Simply Perfect

A Disappointing Continuation

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Worst movie of all time? Wow, whoa now. You cannot be serious.Maybe it's all about what you expect a movie to do to you. I live in Oregon, so I got to enjoy the beautifully-filmed shots of familiar yet still amazingly beautiful Smith Rocks and other areas in Central Oregon (as well as the sweet cameo of our own Ken Kesey and Ken Babbs looking down on baby Sissy's cradle at the beginning of the movie). Those alone were enough to spur me to give the movie a better than "average" score.Or .... Maybe it's all about what expectations you have. Having read the book AGES ago, and thinking to myself "goodness, no one could ever make a movie out of this interesting, quirky, weird book ... especially 20 years later, when mores (MORAYS -- can't put in the accent mark online) have changed" -- I was actually quite pleasantly surprised when I first watched the movie when it came out in 1994 and even liked it more today watching it again.Sissy was exquisitely cast, and I don't care what you all say, I was also pleasantly surprised at Rain Phoenix's and John Hurt's performances. I am not a lesbian nor bi nor trans, but have met many folks who are similar to the folks they were supposed to portray -- and those "real" folks kinda acted the same way as these actors acted. Stilted a bit, stage-ey -- always a bit "on." Gus Van Sant is one weird native Oregonian but by garsh he done a good job adapting this crazy book, IMHO.

you should read the book. I wouldn't call it unfilmable, but it's certainly not a James Patterson or an Ira Levin novel. A girl born with large thumbs becomes a hitchhiker, a model, and a lobbyist for whopping cranes with her lover Bananza Jellybean. I love this book. The movie is not as bad as you may have heard. Uma Thurman is perfectly cast. She is just quirky enough to pull off the thumbs and obviously good looking enough to be a model. The rest of the cast is woefully miscast, mostly due to being too old for the parts, such as Lorraine Bracco and Pat Moriata. But the thing that really drags the movie down is that the spirit is missing. Even Cowgirls Get the Blues was written in the sixties, the time of free love, and man is the love free in the book. There is too much fear now to make a movie like that. Also, there were different ideals about psychiatry, philosophy, and freedom. It's a true product of it's time and could be filmed by someone with guts. Until then, I can always read the book again...

After reading all the comments on this film I guess I was expecting on par with plan 9 from outer space or something. Perhaps it was my low expectations going into it but I actually found the quirky style to be quite intriguing and quite funny. I mean what isn't funny about lesbian cowgirls taking over a ranch using nothing but their unwashed reproductive organs. And the Chink? Hilarious - some crazy guy that lives in the mountains and dances to polka? I must admit the only reason I watched this movie was to fulfill a personal goal of mine: seeing every Crispin Hellion Glover movie. Who I might add delivered his usual awesome performance. But overall I enjoyed the movie. I probably wouldn't recommend it to everyone but for fans of movies like "the pickle" "the killer tongue" "fast sofa" or "Naked Lunch" I would say check it out. hey for what its worth it was better than the psycho remake. That my friends was a slap in the face.

I read Tom Robbins' EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES as a teenager. I loved every word. It was sexy, funny, and full of glamorous scenery and beautiful writing. But when I saw the movie, I could not believe what a dull, sour, joyless piece of junk it was. How did this happen? I think someone in Hollywood read this book and filed it under "GAY PRIDE -- WOMEN -- LESBIANS." (That's the Library of Congress subject heading.) Now anyone over 12 who reads the book will know it has NOTHING TO DO with real lesbians, any more than STAR WARS is about real space travel. The book was obviously -- and I do mean OBVIOUSLY --written by a heterosexual male who loves the IDEA of lesbians (in the nude, all the time)but has never really met one.Still, someone in Hollywood said, "uh oh, better give this to a Gay director or Gay People will make trouble." So they handed it to Gus Van Sant. Nothing against the man, but -- however Gay he may really be -- he has not a clue as to how to make a funny film. Gus Van Sant took a straight man's playful fantasy of guilt-free girl/girl action and male voyeurism turned it into a dull, literal-minded Lesbian Power Recruiting Poster. It's like turning an Oscar Wilde comedy into an Arthur Miller tragedy. Not pretty.The main clue that Gus Van Sant had absolutely no idea what to do with the source material is the riotously bad casting. His clout allowed him to hire the very best. His ignorance of the novel's real subtext (a straight man's fantasy, not a gay pride recruiting poster)caused him to make choices that were not only bad, but bizarre.Let's meet the cast of EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES.PAT MORITA as "THE CHINK" Okay, there are few name-recognition Asian actors. And Pat Morita, in HAPPY DAYS, was fairly funny. But casting him as THE CHINK was wrong, wrong, wrong. Pat Morita has no idea that the Chink is a very funny man. (Gus didn't tell him.) Pat also doesn't seem to know that the Chink is . . . well, SEXY!!! In the book he's not wise old Mr. Miyagi. He's more like Hugh Hefner! He's a randy old goat and he knows A LOT about pleasing the nubile and responsive Sissy AND Bonanza Jellybean. (You see, in the book, they aren't REALLY lesbians. Do you get that this is a straight man's fantasy yet?) JOHN HURT as "THE COUNTESS." Okay, he's a gay friendly man. But he is a SERIOUS, SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR!!!! You need someone who is fun, and camp, for this role. For John Hurt to be cast as a goofy guy like the Countess is tragic and sad. I kept expecting Paul Scofield to wander in all dressed up as Thomas More, and sadly shake his head. "Now, Richard, you know you've lost your soul entirely. For shame, my former student!" And yes, John Hurt was funny (and pretty gay) as Caligula. But that was BLACK humor, not playful and breezy humor like the book.RAIN PHOENIX as "Bonanza Jellybean." No talent, no training, no problem. Except that in the book Bonanza is funny, playful, cheerful, (mostly) heterosexual, and loving. In the movie she's sullen, passive, expressionless, and dull. As for her taste for women, Robbins in the book puts it like this. "God knows I love women, but nothing can take the place of a man that fits." Uh, Gus? Did you read this book? UMA THURMAN as "Sissy Hankshaw." This is a tough role. In the book Sissy really is an unusually passive and timid heroine. Still, a more accomplished actress might have manufactured a twinkle in her eye, or a sway in her walk, to imply some sort of hidden strength or hidden enjoyment of her adventures. Uma doesn't pull it off, probably because Gus never told her Sissy is supposed to ENJOY being a hitch hiker with a beautiful body and giant thumbs. Uma plays it more like she's in a TV movie about a girl dying of leukemia. This movie is sour and dull. And I accuse YOU, Gus Van Sant!