Gilliam's Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas...C or D?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

As a huge fan of the book, I couldn't help but be disappointed by this in the sense that it's not exactly the filmic equivalent of Thompson's novel, which I find hilarious, inventive and ultimately compelling.
I think the main reason the film doesn't work is because of the huge amount of interior monologue which had to be adapted...some of which was obviously going to get butchered, consequently the majority of laughs I got from it were simply reminders of the book, I don't think it's an inherently funny film.
Also it was quite draining to watch. Perhaps that was intended to give the impression of a heinous drug binge, but there's a difference between conveying a character's discomfort and actually submitting the audience to such a sensation. I don't find the book a difficult read at all.
Having said that, I can't imagine a better film coming from this book without radical reworking of the original transcript, and I also quite enjoyed Depp's performance.

― David S, Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:15 (twenty-two years ago)

my favourite Depp performance by a mile. i haven't read the book so i've no opinion on the quality of the adaptation but i really enjoyed the film - in fact i'd probably put it in my top 10.

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:21 (twenty-two years ago)

It was essentially the radio play, just filmed instead. But yes, classic. Gotta love the goofy cameos, too.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Could've been a lot better. Shit direction.

― Lynskey (Lynskey), Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree about the direction. Depp's performance carries it I think.

― David S, Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic for the performances across the board and classic too for just not sucking. Not one of Gilliam's better films, but I love it just the same.

― Chris Barrus (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Depp, del Toro, everyone else is terrific. I saw this movie again recently on TV somewhere and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it; it's probably Gilliam's funniest movie (or rather most successful at being funny).

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I've always been mystified by the criticism this movie gets. I've had to chalk it up to the snowballing of the initial pompous reaction of a bunch of squares at Cannes.
I think it's probably the best adaptation I've seen. I'm a huge fan of the book, and have been since years before the movie came out. I would have thought that would make me more picky and critical of the film, but instead I marvel each time I see it (many times by now) at how spot-on it is. Every part of it mirrors exactly (or better, usually, I guess) how I imagined the book.
The persistant internal monologue is part of HST's style! If any movie required that voice (also perfectly emulated) narrating the whole time, this was it.

― Dan I., Thursday, 19 June 2003 01:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I found it quite boring. There's just nothing that makes me want to keep watching the film, apart from "I just hired this DVD so I'd best make the most of it." I mean, nothing happens. At all. There are moments that are very, very funny, and the acting is superb, but I just found myself shifting around uncomfortably waiting for something to happen.

I haven't read the book, but that shouldn't make the film any worse.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 19 June 2003 01:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Really? I thought there were quite a few great mini-set pieces (the carousel, the various things that happen in the hotel room, the cop convention, the diner).

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess that is one problem with it. It's one of those movies that relies on the book so heavily that if you haven't read the book you could get quite confused. Usually I hate movies like that; events and the actions of the characters can seem arbitrary and senseless and stuff.

― Dan I., Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:41 (twenty-two years ago)

(well they were on a lot of drugs!)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I saw it without reading the book and followed it fine. Then I read the book and enjoyed it even more. I bought the Criterion Collection edition as soon as it came out - just as well since I'm sure the original widescreen edition was wearing out. Fantastic soundtrack, excellent direction. I think Gilliam's sense of humor fits the drug situations extremely well. Benicio is fucking amazing and completely irreplicable, Depp is in top form - my only problem is with Ricci, but I suppose her nature adds to the uncomfortable nature of that particular scene.

Classic, obviously. Problem: Every road trip you take after watching this movie is doomed to be boring.

― Millar (Millar), Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Another thing I like about this movie is that it's the best & most appropriate realization of Gilliam's wide-angle lens fixation.

And that scene in the diner with Ellen Barkin.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey Chris, can I bring a megaphone to the hotel for the 4th FAP and tell you to wash your shorts at 3am?

― Millar (Millar), Thursday, 19 June 2003 03:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I was kind of bummed they didn't do the sequence in the book where Hunter goes through the drive-thru.

If you haven't read the book or done drugs, I don't see this is a much of a movie for you. If you have done both and/or are currently using drugs, the movie is fun.

I saw an interview with Depp that he had problems for months after making the movie as he would slide back into Thompson's mode of speaking.

Fear and Loathing... isn't funnier than Brazil, but that film is at a different level, at least to my way of thinking.

