Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) User Reviews

This film was too weird to live, yet too rare too die.

[mahmus · 8/10 · 21 September 2020]

Where to even start with this? What starts as a fun drug-fueled comedy slowly turns into a claustrophobic nightmare of grotesque imagery and sensory overload. I've never done any hallucinogetic drugs, but I imagine that after a while, the rush Would become a nightmare. This is an ugly movie. It's hard to watch. It's extremely uncfomfortable. And that's the point.

Terry Gilliam said in his own words: "I want it to be seen as one of the great movies of all time, and one of the most hated movies of all time." Judging by the critics' reactions, he succeded. The film has an almost perfectly split 50 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and many critics, including Roger Ebert, were completely appalled by it, and honestly, it's not hard to see why.

But the movie survived. It has stood the test of time. It has risen from the ashes to become stronger than ever before. It is a paradox. A joyful nightmare. A horrifying treat. This film was too weird to live, yet too rare too die.

Slippery Mice

[daveisit · 8/10 · 10 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.

On a razor's edge.

[Polaris_DiB · 7/10 · 4 December 2005]

In a sense, this is kind of like the movie Terry Gilliam was born to do.

Terry Gilliam is an awesome visual director in the same way that Tim Burton is an awesome visual director: every single frame bleeds its own distinct style of beauty, but sometimes the story just doesn't hold it up, or the stylistic elements get in the way. However, what could possibly be better to found Gilliam's surreal psychedelic imagery on than Hunter S. Thompson's story of his exploration into the American Dream? Still, it's a hard thing to pull off, translating Thompson to film, and while Gilliam does succeed, it's largely from the support of the incredible cast working under him to work out. Johnny Depp and Benecio Del Toro especially have to really work on exaggerating when needed, slowing down when necessary through what feels like hundreds of hallucinogenic scenes with just barely enough narrative structure to pull them together.

Of course, the outcome is pretty fantastic, but it sets this movie squarely in the "love it or hate it" section of the world's video library, which is pretty much Gilliam's career simplified anyways.

--PolarisDiB

pointlessness is the point

[vincent-27 · 30 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!

"We can't stop here. This is bat country!"

[MovieAddict2016 · 10/10 · 6 May 2004]

"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.

The art of character acting...

[smriga · 10/10 · 15 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.

Meandering surrealism

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 10 January 2015]

It's 1971. Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp) and his 'attorney' Dr. Gonzo (Benicio del Toro) are on a drug-fueled road trip in the American west. They pick up a hitchhiker (Tobey Maguire) but he runs away screaming. They're on their way to cover the Mint 400 motorcycle race in Las Vegas. They are joined by photographer Lacerda (Craig Bierko). Later, they attend a District Attorney's convention on narcotics.

The surreal imagery is both ugly and tiring. I hoped the reptile vision is the start of some good visual attempts. I don't think Terry Gilliam is wild enough in this movie. Also the scenes are too long which stretches out the hazy feel of the movie. It feels repetitive. Johnny Depp is exploding with craziness but the early fascination fades. I'm not sure if Gilliam achieved anything other than tedium. It's not until the end that Gilliam comes up with something compelling. Gonzo pulling the knife on the waitress is the only truly compelling scene leading an interesting idea to conclude on. If only the rest of the movie had something to say too.

Love it or hate it

[kosmasp · 10/10 · 5 February 2007]

After I watched this movie for the first time, I thought it was dumbest piece of ... whatnot I had ever seen! But as time passed (merely a few hours) and while I couldn't get that movie out of my head, I realised that Terry G. again made a movie, that nobody else could've done ... at least not like this! Everyone was saying that you couldn't possibly make a movie out of that book ... and nay-sayers will still be convinced that it can't be done. But I've come to terms and really accepted this movie for what it is! A crazy hell of a ride movie, that is just ludicrous! And I love it! Every f**ing minute of it! And how could you write a review without even mentioning the F-word. Try to listen to the commentary by the real Hunter S. Thompson! That's the guy who wrote the book, for those who don't know.

