Where the Buffalo Roam (1980) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
54 Reviews
Sort by:
Not true Thompson, but a fun film.
jrabbit-25 October 2000
Whether you like this film or not will depend heavily on how big of a Hunter S. Thompson fan you are.

On the plus side, this film is wickedly funny. Bill Murray (an actor who has been both great and terrible in his career) does a phenomenal job as the acid-drenched reporter, bringing chaos into the lives of the rigid and pretentious. The plot is peppered with "respectable" places being dragged into mayhem, and "respectable" folks trying (unsuccessfully) to cope behind plastic smiles.

It even ventures into some higher themes, such as innocent kids being jailed by a heartless criminal system, and Thompson's own struggles between being a practical reporter and a fun-loving idealist (notice how Lazlo repeatedly re-surfaces just when Thompson starts to take on "real" jobs).

It's biggest fault, however, was that it failed to achieve any of the higher accomplishments of HST's writings. What makes Thompson such a powerful writer (to me, anyway) is the way he'll often turn on a dime and deliver stunningly sober dialogs on the human animal and where he's gone wrong. Nestled in the midst of the wine, women, and song are soliloquies that drive home a more positive message, and none of those made it into this film (in fact, no significant chunks of actual text from HST's books appeared at all). It's like they shaved off the surface 50% of Thompson's work and discarded the rest.

Compare this to Fear and Loathing, which was darker and more counter-cultural, and contained whole narrations excerpted from the novel. The latter perhaps has less appeal to the average viewer, but I'd think more to a Thompson fan.

All-in-all, this film is a light-hearted romp into anarchy, and worth watching. But if you've never actually READ Thompson, do so, as this movie doesn't accurately represent him.
38 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not for the casual Fear and Loathing Fan
Raoulduke18452 February 2005
I finally watched this movie after watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas about 50 times and reading almost all of Hunter S. Thompson's books. I have to say that while I enjoyed the movie, most people won't. Unless you have a pretty thorough knowledge of HST's work, it won't make much sense, and its comedic value will not be enough to make it worthwhile. However, if you have read FNL on The Campaign Trail and Strange Rumblings in Azatlan, then the movie will probably be of interest to you. One area where this film is far superior to FNL in Las Vegas is in its depiction of Oscar Zeta Acosta, the attorney who is the basis for Carl Lazlo here and Dr. Gonzo in FNL. Acosta was actually a prominent civil rights attorney in the 60's and 70's, especially in the Chicano community in Southern California. He also was a notoriously hard partier by most accounts. This movie does a much better job of capturing his odd duality than FNL does, and Peter Boyle is quite sharp in the role - interesting to watch for those of you who only know him as the father on Raymond.
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"F*** The Doomed", Thompson's Legend Lives On!
The_Great_Fausto14 April 2007
This movie was great; it wasn't really as much a movie about Thompson, but more of a movie about his and Oscar Zeta Acosta's relationship as friends and partners. It gives a nice idea of what Thompson and Oscar Zeta Acosta's friendship was like, turbulences and all. Although "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" captures Thompson's writing, "Where the Buffalo Roam" gives more of a realistic insight on Thompson and Acosta. It also captures different stories from some of Thompson's other work, my favorite being the piece from "Fear and Loathing: On The Campaign Trail '72", Thompson's first hand account of Nixon's campaign for office. This movie is perfect for hardcore Thompson fans or just anyone wanting to learn about the legendary journalist. I give it an 8 out of 10.
15 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The man vs. the myth.
VideoKidVsTheVoid12 May 2004
Fist of all, as far as the comparison to Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas (1998) goes, these films are completely different beasts. Fear & Loathing is a adaptation of a fictional work based on real events. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro are playing Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo, not Hunter S. Thompson and Oscar Zeta Acosta. They are playing caricatures of real people, indirect representations funneled through HST's imagination and exaggeration. Where The Buffalo Roam is more based in reality. Bill Murray is directly playing Hunter S. Thompson as he writes his writings, Johnny Depp played a character from his writings, there is a massive difference. And as such, in my opinion, both films succeed brilliantly. Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas is a visually dazzling, imaginative, cinematic adaptation of HST's novel and Where The Buffalo Roam is a quirky, splendidly fun quasi-biographical journey and pure snapshot of life.

