The Brown Bunny (2004)

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

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.)

The Most American of all film genres, has always been the Road Trip movies. It has showcase, the best and worst parts of the living in the U.S of A. What setting offers a better backdrop for examining America's freedom, rootlessness, yearning, adventure, and struggled. It is not surprising, then, that the theme of liberation initiates the action of many great road movies. However, this movie is not one of those. This movie literally blows. Directed by Vincent Gallo, the movie tells the story of a love-sick professional motorcycle racer Bud Clay (Vincent Gallo) heading cross-country from the east coast to the west in an attempt to reconnection with a lost-love, Daisy (Chloe Sevigny), while along the way, being tempted by a various of women, who might provide him with the cure of his own self-loneliness. Without spoiling this movie, too much, I have to say, this vanity project is most famous for the infamous graphic 'blowjob' scene, between Gallo and Sevigny. At the time, it was very edgy as it broke down the division between hardcore pornography and softcore movie erotica. A lot of people got offended, because of it, for some odd reason. For me, I really didn't mind it, after all, the oral-sex scene is by far, the most entertaining part of the film. It's somewhat sexy to watch. In my opinion, the rape scene is far more graphic and disturbing than anything else in the film. I'm surprised that people are not shock and offended by that, more. Despite that, in my opinion, the unstimulated fellatio or the hardcore rape scene is not the problem on the film, despite it nearly killing Sevigny's career. The problem is the pacing. When the self-absorbed film was first screened for the press at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003, critic Roger Ebert called it "the worst film ever shown at Cannes", because of that problem. In result, it prompt a prolonged feud of words between Gallo and Ebert, throughout the years. Is the hatred deserve? Well, in my opinion, yeah. The original version wasn't good at all. For the most part, the long cut was there to serve as a way to show, how Daisy's absent, haunts Bud, but it comes across, more like boring and pretentious. It had way too much, bland emptiness with no delivery of its story. It's full of endless driving sequences that serves nothing, but filler. I can understand, why people walk out at the theaters at Cannes, just to get away from this American independent art house film. It wasn't thought provoking. It didn't make you feel for the character. It just made you, hate yourself for wasting time and money. The hatred for the film was so strong, that Gallo had to reedit the film to fight back against the negative backlash. He cut 26 minutes of his 118-minute film, or almost a quarter of the running time. Even with that, the remaster version is just as long & vain as the first version of this film. The film's limited theatrical release in the United States was a total bomb at the box office. However, the reedited version of the film, did impress Ebert who gave the film, his signature 'thumbs up'. For me, no matter of tightened the storyline would make this a good movie. Still, I have to give the movie, some credit. The controversy-provoking film ended with a shocking, melodramatic plot twist to explain Bud's complex personality and downer mood throughout the film regarding Daisy as his lost love - the only woman he ever loved. It was alright for the most part, as it does explains, why he was living a life of solitude & grief. I also love some of the symbolism, this film has, even if the titular motif was somewhat limited. After all, the symbolism of the bunny related to the character of Daisy, so much. Since rabbits rely so much on their solid intuition, they sometimes forget to "look before they leap." This spontaneous behavior can lead to mistakes or even dangerous situations, hints on what happen to Clay's love-interest. While, the bunny mostly represents Daisy; it may also can signified Clay's behavior, as rabbits can become so focused more on their fears, rather than on their end goal. This can cause extreme anxiety that holds them back from making any big decisions in life and moving forward. It's explains, most of Clay's masculine insecurity. I also love the fact, that the movie, somewhat remind me of the plot of 1925's 'The Great Gatsby', with a man desiring to gain the attention of a woman named Daisy. The fact that all of the women in the film have flower names, makes this film, somewhat clever. First off, you got Daisy, whom named means 'Innocence' & 'hope'. Then, you got the teenaged New Hampshire gas-station cashier Violet (Anna Vareschi), whom name represented, 'loyalty, devotion, faithfulness'. No wonder, why she goes with Clay. Then, you got the trouble-middle-aged Lilly (Cheryl Tiegs) who represent 'the yearning of youth'. Last is the young Las Vegas street hooker Rose (Elizabeth Blake) whom names after the themes of 'love' & 'desire'; two things that Clay really wants. Still, it's a bit sad, that none of these actresses were really that memorable, despite their character's names. Honestly, it was reportedly at one time, Winona Ryder and Kirsten Dunst were to be in the film in two of these roles, but presumably dropped out, due to conflict with Gallo. It really shows, how self-indulgent and vain, the director could be. In the end, most of the acting throughout it is mediocre at best. Overall: This rabbit movie doesn't have a foot to stand on. It's unlucky, it will ever get popular, as movies about loneliness and solitude, don't equal entertaining. Because of that, I can't really recommended watching this film.

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.

Finally I watched the movie I've became acquainted with by its soundtrack a while ago. Vincent Gallo's movie and he is also the director of the photography. Slow paced, beautiful pathetic (yes I mean what I wrote) shots, undemanding cut (so you can smoke and watch you thoughts below the screen without fear of loosing anything important), soundtrack comes in an unobtrusive almost mellow way, that explicitly truthful blow-job scene at the end and overtly complex traumatic neurotic-schizoid relationship I can relate.If I ever met Gallo in person I frankly don't know if I find anything to tell him. And yes I like the movie very much.