Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
655 Reviews
Sort by:
Genius + Genius = ...
whole_orange_truck19 May 2004
'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' was originally an Article published in two parts in Rolling Stone Magazine. It was written by Hunter S. Thompson. It tells the story of a journalist reporting on the Mint 500 in Las Vegas.

Terry Gilliam (the Director) is an accomplished film maker who began his career as one of the members of Monty Python. He did all of their animations.

These two men on their own are incredibly clever and gifted artists in their chosen medium. What we get from this combination is one of the best films ever made. It is a more or less true story. It is a wonderful view on the warped nature of American 'Culture' from a completely askew angle. Drugs, drugs and more drugs, but instead of preaching their evils or telling you how fabulous life is when you're on acid, you get a very unbiased experienced approach to their use and abuse.

Visually the film is amazing and both Johnny Depp and Benizio Del Toro are true to the book. I couldn't possibly recommend this film more highly.
275 out of 328 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
pointlessness is the point
vincent-2730 July 2003
For all those of you who decry this movie for being pointless and lacking soul, that was the point! This is an excellent movie, a true adaptation of the book, nothing more and nothing less. It is an unflinching look at the sickening excesses of a consumption based culture of America during the early 1970's, who's vacuous heart resides in Las Vegas, a symbol of greed and debauchery. The pointlessness of the movie is a metaphor for the pointless pursuit of personal gratification and greed, the true heart of the "American Dream".

If you put aside the usual assumptions about a movie, i.e. that you are supposed to care about the characters, that their needs to conflict and resolution etc, then you will enjoy it much better. This movie is a magical ride and actually works on many levels, not only as testimony to the horrors of excessive drug use, and the tacky, ugly view of the worst parts of America, but also to the failed 60's generation, a generation that thought that "somebody somewhere is guarding the light at the end of the tunnel". Drug use is simply a way of escaping your present reality, and all the drugged out zeroes of the sixties were truly lost if they thought that enlightenment and peace could come from a hit of acid. This movie takes Timothy Leary's supposition of "freeing your mind" to it's ultimate conclusion and the conclusion is that you are not actually freeing your mind, but destroying it.

Of course this movie is also fun to watch the incredible performances by Johnny Depp and Benitio Del Torro, both of whom I barely even recognized in their roles (Depp with a shaven head and the bloated Del Torro who gained 40 pounds for his portrayal of "Dr. Gonzo"). Del Torro has one scene in particular (the bathtub scene) which is both disgusting and very disturbing. Apparently his performance was so convincing that he had a hard time getting work after this film because everyone was convinced that he was wasted on the set. The truth is that he's just a damn fine actor who didn't hold back for one second, which is exactly what the film called for. Also the scene of Johnny Depp squealing like a banshee after imbibing some adrenocrome and Del Torro freaking out behind him is unforgettable.

The directing itself is fast paced with offseting angles a lot of wide angle lenses. Gilliam has a style which is unmistakable, it's like walking around inside of a Dali painting, everything is distorted and stretched to create a strong sense of surrealism. Yet his approach is much less offensive than Oliver Stone, who desperately throws every single filming trick at you repeatedly until you are pummeled into submission. Wow, look he switch to 8 mm, then black and white, now it's slow mo all in 3 seconds!

Anyway, I digress. This is a fine movie, don't watch it stoned, you'll get more out of it, repeated viewings are recommended. I also recommend getting the criterion DVD version, which has commentary by Gilliam, Depp, del Torro and Hunter S. Thompson himself!
390 out of 471 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
"We can't stop here. This is bat country!"
MovieAddict20166 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is a twisted, outlandish venture into the mind of a warped junkie, a reporter who is traveling to Nevada in order to cover a Hells Angels motorcycle race, along with his Samoan attorney Dr. Gonzo (Benicio Del Toro, who gained forty pounds for his role). "We were somewhere around Barstow when the drugs began to take hold," is the line that opens the movie in an expeditious manner, as a red convertible roars from right to left, in the direction of Las Vegas. The vehicle's trunk is packed with an abundance of deadly drugs. "We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multicolored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers. Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, two dozen amyls."

