Ebert says "Worst film in history of Cannes" -- THE BROWN BUNNY (1 Viewer)

[Tommy Ceez]

Did you read the synopsis before or are you refering to the Ebert article? He seems to indicate that there is no plot whatsoever (and remember folks that all great films need 15.4% plot). I'm still dying to know if by 'hardcore' he really means "hardcore"

I'm also just realising that the description of the film is only augmented by how damn creepy looking Vincent Gallo is. Could you watch that guy sweating in the drivers seat of a van for 90 mins?

That would guarentee my girlfriend having vivid nightmares!

I just thought of something funny...
Ebert says that the film would have been good as a short film about the mans encounter with his ex-girlfriend. So basically he's saying 'I would have sat through a short, hardcore blowjob scene'

Priceless!

 

[Joseph Young]

For the record, I [rant]hated, hated, hated[/rant] "Buffalo 66." Hated.. Pure torture to sit through. The news about 'Brown Bunny' is not surprising.

Here is some info on Gallo:

By contrast, although I have met some admirers of Lars von Trier's portentous three-hour parable "Dogville," I have not met any who are eager to sit through it again.

Let's hope that Von Trier has this 'Martyr Trilogy' out of his system now. With Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and now, Dogville, Von Trier has proven himself a master sadist, inflicting unnecessary amounts of pain on both his audiences and female 'protagonists.'

~j

 

[JasenP]

I thought for sure this was another Matrix Reloaded thread.

 

[Tommy Ceez]

Im now hearing that Winina Ryder was fired from this film...why not two Hard core blowjob ex-girlfriend scenes?

 

[Seth Paxton]

So basically he's saying 'I would have sat through a short, hardcore blowjob scene'

That's what it sounded like to me, but then that fits his method of reviewing lately (like Tomb Raider or Original Sin ).

I can't imagine he meant it to sound that way since he strongly mentions her acting and emotions of the revelation scene. I assume that part is what he basically meant.

Then again, who knows.


I think it is slightly relevent to say that political comment in a film review about a film that isn't about real politics/politicians is not appropriate. After all, don't we have such a rule at HTF and for good reason? And don't many of us feel that stars that use other forums (like the Oscars) as a podium for a political agenda are also wrong to do so?

I don't mind Ebert having whatever opinion he wants to have, just save it for Hardball or Bill Mahr's Real Time. Then when he starts shifting into movie talk they can also ask him to get back on topic, but in the other direction.



Whatever that comment about Dogville might imply, with Kidman starring in the film and it possibly winning at Cannes it looks to be in line for some Oscar noms automatically and that would likely include Kidman for the 3rd straight year.

 

[Tommy Ceez]

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...0p-78195c.html

Another article on the hottest film in the HTF today

 

[Seth Paxton]

BTW, if Dogville does win then Chloë Sevigny will have been in both the best and worst film at Cannes. Great range.

 

[Seth Paxton]

From that Daily News article...

We're going to fire Winona Ryder. We're going into town and the first girl over 12 we find is going to be in the movie."

Oh dear. That sure doesn't sound good. Time to ask Polanski about real estate advice maybe.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I wasn't looking for reviews, but came across this one in the Telegraph, and as it's so opposed to Ebert's, I thought I'd share (knowing full-well that few of you consider Ebert to be infallible):

Gallo has produced a cussed and true near-masterpiece, arthouse in the way it looks and is paced, but deeply accessible in its emotional power. Along with Uzak, whose vulnerability and brooding intensity at times it recalls, The Brown Bunny would make a deserving competition winner.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...2/bfbunn22.xml

FWIW, I very much liked "Buffalo '66", one of the few "happy ending" romance movies that doesn't dip into the treacle and schmaltz as it seeks to warm the cockles of the heart. Still... a Ricci blowjob scene might have elevated it almost to the level of minor masterpiece.

 

[StephenK]

so really, can anyone confirm that Sevigny actually fellates Gallo on screen?

If so, I can't think of any actress of her level that has gone this far, she has some balls (rimshot!).

 

[Tommy Ceez]

I am now officially intrigued, sucked in, and dying to see this movie. This better play at the Angelika.

BTW. A guy basically makes a film by himself, gets some name actors to be in it, gets it shown at Cannes, apparently gets oral on camera (maybe not, juries out) and has the film both lambasted and praised.

God bless him.

