|
Directed by: Terry Gilliam Starring: Johnny Depp, Benicio Del Toro Overrated. Overrated. Overrated. I rented this movie expecting a lot given how it seems to come higly recomended by TCC. I really wanted to like this film. I really did. Perhaps I shouldn't have watched it sober. The two main characters come across to me as obnoxious irresponsible drug addicts and while this is a comedy, I found their behavior a lot more disgusting than amusing and I felt myself dreading what new lows they could sink to. Dragging a maid into a hotel room and threatening her is not funny. There were some good parts, like the irony of the main character being sent to cover a DEA convention or the "What are these god drat animals line." But seeing these two men bumble from scene to scene, retreating to their hotel room because they are once again too high, too anti social to function gets really old really fast. quote:danthemitchell came out of the closet to say: This does make me reconsider my original review. I never thought of it that way. Though I still say its painful to watch and not very entertaining. RATING: 3 PROS: A few interesting illustrations of tripping and a couple of funny bits here and there CONS: Not funny as your too disgusted with the characters to find them humorous ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/ FIRE CURES BIGOTS fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Nov 12, 2004 |
#
?
Nov 12, 2004 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
I think the offensivness of the characters is intentional, and not supposed to be purely comic. This isn't really a movie about going on a fun drug trip, but rather the way these characters expereinced their own personal death of the "American dream." They're cosntantly running away from the impending reality of end of the sixties, and they have no way to fit into the new Watergate-era culture. They use drugs (a staple of their lifestlye) as a way of hiding from that, but in the end that only seems to make things worse. This isn't Gilliam's best work by any stretch, and things sort of go to hell after the opening scene (which is itself brilliantly executed). The performances are strong all around, and the visual style of the film is interesting, but it doesn't have a lot of cohesive strength. It is a pretty successful adaptation of Thompson's work in my opinion, which was considered unfilmable for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2004 03:46
|
|
|
This is an incredibly bizarre movie that is so far removed from mainstream cinema that I'm still surprised it was made at all. Ignoring the content and focusing solely on it's cinematic qualities reveals few shortcomings. Although it's not Gilliam's best work, his direction and artistic interpretation of many of the sets are both right on the mark. The opening sequence is masterful. The distortions (which are accomplished by using everything from wide-angle lenses and color filters, to changing the physical size of sets) seem appropriate to reflect the drugged minds of the two protagonists. Johnny Depp plays Raoul Duke (the slightly exaggerated alter-ego of Hunter S. Thompson). He's amazing. This is one of my favorite performances ever. I can't really think of any point at which Depp loses intensity or feels "off". Benicio del Toro plays Dr. Gonzo (an exaggeration of Oscar Acosta). Like Depp's portrayal of Duke, this is a fantastic performance. Benicio's Gonzo is full of rage and seems positively dangerous at times (the diner scene). The reason why very few people like this movie is because they don't understand it. This is no shortcoming of their own -- a truly great film should be a self-contained work of art. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is not, despite being an excellent adaption of Hunter S. Thompson's book. Firstly, in order to follow the movie, a second viewing is required. Things just do not line up the first time around. Why are these two taking all of these drugs? Are they always on drugs? What the hell is Dr. Gonzo saying during the bathtub scene? What the gently caress is going on? These are all questions I had after first watching this movie. Secondly, this is often billed as a comedy. Now, to fans of Hunter S. Thompson who are familiar with the book and the movie, the first half of the film (until Depp tries to leave Vegas) is absolutely hilarious. However, with the exception of a few jokes, the second half of the film is quite violent. The jokes are scarce and the seriousness of the crimes is more intense. Anyone expecting a light-hearted romp through Vegas with liberal drug use (as is often the case with people who are recommended this movie by friends) is going to be scratching his head and possibly shocked. This isn't a movie that you can just pick up and watch. That's a big problem right there, despite the fantastic acting, the great soundtrack, and Gilliam's more-than-competent direction. If you're not familiar with Hunter S. Thompson and the book, you're probably not going to enjoy the film. I say that as a warning more than anything. Is it fair then to give it a 5/5 because it's one of my favorite movies? No. Which is why I'm giving it a 3.5/5. As a piece of cinema, it falls short in delivering an approachable story. To anyone interested in it, though, don't hesitate to pick it up. Once you understand it, the movie really is a gem. The Verdict: Not one for the girlfriend/family on a relaxing Friday night, but any fan of Hunter S. Thompson's work will not be disappointed. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2004 05:23