The narrator of the story is Raoul Duke (played by Johnny Depp), a balding, stumbling shell of a man, constantly smoking or inhaling drugs, his body overloaded with deadly substances. He is in a permanent daze throughout the entire film, constantly consuming drugs every time the camera pans onto him. He is also the reporter, the main character of the film, and he is in such a daze that after the motorcycle race is over, he's not even sure who has won. So sitting cramped in his increasingly trashed hotel apartment, he begins clacking away mumbo-jumbo on his typewriter, desperately trying to make sense of the seemingly frenzied world surrounding him.

The year is 1971, the beginning of the after-effects of the frivolous sixties. Raoul still seems to think that he is living in the past decade. He explains that his carefree ways were out of place for such an area as Las Vegas, and in one of the funniest scenes in the entire movie, he visits a conference detailing the dangers of substance abuse, and inhales cocaine throughout the seminar (led by the late Michael Jeter).

The movie is based on the semi-autobiographical memoirs of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, who traveled to Las Vegas in 1971 with an overweight "Samoan lawyer" named Oscar Zeta Acosta. According to Thompson's novel, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," originally published at the end of the decade, they broke many laws and were essentially high on various dangerous substances the entire time. In his novel, Thompson used the character Raoul Duke as a relation to his own past, and the pair's psychedelic weekend as a metaphor for the Lost America. After the sixties, during the Vietnam War, Americans were deeply confused, and turned to many dangerous substances for answers. Some critics claim that "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" glamorizes drugs. If anything, it demonizes them (sometimes quite literally), and the constant drug use is merely present to account for the duo's wacky behavior.

That's not to say that "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is a harmless film. Under the wrong circumstances, it could be misunderstood, which is why it was nearly slapped with an X-rating by the MPAA, and -- along with the book -- caused outrage when it was released in 1998, alongside the utter disaster "Godzilla."

Depp is the reason the film's narration succeeds as well as it does -- a lesser actor might come across as annoying. Depp seems to be channeling the physical freedom of Steve Martin and the slurred speech patterns of Thompson himself -- although he was given ample time to pick up on Thompson's mannerisms, since they spent much time together prior to shooting and throughout the filming process.

But what is essentially so fascinating about "Fear and Loathing" is its blazing style and blatant uniqueness. Brought to the screen by Terry Gilliam ("Monty Python and the Holy Grail," "Brazil"), one can only expect the movie to be strange, but it is severely distorted to the point of insanity. What is even more intriguing is Gilliam's use of his camera, cinematography and backgrounds -- the camera essentially takes on the role of a third person, as it is constantly moving, positioned at awkward angles against harsh, dizzying backdrops, wallpapers and carpets. The overall effect of the movie is the equivalent of getting high -- only this probably isn't as dangerous. Probably.

In some ways, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is an utter mess of a movie -- pointless, sick, but yet it is also occasionally hilarious, and I found myself very entertained. I am not usually a fan of these sorts of movies, which only helps account for my extreme surprise in finding that I not only enjoyed "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," but found it to be an important art house movie -- bizarre, mystifying, strange, bewildering. It is as if Fellini directed a Cheech and Chong movie. It is an experience unlike any other, and although I can completely understand the negative reviews it received upon its release years ago, I find myself somewhere in between the haters and the die-hard cult fans. The film was released on a Criterion DVD last year; a sign that despite its infamous background it actually has a fairly strong legion of fans. In some ways the movie is as confused and wandering as its narrator. It's somewhat pointless, but incidentally, I think that is the point.
274 out of 331 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
The art of character acting...
smriga15 December 2004
I think the people who reviewed this film are a bit warped for thinking of it as anything less than a masterpiece. This film comes from the glorious days of Johnny Depp taking obscure roles in films and totally immersing himself in the character. Benecio Del Toro's performance was second to none, and I cannot for the life of me comprehend why someone would think this to be the "worst movie ever". God save us that we actually have to think a little when we sit in those awful theatre seats. Heaven forbid we're required to use our imagination a little bit and not have it handed to us in the form of Hollywood mindless pap. The film, del toro, Depp, and of course, Gilliam are all brilliant. I pity the fools who gave this movie a negative review and fail miserably in articulating their reasoning.
627 out of 785 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Visual masterpiece with Thompson's message intact and strong as ever.
jduke5 September 2002
I have read countless reviews of this movie that have derided it for everything from glorifying drugs to being unchristian to being boring. Maybe my mind works very much like director Terry Gilliam's (I loved 'Brazil' and '12 Monkeys'), but the last thing I would do to this movie is deride it. It is a brilliant adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's generation-defining book of the same name - it stays very faithful to the events in the book.

