Plan 9 From Outer Space wasn't made as a work of art. It wasn't even made to be good. It was made for one reason and one reason only. To make money. And, being as bad ( and laughable ) as it was, it has become a cult classic as a result. I mention that by way of comparison. "Reefer Madness" falls into the same category, even though the production of it was somewhat better, with an added bonus for the folks involved with the making of it ...It was also meant to be used as a "teaching" tool. Teaching in this instance being synonymous with propaganda. Calling this flick "highly exaggerated" or "over the top" is putting it mildly. Which is exactly why, given the very pronounced change in society's view of marijuana, it is so much fun and rightly deserves the title "Cult Classic". Well done? Hardly. Fun? Oh yes. So ... I think everyone ought to see this at least once just for the fun of it. Parents, tell your children.
149 Reviews
That's pretty swell...
saugoof25 January 2002
I doubt that anyone still takes this movie seriously these days but it's funny seeing how people went paranoid about pot in the 30's. There are lots of wildly exaggerated or plain wrong comments and accusations in it. Best among them are that pot is more dangerous than Heroin, it will make you violent and eventually incurably insane.
The film details how smoking pot changes the lives of a couple of all-american teenagers. In fact, they're so clean cut, nice to their parents and just plain perfect that you're actually happy when their lives turn bad. On the way there we see some really funny overacting and the way that middle America thought people behaved after smoking pot. A single puff immediately has you in hysterics, after a couple of minutes it's down to pre-marital sex (hey, that's enough to get me hooked!), followed by a violent paranoia and finally of course, insanity.
The film is fairly standard propaganda stuff and follows the three important propaganda ingredients to a T. It's badly acted, exaggerated in hammering home a couple of points and frightening the uninformed about the fact that no one is safe from this great danger. It is however fairly lengthy for a propaganda movie and it's not as ridiculous as I expected. Although there are some really funny scenes that rightly make this a classic.
The film details how smoking pot changes the lives of a couple of all-american teenagers. In fact, they're so clean cut, nice to their parents and just plain perfect that you're actually happy when their lives turn bad. On the way there we see some really funny overacting and the way that middle America thought people behaved after smoking pot. A single puff immediately has you in hysterics, after a couple of minutes it's down to pre-marital sex (hey, that's enough to get me hooked!), followed by a violent paranoia and finally of course, insanity.
The film is fairly standard propaganda stuff and follows the three important propaganda ingredients to a T. It's badly acted, exaggerated in hammering home a couple of points and frightening the uninformed about the fact that no one is safe from this great danger. It is however fairly lengthy for a propaganda movie and it's not as ridiculous as I expected. Although there are some really funny scenes that rightly make this a classic.
It's 10 o'clock. Do you know why your children are cackling insanely?
JoshSpurling15 March 2007
"Reefer Madness" (originally "Tell Your Children") was created to teach parents that it's never too early to scare the holy crap out of your kids. Through this film we learn that the soul-destroying effects of Marihuana (Mike Nelson explains in the commentary that this film was made before the invention of the letter J) far surpass those of cocaine or heroin. We see firsthand that even teens who can quote Shakespeare like nobody's business cannot escape its evils.
Here are some of the symptoms of casual Marihuana use:
If your child has experienced any of these symptoms, he or she is a Marihuana addict. The solution is simple: force them to watch "Reefer Madness" because if we don't heed its warning, "Reefer Madness 2" will be coming to a theater near you or you... OR YOU!
Here are some of the symptoms of casual Marihuana use:
- laughing maniacally while running people down in the street
- playing the piano too fast
- having sexual relations with people you don't really like that much
- accidentally shooting people you do like pretty well
- having no recollection of being framed for murder
If your child has experienced any of these symptoms, he or she is a Marihuana addict. The solution is simple: force them to watch "Reefer Madness" because if we don't heed its warning, "Reefer Madness 2" will be coming to a theater near you or you... OR YOU!
Yikes!
dougdoepke18 July 2016
Oh my gosh, my post-war generation was still under the influence of this tripe and believed one puff would ruin a lifetime. No wonder the 60's generation talked about a credibility gap as they puffed away. This is a bad movie highlighted by the ridiculous, and no one in front of the camera or behind seems to care. Do the producers really believe this burlesque. Or maybe they're shilling for the liquor lobby then regaining its post-Prohibition popularity, or maybe the plastics lobby worried about the manufacturing possibilities of hemp oil.
In a way, it's too bad the movie comes across now as a joke. Pot may not be the Devil's brew, but it does dull awareness, and in that sense remains a risk. So hyping the effects has had a reverse effect that also needs to be considered. Nonetheless, the movie's smug authorities from school principal to courtroom judge to official narrator are enough to get me to light up and puff away. Plus they're not even good for a laugh.
In a way, it's too bad the movie comes across now as a joke. Pot may not be the Devil's brew, but it does dull awareness, and in that sense remains a risk. So hyping the effects has had a reverse effect that also needs to be considered. Nonetheless, the movie's smug authorities from school principal to courtroom judge to official narrator are enough to get me to light up and puff away. Plus they're not even good for a laugh.