Bill Murray is fantastic in this film. His portrayal of HST is taken from life, more realistic, more from the man rather than from his text or the legend of HST. The whole film itself, mainly because of Murray's characterization and the realistic structured style of the abrupt interconnected randomness of everyday life, is infused with a undying sense of fun and love for words, imagination, writing, and the whole creative process, which seems to me to get more to the core of HST as a man than the various vignettes of Fear & Loathing.

Where The Buffalo Roam is wildly entertaining, frenziedly hilarious, and immeasurably fun. But when the general viewing audience, who presumably do not have a true passion for HST and his works, views both films and are given the choice between the legend and the man, they more often choose the legend, which is usually the trend in history.

Whereas Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas has a romance for the stories and the myth, Where The Buffalo has a romance for the man and the process, and both have it for his personal style, politics and priorities.
55 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
And I thought Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was great!
southern_jew3 October 2005
I just happened upon this movie while perusing my "Bill Murray" Favorite Actors Wishlist on my Tivo. I had never heard of it before, but since I enjoy reading Hunter S. Thompson's work and having seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, I instructed my faithful DVR to record the movie at 4:30 one Sunday morning. WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!! I cannot express this sentiment enough. From the dead on impersonation of Dr. Thompson's mannerisms by Bill Murray to the militant antics of 60's radical lawyer Peter Boyle (Lazlo) throughout the movie, these two more than faithfully portrayed the crazy antics well documented in Gonzo journalism. Please, do yourself a favor, if you consider yourself a fan of this genre, or if you just want to see a timeless piece of funny, witty, action filled cinema, find a way to see this woefully under-advertised classic.
37 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Problems, but not all bad.
Quag79 January 2007
Both of the HST films have problems. This film's problem is that it is too "screenwritten" (Lazlo replacing The Brown Buffalo, "Blast" Magazine replacing Rolling Stone, etc.) and lacks the weird surrealism that a drug-fueled observation of American culture at the end of the 1960s deserves, if not requires.

It does play a bit like Caddyshack, as someone else pointed out, and it's hard to get really invested in the characters. And if you love HST as much as I do, you really do want to get into the characters and in to the story, because it's as important as it is funny. Where the Buffalo Roam is, for the most part, silly. It comes off as more a bunch of sketches than anything else. I did like Bill Murray in the part. The problem is the script, more than anything else.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by contrast, does well with the surrealism and depravity but fails to make the full point I think Thompson was trying to get across - the decadence and over-the-top performances (especially of del Toro) are distracting, and really all of this is supposed to be about the death of the American dream, and the end of what was (to some) the best decade on record, or at least the one where people thought, for a time, they could make something of American life. Both movies hint at this but don't go into it enough, in my opinion.

Where the Buffalo Roam captures a little of the sadness and the creeping hopelessness of the early 70s (along with an indication of the hangover awaiting that generation in the 70s), but both movies fall far short of Thompson's books and writing in my opinion.

I was particularly saddened that both movies left out the "We're looking for the American dream" bit at the taco stand, because I think that was important, and the F&L Vegas story seems decontextualized without it (in terms of having a fairly serious (and sad) point under all of the humor and excess).

In any case, both movies are worth a watch but ultimately unsatisfying. Thompson is still best read. I think a good film about HST can be made, but the right person needs to be at the helm.

Richard Linklater or John Sayles, perhaps...someone who isn't going to miss the deeper substance underlying and buttressing the humor. That being said, there are far worse movies you could be watching than either.

