Even Cowgirls Get the Blues

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 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!

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.

This movie just don't have any reason of being. While the Tom Robbins` novel is highly entertaining, poetic, feminist, intelligent, philosophical, funny, the movie is boring, nothing is taken seriously. The director adapted the book very faithfully by not making major changes in the plot, but by filming in a very facile and insipid way. Inexorably disappointing .

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.