Even Cowgirls Get the Blues

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 .

Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1993)

* (out of 4)

Sissy Hankshaw (Uma Thurman) had a bad joke played on her when she was born and that is the fact she was born with two huge thumbs. Her parents feared she'd never get married or amount to anything in life but one day her father makes a joke that she'd make a good hitchhiker. Sissy takes that advice and heads off in the world thumbing a ride to wherever she can get. As a teenager Sissy finds a modeling job in NYC for feminine hygiene advertisement, which claims she smells as good as she looks.

After being the champ of feminine hygiene for five years running, Sissy finds herself back on the road traveling across the country. She eventually gets a phone call from the drag queen known as The Countess (John Hurt) who has managed to get her a new job up in Oregon.

This job is working on a ranch, which has been taken over by a group of cowgirls who seem to be fighting exploitation. With Sissy there, the girls have a new fighter as well as possible lover.

Even Cowgirls Get the Blues is based on a novel from Tom Robbins, which I haven't read.

Perhaps had I read it I would have understood what this film was trying to say or trying to be about but as it is, I really have no idea. My only guess is that director Gun Van Sant was trying to recapture the exploitation films of the 1970's like Beyond the Valley of the Dolls but he fails miserably here and makes a film that's a bigger disgrace than his future remake of Psycho.

The biggest joke running throughout the film is the stuff dealing with feminine hygiene and the fact that Sissy smells better than any other woman around. This stuff here is simply unfunny and I'm sure many would be offended by this humor. Since it's doesn't work and manages to be somewhat offensive I've got to wonder who this humor was meant to entertain. The other big joke is the huge thumbs, which lead to various dialogue scenes dealing with the joys of hitchhiking but once again, who in the world is suppose to find that entertaining? I've always enjoyed watching Uma Thurman because she's one of the most enlightening actresses out there. She can certainly handle comedy, which was proved in Mad Dog and Glory but it's clear she has no idea what to do with the material given to her. There's not a single moment in the film where I believed this was a real character and instead of any insight we are given two fake looking props to tell her story. What attracted her to this project is anyone's guess but what's even worse is the fact that the director got an all-star cast to appear in the film. Lorraine Bracco, Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover, Angie Dickinson, Sean Young, Heather Graham and Roseanne are among the many familiar faces and none of them bring anything to their roles. My only guess is that these folks forgot to read the script and just thought the idea of being in a cameo would be cool.

I remember watching this film opening day in Louisville, KY where the theater was fairly packed Before the movie opened you could tell there was a loud buzz about the film due to the director's previous films, which included Drugstore Cowboy. As soon as the film started you could feel that entire buzz leave the theater and for the next two hours there was a complete silence that was rather haunting. No one was fascinated by what they were seeing but instead every single person was in a state of shock. Was this film some kind of job? Did Van Sant make a bad film on purpose? That's my only guess because there's nothing going good for this turkey, which would give anyone 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 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.

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.