So as this movie is just plain crazy, I don't know how to wrap this up ... maybe I just leave it open ... ;o)

Good movie,but you'll need to watch it twice to get it.

[aditya-johar · 7/10 · 5 August 2008]

I watched Fear and Loathing, and at first, it had me paralyzed. I was expecting something totally different, so the first 20 minutes bored me. I became biased and didn't like the movie while I was watching it, but a couple of days to think about it, and I understood the whole concept. There was a meaning behind the seeming madness. I watched it again and understood the whole thing.

Most of the good moments of the movie, you wouldn't catch when you watch it first. You'd think that the whole drug induced paranoia is a 'part' of a bigger story, but that's why you need to watch it twice. This is not one of those movies you'd watch to get laughs, and not a movie that you'll hope thrills you.

The scenes where they're high, especially the ones where they go to the circus high on ether, and the other where Gonzo asks Duke to throw a radio in the bathtub, are exceptional. The whole concept can drive you into a different world if you let it, really. And then the scene where Gonzo just wants to 'Carve a Z on your forehead' sums everything up. It's a different movie, and it's aimed at a particular audience. It's not a feel-good movie, it's tragic. But then it isn't Requiem for a Dream either, so I don't know where to classify it.

Watch it once and you'll probably not like it. It might be too 'slow' or you'd curse the 'lack of action'. Watch it twice and you'll probably understand the last lines of the movie, which is truly chilling, and I'd say it's one of the best lines ever said on screen.

Visual masterpiece with Thompson's message intact and strong as ever.

[jduke · 10/10 · 5 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.

This is bat country

[Asentiff2004 · 7/10 · 26 January 2014]

An oddball journalist and his psychopathic lawyer travel to Las Vegas, with a car full of drugs, alcohol and the pursuit of the American Dream.

A psychedelic trip into the macabre, a chaotic spiral into madness. These terms perfectly describe Hunter S. Thompson's novel describing his drug fueled trip of the west. Depp does a perfect rendition of Thompson and truly is a marvel to watch in this film. In his rendition it is easy to see how Depp has become one of this generations finest actors. This film for the casual viewer may be difficult to follow and or watch, but to me personally is a fantastic film one in which does what it was intended to do, and that is to entertain and to darkly and at times humorously take the viewer on a chaotic ride. With a huge cult following and an eventual prequel that came out; Rum Diaries, this is a wonderful peek into the world of the not so normal and the drug fueled ride that is Hunter S. Thompson's life. The soundtrack is perfect for this film as it follows suit with the chaos that is viewed on the screen. I highly recommend this film to film buffs and lovers of dark comedies.

One of the best films ever.

[Broudie69 · 10/10 · 1 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.

One of a Kind

[ianwagnerwatches · 7/10 · 18 October 2019]

An impressively faithful adaptation of what most would consider an unadaptable piece of literature by the prolific Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a depiction of drug use that starts out at full speed, and as it progresses, closes in on you and won't let you go. It goes nowhere, which is why it was a commercial and critical failure. I'm one of the greatest advocates for character development, something this film almost completely lacks, and yet, I was captivated by this film until it's end, and I was satisfied. It perfectly captures drug use and American decadence, as intended.

The hitchhiker bailed early, I should have too!

[TheAgent · 1/10 · 16 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.

Genius + Genius = ...

[whole_orange_truck · 19 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.

An excellent literary adaptation - and sooo much more...

[hansler · 10/10 · 10 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'.