And like Thompson, it still hasn't gotten weird enough for me.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A great, great film
ianjessup11 May 2005
Most negative reviews seem to come from people who saw Depp before Murray. Pity. For serious HST readers or even those who only know The Great Shark Hunt, WTBR offered a comic relief side so sadly lacking in Depp's one-dimensional, cardboard, just quote your lines performance (and I'm a big Depp fan). As for "Murray being Murray" - such a comment can only come from people who saw this after the rest of Bill's work. It was one of the earliest and best - indeed laid the base for much of his 80s and 90s work. Boyle is frenetic, allowing Murray to play sidekick for a change. A great option. HST's written rants were always harsh but always fair, no doubt composed coming off a bender. Who then is to say WTBR's omission of much of these is wrong, rather than simply a portrayal of the benders. We all know what he wrote and how he wrote - I'm glad WTBR chose to portray who HST was and the chaotic situations he put himself in rather than become some art-house naval-gazing about the tortured creative process of a scathingly intelligent commentator. Mind you - I did see it as the second part of a double header with Eraserhead ! Sadly, no video copies of WTBR exist in Australia. Can anyone help me ?
35 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Take a walk on the wild side
StanMakitadonuts15 January 2007
I only recently heard of this movie, and i'm quite surprised that I didn't hear of it earlier. Seeing as I watched and loved Fear and loathing in las vegas with Johnny Depp, I was super stoked to watch this. After seeing the first few scenes, I noticed how well Bill Murray portrays Hunter Thompson. It's completely from the same world as Depp's variation, With more of an 80's feel. This wacky story may not appeal to everyone, people looking for a deep story line or a lot of action won't like this. But if you are into Hunter Thompsons work, or Bill Murray, you will definitely enjoy this walk on the wild side

13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A good flick
rabid_halfling17 December 2003
I am a fan of Dr. Thompson's work.. I also liked this movie, tho, Fear and Loathing was a much better film.. due to the director, and cast.. Bill Murray was a great choice for this film, tho it was almost too cookie cutter, no real feel of the drugs he was hammering at that time. In F&L you have the grittiness of the drug culture of the 70's, feels more authentic.. Anyhoo, if you are a fan of HST, this is worth the watch.. hey, paid 4$ for the vid, can not go wrong..
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Great Movie
jl49925 February 2005
This was a great movie. Bill Murray did an outstanding job of capturing HST's voice inflection and mannerisms Granted this film appears more low budget than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (also a great movie), however that does not mean it is any less funny or enjoyable to watch. If you can get a copy with the original soundtrack, it does make a difference. Look on ebay, you can most likely find one for cheap. I got my copy for about ten dollars and was worth every penny. Just wish I could have found it on DVD with the original soundtrack, but that's something I've never seen.

Gonzo Journalism is dead...RIP HST....you will be missed.
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A must see
hawaiialin28 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Top performance from Bill Murray. This is a movie that has to be seen twice to comprehend some of the complexities that existed in Hunter Thompsons mind and his grasp with drugs and the negatives that uprooted the US at a very delicate yet decisive time in its history. The Nixon encounter in the bathroom was one of a kind, as was the attempted transformation of Hunters character in the plane towards the end of the flick. Bill Murray has a classic quirky comedy style that I have never seen in any other comedians, and can be compared to Peter Sellers in his uniqueness. If you happen to see the poor remake of this with Johnny Depp, you will walk away satisfied only if you see this one as well.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Interesting and enjoyable
vdot7628 August 2008
It was fun to see Bill Murray as HST, having only seen Johnny Depp as HST in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (I watched this movie for the first time recently, Aug 2008). I think he did pretty well, probably better than I expected.

The relationship with Lazlo is very much the center of the movie, which I thought was funny/strange/interesting/disturbing, much like the relationship with Acosta in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, only more fun to watch, because Peter Boyle was a genius! How the two played off each other was excellent, and reminded me of HST's relationship with Ralph Steadman in his book "The Curse of Lono", and also Ralph Steadman's book "The Joke's Over: Bruised Memories: Gonzo, Hunter S. Thompson, and Me".

Entertaining movie that could have shown more about how HST worked and how GONZO came about. I would recommend it to HST fans only, because they'd know more what to expect (drugs, insanity, "bad craziness", etc.). Other people with other expectations will hate it, especially if they've never read HST, or HAVE read HST and weren't impressed.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of Bill Murray's best movies.
OCTOPI7523 February 2004
Why is this film not more widely known?

Bill Murray turns in as fantastic performance as Hunter S Thompson and the whole feel of the movie is really enjoyable.

I won't go into the detail of the movie as other users already have. All I will say is that even if you have to search high and low for a copy of this movie it is worth all the effort.

