Uma Thurman is not a very good actress. She's tall, & reasonably attractive, & sometimes blonde, but she was the poster-girl for the Uber-hip set in the late 80's/early 90's so for that set, she was a perfect choice as Cissy Hankshaw. Having read & loved this book, I knew she was not a good choice, and she was subsequently was named Worst Actress of 1993 for her terrible attempt to portray Cissy. Likewise, Rain aka Rainbow aka Rain Phoenix was also miscast, as well as not being talented enough to pull off what could have been a great role, that of Boss Cowgirl Bonanza Jellybean. Rain Phoenix didn't look as if she was reading off a TelePrompter, she looked like she was A)Wondering what a TelePrompter was & B)Wondering what to to with a TelePrompter once she figured out what it was. I've seen better acting in 1950's Mexican porn. Did I detect her lips moving before she attempted to deliver her lines? The reason she was not named Worst Actress of 1993 was that to win that award, she had to be an actress, which she clearly is not. Sean Young looked so sexy I almost forgot about her psychotic meltdown over James Woods, but she showed less acting ability than in her role in "Blade Runner". Angie Dickinson, that 60's-70's retread hearthrob of teenage males was nearly as bad as Phoenix & Thurman, but she had an excuse, she hadn't worked for many years, & seemed critically hungover. That's the bad news. The good news is, the rest of the cast was a hoot! Batting leadoff, the always weird & wonderful Carol Kane & Buck Henry(why don't those two have children?? What a great idea), John Hurt in drag, Crispin Glover, Pat Morita(as Noryuki)as The Chink("Ha Ha Ho Ho and Hee Hee!!"), Keanu Reeves was entirely adequate as Julian Gitchee, but any one of a number of Native American, Canadian, or Ecuadoran actors would have been a better choice, such as the lovely & talented Gary Farmer. Two other bones to pick: 1) Tom Robbins' favorite Native American tribe, is not pronounced See-Wash, but Sigh-wash and B) Why was the locale moved from the Dakotas to Deschutes County, Oregon, and then accused of being California(rather than just Californicated)? Stupid idea. I really loved Crispin Glover & John Hurt, but their performances are not enough to tempt me to watch this terrible movie again. The personnel not named Phoenix, Young, Dickinson, or Thurman are the reason this piece of crap gets as many as two stars. Like many reviewers, anger is my strongest emotion at this attempt to adapt a really good book.

If you have ever read and enjoyed a novel by Tom Robbins you will appreciate this movie as a whole-hearted attempt to translate his outrageously unconventional writing style into a workable piece of big screen art. The actors and the direction of this film are both good. The only trouble with the film, as I can see it, is that Robbins can relate ideas and sentiments with his words that were still beyond Hollywood's capabilities at the time this film was shot.Given both the irreverence of today's movies, as well as the willingness and abilityof today's audiences to delve into the bizarre, I think "Even Cowgirls... would receive a better reception today than it did when it was originally released.

i saw this movie the first seconds the voice of T.R. took me on to the journey - well i disliked the big glued thumbs in the beginning, but the absurd humor it and the gordious looks of both sissy actors - i do not know who played the young her - but she was great and so was uma!!! -the two other people who where in the cinema went out after about half an hour, i was with a friend - and it is always a test to watch a movie i like good with one of my friends - and, we both enjoyed it too the maximum - hilarious laughs - sadness about the "realistic police- normalos" . both of us fans of T.Robbins books...i found it well done - thought, that Robbins would also approve, though i do not have an idea if he likes the film or not...i would love to see the cut out stuff - i heard that gus v. sand had to take out lots of scenes because of the first-time viewers (or the producers???) well still it is an artistic movie. much too short though... it is one of my all time favorites - and i am aware of it that the majority of people can't stand that kind of movie and assume that people who enjoy that films are whatever they think .......what a pity. hopefully there will come the day that there will be a DVD with the full material - hoping to see more of crispian, keanu - expecting to see her baby and allif you have the chance to see it, think twice, and enjoy it if you made the choice to watch ... m

I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor.