Poison Ivy - Sociedad secreta

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.

Onetime child stars Miriam McDonald and Shawna Waldron go the Alyssa Milano route, trying to prove how grown-up they are by taking their clothes off in a terrible Poison Ivy movie. All the Poison Ivy movies are awful but this one, which doesn't actually have anything to do with any of the others, makes Milano's look like Gone with the Wind by comparison. The story is impossibly dumb. The acting is uniformly pathetic. McDonald and Waldron may look good but their acting skills have not grown with their bodies. McDonald is bad. Waldron is way beyond bad, turning in one of the most atrocious performances ever seen. The supporting players are all pretty much terrible as well. Ryan Kennedy, who plays the guy involved with the two key girls, is particularly lousy. To be fair none of the performers are helped by a script which is mind-boggling in its stupidity. McDonald plays Daisy, an innocent country bumpkin who goes away to college. She gets mixed up with the school's powerful all-female secret society, the Ivies. This group hasn't got the "secret" part of secret society down as they live in a big house right in the middle of campus and everybody knows all about them. Anyhow, Waldron plays Azalea, the key figure in this cabal of stupid girls. Azalea wants some internship, she's afraid Daisy might get it. So Azalea hatches schemes to take Daisy down and claim that precious internship for herself. The story has huge holes in it. It is neither believable nor interesting. The movie slogs along towards the finish, interrupted by occasional skin displays from its two leads because honestly getting them naked is the only reason this movie even exists. The ending somehow manages to be even dumber than everything which preceded it with quite possibly the worst fight sequence in movie history. This is a movie which fails in every possible way. If McDonald and Waldron were hoping for a career boost from this, well ladies I've seen Alyssa Milano and you're no Alyssa Milano.

I thought this movie would be another follow-up to the erotic "Poison Ivy" franchise, but what we have in this very low budget film directed by Jason Hreno (an unknown director of shorts and small TV works), is more like a spin-off or an isolated job that took the attached itself to the franchise. And I say this because it really has nothing to do with the "Poison Ivy" films!

The plot centers on the sweet and naive Daisy, a country girl with a long-time boyfriend who, after losing her family, sells her land to study in the city. She manages to get into a good university and everything seems to be going smoothly, but things change quickly when she starts dating Blake, the son of the dean, who keeps an obscure connection with a secret clandestine female society for university girls that serves purposes and objectives beyond the wicked.

I think this succinct summary is enough to give us a clearer sense of everything this film is not: a "Poison Ivy" sequel. If these films were always about a young girl who uses sensuality and sex to get what she wants, here it just disappears. Daisy is everything that Ivy, Violet or even Lily never was: she is genuinely good. Wickedness is in the other girls in the secret society, but never in herself.

The cast is quite weak and it must not have been difficult for Miriam McDonald to stand out and assume the protagonism. She herself is not a brilliant actress, having excelled only in teen works, and the feeling that I have here is that she decided to follow the same path followed by other renowned teen stars like Drew Barrymore, Lindsay Lohan or Miley Cyrus: using sex and sensuality to detach from their childish image and have more adult works. Another actress who takes her clothes off in this film is Shawna Waldron, as the villain Azalea. Yes, she is what we have here in most similar to a "Poison Ivy" protagonist, but she lacks the protagonism, the film is never about her. The rest of the cast goes out completely: Ryan Kennedy has no presence and Andrea Whitburn rarely appears and does nothing special.

Being a film with a very low budget and with little money to spend, it is totally forgettable in the technical aspects, as it has everything you need without anything that stands out in the positive: uninteresting cinematography, monotonous scenarios and costumes, no effects, a "TV quality" look and a virtually absent soundtrack.

The last (to date, anyway, and I'm reviewing this in June 2023) Poison Ivy film.

And that's probably just as well. This was the worst of the lot, by a comfortable margin. Poor acting, a flimsy script, plenty of slow-motion sex scenes - screaming out low budget, direct-to-TV, which this was, premiering, according to the IMDB page, on Lifetime - and, really, very little really to write home about.

I didn't mind previous instalments in this series but it should have ended with 'The New Seduction'. I guess the old adage about flogging a dead horse is an apt one here. As far as Poison Ivy goes: there's not much left to be flogged, at this point.

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"