I'm sure when Gus Van Sant finally gets "On the Road" made, there will proably be just as much of a critical fine tooth comb taken to the film because people are so familar with the book.

― earlnash, Thursday, 19 June 2003 03:10 (twenty-two years ago)

If you haven't read the book or done drugs, I don't see this is a much of a movie for you. If you have done both and/or are currently using drugs, the movie is fun.

My own experience, and that of many friends of mine, completely puts the lie to your comment - unless alcohol and tobacco are what you mean by 'drugs'

I saw an interview with Depp that he had problems for months after making the movie as he would slide back into Thompson's mode of speaking.

Bill Murray has had the same problem ever since filming "Where The Buffalo Roam" - in fact it's said that a little bit of Hunter has crept into every role he's done since (see Rushmore)

Gene Hackman would make an interesting HST.

― Millar (Millar), Thursday, 19 June 2003 03:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Depp's HST voice is really impressive--and so is his whole look (ESPECIALLY the way he walks) in that movie.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 19 June 2003 03:24 (twenty-two years ago)

and I love Depp for being unafraid to act in physically & dramatically "larger" styles than are popular right now.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 19 June 2003 03:25 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, I guess it isn't impossible that someone that hasn't read the book or done drugs wouldn't like the film, but it couldn't hurt. Fear and Loathing has to be one of the top ten "stoner" novels.

I thought some of the visual tricks pulled out in the Circus Circus (or whatever they renamed the casino) scene in the movie caught some of the paranoia and strange vividness of LSD.

Gene Hackman could play HST. He killed me in "The Royal Tennenbaums", which I finally just recently saw.

― earlnash, Thursday, 19 June 2003 03:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i read the book and loved the movie. it is one of those rare ones ( for me ) when the movie made of a fave book was not a major disappointment.

― donna (donna), Thursday, 19 June 2003 05:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Depp's great, Benicio's hilarious, but the movie never feels remotely dangerous. I've only read parts of the book, but it seems like it's about to detonate on every page. The movie turns the book's hedonism into a long drawn-out punchline, instead of a sucker punch.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Thursday, 19 June 2003 06:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the book a lot, never really done drugs, and I loved the movie. Everyone complains that the dialogue's impossible to follow, but I remembered most of it from the book anyway (as with one of my other favorites, Welles's Chimes at Midnight: I know the Henry IV plays so well that the appallingly bad soundtrack wasn't as big a problem for me as it was for most people). The main difference between book and film is the attorney (I can never remember his name - what's HST call himself, "Raoul Duke"?); he seems a lot more gross and nasty in the film, especially in the diner scene. Far and away Gilliam's best film, and easily the best film I've ever seen about the '60s, or the "American Dream," whatever that is.

I should stick up for Where the Buffalo Roam: the script is mostly terrible but Murray's performance is great, and the closing monologue ("It never got weird enough for me") is as good as anything HST ever wrote.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 19 June 2003 06:55 (twenty-two years ago)

If you haven't read the book or done drugs, I don't see this is a much of a movie for you. If you have done both and/or are currently using drugs, the movie is fun.

I watched it with my mum recently and she loved it, and I'm fairly sure she hasn't read it or been on any ginormous mescaline benders recently. Or at least I hope not.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 19 June 2003 07:26 (twenty-two years ago)

You know I'm not sure the attorney is ever mentioned by name.

(This is the only Gilliam movie I can stand...fire away.)

― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 19 June 2003 12:41 (twenty-two years ago)

It's rubbish.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 19 June 2003 12:45 (twenty-two years ago)

HST and Depp are both from Louisville.

This is one of my favorite films; but then, all of Gilliam's films are among my favorites. I couldn't think of a better person to have directed this film.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 19 June 2003 12:47 (twenty-two years ago)

It's great. Enjoyable (if you haven't read the book, which I haven't).

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 June 2003 12:47 (twenty-two years ago)

classic
a great film ever,but also a perfect account of taking acid,which,oddly,appearently gilliam has never done
hilarious little details,and when things get out of hand for them i actually felt quite uncomfortable,as if it were happening to me,which is impressive for a film about this sort of carry on

― robin (robin), Thursday, 19 June 2003 12:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Would have liked to have seen Alex Cox's original vision - though don't doubt it would have been rubbishish. (He was kicked off the set as director after a week). I rather like it, but then I have never been able to stand the book, much like On The Road I get about ten pages in and go - so what? (Stream of conscience / self-conscious stream of piss). The film was in a language I understood visually, and Depp does overact a storm.