First of all, this movie literally glows with Gilliam's eye for detail that he has consistently displayed throughout his career. The sets are so elaborate, one could never take in all the scenery from any number of viewings without slowing it down and watching very closely. The bombardment of the bright, flashing lights of Las Vegas and the bizarre camera angles, as well as surreal sets make for an interesting and entertaining presentation regardless of a lack of coherency and taste. What we have here is a movie riddled with black humor and a horrifying satire of the American dream. I'll admit it takes a very `unchristian' viewpoint to laugh at the `straight economics' of allowing policemen to gang-f**k a girl for $30 a head. Therefore, people bound by a constricting sense of morality should never have watched this movie in the first place. It is for people like me who enjoy living a very un-stoic life (at least vicariously through movies) by having radical ideas and perspectives forced upon them. Fear and Loathing is the embodiment of such a perspective - it is a gruesomely accurate depiction of the bi-product of the often-glorified 60's drug culture. And one thing that countless critics seem to carelessly omit in their analyses is the constant references to the `American Dream.' Johnny Depp (Raoul Duke/Hunter Thompson), in his verbose verbal narrations, makes quite a few references to a desparate hunt for reason behind the madness of not only this `American Dream', but the drug culture as well - "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." - Dr. Johnson (displayed before the opening scene). The problem with the waning popularity of this movie is simply that its design was not meant to appeal to the buttoned-down mainstream. People that want to laugh and cry in a movie theater and then get the hell on aren't the type of people that would enjoy seeing an unjustified drug-induced frenzy on Las Vegas. This movie has everything a critic should be looking for in a masterpiece - magnificent cinematography, lovely acting, shock value, provocation of thought, and a meaning behind it all. To freaks like me it also has immense entertainment value as well. This work will be one of my favorite movies of all time.
101 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
One of the best films ever.
Broudie691 November 2002
It's hard to describe how good this movie is without sounding sycophantic but it really is that good. This film is based on the "true" story of when the notorious reporter Hunter S. Thompson and his then attorney Oscar Zeta Acosta went to Las Vegas to cover a bike race for rolling stone magazine but instead spent the entire trip going out of their minds on various illegal and legal chemicals. This may sound like a one trick pony for stoners and 60's throwbacks but I am neither and I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Very few films based on books manage to tell the story or capture the spirit of the original but F&L certainly manages both. The story sticks closely enough to the book without alienating the books fan base but also trims out the right areas so that the film doesn't become overly long and uninteresting.

The film is still fairly long, compared with most popcorn fare, at around 2hrs and does sag a little in places but the pace quickly picks up again. The performances are absolutely spot on with Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro virtually becoming their characters. Both are heavily disguised under make-up but their acting ability shines through. On first viewing I wasn't that impressed, it was a good film but not a great film, but after a second viewing I fell in love with it. You notice things and pick up on gags the second time around that you missed the first time. You immerse yourself in their world so much that you feel like you were there with them on the "trip" in both senses of the word. I have shown this film to most of my friends and they also have become hooked after viewing the film twice, it's such a shame that this great film works like this as I'm sure there are many people who are unwilling to give it the second chance it deserves. If you haven't seen this film I suggest you do and if you don't like it see it again. If you have seen this film and didn't like it, see it again.
106 out of 135 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
An excellent literary adaptation - and sooo much more...
hansler10 January 2003
This movie polarizes the audience like few before: while of course, there's people who like it and people who don't like it for any movie, 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' either excites or almost repulses it's critics, and I dare to say that most of the negative responses are based on ignorance, or even fear, of introducing psychedelic experiences into mainstream culture.

Personally, i regard 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' as one of my absolute favorites, definitely in my top 10, and possibly even top 3. One of the many outstanding characteristics, besides a flawless performance from its main actors, excellent direction, and maybe the greatest achievement, one of the few literary adaptations that don't have you leave the cinema with disappointment, is the visual interpretation of the influence of LSD and other psychedelica. Though it has been tried many times, in 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' it has been done in a way that in my opinion deserves an Academy Award like 'Best Visual Interpretation', were there one like that (btw, number 2 in my psychedelic charts is, interestingly, a scene from 'The Simpsons', episode 809, 'El Viaje de Nuestro Jomer (The Mysterious Voyage of Homer)', where Homer eats super-spicy chili made from Guatemalan chili peppers grown by mental patients- that causing him an incredibly accuratel realized 'trip').

Well, I guess up until now you, the reader, can guess that I am one of those that loved the movie, and think it to be a mile stone in cinematographic history, along with 'Apocalypse Now', 'Pulp Fiction' or 'The Matrix'.
164 out of 225 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Incredibly...Psychotic
lord_zorbon21 December 2004
Love it so much it hurts. There are so many great lines, and moments. To many to count. Johnny Depp should have received an Oscar for it. His performance is nothing short of genius. I know there never will be, but a sequel would rock. Benicio Del Toro takes a great turn as the disturbed side-kick. I wonder if his character could even tell the difference between sobriety and being high. All of the cameos are a nice treat, especially the Flea one in the bathroom, " I s-p-i-l-l-e-d L-S-D o-n m-y s-h-i-r-t..." Tobey Maguire has a great scene as well, he actually looks quite believable as the sickly albino guy. I'd say it's nothing short of incredible.
132 out of 191 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Don't do drugs, just see this movie- Gilliam's masterpiece, perhaps
MisterWhiplash19 March 2000
Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a psychedelic comedy, but also an astute piece of literature-cum-political science on a period in American history that was just really strange, thus reflected by its creator. It was the pioneer in 'Gonzo journalism' and sent Thompson's star even higher than it had with Hell's Angels. Although it's one of my personal favorite books, it could have been tricky to adapt it- Alex Cox tried and failed- but somehow Terry Gilliam digs into the Thompson psychology, dementia, and off-the-wall humor, while also putting his unmistakable mark on the material. Two sensibilities thus merge, alongside the tremendous performances (underrated, despite the praise from fans) from Depp and Del-Toro. It asks an essential question- how does society end up crossing paths with the outlaws? But there's more than that- much more in fact- but it takes more than one viewing. I remember writing the first time I saw it: "This film is so bizarre you might just want to put down the bong and get high from this movie (after all, the movie contains every single known drug known to man since 1544)."

Granted, it's immediate appeal is that of a midnight movie, the ultimate midnight movie, as a work where the visual style is cranked up to a queue that goes even further than past Gilliam ventures. Distorted, sometimes tilted, widescreen angles, very bright, strange colors via Nicola Pecorini, and a beating soundtrack loaded with everything from Jefferson Airplane to Tom Jones to Bob Dylan to Debbie Reynolds (what kind of rat bastard psychotic would put that on right now, at this moment)! And aside from Depp and Del-Toro, who immerse themselves to the hilt (Depp especially is in a form here comparable to his Pirates movies- you can't see anyone else play the character, and at the same time you almost can't recognize him, a credit to Depp's 'method' style), there's hilarious supporting work from Craig Bierko, Tobey Maguire, Gary Busey, Harry Dean Stanton (Castration!), and Christina Ricci, and even an extremely moving and dangerous scene with Ellen Barkin.

