For those who didn't enjoy this film, may I suggest Dane Cooke's My Best Friend's Girl or perhaps Seann William Scott's Balls Out. Those films aren't contrived at all and I have a feeling they'll be more up your alley.

This is one of the worst porno films I have ever seen. Period.

This is officially the worst excuse for filmmaking I've ever experienced. It's almost unbearable to watch. On several different occasions I actually had to turn my head.. not because of the content, but because of how banal and pretentious the few lines of dialogue are.

I saw the Cannes version and although it was slow, I did not hate it. Recently I purchased the film, being a complete narcissist just as Brown Bunny, Vincent Gallo is. And, I was absolutely floored by how he was able to polish this film into a gem. Although Chloe Sevigny's part is minimal, she could not have played her role better. The same goes from the young female who played Violet. This film does not have the dimensions that Gallo's other full-length, Buffalo '66 has and therefore I do not think Vincent Gallo was able to give the performance of a lifetime. This being said, he was believable throughout. As a struggling screenwriter, I know how hard it is to keep the viewers' attentions. Vincent Gallo kept me completely enticed throughout the entire film, where 95% of the scenes take place with one man driving crosscountry in a van. Few filmmakers would be able to mimmick this. For that alone, this film was great.… Expand

This movie took off slow, but shook me to my core by the time it was over. I couldn't stop thinking about for over a week. Vincent Gallo did not set out to direct Garden State! I'm sorry if your attention span didn't allow you to sit thru this beautiful film. This film requires a little more thought than the average pop cum indie fair.

Incredibly boring act of self-absorbed narcissism without a whit of self-reflection. I'm flumoxed: why was it distributed, why did Chloe Sayer get involved, why were normally responsible critics taken in, and why did my partner and I fastforward through to the ridiculous end instead of yanking it out of the DVD player after 5 minutes.

Very slow and pretentious.

Truly a disappointing film. I really enjoyed Gallo's last one, Buffalo '66, so I would like to be able to say that the 10 minutes of exposition that we got at the end of the film justified making us sit through the first 80 minutes which consists mostly of Vincent Gallo driving around looking glum. For me, the "revelation" that we get at the end of this tiresome affair does nothing to make his characters interesting and it comes off felling like a cheap trick to get us to care about a character that he never bothered to develop. Still, he gets points for style: I do like his camera work.… Expand

This movie is about as bad as high school student's film project. Actually, check that, I've seen more interesting film made by teens in their basement with a 8mm and clay. Let's face it, without the BJ scene the film would have been never found a distributor. Watching somebody film themselves driving across country is about as appealing as watch Uncle Bob and Aunt Sally�39;s trip to Disneyland slide show. What a complete and utter bore. I found myself fast forwarding through many of the road scenes. Having enjoyed Buffalo '66 I was immensely disappointed in this Galo project. His ego has blown itself if you ask me.… Expand

This film--and its fairly positive reviews--only prove how worthless critics are. It's a mind-numbingly boring piece of self-love created by a megalomaniac passing as art. As someone who took a 3 month, solitary road trip--he captured NONE of the power/lonliness/self examination that comes with such a journey. Just masturbatory close ups of his own face. Endlessly. Mumbled dialog, trite and obvious plotting and a ridculous hard-core sex scene that says nothing more than "I really like my penis and want to show it to the world". Chloe Sevegny is a fine actress who literally sucks in this film. I can't imagine what possessed her to take this role. The one moment of interest is seeing how truly lovely Cheryl Tiegs, the original supermodel, still is. That's it.… Expand

Neva Chonin of the San Francisco Chronicle has totally missed the point. This film is not about sexual obsession and guilt, it's about loneliness. We feel the pain a young man who has lost his lover (we later find out the details) and who makes lonely trips from one location to the next to race motorbikes. He interacts with several women along the way - not for sex but to reach out and regain the lost companionship. The final episode with his former sweet-heart explains everything. I enjoyed the film. It really brings home the loneliness a man can experience when traveling alone without love. The infamous felatio scene at the end of the movie was I believe faked. What man clamps a fist around the base of his penis and never lets go while his lover performs oral sex? Wouldn't most men surrender his organ completely to the woman's attention? I say only a man who is trying to hide the fact that he is wearing a fake penis would keep such a death grip. And his would not be the first faked penis in films. In "Irreversible," the man who commits the brutal rape in the tunnel turns over and his erect penis is visible temporarily. But in the DVD, the director shows how the scene was originally shot and how a penis was added digitally afterward. In Breillat's film about shooting a porn film, much ado is made over choosing the right fake penis to wear during the porn scenes.… Expand