That said the person I was with slept through the bugger, so that's testament to its fickle nature.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 19 June 2003 13:23 (twenty-two years ago)

it's not overacting Pete, it's non-naturalistic (or expressionistic) acting

― s1utsky (slutsky), Thursday, 19 June 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Why do you think so, pinefox?

F&L The Book isn't stream-of-consciousness, Pete: HST later admitted it was a FAILED experiment in new journalism because he rewrote it 50 times to get it right!!

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 19 June 2003 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)

also Depp probably doesn't overact ENOUGH: have you ever seen the real HST in action?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 19 June 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay okay, I think you've pointed outthe whole reason why I don't like the book. The over working of something to make it seem spontaneous, which isn't a million miles from what goes on in On The Road (and what I mean by the self-conscious stream of piss). Its a failed experiement cos he never gets it right.

Overacting is a typical term for non-naturalistic - it may be inaccurate but hey in this sloppy world everyone knows what I mean.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 19 June 2003 14:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Only thing I could have wished for in the movie was Hunter S Thompson's discussion about the Heart of America at a drive in.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 19 June 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Last night I fished out the Criterion DVD and watched it again and revise my opinion upwards some more. Really, the only thing I missed from the book was the whole bit with the handling problem with the car and constant tire refilling.

― Chris Barrus (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 19 June 2003 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

three months pass...

unbelievable, but true:

http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---18704,00.html

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 19 September 2003 01:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Industry buzz is that the red-hot Depp can now greenlight any project he likes.

never thought I'd see the day! but how great is that

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 19 September 2003 02:33 (twenty-two years ago)

how about 'the man who killed don quixote'?

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 19 September 2003 02:43 (twenty-two years ago)

RJG OTM

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 19 September 2003 03:40 (twenty-two years ago)

A few more viewings of Fear and Loathing have revised my opinion upwards, as well. Del Toro is fantastic.
Am quite excited about The Rum Diary. What else has Del Toro directed?

― David Steans, Friday, 19 September 2003 11:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm, the rum diary isn't a terribly great book, but it might make a good film, must dig out and reread.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 19 September 2003 11:34 (twenty-two years ago)

being unafraid to act in physically & dramatically "larger" styles than are popular right now

I too think that the range of style and expression in American movies needs to be expanded, especially on the acting side. But Depp simply seems incapable of anything besides these larger-than-life, expressionistic roles. He doesn't let us see inside. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not courage, it's lack of it.

hi Ed!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 19 September 2003 11:41 (twenty-two years ago)

did you get a computer login then?

― Ed (dali), Friday, 19 September 2003 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm at Angel, registration isn't til 2:30, apparently. dang i'd better get a move on!

I don't mean that about Depp to be quite as harsh as it sounds, but look at his eyes. His whole demeanor. He's frightened under there. He has made it really work for him, though. All of a sudden I TOTALLY want to rent old 21 Jumpstreet episodes!!

i'm goin, i'm goin

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 19 September 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe at that point he hadn't hardened a shell of method tics around his brooding vulnerability?

― i'm so outta here!!!! (tracerhand), Friday, 19 September 2003 11:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know about this whole "seeing inside" stuff, I mean how important is it really? and what does it even mean? he should cry more?

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 19 September 2003 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe my memory is hazy here, but wasn't Rum Diary really quite short? I'd be curious how well it would stretch out into a 2-hour film.

― The Man they call Dan (The Man they call Dan), Friday, 19 September 2003 17:18 (twenty-two years ago)

not enough Munchausen love on this thread

― Matt (Matt), Friday, 19 September 2003 23:56 (twenty-two years ago)

is Oscar Acosta (or "Dr Gonzo," Del Toro's character) even IN the Rum Diary?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 20 September 2003 06:07 (twenty-two years ago)

― Ed (dali), Saturday, 20 September 2003 10:43 (twenty-two years ago)

so who's he going to be playing? just some random guy?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 20 September 2003 10:58 (twenty-two years ago)

(lassic)

― mei (mei), Saturday, 20 September 2003 11:00 (twenty-two years ago)

thirteen years pass...

One of the best portrayals of drug induced psychosis aside from Spun

― Week of Wonders (Ross), Sunday, 20 August 2017 00:45 (eight years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.