|
|
|
one of my favorite movies of all time. I can see why some people would like this and why some don't. It's more than just two guys getting hosed up in Vegas which IMHO is a poor way to view the film. Read the book if you see the film and want to know more. The more knowledge I have about the film, the more I like it. 5.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2004 21:15
|
|
|
Hey rube, your negative review hurts me on the inside in many ways. You clearly did not, will not, and should not understand this film. The title is FEAR and LOATHING in Las Vegas. If you did not expect something dark, violent, or challenging, why did you watch it? The fact is, this film does deliver on two levels, the intellectual and the stoner/stupid humor fan. If you are not an intellectual and you can't appreciate stupid humor, but still enjoy banal entertainment, this film will not appeal to you. Perhaps the original screenwriters ideas of using surfing cartoons would be more to your taste. This piece of cinema that has been lauded by far greater souls than those who hang out in TCC is not about drugs, comedy, or "obnoxious" characters. It is truth about America, and if you don't like the film, and can't appreciate it, it is because you are unable or unwilling to accept certain facts about life and what it is to experience life. Rather than reviewing this movie, quit your job, drive to a new town, and see if you can figure out what is going on within a matter of days. That is what it is to be human, and this film, set in a tumultuous time in American history profiles people living in an obnoxious time where president's noses acted as lie-filled pan-pipes. The characters in this film, much more than sinking to new lows themselves are merely swimming through a world looking for a way out at the bottom. This is a concept those who don't understand this film will never experience for themselves, because they lack to the cognitive ability to comprehend the depth of their own existences. This is not a flame, merely an explanation and defense of a piece of work much more accurate than the majority of philosophy ever turned out by man. Oh and the part with Gary Busey is funny. Dishonest Résumé fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Nov 13, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2004 05:53
|
|
|
This movie delivers on so many levels. "We can't stop here, this is bat country!" 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2004 01:52
|
|
|
This film starts as a comedy about guys who take loads of drugs and go mad in Las Vegas, and that's probably why many people are unhappy by the film's end, because it descends into quite dark and twisted areas. There isn't much of a plot, it just kind of rambles around. Towards the end there are flashback scenes, and the first time I saw it I couldn't work out if they were repeats of stuff from earlier on, or stuff we hadn't been shown (turned out to be the latter). So it's pretty confusing. A lot of the dialogue is difficult to understand because it's too quiet, too mumbled and sometimes totally unrelated to what's actually happening. And some of the scenes are not fun to watch. However, the acting, direction, visuals and music keep Fear and Loathing entertaining. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro are superb (especially Depp: if you want proof that the man can do anything, watch this), and it has some absolutely classic comic scenes and one-liners. It also serves as an excellent adaptation of, and very faithful companion to, the book. An acquired taste. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2004 15:24
|
|
|
The first time I saw this movie -- a long, long time ago in the theaters -- I walked out. I didn't get it and I thought these two were utter rear end in a top hat druggies. Of course, that was before my intellectual awakening. Since then I have discovered drugs, discovered many different philosophies, I have traveled around the globe and I have spent many long hours just thinking. Coming back to this movie many years later, I see its genius. The title of the book is "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A savage journey to the heart of the American Dream." For some reason, the movie doesn't have that little subtitle thrown in there, but it would be appropriate. On its surface, this movie is about two drug-crazed lunatics who drive to Las Vegas with a suitcase full of drugs to cover the story. For some reason, they are convinced that their quest is to find and record the American Dream. Underneath this silly plot is a profound social commentary on the death of the sixties and how the drug culture found and lost something that we'll never see again. The book and movie speak of a time when people did love one another, where those hippies eating acid in san Francisco thought they had tapped into something greater than themselves -- tim leary's consciousness expansion and all that. Thompson's savage journey to the heart of the America Dream is a physical manifestation of his fear and loathing of the