Crappy film

Absolutely Fantastic

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The first film of this series featured Drew Barrymore as Ivy, a teenage nymphet without any moral scruples using her physical attractions to destroy those who crossed her path. Released in 1992, it incorporated a significant amount of nudity. Two later films have featured Alyssa Milano and Jaime Pressly playing characters with different names but not dis-similar roles. All three films were essentially trashy melodramas, none achieved an IMDb viewer rating above the mid way point; but not because of poor acting, they all gave the career of their star a useful boost. Today however they are barely remembered, most filmgoers asked about one of them would probably scratch their head in bewilderment, and Insight were certainly taking a chance when they decided to make a fourth version of this story two years ago. Unfortunately it did not come off - like its predecessors this is a trashy melodrama with a transparent and overworked story spiced up with eye candy to increase its appeal; but not sure what audience it is really trying to attract. Ivy returns to this film in the guise of a University secret society - the Ivy Women's Society - which has established a dangerous influence on the administrative machinery of the University, and under the guidance of its current President (Azalea, played by Shawna Waldron) is prepared to go to any lengths, including violence if necessary, in order to maintain this. An unsophisticated country girl (Daisy, played by Miriam McDonald) who has decided to seek a University education following the death of her parents, improbably proves to be her most serious obstacle. Unfortunately this is only one of many very serious flaws in the story as presented. For example PI-4 includes a totally ludicrous and unnecessary bondage sequence showing new recruits to the "Secret" Society being tattooed during their initiation.My TV version of PI-4 incorporated virtually no nudity but the Parent's Guide notes in this database just comprises the comment "nudity throughout". I understand the first release on television was a bowdlerised version, a number of spicy sequences intended to increase its appeal were added for a limited cinema release and later an even more spicy unrated DVD was released. Comments such as that above are of little help to parents in such circumstances. Ideally the Parent's Guide should relate to the cinema release, but once a film has made its rounds in the movie houses most prospective fresh viewers will only see either a heavily cut TV version or a spiced up DVD, probably designed for the young married viewers who rent or buy most DVD's today. These alternatives are as different as chalk from cheese. The TV version of PI-4 runs about 84m and the DVD 95m - for very different reasons neither is suitable for children's viewing. Similarly I have a PG14 version of "Wedding Crashers" which runs for 94 m, the R rated cinema version runs 119m and an unrated DVD 127m - over a third longer. This wide gulf in running times between TV versions and DVD versions for many films which are no longer regularly screened can nullify the value of IMDb Parent's Guide notes even though we all recognise they are of great importance to worried parents. Furthermore, when added sequences in DVD versions are designed to appeal to a different audience, they are often incompatible and spoil whatever appeal the original film had. The DVD of "Alice in Wonderland" (1975) included two different versions - comments on this database show that most viewers preferred the original shorter version, not because it was more suitable for children but because it ran more smoothly. If the Parent's Guide is to continue providing harassed parents with help they feel they can trust, IMDb needs to examine this problem. Often I have wanted to contribute to these guidance notes, but found this almost impracticable because multiple versions of the film exist. Perhaps IMDb could open a blog for further discussion - it would not be relevant here.My advice is to stay away from either version of PI-4 - the only reason to watch is if you are interested in its two young stars. Here Shawna Waldron played a part which I believe enhanced her reputation as an actress. It reminded me of the part played by Sarah Michelle Geller in Cruel Intentions. Both had to display subtle glances and gestures showing freedom from moral scruples when with cronies, whilst appearing highly moral and demure with all other people - a difficult accomplishment. But, whilst Cruel Intentions was a very good film, Poison Ivy-4 only rates 2 stars.

First of all: I watched this movie on TV and missed the first 20 minutes or so. Therefore it might have been better than I thought. Maybe something super entertaining and Oscar worthy happened...Anywho, What I saw was awful. The acting and setting was good or at least alright. The plot was...odd. Nothing seems to happen very logically. The main character is very stupid and does a lot of stupid things. This is not the actress's fault (because her acting was not the problem).Spoilers!!!!!Here's a good example: When she records the murderous confession, why doesn't she just quietly take it to the police? Why doesn't she use a tape recorder way earlier in the movie? Why does she join the society in the first place? Why doesn't she transfer to a non-insane people school? And come on! All that for an internship?! Imagine creating a complex, murderous web of crime, with incredible risk, over an internship! And why the hell was the ugly brunette Society leader chick believe everything the professor's son said?!!! ( She was waaaay too ugly for that role).And it's a good thing that the other Ivy member (the prettier one) suddenly had a change of heart and decided to help Daisy for no logical reason.On the other hand, this movie is great for men and young boys who are too afraid to buy porn.

Small town girl Daisy (Miriam McDonald of Degrassi: The Next Generation fame) attempts to start anew, leaving her steady boyfriend and country life to go to a New England college. She soon becomes embroiled in the manipulation of the secretive feminist Ivy Society, a clandestine club who has many members as well as finds a new love interest in Blake, the dean's son.Having nothing at all to do with the first three Poison Ivy films, this is merely a slightly below average soft-core (the DVD sexes up the version that debuted on television) female version of "the Skulls". If you've seen that aforementioned film or any of the others of it's ilk, nothing here will catch you by a surprise, as it's simply a paint-by-numbers type of affair. Seeing Miriam shed some clothes might be worthwhile for fans of hers, but that's all there is to recommend this movie.Eye Candy: Miriam McDonald & Shawna Waldron both get topless; 2 extras also get topless My Grade: D DVD Extras: No extras for the movie itself but an anti-piracy psa; corporate schilling for Blu-Ray; trailers for "Alien Raiders", "Friday the 13th", "Wonder Woman"; "Where the f**k is Santa?", & the X-box 360 games "Tomb Raider: Underworld"

This movie had some potential in the script, and the actors had moments where they shined through, but for the most part this movie was a muddled mess.The plot to this film seems like it was originally intended for teenage girls. If that had been the case, and the nudity and rather boring sex scenes had been excised I could understand a market for this type of film. Maybe if the plot had been sexed up a little, with more emphasis on the sexual politics and seduction I could understand it being a late night movie, but in the end the movie is a mess. It seems like soft core porn for middle school girls who enjoy staring at fake breasts.The movie is rather dull, the story doesn't really kick in till the final five minutes, the direction is flat, and most of the actors seem like they are about to break out laughing during the scenes. The Poison Ivy series was never stellar film making, but at least the films knew their audience. This one is a confused, muddled mess that never decides if it wants to be a slightly dirty version of Mean Girls or a late night cable flick.Skip it.