 

[Jay E]

Here's another article on the film:

movies.yahoo.com/cannes/news/iwc/20030522/105362568000.html[/url]

I'm intrigued by the film but maybe that's because I loved Buffalo 66 so much.

 

[Rich Malloy]

The casual observer may think that every single aesthetic aspect of this film is mistaken, but this is not true. The many deliberately misframed, out-of-focus shots through the dirty windows of Bud's van occasionally produce, perhaps by accident, a momentary shot with a haunting effect of otherworldliness. There is an early, promising scene around a kitchen table, where Bud is visiting Daisy's dysfunctional family. It's so awkward that it's almost profound. Alas, this too seems in retrospect to have been completely accidental.

I may end up hating this film more than Ebert, but no one who's seen "Buffalo 66" would think the awkward/profound scene of the dysfunctional family interacting around the dinner table to be completely accidental, but rather something of a Gallo leitmotif.

Still... I bet it can't hold a candle to the dinner table scene in "Eraserhead"!

 

[Ricardo C]

What I demand to know is why was there no Christina Ricci blowjob scene in "Buffalo '66"?

My thoughts exactly

Why do I get the feeling that if this movie is released, at least on video, it'll make quite a bit of profit from two groups of people:

- Those who want to check out "the worst film in the history of Cannes"

- Those who want to see if Chloe Sevigny's scene really was "hardcore"

And why do I get the feeling that most HTFers will get the movie for both reasons?

 

[Joseph Young]

the awkward/profound scene of the dysfunctional family interacting around the dinner table to be completely accidental, but rather something of a Gallo leitmotif.

I actually liked the dinner table scene in Buffalo 66 because it got closer to the heart of what Gallo was trying to say about the character and why he is the way he is.

It reminded me of the heart-wrenching scene from Mike Leigh's masterpiece 'Naked,' where David Thewlis is sobbing on the hallway floor. Tore me up. Now that's a movie.

Gallo's color motif is also deliberately... let me put this succinctly... 'cigarette stain.' While I am a fan of such vomit speckled depravity in film, I think Gallo's inherent talent (yes, I think he's talented) and the potential for greatness has been obscured by his straight faced self worship.

~j

 

[Rich Malloy]

I hope I didn't leave the impression that I disliked the dysfunctional family dinner table scene in "Buffalo 66". I mean, it was brutal, tragic, a tad funny if it weren't so deeply sad... and very, very effective. My point was simply that a similarly effective scene in "Bunny" could hardly be called "accidental" by someone even vaguely familiar with Gallo's work.

 

[Henry Gale]

Could we archive this thread?

 

[Simon_Lepine]

Love this part from the Yahoo article:

Anyone who has had heard anything about this film in advance will know that it contains a celebrated scene of fellatio. This occurs in the last five minutes and, along with a big surprise in the so-called plot and a momentary transcendence of the catatonia the rest of the film is so deeply mired in, does indeed give "The Brown Bunny" whatever interest it contains. However, it's far from adequate recompense for the previous 100 minutes of torture. If this is what intrigues you, though, you'd be well advised to save your money and just go out and rent a nice, wholesome porn video instead.

 

[Jason_Els]

OK, this has me wondering...

Either this film is crap or it's unrecognized genius. I'm going to have to rent this.

 

[Joseph Young]

All these factors have fed into a popular image of Sleep as an eight-hour conceptual film of a man sleeping through the night, shot with a static camera from a single perspective, in order to (1) get publicity through the outrageousness of the stunt; (2) irritate audiences—something that “underground” films were supposedly trying to do; and (3) offer some sort of commentary on past cinema, cinema time, and the ways we’re accustomed to looking at film. “Is it cinema?” wrote Mekas after the first public screening of the film. “The slowing down, stretching a detail to its limit, to what maximum effect? . . . An exercise in hypnosis? Test of patience? A Zen joke? . . . Searching for art in Sleep, doesn’t it betray our own pompousness? . . . Doesn’t it remind us that there is not much sense in rushing? Doesn’t it remind us of the secret, almost unnoticeable motions, variations?”

In other words, I understand the motivations people would have for appreciating Vincent Gallo as unadulerated genius. I personally don't think his work ultimately reflects anything other than the fact that he's (a number of things that I won't say on this family forum).

I understand the appeal of films like 'Buffalo 66' and (yes even) 'Brown Bunny.' I have just been repulsed by Gallo's conviction that everyone around him who doesn't occupy his head space is either a phony, a floozie, or a flake.

~j