It's not an easy film, to be certain, and it will likely appeal to those who may think 'ah, drugs, I like drugs, must be my kind of movie'. But it's not that simple; it's actually fairly critical of drug use, in an overblown, Fellini-esquire satirical manner (eg Adrenochrome, which is a tiny landmark of gonzo film-making to complement the author), and there really is no point where Gilliam, Thompson or the characters say 'take drugs'. On the other hand, there is also a critical attitude, a refreshing and brilliant one, on authority, like at the DEA convention at the hotel- again, strange times in society. At the same time the film is superb as escapist fun, in the darkest and craziest ways that only a maverick like Gilliam and his people can pull off, it's also got some layers in the substance, of Duke and Gonzo almost as relics from a former era already in 1971. With consistently quotable dialog, excruciating moments of depravity, and some of the most outrageous production design in any film, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is an unlikely cult classic, and in its own delirious fashion a possible definitive work from the director alongside Brazil.
140 out of 205 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Slippery Mice
daveisit10 July 2005
This is far from your everyday movie, and only for those with a deep appreciation for the diversity of film-making, or fans of Hunter S. Thompson. This does not mean those mentioned will enjoy it, although definitely respect the attempt. I personally found it fascinating. To portray a permanently drug induced state to the big screen was done with creativity and subtle humour. You could expect nothing less from director Terry Gilliam who has played such a massive role in the brilliant and original Monty Python works.

Having never read any of Hunter S. Thompson's work, I get the impression that justice is done for the adaptation to the big screen. An absolutely quality cast must be credited for this, ensuring a natural performance is achieved. Las Vegas which features strongly throughout the movie seems to be so appropriate when dealing with this subject matter, they just seem to go hand in hand.
79 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Awful. Just Awful.
bean-d25 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Terry Gilliam's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (1998) is one of those rare movies--oh, how rare indeed!--that I turned off without finishing. I'm amazed at how unfunny, unenergetic, and unimaginative this movie is, considering that it comes from the director of such bizarre fare as "Time Bandits" (1981), "The Fisher King" (1991), and "12 Monkeys" (1995). If there is anything that can be said about Gilliam, it is that he rarely lacks imagination. But the movie is simply boring. Boring! A movie about two men on a drug binge is boring! And lifeless too. I simply had no energy to care about Johnny Depp's character. Heck, I would have been glad to have even been annoyed! The film was literally a collection of images running in front of my eyes that I could not care less about. Abysmal. For those who love the film, I honestly do not know what you see therein.
43 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Vacant and tedious
Mike Guratza5 April 2016
Although widely considered a cult classic, this movie is almost unwatchable for the average viewer. The depiction of the LSD experience and general visual approach of Terry Gilliam is interesting as always, but that's hardly enough to support an entire movie. Even the slightest sign of a plot would have helped enormously, but the film is just a stitching of scenes comprising of... pretty much nothing at all. The movie's subsequent cult success is probably due to the fact that people with drug experiences can identify with certain events of the movie, but definitely, experiencing an acid trip yourself must be much more enjoyable than living it through the eyes of a bald Johnny Depp.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Save your sanity!
rparham13 March 2000
This is one of the most monotonous, repetitive, boring and pointless films I have ever witnessed. Johnny Depp and Benecio Del Toro appear to wander aimlessly through their paper-thin roles and seem to do nothing in the course of the picture except ingest drugs, throw-up, trash hotel rooms and then ingest drugs a little more. If you value your time and money, avoid this film at all cost.
50 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Dazed and Confused
The_StickMen26 July 2004
First off, I'd like to set up my critique of the film. I had never heard of this film prior to seeing it, it had be recommended to me by a friend once with him simply stating "its hilarious". So I wasn't quite sure what kind of hilarious experience I was in for. Usually when I see movies, I read up at least a little on the making of it, or someone involved. I knew that Depp and Del Toro were in, and I knew that Terry Gilliam directed it (I had seen Holy Grail and 12 Monkeys before this, so I really really didn't know what to expect at this point, those were two very different films). I also had never heard of the author of the book or any of the hype or popularity surrounding the movie when it was released (if any).