Now all we need is it to be released on dvd with the original music (note even the vhs version has been rescored!). However I don't think this spoils the movie in any way.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
WARNING_ Two Versions Exist!
Larry Mondello2 April 2009
The original movie was a lot of fun, due largely to the great soundtrack. I bought the DVD because I feared my old video tape would break. I discovered that the DVD version was TERRIBLE! All the great music had been replaced by awful elevator muzak. This practice should be illegal! There was NO warning on the packaging that I wasn't buying the original product. I give the original version an 8, I give the cheapo ripoff newer version a 2. So I averaged it a 5. The original movie was a lot of fun, due largely to the great soundtrack. I bought the DVD because I feared my old video tape would break. I discovered that the DVD version was TERRIBLE! All the great music had been replaced by awful elevator muzak. This practice should be illegal! There was NO warning on the packaging that I wasn't buying the original product. I give the original version an 8, I give the cheapo ripoff newer version a 2. So I averaged it a 5.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unbelievably NOT Funny
Sergey Goldgaber28 January 2003
It's hard to believe Hunter S. Thompson's life and writings could be made in to a movie without making it funny. Yet, Where the Buffalo Roam has done it. Even Bill Murray, who should be perfect as Thompson, is unconvincing, self-conscious, and... not funny. Virtually every gag falls flat as the movie bemuses you with badly it can mess up something with so much humour potential.

On the bright side, it's interesting to see how many scenes Terry Gilliam stole directly from this film for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and how much of Johnny Dep's acting style for that film was taken from Bill Murray.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Adam Perkins4 April 2008
WARNING: Insults ahead.

Now I'm no movie critic and I don't think these comment things should be taken serious at all considering the majority of the people on this thing sharing their two cents haven't spent any time in a film studies course, creative writing course, and have no real true understanding of the art of film. "Everyone's a critic" and thanks to the internet that statement hasn't been truer.

But lets get onto the movie.

Any self respecting HUNTER S. THOMPSON fan should stay away from this film. It's a terrible insult to the man and he's even been quoted as saying he liked Murray's performance but that he "was very disappointed in the script. It s*cks – a bad, dumb, low-level, low-rent script." Credit where credit is due Murray does a fantastic job with Hunter's mannerisms but he makes the poor guy out to be some sort of silly cartoon character. Murry certainly could move and maybe talk like Hunter but he looked nothing like him and the writing was cr*p. Now this of course is not Murray's fault since he didn't write the script, and that is his one saving grace.

Jack Kroll wrote, in his review for Newsweek magazine, "Screenwriter John Kaye has reduced Thompson's career to a rubble of disjointed episodes, and the relentless mayhem becomes tiresome chaos rather than liberating comic anarchy." Thats the truth right there. If you want to get a real in depth look at the man, read some of the Gonzo letters. I recommend The Proud Highway. A d*mn good documentary would be Fear & Loathing on the Road to Hollywood, which can be found on the Criterion Edition of Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (a fantastic representation of Hunter and his work but thats for another comment board).

Bottom line folks, the movie is sh*t. It reeks of bitter 80's humor and brain dead writing. Bill Murray is a great actor but he should be ashamed of this film. If you are a true Hunter fan, stay as far away from this film as possible because it degrades him to the level of a sloppy clown, which he was very far from.

This movie is for the ignorant Raoul Duke duke and the poor soul who sits in his room all day watching 80's movies and dreaming they could use Doc Brown's time machine to go back to a time where they were considered "normal." Now take all that I say with a grain of salt. I've only taken one Film Studies course so I am no critic of films, but I have read every single Hunter S. Thompson book and seen every documentary that has come out and I can give my honest advice, as a person well versed in the Gonzo world, that this movie is NOT HUNTER S. THOMPSON Mahalo
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Which One?
tzer014 April 2004
The comparison of WTBR and F & L is pointless. Each actor brings something different to their version of HST, his "lawyer" etc . . . Gilliam certainly brought his own style to the more text based project, but enough of that. You'll see plenty of conflicting viewpoints in the other comments. Which WTBR you see will determine how much you like or dislike this film will depend on which version you see. I've seen at least three versions of this movie, and possibly a couple more. And although essentially the same movie, they're all totally different. The adding of a simple 30 second scene changed the entire tone of the film in one version. In another it was just the soundtrack that was changed. It was as though they lost the rights to the original soundtrack -- or just couldn't keep up the payments -- and had to replace the tunes with some second-stringers. It's amazing how much something like changing the songs in the soundtrack effects the feel of the thing as much as anything happening on screen. The original release is the only one really worth seeing. And you're not likely to. As far as I know, it doesn't not exist anymore. I caught it on cable when it was fairly new. All of the versions I've seen since on TV or video were the inferior versions that have the added scenes and or the adulterated soundtrack. So even if you've mat have seen this movie, you probably still haven't.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bill Murray is The Man.
monkeyfish-18 November 2002
Bill Murray IS Hunter S. Thompson. I loved the book 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and was so disappointed by the ludicrous cartoon-like portrayal realised by Johnny Depp in the film, 'Fear and Loathing'. His Thompson was simply buffoon-like and completely one dimensional, and despite everything else being good, (especially Benicio del Toro), for me, Depp ruined the whole feel.

