock me, perhaps because I wasn't either young enough or narrow-minded enough to find it more than mildly surprising.
I would call it a period piece -- not as over-the-top as some of the more hysterical what's-wrong-with-our-kids efforts generally classified as Exploitation Films, but unfortunately not far short of that. It has the same sort of "one little slip from the straight and narrow and you're sliding toward hell" assumptions as many other morality plays, and that actually weakens it as a propaganda/educational (take your pick) effort.
Maybe the book was better. Or maybe you needed to be younger (and/or female?) and see it before "the 60's" (which actually ran partly into the 70's) started fading. Or maybe you needed to be predisposed toward the lesson it was trying to teach. But as a film (never mind as a message) it just didn't work for me. If I'd had any interest in drugs (which I never have), I don't think this would have changed my mind... and it didn't succeed in convincing me that it was even a good composite picture, never mind a portrait of an individual.
I will admit I have not viewed it since then. But since part of what others have discussed has been how it affected them, I felt a comment on how it failed to affect me was appropriate.
Just one ex-kid's reaction. "This is the kind of movie that is liked by the kind of people who like this kind of movie. I'm not one of them."
I would call it a period piece -- not as over-the-top as some of the more hysterical what's-wrong-with-our-kids efforts generally classified as Exploitation Films, but unfortunately not far short of that. It has the same sort of "one little slip from the straight and narrow and you're sliding toward hell" assumptions as many other morality plays, and that actually weakens it as a propaganda/educational (take your pick) effort.
Maybe the book was better. Or maybe you needed to be younger (and/or female?) and see it before "the 60's" (which actually ran partly into the 70's) started fading. Or maybe you needed to be predisposed toward the lesson it was trying to teach. But as a film (never mind as a message) it just didn't work for me. If I'd had any interest in drugs (which I never have), I don't think this would have changed my mind... and it didn't succeed in convincing me that it was even a good composite picture, never mind a portrait of an individual.
I will admit I have not viewed it since then. But since part of what others have discussed has been how it affected them, I felt a comment on how it failed to affect me was appropriate.
Just one ex-kid's reaction. "This is the kind of movie that is liked by the kind of people who like this kind of movie. I'm not one of them."
the walls are dripping, I can't come down...
elliottrainbow27 December 2003
Just kidding. I don't do drugs. But I do love this movie. I grew up believing the book Go Ask Alice was real and then to read on IMDB that it is a fake and written by some middle-aged woman...bummer. I watched this movie when it came on as a MOW (movie of the week for all of you who did not grow up in the 70s) and for years I was OBSESSED with finding it on video. I finally did in the spring of 1999. Now I'm not sure what my obsession was. I mean, I really liked this movie when I first watched it (I guess I was about eight) but I don't know why it had such an impression on me. I wish Jamie Smith-Jackson hadn't stopped acting. She is quite good in this movie. I read that she is married to Michael Ontkean. But, anyway, the movie is good and the performances (except for William 'Do I HAVE to do another take? What's wrong with the first one? Just because I didn't show ANY EMOTION WHATSOEVER...' Shatner) are good. I would like to see a remake of this movie. Eve Plumb (always under-rated IMHO) would be great as the mother. Even though this movie is (gulp!) THIRTY years old (that means I'm almost forty...nah, that can't be) it still holds up as to the dangers of experimenting with drugs. Alice and her friend have a pretty rough time of it on the road after running away. They encounter pill-pushing child molesters, eating out of garbage cans and Andy Griffith (a million light years from Mayberry and Aunt Bee) as a with-it preacher! BTW, the other movie I was obsessed with was She Lives! with Season Hubley and Desi Arnaz, Jr., also made in 1973. While I hardly ever watch Alice anymore (I do have it on VHS) I've watched She Lives! probably fifty times in the four years I have had it. I'd like to hear from others who have seen either of these movies.
A soulless slice of 70's
Stay_away_from_the_Metropol20 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Did I miss something or did drinking half a beer crack her completely and send her to the hospital towards the end?
The movie mostly feels soulless because it's impersonal intention is it's entirely blatant root, but it's still an entertaining dive into a 1973 mindset and culture. Hollow but worth watching if the 70's interest you.
The movie mostly feels soulless because it's impersonal intention is it's entirely blatant root, but it's still an entertaining dive into a 1973 mindset and culture. Hollow but worth watching if the 70's interest you.
A fraud of a fraud
kjm914a23 September 2007
Go Ask Alice is a fraud of a book and an equally fraudulent movie. The book that this weak, inauthentic TV movie was based on was written by a middle-aged British woman pretending to be an adolescent American girl. The language is all wrong: "telly," "mum" . . . it's all ridiculous for starters, plus the effects she ascribes to certain drugs (pot, speed, and LSD, for starters) are obviously based on antidrug propaganda and not on any first-hand experience.
OK, now to this pallid attempt at creating a film version of a fraudulent book. Well, shall we talk about the production values? Crappy sets, bad lighting, horrible attempts to simulate the drug experience within the confines of a G-mandated rating and an obvious lack of familiarity with either drugs or even decent cinematic representations of freak-outs (Hitchcock/Dali, Hopper/Fonda). And I guess I don't have to talk about how bad the direction and acting are. That's obvious by looking at the casting and the subsequent credits of the ingenue and the non-cameo actors and actresses.
Bad all around--good for a laugh, on a sophomoric level.
OK, now to this pallid attempt at creating a film version of a fraudulent book. Well, shall we talk about the production values? Crappy sets, bad lighting, horrible attempts to simulate the drug experience within the confines of a G-mandated rating and an obvious lack of familiarity with either drugs or even decent cinematic representations of freak-outs (Hitchcock/Dali, Hopper/Fonda). And I guess I don't have to talk about how bad the direction and acting are. That's obvious by looking at the casting and the subsequent credits of the ingenue and the non-cameo actors and actresses.
Bad all around--good for a laugh, on a sophomoric level.
A powerful impact on a 13 year old girl
sylvie63 August 2004
I saw this movie when it came out on television in 1973. I was 13 years old at the time. I would rate this movie as a 10. The reason being, it scared the hell out of me when I saw it. It came at a very influential time for me. I knew nothing about drugs, I knew no one who had taken drugs and I had never experimented with drugs at that time.
I was later exposed to drugs, they were very prevalent in the seventies. They were everywhere. I had tried marijuana, and a couple other drugs, but never acquired them for myself and never made it my lifestyle. Because of this movie, I was afraid of where it would take me, and that I wouldn't be strong enough to come back from it.
The characters were strong enough, the movie was good enough, the story was told well enough. well enough in fact to haunt my dreams every time I stepped over the drug line and I think that's why it was made, and it did the job it was supposed to do. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I was later exposed to drugs, they were very prevalent in the seventies. They were everywhere. I had tried marijuana, and a couple other drugs, but never acquired them for myself and never made it my lifestyle. Because of this movie, I was afraid of where it would take me, and that I wouldn't be strong enough to come back from it.
The characters were strong enough, the movie was good enough, the story was told well enough. well enough in fact to haunt my dreams every time I stepped over the drug line and I think that's why it was made, and it did the job it was supposed to do. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Winos and drunks are now outnumbered by teen junkies
mark.waltz28 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
That's the statistics according to priest Andy Griffith who runs a mission and offers pill popping teen Jamie Smith Jackson (as Alice) advice after she goes to ask him for help. This TV movie was a big deal when it first came out and although I was a pre-teen, I remember older kids talking about it. Griffith is no nonsense, and doesn't sugarcoat the truth about what she's going to have to go through to withdrawal. You won't recognize William Shatner at all as he is greatly disguised as her father, with the beautiful Julie Adams as her loving mother. They may be good parents, but they are square as far as understanding teen angst of the early 70's. However, her younger brother can instantly tell that she's high when he brings her a birthday cake with the parents right behind him, completely naive to what's going on with Alice and her high school friends.
Yes of course, you'll hear the white rabbit song, sung over the opening credits, and you know you're not in Lewis J. Carroll's wonderland. Jackson narrates most of the film in a very dated way, making this seem either like a very long news report or a docudrama over a TV movie of the week. This results in some very static moments where are you hear are her thoughts, taken over by Adams towards the end. It's later in the film where veteran actress Ruth Roman has a small role as her counselor. This shows that even kids from the best families with good parents could fall down the rabbit hole. Fortunately short (because any longer would make it rather depressing), and while a classic TV movie because of its reputation is more a time capsule now.
Yes of course, you'll hear the white rabbit song, sung over the opening credits, and you know you're not in Lewis J. Carroll's wonderland. Jackson narrates most of the film in a very dated way, making this seem either like a very long news report or a docudrama over a TV movie of the week. This results in some very static moments where are you hear are her thoughts, taken over by Adams towards the end. It's later in the film where veteran actress Ruth Roman has a small role as her counselor. This shows that even kids from the best families with good parents could fall down the rabbit hole. Fortunately short (because any longer would make it rather depressing), and while a classic TV movie because of its reputation is more a time capsule now.
Parents Blame Everyone Else
chow9132 May 2014
The moral of this story is, parents aren't responsible for raising their children. So when their daughter Alice turns to drugs it's everyone else's fault and everyone else's responsibility to get Alice off of drugs.
Alice is a typical teenage girl. Oh who the hell are they fooling? Alice isn't a typical girl! She's a blonde Hollywood actress! But as usual the film expects us to believe she's fat, shy, and ignored by boys! Yeah right.