I was reviewing "Fear and Loathing and Las Vegas" on IMDb.com when the drugs began to take hold

[alex-law321 · 9/10 · 13 May 2012]

When you start watching this movie, you'll decide if you like it or not. But if you don't want to wait, I'll tell you. This movie is so trippy, so gross, so insane, so bizarre, and so friggin' crazy! Now with that said, it's also brilliant, funny, surreal, dark, entertaining etc. The story goes like this; a Dr. Journalism, Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp), and his wolf man attorney, Dr. Gonzo (Benicio Del Toro), are sent to Las Vegas to cover a Mint 400 motorcycle race but end up abandoning that in search of the American Dream. The two characters are out of their minds on drugs the entire time which is where the surreal factor comes into play. The film is based the famous novel by Hunter S. Thompson, which was based on real life events he experienced. I'm not kidding when I say that five minutes into this movie and you'll feel that someone drugged your drink or something. This is more than just a movie, it's an experience, and an experience like no other. If you haven't read the book or don't know what your getting yourself into, then you're gonna have one hell of a ride. Johnny Depp (of course) nails the performance of the character that the book created. What director, Terry Gilliam, did is take the book and match the images that we thought of while reading it, perfectly. Throughout the film, watching the two characters wander witlessly around Las Vegas tripping on acid, I felt like I was part of the experience. Also, Depp's performance is so good, that I started to forget that he wasn't really Hunter S. Thompson. The characters are both psychotic but in different ways. Raoul Duke has one foot in reality and another foot in a pit of madness, Gonzo, however, is off his rocker. He's just a ticking atom bomb ready to go off, I'd be scared to stay in the same room as him. But what keeps this movie going strong is the narration by Depp. Some of it's recited from the book but other times it's whatever's on his mind. Without the narration, the movie would be just one wacky thing after another. Overall, watching this movie is like being hit by a car, sucked into a tornado, spat out into a trampoline factory, raped by a wild tiger, eaten by Godzilla, thrown off the face of the Earth, and plummeting right down on the TV. Any negative reviews you may have heard about this movie make no sense. They love the book while hate the film for being so crazy and shapeless (oh, you mean exactly like the book). This is a perfect adaptation of the book. So great performances, surreal scenery, flowing narration, and a clever cameo by Thompson himself. When I first saw this movie, I liked it just fine. I've seen a few more times and every time I see it, it gets better. Now it's gotten to the point where I think it's one of the best films ever made. So if you're a Johnny Depp fan, or a Terry Gilliam fan, or a Hunter S. Thompson fan, or just in the mood for something different and I mean REALLY different, definitely check it out.

About as cinematic as its source material allows

[CubsandCulture · 7/10 · 24 January 2022]

Thompson's books are not particularly suited to dramatization especially in live action cinema. They are stream of consciousness affairs of a drug addled protagonist. They are a running commentary on the dark aspects (or failure) of the American Dream. Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas the book is captures the vinegar of the 70's. But this sort of thing is so hard to do in cinema.

The film nearly succeeds at doing so however. Gilliam and company manage to pull out a mostly clear narrative of external action. The resulting film that is a black comedic road trip film that is mostly funny and mostly engaging. The drug induced incoherence and interior delusions (of Raoul/Thompson) are painstakingly made visual thanks to Gilliam's skill. Some-but not all-of the commentary makes into the mix via voiceover narration. But the full breath of Thompson's existential angst is missing; the film never quite captures the systemic and societal critique that is in book. The final film is not fully satisfying because it is to much like the book to be a proper film and to much a proper film to be the book.

With that said I find this film fully enjoyable on first pass. It is brought to life by Depp and Del Toro in two gonzo and gangbuster of performances. I think more highly of the film as an experience than as a film.

Incredibly...Psychotic

[lord_zorbon · 10/10 · 21 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.

"There was madness in any direction, at any hour"

[Galina_movie_fan · 7/10 · 23 April 2005]

"Fear and Loathing in Las-Vegas" is a narcotic story- autobiography of the lost generation of the seventieth based on the Hunter Thompson's novel. This is the most controversial but not the best work by Terry Gilliam, the author of such staggering films as "Monthy Python and the Holy Grail", "Brazil", Fisher King", "12 Monkeys".

