I can respect any filmmaker that steers away from typical Hollywood conventions. It's not hard for a minimalist film to look so enticing when the majority of films produced are laced with big budgets of eye candy and formulaic plots.

The Brown Bunny should be admired for its risky non-narrative style. It caused furious reactions at the Cannes film festival which obviously helped generate lots of press and attention. Fans of the avante-garde will have to think "Oh! Its one of those films! The critics didn't get it. It must be ahead of its time!" That may be true but what's unsettling about the reviews is that they influenced director Vincent Gallo to cut the film in half leaving it more concise and marketable for mass audiences. Well I don't like to form opinions based on unnecessary gossip but I can't help but be bothered by it. If Gallo were a visionary filmmaker why would he drastically re-edit a film just after its premiere? I know this has happened many times with other directors but there is a part of me that has a hard time taking Gallo seriously. It's not his acting. I can see he has a quality that is rare and unique to most other contemporaries. His beautiful acting range is evident in his previous film "Buffalo 66". I just sense from his egocentric attitude of being the star, writer, director, producer and the fact that he's in 95% of every shot in the film, that he is just being creatively oblivious.

Most artists will tell you that self-portraits are the most difficult subjects to tackle because they involve erasing your preconceived notions about who you think you are to showing how everyone knows who you are.

Nobody said that "The Brown Bunny" is autobiographical but it certainly feels personal. This film reminded me of Dennis Hopper's "The Last Movie", an unfinished existential sequel to the 1969 film "Easy Rider". Hopper and Gallo seem similar in their egos and their American cowboy persona's but there seems to be a void here. I'm not sure a longer movie would be the answer. All I know is that Vincent Gallo's character Blake should look more pathetic and less cool to his audience. I may see this again and see something different. For now, I am tired of seeing another road movie that really looks rehashed and broken down for its artistic value. This just doesn't feel self conscious. It feels clueless and arrogant.

While I give the film kudos for a story that I didn't see coming, after the first few minutes of needless (and extremely boring) motorcycle racing, I could see that I was NOT in the hands of a professional editor. The story could have been told far more effectively in half the time--or less. Gallo definitely needed to step away and let a professional editor do his/her thing and mercilessly cut scenes that didn't move the story forward.

While I could see that the author wanted the audience to crawl inside the protagonist, Bud, during the road trip, it didn't take that darned long to do it. Plus, his point of view changed too frequently. If we are inside his skin, then why are we looking at him for minutes in an excruciatingly long and tedious long shot? We need to see what he sees--at least with more consistency. I couldn't get my bearings in terms of what I was supposed to be experiencing and from what viewpoint.

There were other technical problems such as an inconsistency in lighting and shot quality with no apparent reason. And that spotted windshield drove me nuts. If a sign of depression and the carelessness that results from it, I'd have appreciated technique that didn't interfere so much with the visuals. Speaking of visuals, extending driving sequences to cover a song also seemed visually uninspired.

Probably most important, Gallo ignored common expectations of audiences and wanted things his way. I can't believe there wasn't an acceptable compromise. I'm pretty patient when it comes to art and film as art, but don't appreciate my sensibilities and expectations to be pushed beyond the breaking point when there appears to be no artistic justification for it. Too many scenes suffered from too few cuts and ran far too long, engendering more audience frustration than heightened emotionalism. I think this may be a result of an inexperienced and slightly self-indulgent filmmaker.

These technical problems aside, I'm usually able to spot a twist a mile away--but not this time. I wondered why all the women he encountered had flower names but that was just a hint that didn't make much sense until the end. But his name? Bud, as in "flower bud" and "clay" as in a substance in which flowers grow (he couldn't have named the character "dirt" or "mulch," after all) might have been a bit over the top. Again, typical of an immature filmmaker.

Was the encountered women's immediate sexual response to a complete stranger, fantasy on the character's part or the filmmaker's? I'd like to know how many men run into so many compliant females. From what I hear, not many--even when the guy is young, good-looking, and clearly pitiable. In this day and age, we ladies are a bit more cautious than that. Sorry, Vincent. While this may have been believable for males, I don't expect it was for very many female viewers.

I watched the film largely because I wanted to see if and how graphic sex could be incorporated into a drama without lowering it to the level of "high brow pornography." I think the film did a good job on that score, although I'd have preferred the use of a realistic-looking prosthetic such as that used in Boogie Nights. Perhaps the budget didn't allow for it or...who knows? It was certainly an interesting artistic choice and one that leaves me scratching my head in terms of the motive for including it. Symbolically, I'm a bit confused about it.

As effective and surprising as the end twist was, there could have been more in terms of Bud's descent into depression. But then, I'm a psychologist so am aware that symptoms are more than seeking surrogates, crying, and looking forlorn and depressed. Gallo missed, IMO, a chance to show more about what guilt and loss look like and how they affect people. Perhaps, this again, is a result of his inexperience. Personally, I think Redford's "Ordinary People" did a better job of showing a wider breadth of feelings of grief and loss.

Bottom line, although I thought the story had merit and did an excellent job of building to a surprising twist, I think it suffered severely in the journey towards the denouement. I hope Gallo matures and grows as a storyteller and filmmaker as I think he's got something to say worth watching.