world that remains after all of that has disappeard. At one point, he laments that everything the drug-culture thought it had found was in the end just a rehashed version of an ages-old mystic fallacy -- that someone, or at least some force was tending the light at the end of the tunnel. Hunter S. Thompson did a fantastic job capturing the inner workings of the drug mind on paper, and for the most part, the movie used the book verbatim for its dialogue and narration. The modern drug culture is entertained by this movie because of the vivid and accurate portrayals of various drugs in effect. You won't find sitcom-style drug use in this movie, where someone eats a pot brownie and starts talking to leprachuns or some poo poo. No, here there are no holds barred. Depp and del Toro do an absolutely smash-up job portraying what its like to be on the various drugs found in the movie, from LSD to heroin and back around to Mescaline. At any rate, this film is, in the end, two different movies. One movie is for the general movie-going public and is quite horrible by those standards. If a funny drug-themed movie is what you're looking for, this isn't it. On the other hand, if you're looking for a really bizarre and intellectually satisfying documentary on the death of the sixties and the various horrors of the american dream, look no further.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2004 10:25
|
|
|
^^^ I wholeheartedly concur. Without atleast somewhat understanding of the drug culture I would see a 'normal' person as being lost in this movie. Having had some very introspective and spiritual experiences on many of the drugs portrayed in the movie I can connect with the movie on so many levels, something that is a rare find in movies. The book and the movie are wonderful (read the book and then see the movie). 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2004 23:37
|
|
|
Let me see if I can help on this review. To start with, Terry Gilliam stated the movie wasn't pro-drug. In fact, every scene was designed to make the audience want to get out of it. When they're high on mescalin and at Bozoko's circus and there are fat ladies and tattooed men and patrons with crippled legs all around them. It's about as anti-drug as you can get. "Are you prejudice?" "Hell no." "Good, because in spite of his race, this man is extremely valuable to me." It IS amazingly faithful to the book. The only things I didn't like were the garbled dialogue, the dead bat at the very beginning, the little kiss, and that's about it. "Dogs hosed the Pope. No fault of mine." --From his ether slur entering Bazooko. Had to read the book to unscramble that line. This was written by Hunter S. Thompson during the Nixon years. If you took Iraq, multiplied it by 500, then took Bush W. and took away his compassion, you'd have about the state of things at that time. I consider it almost necessary to be familiar with that era to really appreciate the movie. "That'd blow you clear through the wall. You'd be stone-dead in 10 seconds. gently caress, they'd make me explain things." As the above poster stated, this has some excellent observations on the hippie movement. These guys are failed hippies, realizing that the entire hippie movement was a farce. And they take drugs to forget that and their present lovely situation. "With the right kind of eyes you can look west and see the high water mark. That point where the wave stopped and rolled back." You also have to kind of understand drugs. I was going through my own drug period when this movie was released. I think I saw it like 5 times in the theater. It was just TRUE. Not in some religious, mind-expanding way, but in a cold look at how bad drugs make just about everything. "God's own prototype. A high-powered mutant never designed for mass-production." The movie was made at bargain basement costs under an extremely tight schedule. All the major cameo's you see on it, worked for scale rates. As low as they could go. So it had a lot of interest, but it was never going to be a major commercial movie. For those with SOME interest in the film, I suggest reading some of Hunter's books. Mostly his earlier stuff. He IS a doctor of journalism, and a pretty good writer before his own image became larger than life. "With a little luck, we have ruined him forever. Making him wonder that behind the doors in his favorite bars and hang-outs, men, in red woolen shirts, are getting incredible kicks from things he'll never understand." "You all voted for Hubert Humphrey. And you killed Jesus!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2004 23:53
|
|
|
One of the funniest movies I've ever seen, and like all of Gilliam's movies you can enjoy it as superficially or as in depth as you want. Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo are like a perverse and psychotic straight man/buffoon duo, and between that and Duke's intellectual journalistic analysis of their drug fueled insanity I was laughing through pretty much the entire movie. As great an adaption of Thompson's book on every level as you could hope for. 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2004 17:08
|
|
|
While all Gilliams are enjoyable on some level, this one is my favorite. I can't imagine a better adaptation of an "unfilmable" book. Gilliam makes some risky choices here, but they all work. One of my top 100. Rating: 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2004 17:31
|
|
|
Thompson perfectly captured the effects of the drugs. Most of their behavior appears like irresponsible assholishness, but it's just perfectly captured insanity. The first scene sets up the type of film perfectly. "How long can we mantain? How long before one of us starts raving and gabbering at this boy? What will he think then?" Not a minute later, Hunter turns around and says "Maybe I better have a chat with this boy. Perhaps if I explain things he'll rest easy." I'm just so glad they didn't use a cartoon wave to describe the 60's movement. The dark room with the typewriter had a better mood. 5.5/5. Probably the best film ever made. Saturn2K fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Dec 1, 2004 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2004 18:08
|
|
|
I won't regurgitate what others have said but I will bring up that the actual visuals of the movie (clothing, settings, etc.) were incredibly beautiful, and I find myself watching random parts every now and again because they're so pretty to look at. Oh, and the commentaries are great. Gilliam's is a bit mediocre, but the others (especially Hunter trailing off randomly or making loud squealing noises) are great. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2004 01:52
|
|
|
I like this movie very much. Every scene was very well done, the visuals are really good, Depp is fantastic, but I was made extremely uncomfortable by the Back Door Beauty scene, but that was the point, I think. Anyway, it's an excellent film, but definately not for everyone. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2004 08:09
|
|
|
This movie rocks. I love the characters, the scenery and the drug scenes. If you like to watch movies and say "Wow! They really captured how a trip on INSERT DRUG HERE unfolds!" then you'll enjoy watching this movie with your crackhead friends. Great use of filming locations as well. Desert roads, casinos, trashed hotel rooms, they're all used and abused to make the movie fun and exciting. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2004 02:48
|
|
|
First to appreciate the movie is to read a book. It's a quick read. I read it in one weekend between flying to and from Chicago. The characters were right on and performed the way I envisioned it when I read it. As in any artistic type of film, there are hidden metephors and deep meaning for the human mind to endure. Of course, being able to watch two men take ungodly ammounts of drugs on film is the first step to getting through the movie. They usually play it on the Independant Film Channel. Check it out if you haven't already. *the book is still better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2004 10:40
|
|
|
Drugged out losers like myself will have no problem with falling in love with Raul and Dr. Gonzo. This is probably the most well-paced film I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2004 07:34
|
|
|
This movie is about the tragic death of the sixties, and the state of America during this period. If you look at the movie before and after the typewriter scene, than you can realize that it is the turning point in the movie. After that scene he is trapped in Vegas and checks into the new hotel where the movie turns psychotic and dark. Yes there are some funny scenes during this period but the innocence of the movie is lost after that scene. But I am not here to re-tell what has already been said. What I am trying to say is that for those who didn't enjoy the movie and that don't give it 5/5 probably haven't seen it at the tailend of a mushroom/acid trip. Do this and you will fully appreciate the depth and intricacies of the drug-addled state portrayed in the movie. There were times when I was watching coming down from an acid trip, when I felt completely synchronized with Duke's mindset and dialogue. A perfect adaptation of the book by Gilliam. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2004 01:35
|
|
|
Mahalo. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is recognized as one of the BEST novels of the 20th century and this is a fact that I can agree with. You might find the movie offensive and sick or whatever but seriously, if you read any of the good doctor's books, you will find that all of his actions make "sense". Well, not really. Personally, I really enjoyed the movie and it is in my Top 10 favorite films. I don't do drugs, am not a sexual fiend, drink copious amounts of alocohol, or am one of those weird artist/indie freaks. I'm saying this because in case you accuse me of being just plain weird. Not that there is nothing wrong with weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2004 00:33
|
|
|
I've seen this movie about 50 times and have read the book a couple times. This is one of the best film adaptions of a novel I've ever seen. The images are so powerful that it's almost impossible to imagine Thompson's novel in any other way. It's also loving hilarious. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2004 20:05
|
|
|
I was told really great things about this movie. I borrowed it from a friend and was expecting to be entertained. There were very few parts that amused me, but most of it was pretty bad. I hate to give a negative review whereas everyone else loved this film, but I honestly would not recommend this movie to a friend. This is the only movie I have ever watched that literally enduced a headache so bad that I had to take a nap after watching it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2004 08:20
|
|
|
I watched it not knowing what I was in for. I was entertained, but by the end I was dumbfounded, I did not get the movie the first time I saw it, but it was extremely entertaining. By the second and third times, I started praising the Johnny Depp and Benicio del Toro, they portray each effect of each drug marvelously. I still haven't read the book, but as it is I liked it a lot. It's not for people looking for a laidback stoner comedy, but it's specially made for people with a bizarre sense of humor looking for a great movie. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2005 01:37
|
|
|
not a review
Somebody fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Jan 2, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2005 02:54
|
|
|
not a review
Somebody fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Jan 2, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2005 05:37
|
|
|
walrusnote: I'm not going to edit this because you wrote a decent bit, but in the future you should try to review a movie on its own merits. Don't review the people who like the movie. Why does everyone like this movie? Look, I am one of the biggest fans of Depp, but come on this movie is seriously a piece of poo poo. I hate how every loving pothead in America wants to rear end rape this movie. It's becoming a part of the worthless pot head subculture, it annoys the gently caress out of me. No one gives a poo poo about some worthless loser, parading around like an rear end in Las Vegas. I have no sympathy for the character, I don't give a drat what trouble he runs into, because he's a dumbass pothead. People become so enamored with this worthless piece of poo poo. It seems potheads want to be Depp's charcter. Pothead's see Depp's character as something to aspire to. I even hate the loving poster for this movie. Depp has some typewriter between his legs like he's loving it. What's that supposed to mean? It's not funny, thought provoking, smart, and makes me hate the movie even worse. I also love how all Potheads love Hunter S. Thompson because of this movie. "Hey that movie had pot in it, Hunter S. Thompson must be a genius" I swear to you that's how potheads react to this movie. gently caress anyone who likes this movie, I hate you. 0/5 Somebody fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Jan 2, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2005 08:54
|
|
|
quote:DonTheJeweler came out of the closet to say: have you even seen the movie, assbag? the appeal is that it goes where no movie (which i've seen) goes. no other movie depicts the effects of multi-drug use to such a degree. plus its just funny to see them so hosed out of their minds. maybe you should grow a pair, quit sucking off your moms teets and try some godamn alcohol. 4/5 The Rope Civilian fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jan 3, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2005 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
As stated several times, this movie is not for everyone. Gilliam clearly agrees; in one of the DVD's special features he analogizes the making of this movie to being out on a life raft on the ocean and shooting a flare up into the sky to see which other little life rafts are out there as well. That's not verbatim, obviously, but it's close, and if you happen to be in one of those life rafts then you're in for a real treat. The acting is superb. The adaptation of the book and its quasi-real life characters is painstakingly accurate (e.g., Depp spent several months with Hunter learning his mannerisms and physicality before filming). A large effort went into making this movie uncomfortable for most people to watch, so don't be surprised when you find yourself squirming in your seat. This movie is not to be passed off as a drug comedy. Certainly it is a drug movie in several respects, and many parts of it are comical and/or funny depending on your sense of humor, but Hunter was/is a serious journalist and there are some very real issues he confronts in this story. The typewriter monologue, for example, is a beautiful commentary on the death of the 60's optimism. The more familiar you are with the novel and its author, the more likely you are to at least appreciate this movie. I recommend that everyone see Fear and Loathing, though I expect that most people will not like it. I also strongly object to the assertion that it's only for hippies and pot-heads; I have had only a couple, mild drug experiences in my life and I adore this film. Even Terry Gilliam, the mastermind of the film's drug atmosphere, states: "I didn't like drugs. I was terrified of them. I've never taken acid. I've never taken the vast majority of drugs that are used by our heroes in this film." source: http://www.crankycritic.com/qa/terrygilliam.html I am hopelessly biased in favor of this movie, so I won't give it a numerical rating. Just rent it. Chances are you'll be sorry you did, but then again you just might love it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2005 21:51
|
|