I am very impressed by Gilliam's awesome power to get inside a "man under too many influences's" mind and show the distorted and grotesque hallucinating visions of that mind from inside. Johnny Depp was amazing - he is one of the greatest and fearless actors of our time. Depp and Gilliam's craft are the main reasons to see this film because there is not much else to see. Gilliam's films are usually very interesting because there is always a story behind the delirious shell. Often, it is an absurd story but it is always a strong one. The problem of Fear and Loathing... is - there is no story at all. For the first thirty minutes or so I was truly charmed: it was funny, crazy, and visually nothing like I've seen before but for how long can I be fascinated by the monsters that were generated by the constantly and shockingly abused brain?

Don't do drugs, just see this movie- Gilliam's masterpiece, perhaps

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 19 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.

Don't see this straight

[DennisLittrell · 7/10 · 4 December 1999]

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

Funny, garish version of the Hunter S. Thompson novel directed by Terry Gilliam with the usual Gilliam brush strokes: cluttered sets, Monty Python remembrances, funky camera angles, relentless energy and a satirical eye. His "shoot me if you find a plot," and "torture me first if you find a subplot" style is regressed to after the agreeable hiatus of "12 Monkeys." Of course such a chaotic style goes well with gonzo journalism on a bad acid trip-a VERY bad acid trip.

Johnny Depp plays Hunter S. Thompson as Doonesbury's Duke with the FDR cigarette holder and pastel shades. Benicio Del Toro is offensively loutish as Dr. Gonzo, a fake Samoan from East L.A. or thereabouts. Most of this is pretty "bad," but Depp got the cartoon character down pat. The psychedelic and day-glow sets, populated with lizards and ugly Americans, splashed with glaring reds and pinks, etc., captured well not only the "fear and loathing" but the seventies Las Vegas milieu as well. The voice overs from the novel seemed a bit miraculous in the movie since at no time is Duke ever coherent or sober enough to write. Piping Debbie Reynolds's "Tammy's in Love" into the Duke/Gonzo hotel room amid the brain cell mayhem was an inspired cultural juxtaposition. Ditto for the Barbra Streisand portraits.

Best scene: Gonzo and Duke watching a clip from "Reefer Madness" at the narc's convention. Second best scene: Duke being admired by the highway patrolman who wants a kiss. Most fun: trash driving those two big Caddy convertibles.

One of the amazing things about Gilliam is how he can make fun of people without their seeming to notice. Hunter S. Thompson looks like an idiot here, and Gilliam is really satirizing the sixties/early seventies drug culture just as surely as he trashes the cops. His rapier is razor sharp, so sharp you don't feel it until you look down and see the blood on your hand.

Amazing film, one of the best

[pinkdevilina · 10/10 · 7 September 2013]

I love love love this film and recommend a read of the book also. This movie is funny witty intelligent and a downright compelling and convincing performance by Johnny Depp of Hunter S Thompson.

In the book, Thompson's character enters his room at the Flamingo Hotel to find his Samoan Attorney checked in with a strange young girl wearing a blue painting smock in the throes of a psychotic episode. The hotel room was full of her portraits of Barbra Streisand. The girl Lucy is described in the book as 'having had the look of a beast that had been tossed into a sawdust pit to fight for its life.'

Tom Dunn pays a debt to this scene in a "Kickstarter" project gone wild. I implore you, watch this film, and also go-ogle, Tom Dunn Kickstarter.

Trip

[Detri_Mantela · 6/10 · 13 May 2023]

Sometimes you don't have to see trailers, read reviews, watch video essays to have a clear understanding of the movie you are about to watch. My whole life, I have been exposed to different clips, memes, and themes of this very movie to such a degree that any more information would be just too much. All that I knew about this movie can be condensed into one word - "trip". It was hard for me to believe that a movie of such caliber could be nothing but a literal, straight-forward, as close to reality as it gets represantation of the effects of illegal drugs - but that's exactly what "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" turned out to be.

I watched it completely sober and, to my surprise, I still managed to enjoy it more than I expected, so now I wonder what would the experience be if my consciousness was slightly... altered. Of course, I am definitely NOT going to try it sometime in the future.

Boring and pointless

[mrochkind · 1/10 · 24 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.