Cowgirl Blues

If you think that being a model for a female hygiene company owned by a man who says the hardest thing about his childhood was being born a female Russian aristocrat to a strict southern Baptist home is funny, than this film may be for you. Personally, I kind of have a soft spot for it, mainly because I hate movies to be disregarded simply because they're "weird." Uma Thurman gives a good, quiet performance and that old guy from the "Karate Kid" appears. All in all, I thought it was interesting but I would never rent it again.

I liked this movie more than the other previous users here... I liked the character of Sissy, I like movies about girls who go their own way, whether they be Good Girls or Bad Girls. And I like road trip movies that travel around a lot. I have never read the book, so I don't know how close the movie is to the story or characters. The acting was a bit stilted at times, and the story left me a little empty, but for the most part I liked it, the whole freedom and traveling and feminism thing really fascinates me, I guess that's what drew me into it.

I've loved reading the comments about this film. In fact, some of them are even more zanier than Robbins, and that's going some. Look. If you're going to read a book by Tom Robbins, you know it's going to be goofy. Tom Robbins does goofy. OK. Now, if you're gonna see a movie about a Robbins book with Robbins input, what do you expect? Right. Goofy. So, what's the big deal? If you want Disney, go see some Bambi reruns. If you're gonna see Robbins, better read a few of his books first. I personally like Robbins's books. I howled my way through Jitterbug Perfume. And, being married to a Redhead, I loved Still Life with Woodpecker...OK. Now, what's this film about? Read the book. If you want to see Uma, Rain and all the gang, rent the video but don't expect Disney. You ain't gonna get it. Obviously, most of the other reviewers didn't either. Look. A movie can't pull the same things off that a book can, and vice versa. Robbins's books have a style that would seem very difficult to capture on film. If anything, this film proves that. Does it (i.e., the film) work? Is it a viable form beyond the book? Does it fly on its own merit? Can't say. YOU watch it and decide. I found many, many flaws in this film but also enjoyed much of it. So, friends, check it out for yourselves...but, I'd strongly advise, reading some Robbins before you do. It will save the shock later.

Sissy Hankshaw is born with extraordinary thumbs and it is at some point in her teenage years when she decides that hitchhiking must have been God's plan for her life. She travels for years, being a model as well, before she is drawn back to the city with a job offer. She travels to the ranch of The Countess and gets involved in a lesbian love affair, a siege involving wildlife and all manner of soul searching.

Reading a critic deriding Kill Bill by saying that it's lack of humour left `Even Cowgirls etc' as Thurman's funniest film, I decided to watch it to see what he meant. I can only assume he meant funny as in `so bad it's good' type laughs, as I was simply left annoyed and bewildered by the whole film. The plot is a road movie style affair but it lacks any sort of cohesion at all. Scenes and plot devices have almost no wider meaning and it all feels like a collection of unusual ideas which have been fired at a script in the hope it all works out.

The opening scenes are funny enough to start my interest but after that it all just falls apart as one pointless scene follows another. The lack of any real characters was a major problem for me as I had not even one character who could help me get into this mess of a film. Most of the characters have no depth to them - even Sissy herself is a poorly constructed character who's motivations and feelings are so badly explained that they might as well have been just presented and then forgotten (oh, hang on, they were!). When a group of women drops their trousers and march on a crowd, frightening them with their `unhygienic vaginas' you know that things are not as they should be!

The actors cannot save this mess. Thurman looks lost and as unsure of her character as I was. Instead she tries to wring humour out of the film by embracing any moment which may have had some value in it's unusual actions. Bracco is a mess - no character, poor lines and dropping her trousers for a film of no merit. Hurt is an embarrassment and I really wondered what on earth had made him sign up for this. Cameos from Keanu Reeves, Roseanne Barr, Sean Young, Rain Phoenix and Begley Jnr slightly add interest but really just provide yet more poorly constructed characters to not care about.

Overall this is not the worst film in the world and some may like it for it's freewheeling nature, lack of linear plot and attempts at humour by creating one `unusual/weird' situation after another. Me, I hated it for all these reasons. I found it rambling, without point, without comic or dramatic value and, put plainly, a real shambles of a movie that was an effort to get through.

I loved the book, and am a big fan of Robbins. He is an acquired taste, and translating his bizarre and satisfying metaphors and bizarre and sometimes satisfying philosophies to film is a very difficult undertaking.

But van Sant's screenplay and direction fall incredibly short of the book's energy and entertainment. There's no story arc that makes for any sense or cohesiveness. If I hadn't read the book I'm sure I would have been staring hopelessly confused as the end credits rolled.

The cast on paper is amazing. But only John Hurt gets a chance to really do anything--and he's great. Uma is fine. But Rain Phoenix is surely the anchor that sinks this film to the ocean floor. Not only is she not nearly charismatic/attractive enough to be Bonanza, she is perhaps the most limited actress I've seen since Bo Derek in Tarzan. I can't imagine why she was cast.

If you're a fan of Robbins or not, don't bother. Sadly, there is nothing here of interest.