Review of Buffalo '66 (1998) by Anna G — 02 Jun 2013

It suffers from the self-indulgence that Gallo just can't seem to shake and its script needs more finessing, more balance specifically, but Gallo's best elements are also on show here and this is a fascinating and unique work overall.

The acting is good but there's too much of Gallo in every sense, its a movie all about his character and another who doesn't talk and its supposed to be semi-autobiographical so its about him for real too. He can act and can obviously make movies (and good music too) but its hard to shake the idea that this is more a vanity project than a movie for its audience and that looks to be Gallo's overall reputation now.

Anyway, the plot isn't bad- its a bit typical on paper at first but, being a Gallo movie, there's little normal about it on screen and it has more strange and interesting elements as it progresses. If you don't like movies where most of the time you are surrounded by a character you won't like (Gallo's in this case) then this isn't for you but I usually like such films. (Phillip Seymour Hoffman fan here after all!).

It feels half-baked in the script's execution but it has a curious 'free' nature where it doesn't feel particularly structured in the little details and as a result they feel more natural and ultimately add to the film.

The reason I bothered to watch this one (there was plenty of reasons not to) is because there's some areas of Gallo's direction that I love, particularly how he shoots his scenes and the bleak idealism that flows through the tone of his work. I'm a big music fan and I think he's wise with his choices in that sense too. All of these things are on show here and it makes for some great scenes and keeps you interested even if there's not always much to offer story-wise. If you've never seen a Gallo film before though then consider that plenty of people hate of the aspects that I've just mentioned as favourable. Gallo more than others, seems to be fairly divisive, likely due to the indie-nature of his films and because of his 'out-spoken' personality.

I think the great stuff is enough here to make up for the more average parts and the overall self-obsessed theme. There's also the successful elements, aside from the visual stuff, to consider- the title of the film and its role for instance was very well-done I thought and the immaturity of the script (which may be intentional) contrasts well with the knowledge of film that Gallo brings into play. There's a general subtlety in that which is so opposite to the heavy-handed points hammered in throughout the film and some of the failures somehow become successes which feels apt. to an extent.

Another thing that works is Ricci- she is clearly made to show us very little about her character but the curiosity we feel with her seems to reflect how she herself feels with Brown and if we use that to view the film from her view rather than Brown's we can see through the narcissistic mood and enjoy what the film has to offer.

I will say though that despite how much this film pulls something pretty great off, it doesn't reflect his work overall- as an individual film, as I've already said- its errors can seem like successes but in his other works they continue but without the context of such an interesting piece. It becomes as repetitive as the next Tarantino film but also has the opposite effect of seeming to be against its audience with its undesirable nature rather than providing us with violence and crowd-pleasing action.

The, quite terrifying aspects of Gallo himself are on show here and as relatively well-presented as they are ever going to be by the looks of it and so, above its a flaws, its a pretty striking success but it feels like a first album by a not-so-coherent band- it's Gallo's 'Entertainment' if you will. (Gang Of Four reference, yusss).