Alice literally turns into a hardcore drug user over night. Pot, LSD, heroin, all overnight! Just like all bad parents they claim not to know. Every time I heard a parent say this during a school lecture I wanted to scream. How could they not know their child was a junkie? It was obvious to me their child was a junkie. If I see someone at work with bloodshot eyes, slurring their words, and barely staying conscious I ask them if they have the flu and need to go home.
How do parents not notice these things. The reality is they do, they just don't care enough to do anything about it and then expect everyone else to pity them because they let their teen die of a drug overdose.
Alice gets into really serious trouble as she sells her body for drugs and then runs away. Soon she and her friend are being imprisoned and raped by child molesters. This scene is one of the creepiest in film history! Fortunately Andy Griffith steps in to save the day. No kidding! Alice shows up at a homeless shelter run by Andy Griffith! Sheriff Taylor gets Alice off the streets and back to her parents. Her parents whom muck up Alice all over again! They send her bad to the same bad school and send her back to the same junkie friends and are then shocked, shocked to find Alice dead of drug overdose. Just imagine how shocked they'll be to find gambling in Casablanca.
In summery there are some good scenes here but the only moral message comes from Alice's mother at the end explaining how this was a true story based on Alice's diary. So the parents take no responsibility for raising their daughter?
Alice is a typical teenage girl. Oh who the hell are they fooling? Alice isn't a typical girl! She's a blonde Hollywood actress! But as usual the film expects us to believe she's fat, shy, and ignored by boys! Yeah right.
Alice literally turns into a hardcore drug user over night. Pot, LSD, heroin, all overnight! Just like all bad parents they claim not to know. Every time I heard a parent say this during a school lecture I wanted to scream. How could they not know their child was a junkie? It was obvious to me their child was a junkie. If I see someone at work with bloodshot eyes, slurring their words, and barely staying conscious I ask them if they have the flu and need to go home.
How do parents not notice these things. The reality is they do, they just don't care enough to do anything about it and then expect everyone else to pity them because they let their teen die of a drug overdose.
Alice gets into really serious trouble as she sells her body for drugs and then runs away. Soon she and her friend are being imprisoned and raped by child molesters. This scene is one of the creepiest in film history! Fortunately Andy Griffith steps in to save the day. No kidding! Alice shows up at a homeless shelter run by Andy Griffith! Sheriff Taylor gets Alice off the streets and back to her parents. Her parents whom muck up Alice all over again! They send her bad to the same bad school and send her back to the same junkie friends and are then shocked, shocked to find Alice dead of drug overdose. Just imagine how shocked they'll be to find gambling in Casablanca.
In summery there are some good scenes here but the only moral message comes from Alice's mother at the end explaining how this was a true story based on Alice's diary. So the parents take no responsibility for raising their daughter?
Darkness!
BandSAboutMovies8 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Originally airing on January 24, 1973, Go Ask Alice is an adaption of the 1971 book. While the book - it's more of a diary, really - is written by "Anonymous", most people believe that therapist and author Beatrice Sparks really wrote it. She'd go on to write several similar books that were also supposed to be the real diaries of troubled teenagers.
Jamie Smith Jackson plays Alice, who just wants to fit in with the kids at her new school, as she tells her diary. Fitting in involves taking LSD at parties and falling into a world of drinking, drugging and disappearing from home. Her parents, playing by William Shatner in a ridiculous toupee and mustache and Julie Adams, yes, the girl from Creature from the Black Lagoon, are clueless. Nobody really cared about kids in the 1970's, obviously.
Mackenzie Phillips - who would later have drug problems of her own - shows up, as well as Andy Griffith (he's the best part of the film), Robert Carradine and Ruth Roman (from The Baby!) all make appearances. It's pretty schmaltzy in parts, but hey, it's a preachy 1973 TV movie. You kind of expect those kinds of things.
Jamie Smith Jackson plays Alice, who just wants to fit in with the kids at her new school, as she tells her diary. Fitting in involves taking LSD at parties and falling into a world of drinking, drugging and disappearing from home. Her parents, playing by William Shatner in a ridiculous toupee and mustache and Julie Adams, yes, the girl from Creature from the Black Lagoon, are clueless. Nobody really cared about kids in the 1970's, obviously.
Mackenzie Phillips - who would later have drug problems of her own - shows up, as well as Andy Griffith (he's the best part of the film), Robert Carradine and Ruth Roman (from The Baby!) all make appearances. It's pretty schmaltzy in parts, but hey, it's a preachy 1973 TV movie. You kind of expect those kinds of things.
Boring propaganda.
jcain163510 February 2018
I can see the charm in propaganda films that are well made or fun to poke fun at. This was just dreadfully boring. Things just happen. The characters have no real motivations. The acting is just bad enough to be annoying. The camera work is all flat shots. I would prefer to be waterboarded than to watch this dull film again.
Pretty daring for its time.
planktonrules17 September 2009
In the early 1970s, America was still in denial about drugs. Like the parents of Alice in this film, "other" kids use drugs and the risk to their own kids is minimal. So, this film where the fictionalized "girl next door" and her fall into drug dependence is meant to wake up folks to the potential horrors of drugs.
Jamie Smith-Jackson stars as Alice, though oddly established actors like William Shatner, Ruth Roman and Julia Adams are listed at the top of the credits--and Jamie in the middle. I say this is odd because Shatner, Roman and Adams really were barely in the movie at all and the film is about Alice! As for these screen veterans, Shatner and Adams especially did great impersonations of blocks of wood. Perhaps the film made them too out of it--and they were a bit hard to believe as their characters weren't fully established. As for newcomer Smith-Jackson, she did a pretty good job helming this film.
The big star of the film, however, is the writing. The story didn't come off as trite or that whitewashed (at least for a made for TV movie) and was good entertainment and a nice public warning about drugs. A very good and well made film overall. And, considering I have worked in drug rehab and with prison populations, I have seen first hand the horrors that might befall those who make the choice to use drugs of all types--including alcohol.
Jamie Smith-Jackson stars as Alice, though oddly established actors like William Shatner, Ruth Roman and Julia Adams are listed at the top of the credits--and Jamie in the middle. I say this is odd because Shatner, Roman and Adams really were barely in the movie at all and the film is about Alice! As for these screen veterans, Shatner and Adams especially did great impersonations of blocks of wood. Perhaps the film made them too out of it--and they were a bit hard to believe as their characters weren't fully established. As for newcomer Smith-Jackson, she did a pretty good job helming this film.
The big star of the film, however, is the writing. The story didn't come off as trite or that whitewashed (at least for a made for TV movie) and was good entertainment and a nice public warning about drugs. A very good and well made film overall. And, considering I have worked in drug rehab and with prison populations, I have seen first hand the horrors that might befall those who make the choice to use drugs of all types--including alcohol.
You Can't Ask Alice
Sylviastel1 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I remember reading the book as a child. It held me spellbound that I remember the haunting and candidness of Alice's diary. Even as an adult, the book was powerful and effective even it wasn't real. It might have been real. As a young reader, I read this book and Anne Frank. Fictional Alice was realistic, honest, candid and terrifying. She was lost in the world of drugs and adolescence. This poorly made television film is candid but holds back. The actress who plays Alice is fine in her performance. She is believable. William Shatner and Julie Adams play the concerned parents. Ruth Roman played the effective psychiatrist. The film's poor quality has aged badly over the decades. Mackenzie Phillips played Doris in a scene.
An unintentionally hilarious piece of propaganda that is 100% fictional
ncolen26 June 2019
This "movie" (afterschool special) is a Hilarious attempt at a scare film that can only be compared to something like refer madness in its sheer insanity. At the time this was released it fooled an embarrassing number of Americans into thinking it was based on a true story while in reality it is 100% fictional created in attempt to add fuel to the fear that powered the war on drugs. If you want something to chuckle at give this a watch but be sure to recognize that this is nothing like any kind reality that ever existed. Ps this would probably be a hoot if you were to partake in some herbal refreshment beforehand
superb acting, a must see for all teens!
ook-24 June 1999
This movie was superbly acted, and must be seen by teens today. In these times, life threatening diseases are a reality, teens need to see and understand that drugs do not only diminish your self respect, but your physical and mental self as well.
A must see for teens
yassminealers17 February 2006
As an adult I can honestly say that this movie single handedly shaped my concept of drugs. This was a really important film to me growing up. When I first saw it as a kid it scared me to death. Upon watching it, I unconsciously made decisions based on the film. As a result, I never once had the desire to even try drugs despite the fact that they were a part of my environment growing up. I intend to buy this film, if possible and show it to my niece and nephews. I don't remember much about the acting or plot lines. What I do remember is the feeling it left me with - how destructive drugs can be. This film should be used in middle schools across the country. A must see for teens.
Terrible Even For A TV Movie
tiekbane1 May 2016
This movie is all talk & no action. Alice narrates through the whole movie probably as a cost saving thing. If you're going to use narration, you can just have your stars sit there while the voice over talks. Things happen off camera and we see the end result so we miss out on important details. At the end, Alice supposedly finally OD'd which we know simply because her mother is now narrating. She doesn't even have the decency to OD on camera. You know you're in trouble when a disclaimer comes on at the beginning stating that the material has been cleaned up for family viewing. They should remake it on HBO or something. If this movie was made in an attempt to deter children from drug use, the only question the kid will have for their parents is, "Daddy, what was this movie about?" It's interesting only in an historical context.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