Smoke them, if you got them, because Reefer Madness will make you laugh your head off!
ironhorse_iv21 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Originally intended for parents as an educational video against the dangers of marijuana. 'Tell Your Children', AKA 'Reefer Madness', also sometimes titled as 'The Burning Question', 'Dope Addict', 'Doped Youth', and 'Love Madness', was so far-fetch in propaganda and false accusations against the drug that, even Afterschool Specials are pointing and laughing at them. It's a film everybody loves to mock! Directed by Louis Gasnier and produce by Dwain Esper, the exploitation educational film is so extreme with its anti-drug message, that it's hard to believe, that this film was once originally financed by a concerned church group. No really! For a 1930s movie, this movie is intense, due to the large amounts of over-the-top violence and sexuality! Scenes of hit and run accidents, manslaughter, suicide, attempted rape, hallucinations, and descent into madness are all fabricated here, due to marijuana addiction. They really went overboard with this! The side effects portray in this film are highly exaggerated to the point that it's laughable. It's so misinformed. The times has really changed since then. Information about the drug is much more positive than negative. While recreational pot usage is still a controversial topic, many people today agree more with America's new stance on the drug being legal for medical uses. After all, more and more people use it, today, than any other period and clearly, the side effects are not as bad, as they first thought. While, yes, it might cause some people dizziness, loss of time, paranoia, depression, anxiety, increased appetite, low sperm court, birth defects, breathing problems, and others, but also studies show that smoking or chewing pot, can help control cancer, epileptic seizures, eases the pain of multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, and might slow down the progression of Alzheimer's disease and arthritis. It's even used for mental health for people suffering from PTSDs, suicide and dementia. It's seem by the amount of research, that I found, the pros outdo the cons. While, nobody should think that drugs are cool. It's just so fun to see just how extreme some people will go to convince us that even the most harmless of drugs are the worst things in the world. I really can't believe that some people still believe that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. That message is so warped, out of its mind! A good example of that, is from this movie with ad for Pabst's Blue Ribbon Beer being shown during the car chase. Wow! I guess, this movie never heard of drunk-driving, before. It's also disturbing to see the two leads, Bill Harper (Kenneth Craig) and Mary Lane (Dorothy Short), being depicted as incredibly square even for 1930s standards yet they are shown to smoke regular cigarettes, even before they get introduced to pot by the drug pushers, Jack Perry (Carleton Young) and Mae Coleman (Thelma White). What the hell! If you didn't think that, was bad. There is actual cigarette ad in the background! It's a bit irony that both Dorothy Short & Kenneth Craig died years later from some form of cancer. Despite that, the acting is this film was alright, even if they were all acting a bit silly. One character was a bit annoying was Dr. Carroll (Josef Forte). He was such a scene hog. Nevertheless, the plot of the film is also a problem. It was a bit slow. There seem to be a lot of long, pointless shots in the movie, such as Bill dropping his book, picking it up, and dusting it off. Even the opening text takes forever to get through. If that wasn't bad enough, the movie failed so badly at its moral message that it's counterproductive. After all, it might not have been the best idea to start the film by giving detailed instructions on how to make and even smuggle joints. Then, there is the fact that some of the characters in the film, got away with crimes, which is unheard of, in Hays Code 1930s. I think the funniest part, is Jack loudly explaining to Mae, how to frame Billy, while he was in the same room. That was just strange and hokey. It's impossible to take the plot, seriously with all the plot-holes, this film has. If that wasn't bad enough for the film makers and producers. Soon after the film release, the movie lose its copyright claim and since then, belong in the public domain. This means that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a DVD copy of this. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely or badly edited. Since many of them, come from extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation copies. So don't count on the audio and film footage to be good. Not only that, but it had a lot of scratches, and grains in the film footage. So watch out for that. Even with the film, being over 70 years old. I still have to give some people, credit. The 20th Century Fox, in collaboration with Legend Films, 2004's colorized version was oddly fun to watch. The intentionally unrealistic color schemes add to the film's unintentionally campy humor. I also love how it inspires a 2005's musical satire with the same name. Now that was a blast to watch. Overall: The original black and white movie was alright watch, but it's not as funny as people make it out to be. It's more like an oddities. A freak show, that deserve one viewing and that's all. So check it out. If you like this movie, go ahead and check out, Esper's other works in the education-exploitation field: 1936's 'Marihuana' & 1937's 'Assassin of Youth'. They're also worth the watch. 'Highly' recommended.
Garbage, but entertaining garbage
nickenchuggets18 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Marijuana is a plant that people have known the calming effects of for centuries, and people in the 30s were just as concerned with its proliferation as they are now. Whether or not it's true that smoking it makes you lazier and less likely to carry out simple tasks is beyond the scope of this movie, but it shows how consuming a seemingly harmless plant can destroy your life. Maybe I should start by saying that this movie is one of the epitomes of "it's so bad it's good" cinema, and most people will agree that it's trash. The film's heart is in the right place, since it's goal is to steer people away from wanting to smoke weed, but when someone tells you you're not supposed to do something and that it's bad, that just makes them want it more. The storyline of this movie is essentially about a college dropout who decides to further damage his good standing in life by selling the drug to unsuspecting college and high school kids, one of which later runs somebody over in a car while high. The behavior of the students continues to rapidly deteriorate after one of them accidentally kills a girl because his gun went off by mistake. It really is just a chain reaction of bad decisions that get them into trouble again and again all because they smoked weed that they got from the two kids earlier in the movie. The story is nothing special and the overreacting of the kids in the movie is absolutely hilarious. I should have been mad at the movie for being so terrible, but I wasn't because the bad acting is just funny to observe. Maybe it's because I knew before I went into it that it was considered one of the worst movies, but it's bad in a special way. Does that affect the score at all? Of course not. It's terrible. Still, the movie deserves recognition because it's one of the first movies to show the dangers of addiction, and the corniness of it made it a classic among people in the 70s. It is amusing to watch because in spite of its awfulness, the rest of the movie takes itself so seriously.
