Is "The Brown Bunny" really all that bad?

[astro]

Seems to be a vigorously unloved film. Is it really that bad a film or was was it just too intense for critical sensibilities?

[friedo]

The original version that premiered at Cannes was widely considered among worst films in the history of the festival. But the re-cut version that does away with the six hours of dull driving sequences has received some praise.

@Roger Ebert

The audience was loud and scornful in its dislike for the movie; hundreds walked out, and many of those who remained only stayed because they wanted to boo. Imagine, I wrote, a film so unendurably boring that when the hero changes into a clean shirt, there is applause. The panel of critics convened by Screen International, the British trade paper, gave the movie the lowest rating in the history of their annual voting.

But then a funny thing happened. Gallo went back into the editing room and cut 26 minutes of his 118-minute film, or almost a fourth of the running time. And in the process he transformed it. The film’s form and purpose now emerge from the miasma of the original cut, and are quietly, sadly, effective. It is said that editing is the soul of the cinema; in the case of “The Brown Bunny,” it is its salvation.

[CandidGamera]

It’s kind of dull and arthousey. If that’s your bag, you may like it.

[shiftless]

Bad, with enough very strange stuff to kinda keep you going if you can fast forward (as I did). Could have been an OK 30 miunte short if you like that sort of thing. There’s sort of a story there but not a particularly interesting one.