Bill Murray on the other hand perfectly captures Thompson's eclectic, cynical intelligence and projects him as a whole 3-dimensional person who is believable, even through his substance-addled behaviour, from start to finish. Peter Boyle gives great support as his psychotic lawyer and I just can't recommend this film more highly! Watch it and decide for yourself.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
a simple way of looking at a complicated man.
Katie Carman-Lehach7 November 2003
For fans who thought "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" was a bit over the top, there's always "Where the Buffalo Roam"- a look into various different events in the life of Hunter S. Thompson throughout the 60s and 70s including an impromptu bathroom interview with Richard Nixon, a failed attempt at covering the Superbowl and Nixon's presidential candidacy among other things. This film, directed by Art Linson is more straight forward than "Fear & Loathing" which was directed by the acclaimed actor and director Terry Gilliam. It's easy to find the contrasting points between the two because their approaches were very different. Where "Fear & Loathing" makes full use of Thompson's "point of view" in scenes filled with hallucinogenic ramblings and drug addled visions, "Where the Buffalo Roam" tells the story in a more straight forward manner, from the perspective of an outside observer. Though it lacked any of the grand stylization which Terry Gilliam's film had, it did have it's own sense of atmosphere developed mostly by Bill Murray's characterization of Hunter S. Thompson - the court room only becomes bizarre after Thompson enters with a lit cigarette in his mouth and a Bloody Mary in hand.

Peter Boyle's portrayal of the famous chicano lawyer, Oscar Zeta Acosta (in this movie known by the name "Carl Lazlo") was a bit weak, though it surpassed my expectations - who knew straight laced Peter Boyle, who is most currently starring as the father in the tv show "Everybody loves Raymond", could even get an ounce of passion into this role. Or maybe I'm just holding him to the high standards Benicio Del Toro created when he portrayed Oscar Zeta in "Fear & Loathing".

Contrary to the great similarities I saw between Bill Murray & Johnny Depp's portrayal of Hunter S. Thompson (they acted almost identically, with Thompson's mannerism down expertly) Benicio and Peter played Oscar Zeta in two very different ways. While Peter Boyle's "Oscar" was seemingly straight laced and subdued, only loud when he needed to be, Benicio's portrayal was of the drug addled, out of his mind, loud and crazy all of the time "Oscar", which after reading Oscar Zeta's two books "Autobiography of a Brown Buffalo" and "Revolt of the Cockroach People", seems much more appropriate. (both books are highly recommended reading, if you are at all interested in radical lawyering).

All in all, I would say this film does a pretty good job of telling a straight forward story in a manner that's easily understandable & enjoyable. But the underlying fact is that Hunter S. Thompson was a crazy, drug addled, mostly unintelligible man - which is why I preferred Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I would give this film a 7 out of 10.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
WATCH THIS...........
xtc_lord30 January 2002
If anyone has seen this movie and is a little confused watch FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS and when they say "AND THEN WE WENT TO...." but they do not say where put in WHERE THE BUFFALO ROAM and watch it all the way through and then finish FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS. These 2 movies are almost impossible to understand without having seen the other, watching them in this order will shed light on both movies.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Chew his way through a concrete wall.....
FlashCallahan1 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Dr. Hunter Thompson, who is better known as the character in the Doonesbury Comic Strips Zonker's Uncle Duke, shows what earned his reputation for Gonzo Journalism, a sort of sideways way of looking at the news.

