Too much of everything

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Boasting an exceptional soundtrack, minimal and well-suited for a film about someone embarking on a solitary road trip, the meditative pace is very much apt for such a contemplative film. Plus points.The thing I find implausible in what Mr. Gallo did in this brooding and painfully slow film was shooting that scene in the desert salt flats where he just took his jacket off, leaving him with only a white tank top on as he rides his motorbike and zooms off disappearing towards the horizon, and in all that time, not managing to include a scene where he has his character, Bud Clay, apply some sunscreen given that it's such a harsh, blistering environment. The unhealthy and risky things he did in this film, among other things. Minus points.But one can't deny that he has indeed an artistic vision in conveying his narrative, calculated shot composition, gritty images, awkward camera angles that looked amateurish, and yes, the symbolism. In analyzing that motorbike-riding-towards-the-horizon scene, what he essentially did there kind of mirrors what he accomplished in making this film, acting with a complete disregard for what harm would befall unto him, in this case (sun)burning himself, for the sake of what he considers art.With regards to the sex scene, even though it involves two very good-looking actors, it never felt that erotic (it's definitely a non-porn). It was more along the lines of a scene realistically done and was not in any way meant to be salacious. One cannot possibly take pleasure in watching that scene the same way there is no enjoyment in seeing a wheelchair-bound person have their chair yanked away from them. There are some steamy sex scenes in other art films that were indeed meant to stimulate, but this film just doesn't bring someone in that kind of prurient mindset. (And I could name those that do in a heartbeat.) Take it from a guy whose chances of being put in the same situation as that notorious consensual scene is as remote as a rat's chances of stealing cheese in a cheese factory the same time it's hosting a mouse-hunting-for-cats convention. Virtually impossible, not bloody likely. But, as with everything else in life, nothing can always be deemed improbable.--B-flat--

Driving, driving, driving, Cheryl Tiegs, a brown bunny, more driving, miscellaneous women with flower names, driving, driving, on screen blow job, the end. WTF?!! So boring, can't imagine the longer cut that Ebert saw. I did like the ending, not because it was ending but because it finally provided some sort of point to it all. But man, how dull. Great movie to put on while you're taking a dump, down the hall in the bathroom. I liked Buffalo '66 much more.Ebert's opinion, which made me laugh:Roger Ebert called the film "the worst in the history of Cannes," to which Vincent Gallo responded that Ebert was a "fat pig with the physique of a slave trader." Ebert paraphrased a remark of Winston Churchill and responded that "Although I am fat, one day I will be thin, but Mr. Gallo will still have been the director of 'The Brown Bunny.'" Gallo then put a hex on Ebert's colon, to which Ebert responded that "even my colonoscopy was more entertaining than his film." (It should be noted that the version screened at Cannes was much longer than the final version.)

Motorcycle racer's road leads to women that do not match his spiritual context. The women try to escape their own vanity; disarmed of answers about their nature, they meet in poignancy, verbal absence and part in dismay.If the very first version of the movie lasted forever, it would be about right. A total presence of Bud Clay in his self journey with the all-pervading sense of death has no equals. Vincent Gallo the actor alienates in the women's land, scattered as a flowers' field, he isolates as a driver of the eternal conflict - to be loved, to love. This conflict is so real and near, that those who are not touched, can only be diverted to the entertaining plots, let's suggest, Fun in Acapulco (1963).The events and memories unfolds in an unusual pattern of time, taking the film out of a framed composition. Bud Clay's needs are visible, yet unpredictable; no clear answer can be found to explain the reason. The spectator understands the cause of his feelings towards the end of the movie, when Clay's shard of glass is broken in the scene with Daisy.Vincent Gallo the director appears as an engineer of the film's unique emotional DNA, as an architect of an intricate interior of our psyche and conscience, as well as an anti material painter of America's landscape. In the light-years V.Gallo has been measured as a goldsmith of interesting filming. Being a little less blind, the spectator is presented with a possibility to undergo a nowadays rare, unsimulated film luxury, serving saturated visual and auditory imagery. Imagery reluctant to leave You a good while, after the journey has reached a no destination.People that find watching their toe nails grow more interesting, can find their jealousy satisfied and be deprived of seeing later Vincent Gallo film, for the director's boat is too gracious to moor at their unsound shores.

I guess a lot of people were drawn to this movie because of some explicit images of Chloë Sevigny. This is in my opinion the most exciting moment of the movie. The rest is diluted in Vincent Gallo's character self-pity. After a third of the movie it is clear that he is suffering, but the time spent on describing it was far too long.On the other hand, i had the impression that the opening sequence got copied in the opening sequence of Sofia Coppola's Somewhere (2010). This must be a sign of it's importance in the history of movie making. The atmosphere and slow pace are in line with contemporary tendencies in art-house cinema, i.e. putting the average viewers to sleep.All in all, the plot was not bad, but was more suitable for a short movie.