OK so thats what I went into the movie with, coming out of it I was...well...dazed. I really did not know what to think about it, it definitely wasn't the drop dead, laugh out loud, funny experience I was expecting it to be, although I did laugh at a lot of the stuff in the film, it was a different kind of humor than I had ever witnessed on film. I definitely dug the psychedelic style of the picture, the drugged out effects were definitely cool, creepy, and funny to witness (I have never done drugs, so this was new to me). The acting by both leads was simply amazing, you can tell they really got into their roles and were having a blast playing these drugged out losers. The dialog was a little hard to follow so I turned on the subtitles to help me out. The cameo appearances were fun to see. All in all, I have to say that I don't know what to think about this movie, I enjoyed it quite a bit and I think with repeated viewings I might enjoy it that much more.
67 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Quite wandering but very funny and very imaginative – a perfect example of Terry Gilliam's work
bob the moo1 April 2003
The `unflimable' novel by Thompson is brought to the screen. Hunter S. Thompson gets a call to go to Las Vegas to cover a motorcross race. Using the advance money to purchase a load of drugs he sets out on a road trip with his crazed Samoan lawyer. However as their trip continues they encounter all manner of insanity and paranoia in their drug fuelled trip into the American dream…

Never read the book, never been a big fan of this particular culture and ever felt inclined to read any of this sort of work – however, really enjoyed the movie. The plot is, well, a trip rather than anything concrete or logical. There is a message tacked on somewhere near the end but really this is more of an experience than a story. To me the film mainly succeeded due to Terry Gilliam. His crazed sense of humour is fed through the whole piece, stopping it being indulgent or pretentious as it could easily have been.

Instead it manages to be a drug movie but also be very OTT and very. Gilliam's imagination really made Thompson's trips come to life. It must be hard to actually put something like that on film and I thought he did very well. This vision is well supported by a brilliantly pitched performance by Depp. He is on the very edge of ham with this one but gets it just right – making Thompson funny and exaggerated. De Toro is as good but is very much playing second fiddle on this one. An all star list of cameos including Maguire, Barkin, Busey, Ricci, Harmon, Penn (of & Teller), Diaz and Lyle Lovett are all enjoyable and don't detract from the film in the way cameos sometimes can (`oh look it's etc').

The film may be very loose and aimless but what did you expect? Those wanting tightness of plot and a set narrative may be let down (though there is a car chase for the teens!). However this is well worth a look as it is a funny, very imaginative film that proved a lot of people wrong when they said that it could never be filmed. Certainly anyone who likes the films of Terry Gilliam will find much of his madness here to enjoy.
25 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The worst movie I've ever seen.
TeamRockwood20 November 1998
After 20 minutes, I started checking my watch. After one hour, I was trying to think of where else I could go if I just left my friends at the theater. As opposed to doing something more entertaining like hanging out in the lobby, I toughed it out. Man, am I sorry. I would rather watch a Highlander 2 marathon than see this movie again. Stay away!
25 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
very disappointed
cameo-513 May 1999
I loved the book both when I was a student and when I re-read it a few months ago. I usually think Depp is excellent and highly underrated. I looked forward to seeing this movie for a long time. I was massively disappointed. I understand the effort to portray the drug thing, but the movie was unnecessarily incoherent. More importantly, I thought it was boring -- so boring, in fact, that I couldn't sit through it at one time and had to try it again later. Moreover, I didn't see anything special about the performances or direction. In fact, I didn't see anything I liked.
23 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worst I've Seen
cline_20047 July 2011
I don't know what to say. This movie was horrible. I've seen a lot of movies in my life about deep thought and drug use and this was just a waste of 2 hours of my life. Brief appearances from Cameron Diaz and Christina Ricci were what I had looked forward to, but they were short lived and meaningless to the plot of the movie. Then again there really wasn't a plot to it period. IF this movie was based on a book, then I can't imagine taking even that much more time to read about an endless string of drugged up, non-humorous jumble. Johnny Depp's acting was good considering he was playing an annoying, constantly drugged up meaningless character, but this has to be the worst movie I have seen in my life, and that's saying a lot.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Boring and pointless
mrochkind24 March 2005
I'm afraid I can only report on the first 50 min. or so. Amazingly boring. Horrible acting by two greats. Had to turn it off... fortunately, it was from Netflix, so no real harm done.