This includes such things as giving away superbowl tickets so that he can review it from his hotel room while bouncing a football of the walls.

A sort of latter-day cousin to stream-of-consciousness writing....

This is one of those movies that you really have to be in the right frame of mind to watch, and luckily for me it was four in the morning, trying to get my new born son to sleep.

And to say that this is a straight forward movie, is not justifying the beautiful madness of what is going on.

Murray is wonderful as Thompson, but Boyle steals the show as the mystical lawyer, always popping up just as Thompson has some normality back in his life.

There are a few moments when you are looking at the screen thinking 'really?' And it verges on almost spoof at times, but then we have sweet set pieces like the Airplane scenes, and the wonderful courtroom scene that opens the movie.

Fear and Loathing is the more psychedelic movie, and although Thompson may dislike the movie, its a thorough description of the journalist.

Well worth seeing.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Quinn Rose13 April 2016
Although Fear And Loathing may be my favorite movie of all time, I was totally willing to go into this movie with no expectations and give Bill Murray his chance. That being said, this movie was objectively bad. The plot has no central idea or themes and feels more like a completely random series of events. At times Fear And Loathing felt random but there was always meaning to it, there was always a lesson meant to be taught. Here, there was none of that, only a bad time. I felt no compassion for Hunter or any other character. Also, every single actor in this movie is very weak. I did find some enjoyment out of Bill Murray's performance and a few events, but other than that, I really did not like this movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pointless & lame
Michael_Cronin20 September 2004
It would be nice to be able to say that this film suffers in comparison to Terry Gilliam's brilliant adaptation of 'Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas', but it wouldn't be accurate. 'Where The Buffalo Roam' just isn't any good. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it doesn't seem to have any point to make & so doesn't work as satire, & it completely fails to convey the insane, savage & hilarious spirit of Hunter S Thompson's writing.

Bill Murray, while doing a pretty good impersonation of Thompson's voice & more pronounced mannerisms, really just acts like Bill Murray with a cigarette holder sticking out of his mouth for the whole film. The angry, driven, borderline psychotic journalist is nowhere to be found in this film, just a kind of goofy idiot that makes you wonder why anyone would bother to make a movie about him, or why anyone would read any of his writing.

Peter Boyle as attorney 'Carl Lazlo', a character better known as Dr Gonzo in Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas, or as Oscar Zeta Acosta in real life, is completely & utterly miscast. The real-life attorney was a fighter for human rights in the Chicano community who hung out on the fringes of the law, the fictionalised Dr Gonzo of Thompson's writing was a far more dangerous, drug-crazed, perverted degenerate. 'Lazlo' is neither, just a dull, pathetic fool who thinks shouting his head off in court might achieve something, runs off to hang out with arms dealers, then turns up again with some idea about starting his own country in the desert.

There is no plot to speak of, just a loose collection of scenes that happen to include these two characters in some way, none of which go anywhere at all. Thompson watching Lazlo in court, Lazlo turning up again at the Super Bowl & dragging Thompson off to his ranch, & finally Thompson covering the 1972 presidential campaign & Lazlo popping up again with a dumb idea. Then the movie ends. No mention of the real-life events which would actually have made a good story - Nixon's victory, followed by Watergate, or Oscar Acosta's mysterious disappearance - just the end of the film. It's not even an anti-climax, which is often how Hunter S Thompson ends his stories, to give them a realistic, bittersweet edge, it's just the end. Nothing of any real interest has happened & the film's over.

I can't really recommend this film to anyone. If you're not a Thompson fan, there's no reason to see it, & if you are, you'll just be disappointed.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
a sad day - a true original lost
psycohn21 February 2005
Apparently Hunter S. Thompson shot himself last night. I remember seeing this movie classic when I was just a kid, and I became so fascinated with Thompson's character for years. You never hear this movie mentioned when people discuss Bill Murray's best films, but it is one of his classics, and I don't think I ever saw Peter Boyle any better. I was extremely sad when I just heard of the suicide - a true American original will be missed. I never saw Johnny Depp's "Fear & Loathing", but I've always heard it was good. Maybe I'll now finally catch that one. In any event though, "Where The Buffalo Roam" is a wonderful movie and one that hopefully won't be forgotten...
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews