From the director of Elephant, Good Will Hunting and To Die For comes a star-studded comedy based on the best-selling novel by Tom Robbins. Uma Thurman stars as Sissy Hankshaw, a woman who leaves New York behind as she hitchhikes her way to the lush pastures of a midwestern ranch to model for feminine hygiene advertisements. When she arrives at the beauty-ranch, Sissy is introduced to a band of free-living, free-loving cowgirls rebelling against their drag queen employer and ranch owner, The Countess. Joining the cowgirls in their collective struggle against exploitation, Sissy not only finds liberating comradeship, she also finds romantic companionship. Co-starring in this eccentric adventure are Lorraine Bracco, Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover, Angie Dickinson, Sean Young, Heather Graham, and Roseanne. –New Line Cinema
A director who is capable of crafting both deeply unconventional independent films and mainstream crowd-pleasers, Gus Van Sant has managed to carve an enviable niche for himself in Hollywood. Since debuting in 1985 with Mala Noche, Van Sant has become one of the premiere bards of dysfunction, populating his films with a parade of hustlers, junkies, psychopathic weather girls, homicidal teens, and troubled geniuses.
The son of a traveling salesman, Van Sant was born in Louisville, KY, on July 24, 1952. One constant in the director’s early years was his interest in painting and Super-8 filmmaking. Van Sant’s artistic leanings took him to the Rhode Island School of Design in 1970, where introduction to Avant-Garde cinema quickly inspired him to change his major from painting to cinema. After mobving to LA, Van Sant became fascinated by the existence of the marginalized section of L.A.‘s population, especially in context with the more ordinary prosperous world that surrounded them… read more
so weird but in a good way. uma was mesmerizing back then. those angel wings and that feminist ranch was awesome. hurt as a queen is hilarious.
The book by Tom Robbins is well worth searching out. He was to the seventies/early eighties what Will Self or Chuck Palaniuk is today. To me Gus' career is three chapters. One the early truly indie films Mala Noche and the incredible My Own Private Idaho. Second the wandering in the desert of mini majors which may have made him some cash but lacked the artistic respect many still gave him. Finally the modern Van Zant which started with Elephant, Last Days etc. Skip the middle enjoy the first and third.
i'd had a 4th chapter there. your opinion on 'milk', 'restless' and 'promised land' (i think the first and the last are utter crap and i loved the middle one). i'll try and find the book then, thank you. don't know who is will self tho. and isn't Palaniuk more 90's? And what is your favourite chapter? I mean the third one includes "gerry", "elephant", "last days" and "paranoid park". that one is, i think, my favorite chapter.
FILM_LIES101, "Although it is considerably more concise than the novel, the film cannot overcome its dated source material. " How can it be more consice than the novel from which it was based? That makes no sense. I'm sorry sir but you are an idiot.
Although it is considerably more concise than the novel, the film cannot overcome its dated source material. Rain Phoenix performance is laughably bad, the other actors do not fare much better when they spout Robbins' pseudo philosophical hippie nonsense. The last twenty minutes are absolutely interminable, this film could have done well with throwing out everything about the novel and starting from scratch.
Hey, if you want to try and bust on someone, try reading through your own comments and correct the typos. Things like "must me Twilight" actually put YOU not me in a very bad light. Oh, the words ARE intentional to ward off humorless, pretentious assholes. I think it worked quite beautifully.
Please reread your original comment and tell me wherein lies the question. Or better yet learn how to pose a question. Your comment personally attacked me, whereas my original comment about the film and book was not directed at you at all. Art is subjective, I really don't understand why you took is personal. I am willing to argue in an reasonable adult manner, but you flat out provoked with a comment that was completely juvenile. If someone doesn't like the same things as you, it does not automatically mean that person likes something you deem “unworthy”. Elitism should have no place in the world. There is some irony in "lame ad hominem attacks.", because that is exactly what your reply originally was. Frankly, I was in the right to defend myself.
Are you kidding me? It’s in my post above yours, I even quoted a section from your post so don’t tell me that I should learn how to pose a question. It's not my fault that you can’t recognize a question when it's right in front of you. Of course art is subjective, I need you to understand that I couldn’t care less about the majority of your comments. I’m just simply defending a body of work from being bashed with unfair moronic statements like “Although it is considerably more concise than the novel, the film cannot overcome its dated source material.” That sentence leads me to believe that you have the critical judgement of a potato. Calling you an idiot was perfectly called for, it’s not an ad hominem at all. Don’t even write to me about elitism, I’m not the one that wrote “Oh, just for future reference; check out a person's profile before you make moronic comments that have no bearing whatsoever.” Implying that you are a person with enough credentials to not be fucked with? Bitch please.
Pseudo philosophical hippie nonsense? Can be construed as rhetorical. An actual question would have been more like "Hey, can you be more specific about what you didn't like? or "What moments made you feel that way?" Although, simple human communication appears to be outside your grasp of reasoning. Anyway, I really don't have any more time to waste on an asshole who is here to draw me out in a pointless argument Something that seems beyond you & Robbins' poorly written metaphors. Do the world a favor and crawl back into whatever hipster catalog you were shat out from. One final note: The "check my profile comment" was in regards to your throwaway Twilight remark. You being a fan of Robbins' enormous failure of a novel would consider that clever. A more intelligent person would have checked out my profile and came up with a response that was biting and actually had some substance,
That wasn't the question dipshit, it was "How can it be more consice than the novel from which it was based?" I clearly told you that it was a wall post and not a comment. Wtf is wrong with you? Nevermind, don't even bother to answer that. Hipster catalog? Maybe you should say that to your neckbeard. Go back to imdb son. /comment