Funny at first glance
grnhair200124 July 2017
Yes, back in the 1970s I went to the midnight showing of this and smoked a bunch of dope first, nearly a requirement of people of my class and generation. But in seeing it again, I am less amused. This is nonsense propaganda, marijuana's effects are nothing like this, and worst of all, we have spent billions of dollars combating the voluntary use of recreational drugs . And we do it because of nonsense like this. At the same time, tobacco, alcohol, the grains that produce alcohol, big Pharma medicines (98% of which are not necessary) are actually subsidized. It is beyond insane. The only difference between this, the ludicrous public-service message of a generation ago that showed an egg frying and said "this is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" (Yes, several, beginning with WTF are you trying to say, you nitwits?) and the current hysteria about whatever drugs are the subject of the current hysteria is that the fear-mongering message has gotten more sophisticated. Here's an idea: let people take whatever drugs they want. Leave them alone. If they want to kill themselves with them, that really is their business, not the government's. If they prefer pot or MDA or cocaine to whatever big Pharma is pushing, let them choose whichever they wish to choose. Get your laws off our bodies. So I'm thinking this is less funny than I used to think it was. It angers me. I want my war on drugs tax money back.
And jeez, what a horrible movie. Acting, sound, everything: awful.
And jeez, what a horrible movie. Acting, sound, everything: awful.
"Tell your children."
classicsoncall26 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
If the producers of "Reefer Madness" had intended to produce a campy, neurotic cult film, they could not have succeeded better. Of course, the film had a different intent, to portray the "frightful toll of the new drug menace - Marihuana is that drug - a violent narcotic - the real Public Enemy Number One"!
The film does have it's seedy moments in capturing the smoky atmosphere of the local drug hangout, where dope pushers bring their unwary teenage victims to turn them on to marijuana's excesses. But it takes a huge leap to make the connection between it's casual use and the resulting consequences of hit and run driving, rape, and even murder.
There are some memorable scenes - the frenetic piano player reminiscent of Seinfeld's Kramer, the attempted seduction scene of high schooler Mary witnessed by her boyfriend Bill, the aforementioned car accident involving Mary's brother Jimmy, and the jury room scene deciding Bill's fate where the light pull resembles a hangman's noose.
The film today is an incredible period piece that makes one think about how society perceived drug use and how the government attempted to influence behavior. For that it's worth viewing, if only once to experience it's cultish appeal.
The film does have it's seedy moments in capturing the smoky atmosphere of the local drug hangout, where dope pushers bring their unwary teenage victims to turn them on to marijuana's excesses. But it takes a huge leap to make the connection between it's casual use and the resulting consequences of hit and run driving, rape, and even murder.
There are some memorable scenes - the frenetic piano player reminiscent of Seinfeld's Kramer, the attempted seduction scene of high schooler Mary witnessed by her boyfriend Bill, the aforementioned car accident involving Mary's brother Jimmy, and the jury room scene deciding Bill's fate where the light pull resembles a hangman's noose.
The film today is an incredible period piece that makes one think about how society perceived drug use and how the government attempted to influence behavior. For that it's worth viewing, if only once to experience it's cultish appeal.
Simply poor, nothing more
mstomaso25 May 2005
Cindy Collins Smith's review (see above) explains the context of this film very well. I strongly recommend reading it before you read any of the other reviews (including my own - below).
'Epically awful' 'full of misinformation' 'a propaganda film which was so ineptly made that it had the opposite of its intended effect.' Much has been written about Reefer Madness and its importance in the history of film-making, so I won't bother to reiterate any of these opinions. Instead, I would like to look at Reefer Madness as a film.
How does it rate as a film?
Poorly.
It has a predictable, uninteresting plot, cardboard cut-out characters, racial stereotypes presented as obvious facts, a stiff script, an unrelentingly plodding pace, and it is very poorly shot. The dramatic points in the plot are so badly acted, scripted and filmed that the film fails to produce any real drama, and the only likable characters in the film are, sadly, the ultimate villains. The editing isn't too bad.
IMO, the fact that it was shot with very little budget over a very brief period and was not intended to be taken very seriously does not really help matters much. The low budget shows. Some competent acting talent was squandered. And the film really isn't funny unless you're high!
The plot is simple - a clean cut American Boy is given a joint in place of a cigarette and is, from that point forward, spun out of control down the path to lunacy, addiction, and violence. Saying any more would lead to a spoiler, and, just in case any of you are seriously considering watching this film, I wouldn't want to ruin what little entertainment value there is in it. Having stopped experimenting with drugs twenty years ago, I can not imagine anybody even being amused by this film unless they themselves were on drugs. It's simply poor. And poor does not necessarily = funny.
Unless a film is particularly artful, I will rate it according to its entertainment value, not necessarily its technique, theory or method. This, for me, is one of those films which does more harm than good - it is neither an effective propaganda piece nor a parody of one, and therefore deserves a single star.
'Epically awful' 'full of misinformation' 'a propaganda film which was so ineptly made that it had the opposite of its intended effect.' Much has been written about Reefer Madness and its importance in the history of film-making, so I won't bother to reiterate any of these opinions. Instead, I would like to look at Reefer Madness as a film.
How does it rate as a film?
Poorly.
It has a predictable, uninteresting plot, cardboard cut-out characters, racial stereotypes presented as obvious facts, a stiff script, an unrelentingly plodding pace, and it is very poorly shot. The dramatic points in the plot are so badly acted, scripted and filmed that the film fails to produce any real drama, and the only likable characters in the film are, sadly, the ultimate villains. The editing isn't too bad.
IMO, the fact that it was shot with very little budget over a very brief period and was not intended to be taken very seriously does not really help matters much. The low budget shows. Some competent acting talent was squandered. And the film really isn't funny unless you're high!
The plot is simple - a clean cut American Boy is given a joint in place of a cigarette and is, from that point forward, spun out of control down the path to lunacy, addiction, and violence. Saying any more would lead to a spoiler, and, just in case any of you are seriously considering watching this film, I wouldn't want to ruin what little entertainment value there is in it. Having stopped experimenting with drugs twenty years ago, I can not imagine anybody even being amused by this film unless they themselves were on drugs. It's simply poor. And poor does not necessarily = funny.
Unless a film is particularly artful, I will rate it according to its entertainment value, not necessarily its technique, theory or method. This, for me, is one of those films which does more harm than good - it is neither an effective propaganda piece nor a parody of one, and therefore deserves a single star.
Rrrrroll another fatty for this review, daddy!
clurge-231 January 2001
How can you not love this film? A piece so wonderfully outdated, even young children could get a laugh out of it. Shows how programmed society is to issues such as the use of "marihuana cigarettes".
The film makes sense of the whole issue of narcotics, as much sense as anyone could have had on the topic back in the 1930s. The film puts special emphasis on marihuana, the "deadliest of all drugs". This is especially laughable now that people have wised up, and found out that marihuana isn't screwing them up half as good as heroin, crack, blow, or acid can. "Reefer Madness" wants us to tell our children some important facts. Marihuana can make you laugh too much. Sure, according to the film you could also turn into a closet rapist and/or a violent murderer, but the laughing is where the emphasis is put. That's the last thing grown-ups would want teenagers to do back in the 30s is to have a good time.
Which brings me to my next point. This whole film looks like one-sided propaganda from the government or some incredibly concerned non-profit organization. In no way am I condoning the use of rec drugs, but the way it's presented gives me my suspicions. Seeing as this film only targeted our good friend cheeba, I'm waiting for sequels! CRACK-COCAINE CRAZY, 'SHROOM PSYCHOSIS, ACID INSANITY, and HEROIN HOE-DOWN! Tell your children!
Bottom line here? "Reefer Madness" will bring about more laughs than concerns in this day and age. If you've got a thing for campy classic exposés, or you just really like smokin' the trees, you can't beat this one.
The film makes sense of the whole issue of narcotics, as much sense as anyone could have had on the topic back in the 1930s. The film puts special emphasis on marihuana, the "deadliest of all drugs". This is especially laughable now that people have wised up, and found out that marihuana isn't screwing them up half as good as heroin, crack, blow, or acid can. "Reefer Madness" wants us to tell our children some important facts. Marihuana can make you laugh too much. Sure, according to the film you could also turn into a closet rapist and/or a violent murderer, but the laughing is where the emphasis is put. That's the last thing grown-ups would want teenagers to do back in the 30s is to have a good time.
Which brings me to my next point. This whole film looks like one-sided propaganda from the government or some incredibly concerned non-profit organization. In no way am I condoning the use of rec drugs, but the way it's presented gives me my suspicions. Seeing as this film only targeted our good friend cheeba, I'm waiting for sequels! CRACK-COCAINE CRAZY, 'SHROOM PSYCHOSIS, ACID INSANITY, and HEROIN HOE-DOWN! Tell your children!
Bottom line here? "Reefer Madness" will bring about more laughs than concerns in this day and age. If you've got a thing for campy classic exposés, or you just really like smokin' the trees, you can't beat this one.
The Gone with the Wind of 30's Exploitation Films
collinsm28 August 1999
Because of 70's NORML propaganda falsely claiming that the FBI sponsored Reefer Madness, most viewers believe that this Exploitation classic was meant to be taken seriously. Not so! Thelma White (Mae) has noted in interviews that the producers and director Louis Gasnier asked the cast to "hoke it up." The famous "Faster, Faster" scene is, in fact, a direct parody of a similar scene in the classic musical 42nd Street (a scene in which Dave O'Brien--Ralph in Reefer Madness--played a chorus boy).
So why make a cautionary tale, but do so tongue-in-cheek? Simple. To get around the Hays Code and show more skin than the Code allowed...but also to capitalize on the public's fear of drugs. Either way, the producers made a ton of money on the Exploitation circuit--more than covering their costs for this relatively expensive sub-Poverty Row production.
Made over the course of 3 weeks (most Exploitation films were shot in a few days), using an experienced director and a couple of talented actors who went on to have respectable careers in Hollywood, Reefer Madness is quite simply the finest Exploitation film to come out of the 30's.
The film's funny, is it? Well, the folks who made it thought so too. And they laughed all the way to the bank.
So why make a cautionary tale, but do so tongue-in-cheek? Simple. To get around the Hays Code and show more skin than the Code allowed...but also to capitalize on the public's fear of drugs. Either way, the producers made a ton of money on the Exploitation circuit--more than covering their costs for this relatively expensive sub-Poverty Row production.
Made over the course of 3 weeks (most Exploitation films were shot in a few days), using an experienced director and a couple of talented actors who went on to have respectable careers in Hollywood, Reefer Madness is quite simply the finest Exploitation film to come out of the 30's.
The film's funny, is it? Well, the folks who made it thought so too. And they laughed all the way to the bank.
Highly Entertaining For The Wrong Reasons And As Propaganda It Becomes Ironic
Theo Robertson29 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is a film often thought of as propaganda at its most blatant . Some comments here indicate that it might have been produced as some kind of parody . Watching it you're certainly struck by the lack of both internal continuity and internal logic of REEFER MADNESS and you often become confused as to what point the film is trying to make
Take the opening foreword that claims marijuana is destroying the youth of America in increasingly large numbers because of its effects where time slows down and becomes fixed ... the loss of all power to resist physical emotions . It's interesting that there's very little in American culture of the 1930s that suggests youth was being affected by marijuana . Apart from this one can anyone name any other (in)famous films featuring marijuana ? Even the opening tirade by Dr Carroll shoots itself in the foot by stating there's many drug traffickers bringing the substance in to the country only to have the film point out later that it's a naturally growing substance in every American state so why the need for traffickers ? Probably because the film needs villains
On the subject of villainy ask yourself this - how well regarded a movie would this be if it had been set in the 1920s and the mobsters were peddling not dope but booze ? We're treated to a laughable scene where an erstwhile bootlegger tells his boss that he has qualms about giving weed to schoolkids only for his boss to state that if he doesn't do as he's told he'll be got rid off permanently . So when alcohol was legalised again the bootleggers stood outside school gates giving kids weed ? One can't help thinking there's a certain amount of artistic license going on . Certainly the mobsters aren't too bright as one tough guy allows himself to be driven around by someone who's just had a spliff to smoke . Be honest would you get in to a car with someone who's seriously toked up ? And if it's such a menace to society why not legalise it the same with alcohol ?
The story proper revolves around sweet couple Billy and Mary who are obviously so pious and virginal it's almost sickening . I actually felt happy for them when they were introduced to the joys of jazz and marijuana and why shouldn't I ? Is quoting Romeo And Juliet and tennis practice a satisfying substitute for premarital sex ? Surely if you're buying a car you should take it for a test drive ? There does seem to be more problems with the continuity and that is everyone seems to be hyperactive on every level at the drugs den . Maybe the drugs crowd are also snorting massive amounts of cocaine in the flat ? Certainly it can't be the marijuana because everyone seems to be smoking their spliffs like cigars - without inhaling . This all eventually leads to the death of Mary who accidentally gets shot after Billy saves her from getting raped . No matter how much dope they've ingested I'm sure if anyone was able to stop a rape they'd be able to remember the events . Strangely according to this film not only does weed stop you remembering being a hero it also affects the hearing . A bunch of stoners are in a flat where a woman screams but no one hears anything ? I think the Nazis used the same excuse at Nuremberg but they didn't claim to be on anything
Being a Hollywood movie from this period where The Hays Code was strictly enforced the innocent must be saved while the guilty must be punished no matter how contrived it may be and boy does REEFER MADNESS have a contrived ending . Wiley , the man who tried to rape Mary is to be gotten rid off by the mob but apparently drugs now make him telepathic so batters a mobster to death , is arrested and his fancy woman turns stoolie thereby letting Billy off the hook
As I said if the story had revolved around bootleggers in the prohibition era then this would have been a totally forgotten B movie . But since it has a hysterical tone against marijuana it has developed a cult following for entirely ironic reasons . There is scientific evidence that marijuana is linked to mental health problems depending on how young the user started taking the drug but to bombard people with propaganda that is obviously exaggerated and risible does more harm than good
Take the opening foreword that claims marijuana is destroying the youth of America in increasingly large numbers because of its effects where time slows down and becomes fixed ... the loss of all power to resist physical emotions . It's interesting that there's very little in American culture of the 1930s that suggests youth was being affected by marijuana . Apart from this one can anyone name any other (in)famous films featuring marijuana ? Even the opening tirade by Dr Carroll shoots itself in the foot by stating there's many drug traffickers bringing the substance in to the country only to have the film point out later that it's a naturally growing substance in every American state so why the need for traffickers ? Probably because the film needs villains
On the subject of villainy ask yourself this - how well regarded a movie would this be if it had been set in the 1920s and the mobsters were peddling not dope but booze ? We're treated to a laughable scene where an erstwhile bootlegger tells his boss that he has qualms about giving weed to schoolkids only for his boss to state that if he doesn't do as he's told he'll be got rid off permanently . So when alcohol was legalised again the bootleggers stood outside school gates giving kids weed ? One can't help thinking there's a certain amount of artistic license going on . Certainly the mobsters aren't too bright as one tough guy allows himself to be driven around by someone who's just had a spliff to smoke . Be honest would you get in to a car with someone who's seriously toked up ? And if it's such a menace to society why not legalise it the same with alcohol ?
The story proper revolves around sweet couple Billy and Mary who are obviously so pious and virginal it's almost sickening . I actually felt happy for them when they were introduced to the joys of jazz and marijuana and why shouldn't I ? Is quoting Romeo And Juliet and tennis practice a satisfying substitute for premarital sex ? Surely if you're buying a car you should take it for a test drive ? There does seem to be more problems with the continuity and that is everyone seems to be hyperactive on every level at the drugs den . Maybe the drugs crowd are also snorting massive amounts of cocaine in the flat ? Certainly it can't be the marijuana because everyone seems to be smoking their spliffs like cigars - without inhaling . This all eventually leads to the death of Mary who accidentally gets shot after Billy saves her from getting raped . No matter how much dope they've ingested I'm sure if anyone was able to stop a rape they'd be able to remember the events . Strangely according to this film not only does weed stop you remembering being a hero it also affects the hearing . A bunch of stoners are in a flat where a woman screams but no one hears anything ? I think the Nazis used the same excuse at Nuremberg but they didn't claim to be on anything
Being a Hollywood movie from this period where The Hays Code was strictly enforced the innocent must be saved while the guilty must be punished no matter how contrived it may be and boy does REEFER MADNESS have a contrived ending . Wiley , the man who tried to rape Mary is to be gotten rid off by the mob but apparently drugs now make him telepathic so batters a mobster to death , is arrested and his fancy woman turns stoolie thereby letting Billy off the hook
As I said if the story had revolved around bootleggers in the prohibition era then this would have been a totally forgotten B movie . But since it has a hysterical tone against marijuana it has developed a cult following for entirely ironic reasons . There is scientific evidence that marijuana is linked to mental health problems depending on how young the user started taking the drug but to bombard people with propaganda that is obviously exaggerated and risible does more harm than good
Unintentionally hilarious propoganda
Nolamoviedude5 February 2019
I wanted to give this 10 stars based on how ridiculously funny it was then I wanted to give it 1 star for the uneducated intent of it's creators. So I decided to go in between and give it 5. Honestly, I have no idea how to rate this movie.
It's a 1936 propaganda film about the dangers of marijuana. Their joints must have been laced with PCP and crack because all the potheads I know are pretty relaxed. Not these kids! They've got more energy than a spider monkey all hopped up on Mountain Dew. They are driving cars like madmen running into people, raping women, murdering, dancing all crazy to Jazz; the devil's music!
The guy at the end smokes his joint and starts yelling at the girl to play the piano faster. He's all tweaked out like The Great Cornholio from Beavis and Butthead. He ends up beating a guy to death for looking at him. That Marijuana is the Devil!
It's a 1936 propaganda film about the dangers of marijuana. Their joints must have been laced with PCP and crack because all the potheads I know are pretty relaxed. Not these kids! They've got more energy than a spider monkey all hopped up on Mountain Dew. They are driving cars like madmen running into people, raping women, murdering, dancing all crazy to Jazz; the devil's music!
The guy at the end smokes his joint and starts yelling at the girl to play the piano faster. He's all tweaked out like The Great Cornholio from Beavis and Butthead. He ends up beating a guy to death for looking at him. That Marijuana is the Devil!
Fun fun fun till daddy takes your ganja away.....
Joe Blow17 November 1998
Of the many scholastic films Ive seen in my time, this has to be the most hilarious piece of tripe ive ever seen. The setting is a small urban town, in the mid thirties. Everyones all happy, and everyone seems normal, that is, everyone BUT the shifty, shady, marijuana dealers who look just like *Gasp* you and me! They look so normal, lure your children into their home, and sell them exotic herbs from far away places! All whilst turning your children into sex maniacs, one puff hookers, and violent terrorists high on life (and that's not all!) Fun for the whole family (well...it all depends on your family...), this is a great flick, worth the watch! - "Two Green Thumbs Up!" Joe & Jay
A Hilarious Cult Classic
xphile6321 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Originally released in 1936 as an independent propaganda film, Reefer Madness (aka Tell Your Children) is in a more modern light extremely funny. Its over-the-top and completely unrealistic portrayal of the potentially life threatening consequences of even limited marijuana use are enough to send the viewer into hysterics.
*Spoiler Alert*
Of the four or five wholesome and innocent all-American teens who are exposed to the evil wrath of marijuana, one gets shot and two more end up accidentally killing people. There's also lots of premarital sex, which at the time of this film's original release was a huge no-no. Not to be missed.
*Spoiler Alert*
Of the four or five wholesome and innocent all-American teens who are exposed to the evil wrath of marijuana, one gets shot and two more end up accidentally killing people. There's also lots of premarital sex, which at the time of this film's original release was a huge no-no. Not to be missed.
Reefer Madness (1936) BOMB
Bunuel197622 April 2005
For the uninitiated, this much retitled film may have given the impression of being a very low-budget variation on the contemporary socially-conscious "message" pictures made by major studios like Warner Brothers when, in actual fact, I believe this is just surface coating and, underneath, a tawdry, cheap and campy exploitation flick is trying to get out; this is borne out by the utterly sensationalistic and risibly over-emphatic (in other words, completely unrealistic) treatment replete with rampant eye-rolling by the "victims" in the throes of marihuana addiction which reaches ridiculous new heights in acting of this sort; I'd be willing to bet that many more people tried the weed AFTER watching this movie than were eventually put off by it! Even so, I still managed to get a perverted sense of enjoyment from it and wouldn't mind trying a couple of others from its stable like MANIAC (1934), COCAINE FIENDS (1935) and MARIHUANA (1937).
Who says there was no fascism in the U.S. in the 30's?
ssimon551 January 2010
Such a load of propaganda b.s. could only be a product of the isolationist, narrow-minded decade of the 1930's & the great depression. Put together by tobacco executives who felt that the market for cannabis threatened their tobacco crops, the film shows ordinary teenagers who go crazy on marijuana, laughing hysterically & running over people with their cars. In once scene a bureaucrat points to a cabinet full of crimes related to marijuana & describes one where a girl butchered her entire family. Anyone who knows anything about pot knows that it's one of the few substances that can actually calm down a homicidal murderer.
I saw the film as a comedy, because it really is ridiculous. The sound quality is terrible - besides the somewhat muted voices you can hear what sounds like a projector reel running in the background. Also the acting is second-rate at best. But, if you're in the mood for some 1930's tobacco propaganda, this is for you.
I saw the film as a comedy, because it really is ridiculous. The sound quality is terrible - besides the somewhat muted voices you can hear what sounds like a projector reel running in the background. Also the acting is second-rate at best. But, if you're in the mood for some 1930's tobacco propaganda, this is for you.
Not Sure What To Think
jngr116 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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.
The Best of the Bad Films of the 1930s?
theowinthrop22 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Misinforming, pompous, self-righteous (in the figure of the school official played by Joseph Forte), TELL YOUR CHILDREN (better known as REEFER MADNESS) is usually pushed as one of the worst films ever made. It made the Medved Brothers FIFTY WORST FILMS book, along with such dreck as ROBOT MONSTER, but is revived and revivable more than most of the titles in that list/book. Why?
My guess is that it is more than the idiotic view of marijuana cigarettes and drug addiction. Or the sometimes ridiculous dialog (why would some teenager state that he never drinks that stuff, meaning he never drinks sodas?). I think it is the fascination this film brings to us because it has things working for it, and it is unique for it's time and place, and it does give us a view of what the public of the 1930s would accept or reject for discussion.
I mentioned a few days ago that the movie FLESH AND THE DEVIL (from the 1920s) had a bad script which should have built up on a theme of homosexual love between Lars Hanson and John Gilbert, the close friends competing for Greta Garbo. But, as I said, the America of Calvin Coolidge would not tolerate open discussion of homosexuality. So the two male stars had to use their all to show their friendship was deeper than a friendship.
Similarly drug addiction was not a topic of deep discussion in the 1920s or 1930s or earlier. Yet it existed. Mark Twain, in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY, mentions Charles Webster, his business partner whose mistakes caused the failure of their publishing house, as addicted to over-the-counter drugs, and states that in America (in the 1890s) it was easy to become a self-poisoner this way. That comment is the sole one I have ever found in 19th Century literature regarding drug addiction, and Twain's Autobiography was not completely published until the 1960s, edited by Charles Neider.
The movie record is tricky. I have seen only two films that mention drugs at all. One is Charlie Chaplin's EASY STREET, where the tramp (here a policeman confronting Eric Campbell and his gang in a slum) accidentally sits on a needle with some drug (cocaine, I suspect) and it gives his adrenalin a lift. The other is another Chaplin film (whose title I unfortunately can't recall) wherein somebody is shown using the "notorious nose powders". Leave it to America's greatest writer and the English-born film giant to be the only two who had the guts to discuss the matter.
But aside from them there was nothing. No film of stature was made of the trafficking in drugs until TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH...IN THE 1940s! Hard to believe isn't it? Yet we know, if studying the history of organized crime and earlier criminals, that gangs did deal in drugs. It was even then a big business. Capone had a whole section of his empire in Chicago devoted to drug sales, along with prostitution, with illegal booze, and with union racketeering. But it rarely was talked about. Can anyone recall a film with Robinson or Cagney or Raft or Bogart dealing with drugs?
The Chinese opium trade was an exception: but it was basically seen as involving Chinese addicts only, not most Americans (a very naive view, but one clung to by most Americans).
Now into this hole comes this two-bit film which tries to tackle the threat of drugs to American Youth. It would not be until Samuel Fuller's UNDERWORLD USA in the 1950s that the subject is tackled again so forcefully (Fuller, being a better director, and having Cliff Robertson and Robert Emhart in his cast, does better with the subject).
So from want of any alternative, REEFER MADNESS is in a unique position to be notable from the start. It also is lucky to have at least two notable actors. Dave O'Brien is better recalled for the many Pete Smith comedy shorts he did, but his "Ralph" driven crazy to kill another character by reefers is his best remembered performance. Actually, while we realize today that reefers don't do that kind of damage to most people as this film suggests, O'Brien shows by his skittishness and twisting precisely what drug addiction to say cocaine or morphine would do to people - particularly when he is forced into hiding and is somewhat going cold turkey at times. He had done his homework, if the screenwriters did not.
The other was Carleton Young. Young would become among the last actors adopted in the John Ford circle in the late 1950s and early 1960s, most notably in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE and SERGEANT RUTLEDGE. Under that master's hands he gave wonderful performances. His performance as the drug dealer Jack Perry is a fair one, given the lesser director he has here.
So the film does have some things going for it, even if it over the top in condemning reefers over stronger drugs. I know it is no masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not the worst film in the world - it's the best bad film of the 1930s.
My guess is that it is more than the idiotic view of marijuana cigarettes and drug addiction. Or the sometimes ridiculous dialog (why would some teenager state that he never drinks that stuff, meaning he never drinks sodas?). I think it is the fascination this film brings to us because it has things working for it, and it is unique for it's time and place, and it does give us a view of what the public of the 1930s would accept or reject for discussion.
I mentioned a few days ago that the movie FLESH AND THE DEVIL (from the 1920s) had a bad script which should have built up on a theme of homosexual love between Lars Hanson and John Gilbert, the close friends competing for Greta Garbo. But, as I said, the America of Calvin Coolidge would not tolerate open discussion of homosexuality. So the two male stars had to use their all to show their friendship was deeper than a friendship.
Similarly drug addiction was not a topic of deep discussion in the 1920s or 1930s or earlier. Yet it existed. Mark Twain, in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY, mentions Charles Webster, his business partner whose mistakes caused the failure of their publishing house, as addicted to over-the-counter drugs, and states that in America (in the 1890s) it was easy to become a self-poisoner this way. That comment is the sole one I have ever found in 19th Century literature regarding drug addiction, and Twain's Autobiography was not completely published until the 1960s, edited by Charles Neider.
The movie record is tricky. I have seen only two films that mention drugs at all. One is Charlie Chaplin's EASY STREET, where the tramp (here a policeman confronting Eric Campbell and his gang in a slum) accidentally sits on a needle with some drug (cocaine, I suspect) and it gives his adrenalin a lift. The other is another Chaplin film (whose title I unfortunately can't recall) wherein somebody is shown using the "notorious nose powders". Leave it to America's greatest writer and the English-born film giant to be the only two who had the guts to discuss the matter.
But aside from them there was nothing. No film of stature was made of the trafficking in drugs until TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH...IN THE 1940s! Hard to believe isn't it? Yet we know, if studying the history of organized crime and earlier criminals, that gangs did deal in drugs. It was even then a big business. Capone had a whole section of his empire in Chicago devoted to drug sales, along with prostitution, with illegal booze, and with union racketeering. But it rarely was talked about. Can anyone recall a film with Robinson or Cagney or Raft or Bogart dealing with drugs?
The Chinese opium trade was an exception: but it was basically seen as involving Chinese addicts only, not most Americans (a very naive view, but one clung to by most Americans).
Now into this hole comes this two-bit film which tries to tackle the threat of drugs to American Youth. It would not be until Samuel Fuller's UNDERWORLD USA in the 1950s that the subject is tackled again so forcefully (Fuller, being a better director, and having Cliff Robertson and Robert Emhart in his cast, does better with the subject).
So from want of any alternative, REEFER MADNESS is in a unique position to be notable from the start. It also is lucky to have at least two notable actors. Dave O'Brien is better recalled for the many Pete Smith comedy shorts he did, but his "Ralph" driven crazy to kill another character by reefers is his best remembered performance. Actually, while we realize today that reefers don't do that kind of damage to most people as this film suggests, O'Brien shows by his skittishness and twisting precisely what drug addiction to say cocaine or morphine would do to people - particularly when he is forced into hiding and is somewhat going cold turkey at times. He had done his homework, if the screenwriters did not.
The other was Carleton Young. Young would become among the last actors adopted in the John Ford circle in the late 1950s and early 1960s, most notably in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE and SERGEANT RUTLEDGE. Under that master's hands he gave wonderful performances. His performance as the drug dealer Jack Perry is a fair one, given the lesser director he has here.
