UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Lonesome Cowboys

Lonesome Cowboys (1968)

December. 20,1968
|
5.2
| Drama Comedy Western Crime

Five lonesome cowboys get all hot and bothered at home on the range after confronting Ramona Alvarez and her nurse.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Fairaher
1968/12/20

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

More
BeSummers
1968/12/21

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

More
ChampDavSlim
1968/12/22

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

More
Kamila Bell
1968/12/23

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

More
artpf
1968/12/24

Andy Warhol proves he was a head of his time and a genius! For those who are unaware of the genius that is Warhol, you may not like this film because you come from a place of ignorance.It's a great film. Cinema Verite at its best.All the sound track pops and whistles are intentional.hey are part of the art.As is the loose acting and rough cuts.This movie is mesmerising on so many levels.It foreshadows every reality show of today. Just splendid.Warhol convinced a bunch of rich brats to be in a grotty flick and mix it up with a seedy bunch of drug addicts and homosexuals -- pre aids days!Brilliant

More
Heath
1968/12/25

I had heard of this movie and was expecting something artistic and unique. It was absolutely devoid of artistry and the only thing unique about it is that it stands out as probably the worst film I have ever seen.It was just plain sloppy on every level of film making possible: camera work, editing, sound editing, acting, cinematography...any aspect of movie making found it's low point in this film. The plot is utter crap, with explicit homosexual overtures that are simply lewd. Warhol does not even attempt to portray sexuality (homo or hetero) as anything more than indiscriminate slut-dome. And for that it's not even erotic! This flick is utterly worthless and there's a reason why no one would distribute it and there are so few copies of it out there.

More
rwilson-7
1968/12/26

...but I rate it as such because I saw this movie as it should be seen, in a suburban "art house" cinema in the Sacramento suburbs in 1969. An interesting audience; some older men wearing overcoats and a few "sophisticated" couples from the local colleges. And me. I was not exactly sophisticated myself at the time (being only 19), but I laughed out loud a lot, while the rest of the spare audience stared at their shoes. I enjoyed the audience even more than I enjoyed the movie. And I enjoyed the movie a lot.P.S. Taylor Mead should be made a saint. I would like to see him made a saint not only because he deserves it but also because he might then cancel the insane 10 line rule here. There are movies that don't require 10 lines of commentary, this being one of them.

More
alohamike99
1968/12/27

This movie is great. Joe Dallesandro is young and full-on hot and sexy. The dialogue is pure camp. The performances are funny, goofy, and stupid. Totally crazy bordering on dumb scenes. Similar in style and feel to a pre-Pink Flamingo John Waters low budget film. At times you'll wonder how in the hell they ever got it made, or why they bothered to spend time on the project. Ultimately, you appreciate the time piece that it represents. These artists and the works they produced were the "burning bush" to that era's counter-culture Moses. Irreverent and living out of bounds.

More