For all of the controversy surrounding this movie, it sure was boring! The low budget cinematography has a few good moments that reminded me of a 1970's Redford movie; but mostly it just looks like an amature with a handi cam. The story is of a guy who is deeply damaged and his cross country ride in a van. His delusion is sort of played on the audience like a bad joke and the punch line is a gritty imagined oral sex scene that would even make Bill Clinton uncomfortable. My question for Paul Gallo who wrote, directed stared and produced this waste of time is this... Why not just make a real porno with rude sex from start to finish? It would be more interesting!… Expand

I neither hated nor loved this film, it was actually much better than I thought it would be, and while some stretches were a bit tedious, I found Gallo's final scene on the bed and his (and our) final realization about Daisy to be quite moving. I didn't find the movie to be particularly pretentious, much of it was hypnotic, but much of it was just plain boring. I think the movie was a series of experiments that sometimes hit and sometimes missed, but no one can say that Gallo didn't try something daring and unique!… Expand

This movie was so gawd-awful, I was literally tearing in the audience because of how bad this film would actually get. Seriously folks, you have to be in the top .05 percentile to actually connect with this movie. As for the other 99.95 of us, we're much better off watching PBS on a Saturday night.

This is the lowest rating I have ever issued for a film on this site. The director is vain and pretentious, and the new picture he has made is vacuous and insipid. Near masterpiece? Hardly. Nothing happens throughout endless pans and driving sequences, the film is emotionally distant and the centerpiece scene is repulsive and self-indulgent pornography. With numerous worthwhile foreign-language and independent films out there at present, why would some filmgoers on the site opt to lavish their carefully-considered "praise" on such obvious rubbish? It compromises your standards.… Expand

There is no way to give an honest opinion about the ending without making it into a horrible pun, but seriously, the end blew it. it sucks. the movie is pretty excellent up until the end, which is heavy handed, ridiculous, and simply cheapens the whole movie (and i'm not talking about the blowjob). bummer.

Daring and complicated, and such a personal piece of filmmaking. And the hardcore scene is very erotic, in spite of what critics wrote. Gallo is a terrific director breaking all the rules.

Terribly self-obsessed.

?You?re so vain? ?You probably think this song is about you? ?You?re so vain? ?You probably think this song is about you, don?t you, don?t you? -Carly Simon Vincent Gallo?s controversial new film ?The Brown Bunny? is finally getting a stateside release. An unfinished version at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003 was blasted by many as the worst film in their history. Gallo re-edited, trimmed, and cleaned-up the Cannes-atrophic print, but you can still believe the hype. ?The Brown Bunny? is a boring vanity project that doesn?t quite achieve pretension in its 90 minutes of road traveling. Gallo directed, produced, wrote, edited the film and plays practically the only character in the film, Bud. At the beginning of the film, Bud is at a bike derby in New York and takes off for Los Angeles for another one. On the way, he stops by a convenience store and picks up a young girl named Violet and convinces her to go with him to L.A. He dumps her eventually after having some communication. Then Bud just drives on more, and more, and more, until he reaches a pit stop to make out with an old woman. Why that scene is in the movie, I don?t know, but if you were to abridge the film any more it wouldn?t make worth to the climax. After his pit n? kisses, he takes off, and drives some more, and more, and more. He also visits his girlfriend Daisy?s parents house, who he grew up next to and totally don?t recognize him. When his long, wearying journey takes us to the north Midwest, he stops by a pet store and asks an employee what is the oldest a bunny can live. ?Five, maybe six years.? ?Not even if you feed it special food.? ?Five or six years, tops.? It?s nice to have a little humor inserted into such a long-winded film. Then his trip that starts to seem endless finally takes him to L.A. where the film develops a few ounces of interest. He passes by several prostitutes, each getting progressively younger and better-looking. He picks the third one up, Rose, and buys her lunch but doesn?t ask for anything else. Finally, he arrives at his girlfriend?s house, who won?t answer the door. He leaves her a note to tell her to meet him at a nearby motel where the film plunges into a silly nuttiness out of left field. I dare not spoil what is revealed, but I will tell you with all certainty it is not at all pornographic. I liked Vincent Gallo?s first film, ?Buffalo ?66? a lot. It had quirky ideas and inventions that stem from conventional clichés. The visual ideas were a bit impulsive but had a surrealist quality and it was quite funny. It is no masterpiece, but it is original and in my mind, an accomplishment on Gallo?s behalf. What Gallo does wrong, other than bore us in ?The Brown Bunny?, is not make a connection between the two lovers. It is a half circle that he thinks he can connect, and in that sense, it fails. … Expand