So the film does have some things going for it, even if it over the top in condemning reefers over stronger drugs. I know it is no masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not the worst film in the world - it's the best bad film of the 1930s.
A so bad it's good drug propaganda film.
ofpsmith19 March 2015
Ever since marijuana (aka pot, weed, grass, puff, Mary Jane, Bob Marley) was banned in the United States, the opponents to this ruling argue that marijuana really has no harmful affect on the human body other than being the equivalent of 4 Nyquil pills (or something like that). Well now you can shut those people up by showing them Reefer Madness an anti drug PSA that was made in the 30s, that actually raises more questions than it answers. With the evil maniacal story of these gangsters that gave the new evil drug to innocent teenagers that made them do horrible things like, run over old men on the streets who shouldn't have been there anyway, or laugh at things that nobody else is. These and many others are the basis that Reefer Madness uses to support it's argument. Reefer Madness is a film so exaggerated that it doesn't even feel serious. I know this was a different time but even in the 1930s this seemed over playing it. If you're a police officer looking for a good PSA to show kids then you'll have to look somewhere else. But if you're looking for a movie to make fun of, then Reefer Madness is a good choice.
No humor whatsoever
unkabob15 March 2015
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).
1930's potheads become hopelessly and incurably insane?
PIST-OFF10 March 1999
This movie is funny. Not just regular funny but inexplicably funny. I wish public schools all over the country would show this movie in classes. This cult classic gives what is supposed to be a serious warning of the dangers of marijuana. Instead the over exaggeration of the side effects of weed become un-intentionally and absurdly funny. I smoked grass in my day but I sure haven't killed anyone yet. This movie is legendary. Anyone who has ever smoked should view this. Just if only to see how this whole silly "war on drugs" thing got started. Is pot ever to be legalized? Probably not so long as there are people who take this movie seriously. As for the rest of us laugh yourself into hopeless and incurible insanity for 67 minutes.
A classic, for all the wrong reasons
Mr-Fusion21 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
"Reefer Madness" describes marijuana as "the new drug menace, which is destroying the youth of America". And you would think that this might just be a hyperbolic tagline on an anti-drug poster, but the filmmakers back that up with an alarmingly earnest sense of paranoia and hysteria. They're serious.
As an unintentional comedy, "Reefer Madness" takes its time getting going. The dialogue of these unrelatable characters is peppered with the usual "swell"s, "gee"s, etc. of the time. The real fun occurs when the wretched mary jane rears its ugly head. Pretty soon, those evil pushers have gotten our upright moral youth speeding off after a vehicular homicide, raping young girls, shooting people, window-diving, and descending into general madness. And then they listen to that risqué jazz music!
It's not hard to see why this movie's a cult classic. It's absurd in its warnings, firebrand in its portrayals, and undeniably goofy. But that's how it comes off now. I really do wonder how effective this movie was in what seems like the original "Just Say No" campaign. Did people take this seriously? Judging from the continuation of such dire warning movies as "Boys Beware" [1961] (extolling the dangers of homosexuals), it'd be easy to conclude so.
And that just makes this all the more amusing.
A 7/10 on the ridiculous scale
As an unintentional comedy, "Reefer Madness" takes its time getting going. The dialogue of these unrelatable characters is peppered with the usual "swell"s, "gee"s, etc. of the time. The real fun occurs when the wretched mary jane rears its ugly head. Pretty soon, those evil pushers have gotten our upright moral youth speeding off after a vehicular homicide, raping young girls, shooting people, window-diving, and descending into general madness. And then they listen to that risqué jazz music!
It's not hard to see why this movie's a cult classic. It's absurd in its warnings, firebrand in its portrayals, and undeniably goofy. But that's how it comes off now. I really do wonder how effective this movie was in what seems like the original "Just Say No" campaign. Did people take this seriously? Judging from the continuation of such dire warning movies as "Boys Beware" [1961] (extolling the dangers of homosexuals), it'd be easy to conclude so.
And that just makes this all the more amusing.
A 7/10 on the ridiculous scale
Cautionary Drug Tale
cmross121622 September 2007
This well-meaning but truly awful drug tale was ahead of its time in warning the public on the dangers of smoking cannabis. Modern Emergency Room doctors have noted that some of their patients who come to them with psychotic or other mental conditions do, in fact, smoke dope.
The active ingredient in marijuana is a natural insecticide that the marijuana plant creates to defend itself from insect attack. Too bad people don't get the message and leave it alone.
If you poison your brain long enough, it won't work right. When the brain is poisoned, rather than expressing the problem as pain, it sometimes produces euphoria.
As for the film, people tend to imitate what they see. In that sense, showing scenes of attractive young people smoking dope was not helpful. Nor were the scenes of exaggerated effects produced by marijuana. It takes time for the deleterious effects of smoking dope to become evident.
The film itself was boring and like watching a filmed stage play with few reaction shots. At times it took on an almost clinical air, and it is too bad that moderns find it amusing.
Having met mentally ill people who freely admit that they fried their brains on drugs, I didn't find this film very funny.
The active ingredient in marijuana is a natural insecticide that the marijuana plant creates to defend itself from insect attack. Too bad people don't get the message and leave it alone.
If you poison your brain long enough, it won't work right. When the brain is poisoned, rather than expressing the problem as pain, it sometimes produces euphoria.
As for the film, people tend to imitate what they see. In that sense, showing scenes of attractive young people smoking dope was not helpful. Nor were the scenes of exaggerated effects produced by marijuana. It takes time for the deleterious effects of smoking dope to become evident.
The film itself was boring and like watching a filmed stage play with few reaction shots. At times it took on an almost clinical air, and it is too bad that moderns find it amusing.
Having met mentally ill people who freely admit that they fried their brains on drugs, I didn't find this film very funny.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