Sorry, seeing guys on drugs, even from their point of view, just isn't interesting all by itself.

Looking at the rave reviews here, I'm wondering who else has been on drugs.

(As Roger Ebert has said, it's not what the movie is about, it's how it is about what it's about. On that, this movie is a failure.)

I did like the monsters in the bar scene. Too bad the movie couldn't have been about them.
21 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The hitchhiker bailed early, I should have too!
TheAgent16 February 1999
When the hitchhiker bailed out of the convertible early on, I wondered if it wasn't so much to get away from the two doped-out characters or to escape the agony of watching this movie for another hour and forty minutes.

I really could not see what the point of this movie was. It looks like it was to see how stoned the main characters could get on various controlled substances, how stupid they could act and how much property damage they could inflict in the process.

I would have liked to see the two main characters be sober for part of the movie to compare and contrast their thoughts, feelings, and behavior between when they were high and when they were sober.
19 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Why was this ever even made?
ilike69ing21 December 2002
This is with out a doubt the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. While in the theatre, probably 15-20 people walked out before it was even over. I kept watching because I COULD NOT BELIEVE that any movie could be this bad.

Anybody associated with the production of this film should be banished from Hollywood forever. It's obvious they have little or no taste.

The movie has no plot, no dialogue and is just two fools doing drugs for 2 hours. I cannot tell you how much I hate this movie.
28 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
On my top 10 worst movies ever list
russ914 August 1999
A big zero for Terry Gilliam on this one. Perhaps he was doing more than just filming the drugstore. This movie starts nowhere and ends up nowhere. It is an incoherent mess, without the slightest plot or reason. Avoid this movie, you have been warned.
25 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
what?
oster-23 June 1999
I have no idea what I was supposed to have gotten out of this movie. It's trash, that's about all I have to say. The only thing, if anything, that made this at all worthwhile was the acting performances. It is tremendous to think a professional could actually portray one of those characters. Depp was good.
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Quite simply appalling
Matt Webb9 January 2001
A horrible piece of film. Unpleasant to watch, unpleasant to think about afterwards. I'm surprised it's not in the Bible as a Missing Plague. It's little more than a gunge fest, although I appreciate this is part of the point. Some of the acting redeems a small part of the film, and there's a brief moment of fiery (!) humour.

Stay in bed.
18 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
ugh!
warren19-22 February 2001
This movie made me extremely uneasy about the whole process of how a movie comes to be made in the first place. There is absolutely NO substance or recognizable direction to the so-called plot of this "film". This is like one of those tales told by a college buddy about a night's experience of too much drugs and/or booze - it goes on too long, it is embarrassing and uninteresting, and nobody cares about (or understands) what happened except those who were directly involved. The cinematography and direction tried to make this an artistically worthwhile endeavor, but fall WAY short. Not that either was a huge problem... there's just nothing to work with. Some have said that maybe I didn't understand the director's intent with this film. All I know is... The intent of ANY film should be a positive, stimulating experience meant to entertain the viewer by means of captivating live action along with coordinated artistic visual imagery. This waste-of-time drug fest accomplishes NOTHING.
15 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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