Rating: 
Summary: It's a movie you just have to see
Review: I believe the quote at the begining of the movie and a quote HST used quite a bit throughout his career pretty much sums up the crux of the movie and it goes something like..."He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." I would also recommend that if you are going to watch the movie, that you also read the book as well. To me the movie is totally insane, funny and whether you like it or not will make you deal with certain issues that you may find disturbing to your sensibilities, don't panic, this is normal. If you are a true red blooded american who likes to follow the rules( at least when people are looking which incidentaly is the american way) then there is a possibility that you may find this movie offensive. But this should not stop you from watching the movie and finding a way to deal with it as did Mr. Duke and Dr Gonzo. Now it is also imperative for me to bring out at this time that what is also overlooked by the "critics" and casual observers as well is the tremendous work done by both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro which in itself is worth watching this movie. Next, do not try to make sense of this movie, that would be a mistake, simply experience it as did the good Doctor and his Attourney and then decide for yourself how it effects you or affects you for that matter, but whatever you do, do not dismiss it, the decision must be made. Really there is no reason for judgement or maybe there is, but that is up to the viewer to deal with and deal with it you should. The bottom line is this, You should take two things away from this movie: 1. It is important, no matter what the circumstances are to always get the "story". And 2. If you buy the ticket then you must take the ride. If the viewer can keep these things in mind before, during and after this movie then I think you will be doing just fine and dare I say have a new found appreciation of what the good Dr. and the movie are trying to achieve.
Rating:
Summary: Great ,Brilliant, picture
Review: If you are a fan of Hunter s. Thompson's work you will absolutley love this movie. This film is "gonzo journalism" at its best. This movie follows the "drug riddled adventures" of raoul duke and dr.gonzo. Along the way on their trip to las vegas they come across giant lizards while they are on a bad acid trip. And many other bizarre things. All in all it is a great movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Scientific analysis on "Fear and loathing" (hey, come back!)
Review: I have completed the awesome feat of actually watching "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas" through and I have conducted a major scientific analysis on this flick. I consulted my neighbors who all happen to be highly esteemed scientists and they provided me with some interesting opinions about what this film might be about. I have to add at this point, that i live in an apartment building inhabited only by sociologists, psychologists, ornithologists and marxists, and i often discuss with them matters of art that seem to escape me. These are the conclusions I gathered from my discussion with them:1. "Fear and loathing.." actually DOES have a plot. The fact that a spectacularly overwhelming majority of the audience failed to see the plot is besides the point. The same amount of people also failed to understand Einstein's theory. Be careful though. This does in no respect mean that "Fear and loathing..." is an ingenius film much the same as Einstein couldnt direct a film even though he might've been a genius. Get it? Me neither.. 2."Fear and loathing..." has as much of a plot as all David Lynch's films do together. To anyone disputing this or needing it to be explained i recommend the highly succesful detox programm called "Watch Fear and Loathing again. And Again. Part II". 3. "Fear and loathing.." is a state of the art...art film, which actually is filmed real time by a director seriously suspended in between reality scapes and played by actors who are actually beyond tripped out with the purpose of providing us with a complex and therefore difficult to understand map with the limits of the human mind. It could have been French. 4. "Fear and Loathing..." is NOT a film. It is actually part of a secret government programm aimed at discouraging our youth in experimenting with a plethora of different drugs simoultaneously. Judging from the reviews here though the programm has failed. Your tax dollars at work once again. 5. "Fear and Loathing..." will be undisputably understood when Part Two is released (Fear and Loathing in Modevideo) which is due for release in 50 years time. Those alive till then will be awed at the cosmogonic meaning of this film and will ultimately understand how silly they were when they were young and missed the idea because of their naivity. 6. "Fear and Loathing" is actually an alien film recovered during a UFO crash in South Siberia. The original has -of course- been kept from the public eye and this an adaptation providing us with a glipse into the alien mindset. Did you notice the scene at the beginning with the reptiles at the bar. Well, WINK! Do we have to spell it out for ya???? I do admit that the aforementioned analysis theses are somewhat contradicting. But, I must also admit that i consider myself to be intellectually inadequate to pinpoint which one comes closest to the truth. I think that in reality we all are.
This is a film to be treasured for the ages. And, to be incomprehended for an equal amount of time. Peace...
Rating: 
Summary: Fear and What?
Review: To my opposing reviewer: When I reviewed Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas it was not my intent to be an autodidact by denouncing the film entirely. As you'll recall, I did enjoy the movie on the overall visceral level and did view the film with the understanding that it was bereft of any significant crux. To amend, I loved Gilliam's early and subsequent work (Fear and Loathing being the only one I have lukewarm feelings towards). Now as for the mentioning of Burroughs and Joyce, even good ol' Nietzsche...this was not done to impell intellectualization. Rather, I found the comparisons to be more than applicable. Joyce is announced because Ulysses is an excellent example of a story with no point, yet being hallucinatory and appealing to one's instincts (and it does genuinely coax one to think). Burroughs' work is juxtaposed simply because his style was relevent and contemporary to Thompson's. However, Naked Lunch struck me as a much more honest, acerbic, and insightful account of America. Nietzsche's Zarathustra is cited because of its egotism. The self-intoxication and hallucinatory affects the inner self can have on such a person. Visually the film is remarkable. I only criticize the film on the reputation it has earned on account of young people inflecting meaning into something that was without it. That is all. No painful meandering and dissection. And if dissection and analysis is wanted, I then prescribed the viewing of Eraserhead. That's it. The mentioning of all the aforementioned names is not cause for debate nor refutation. And please don't pander your idea of my intellectualizing every cavil detail of this movie. I enjoyed Freddy v.s. Jason for christ's sake. The movie is shallow, but fun. Just don't interpret it as prophecy.
Rating:
Summary: Greatest Movie Ever
Review: What is going on with Amazon's review of this movie? This is single-handedly the funniest movie of all time, with Depp easily turning in his greatest performance to date. What do critics know? This movie blows Gilliam's previous efforts out of the water, constructing Thompson's drug-induced recollection to a T. You can basically follow the book word for word while watching the movie; very accurate. And why wouldn't you adapt the book word for word? The book is hilarious, the movie is hilarious, and I might argue it is the greatest movie of all time. What does the Godfather have on this? Nothing!
Rating: 
Summary: True fan
Review: Say what you will about how the movie was made, it is one of the few movies that holds true to the book (yes, it was a book first) Hunter Thompson's brief cameo alone is a good enough stamp of approval for me.
Rating:
Summary: God Bless Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro
Review: i had put off seeing this movie for far too long.i enjoyed it thoroughly,Johnny Depps mad cap antics had me in stitches throughout the entire movie and Benicio Del Toro as the strait man keeping the mayhem from getting too crazy was absolutely wonderful.then just when you think things cant get any crazier Dr. Gonzo just goes berserk and the laughs never seem to end.kudos to both actors for a superb effort!
Rating:
Summary: misunderstood...
Review: Here's something for Brandon DiSabatino (reviewer): I have read Joyce, Nietzsche, Sartre AND Burroughs.
I have never considered "Ulysses" to be a reason not to make exciting art just for the heck of it. Jim's whole story is just a ramble. A beautiful sprawling wonder of a ramble, but a ramble nonetheless. Do you accuse Joyce's work of being empty?
I have never considered "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" to be a bible for the supression of fast paced fiction (remembering here that Thompson has repeatedly hinted that this 'autobiographical' piece is far more a novel than anything else).
I did not find anything that denounced good cinema in "Existentialism"; exactly the opposite, to be frank.
And as for Burroughs (consider "The Naked Lunch"): Do you REALLY think that Old Bull Lee would be at odds with Hunter S.?...REALLY??? It was part of this old heroine addict's dream for the world to see people like Thompson running around a tarnished America without a leash.
I realise that in this instance, what I am about to say could be seen as something of a "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" statement, but did you honestly think that your review would be helpful to anyone that wasn't a so-called 'intellectual'?
I loved this film. I loved it BECAUSE it wasn't about anything; BECAUSE it was different, and although all the classic reading of past years is of course still applicable to modern living, it just isn't, in fact couldn't be, anything like "Fear and Loathing."
Bloom's exploits in "Ulysses" are indeed interesting and frequently bizarre, but to the general public today, it simply won't mean as much as it did when it was written. The vocabulary used by Dublin's bohemian residants of bygone days was indeed got down pat by Mr. Joyce, but when it comes to recounting hallucinatory experiances in a desert, surrounded by some of the world's most venal and destructive ideals, Leopold Bloom and his kidney breakfasts just do not--cannot--pass muster!
On more than one occasion, I have actually mentioned Ulysses as a valid latter day comparison to Fear and Loathing and other films of it's ilk, but I've never tried to set the two up as competitors. Kerouac's "On the Road" also strikes a similar chord.
This is a film that you need to relax into from the writer's point of view (this being, after all,the whole point of reading((and watching movies)). The writing flows, if only you let it. People who seek to debunk Thompson in the way that DiSabatino does in his review are invariably anal people without any sense of creative fun; the kind of creative fun that all the best writers of bygone eras expounded until their voices were horse with the shouting.
You need to chill. I mean, "Erasehead" for crying out loud! Get a grip.
If you're not stunted in all the ways that Thompson hates, then you have to see this film. Totally brilliant, and at times, totally misunderstood.
(Mr. DiSabatino has since replied in another review on this page and made clearer his original review's intent. We understand eachother better than I first thought. Well met, sir.)
Rating:
Summary: A Bloated Feeling While Fearing Las Vegas
Review: Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was a film of unquestionable style. Was the pulchritude of aesthetics simply dominating a movie that contained no substance? Yes. There are some reviewers who would quixotically impell you to believe that this movie contains a subcutaneous genius, a real message or crux to its cinematic delirium. Unfortunately, these people seem intent on fortiftying a movie that wasn't that spectacular in the first place. Many have mentioned the "American Dream" that Thompson was writing about, but have these people actually and comprehensively read the book? Thompson is not that fantastic of a writer. His style and his substance have been handled by greater authors (WILLIAM S. BURROUGHS). The recurrent motif of his novels are often described as the loss of the American Dream. Now, this polysemous dream of America has been dead since the 50s. Thompson's writing is only fueled by an endless tautology of prowless words about a subject he can barely recognize. This film is incredibly empty...yes, it's true. But who knew that the void could be so hypnotically beautiful? The primary reason to view this movie is for its visuals. If you watch it under the spurious pretence that this movie is going to communicate some profound syllogism of America, you'll be disappointed. Besides, the majority of people who are compulsively obsessed with this film are merely peddling the dubious notion that there is an underlying esoteric message to be evinced here. They support this with the rhetoric that naysayers cannot possibly understand its inconceivable genius. PLEASE. If you want profundity, read Joyce or Nietzsche or Sartre. If you want a cinematic experience which is an established cult film (released bereft of major studio support and prominant actors), a movie that is brimming with room for philosophic interpretation and dissection, than watch a better movie. Try David Lynch's Eraserhead. Until then, please stop pouring your energy into a movie where the only redeeming feature is its cinematic images. Thompson's incredibly inane "vision" of America has only remained prevalent as a result of his drug induced style. As I said before, Depp, Gilliam, Del Toro, these are the reasons to see the movie. Let the widsom lay with the hands of those who present intelligent ideas and alternatives to dreamless world.
Rating:
Summary: "There is no way of explaining the terror I felt"
Review: There are two ways of looking at this film: 1. Two men, every drug known to civilization, and Vegas! -or- 2. Two men stuck in a 60's mindset, trapped in a city that represents everything wrong with America. The first is how many viewers will initially see the movie, and though there's nothing wrong with looking at it that way, it entirely misses the point of the film. The second, though essentially the same as the first, is how it's meant to be seen. Also, the quote at the beginning explains a lot about their personalities... "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." But many viewers dismiss it and look at the characters as simple drug addicts. However, DO NOT let me stop you from adding your own interpretation to the film, I'm just providing the basic groundwork. The great thing about this movie is that 10 people can watch it and come up with 10 different meanings for the movie. The greatest aspect of this movie is not the over the top drug hallucination sequences, or even Johnny Depp's portrayal of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson (which in my opinion, is his best performance to date). It's the dialogue that pulls the movie together, hilarious and endlessly quotable. One of the largest gripes with the film is that it's pro-drug use, though how someone could come up with that theory is entirely beyond me. To sum it all up, great movie, watch it, love it.
|
