Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

"The Brown Bunny" breaks one of my golden rules, liking to know as little as possible of the film I am about to watch. I prefer to walk into a movie cold and know just the basics. Who the movie stars, who directed it (these are elements which make me want to see the film in the first place) and very little plot. But the reputation of this film precedes it. I read about the war of words between Roger Ebert and Vincent Gallo. I heard the claims that this was one of the worst, if not THE worst film ever made, and I even read the reviews in advance because after hearing so much about the movie I felt like I had already seen it. "The Brown Bunny" is really about remorse. It is about a race car driver named Bud Clay (Gallo) who is on a road trip to California where he is set to compete in a race. The movie is about turning points in our lives when we think of lost love, and what exactly have we accomplished so far? It can be seen as a film about meditation. But "The Brown Bunny" never effectively gets that point across. At best the film is derivative. A good movie could have been made here, but Gallo isn't the man for the job. I must in fairness point out I've never seen Gallo's other films. I have heard of some of them though, so don't think I have a grudge against Gallo. I don't know his work well enough to say I hate him or like him. I need to see more. "The Brown Bunny" is not the worst film ever made, it is though one of the most boring films I have ever seen. The first hour of the movie is so pointless that as I sat down I kept thinking to myself, when will this film end? When will it makes its point? Everything about this film is amateurish; the directing, the script, the cinematography (all done by Gallo by the way),and the acting (except for Chloe Sevigny). The film's cinematography consist primarily of close-ups. For no reason. We have close-ups for Gallo's hand, face, other actor's faces, him combing his hair, him taking a shower, putting his clothes on, staring into a mirror, what's the point? None of this adds any purpose, especially any aesthetic purpose. But even though the film's first hour has no redeeming value, it is at the films last act everything comes together. In the final scene the movie now carries a purpose. I tell you this so you don't walk out. Here is where the film succeeds and why it's hard for me to be critical of the film, but than I remember that hour Gallo put us through. The film's conclusion saves the film slightly. Because at least now we can see it has a point but due to Gallo's tedious first hour, the impact of that scene doesn't quite hit us as hard as it should have. We are so bored that our reaction is so what! The dramatic component of that scene should have been much more powerful. Another downfall to the film is Gallo himself. His acting is in a word, bad. He never lets the viewer feel what he feels. His way of expressing emotion is by having his head down through-out the movie, that is suppose to express dispair. It doesn't work. I don't know if many people have ever made this claim against Gallo but, the man seems to be a bit narcissistic. Gallo is in every frame of this movie with his sour puss expression. Again, this could have been a good movie, but something really went wrong and it was Vincent Gallo. * 1\2 out of ***** Bottom-line: By no means one of the worst films I have ever seen, but the most boring. The pacing of the film is off, there is no life to what Gallo is doing. The acting, script, and cinematograpy is second rate at best. Loses all of its dramatic effect after a boring first hour, but has a redeeming last act.