Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas

Dont Ban Me

Its a 1998 film, had never heard of this up until a few months ago, and a friend told me about it. Went looking to see if I could rent it, got a few strange
"I know your type, and we dont stock that video" looks!

So I bought it on eBay, and it is simply a brilliant film!! Johnny Depp deserves an oscar for it, but due to its content you can see why he didnt!!

Barely even recognise J.D in it too.

Just wondering what others thought of it? Or have many people even hear of it??

alienhead

ye its a great flick, few years since i've seen it.

have you seen chopper?

Dman_15

Its a great film.
Even better when youre baked off your face

ObeyGiant

I got the Criterion Collection DVD recently, which rules with fists of steel. Hunter S. Thompson provides one of the commentary tracks, and true to form, he's completely off his face for the whole thing. Starts ranting and raving about Gilliam ("Limey ****") for trying to turn the story into a gay love story between Duke and Dr. Gonzo. Almost as entertaining as the film itself.

Dr. Loon

Excellent film... apparently when Hunter S Thompson saw it in the cinema he started freaking out at the bats scene Madman. Must buy it on DVD myself.

joe_chicken

Terry Gilliam rules!!!

12 monkeys is cool too!

Exit

A friend who was crazy about it recommended it to me. I taped it next time it was on television, and he'd keep asking me every week if I'd watched it yet. When I finally got around to watching it, I didn't think much of it.

Kersh

I knew I forgot a film from my favourites on the other post. So here...
Fear and loathing in Las Vegas.

Raoul Duke

I know you get this alot with movie adaptations of books but it is true with this one......Read the book as well.

I think it was a valiant attempt at putting the pages on screen but it just didn't do it for me I'm afraid. Of course it's alot better than most other movies out there but how hard

nadir

Originally posted by joe_chicken
Terry Gilliam rules!!!

12 monkeys is cool too!

He certainly does, and 12 monkey is a great film. As is

The adventures of Barron Munchausen,
Time Bandits,
Brazil,
and all the monthy python stuff.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Fear and Loathing in las vegas is a bit poo to be fair. Its all style with no substance, it doesnt actually go anywhere. Johnny Depp turns in a good performance but thats all there is to a film that otherwise has absolutely no storyline.

Victor

Originally posted by Truckle
Its all style with no substance, it doesnt actually go anywhere.

I think that may be the point.

nadir

Ill second that.
Its a mad drug binge: Its not supposed to go anywhere.

Dont Ban Me

Originally posted by alienhead
ye its a great flick, few years since i've seen it.

have you seen chopper?

Nope, never even heard of it! What it about??

ozt9vdujny3srf

"Its not supposed to have a plot" is no excuse for a film that has no plot to be fair. Every film should have some kind of beginning middle and end, rather then a random sequence of events that frankly gets very boring after an hour.

ObeyGiant

Every film should have some kind of beginning middle and end

So all films must follow the three-act setup-crisis-resolution formula for their plots?
All films?
Can't we have a little deviation now and then?

echomadman

Fear and Loathing in las vegas is a bit poo to be fair

Its one of the most faithful book-film adaptations ever, but to fully appreciate it, you really have to have experienced some of what it portrays.

Not trying to be drug-chic here, but the whole movie is pretty inaccesable if you haven't

Every film should have some kind of beginning middle and end, rather then a random sequence of events that frankly gets very boring after an hour.

Thats the way the book went.

For anyone into Gilliams stuff, get the Lost in La Mancha DVD, its a documentary akin to The Hamster Factor on Gilliams aborted attempt to make a film version of Don Quixote

I got the Criterion Collection DVD recently

Is that Region 2? or did you get it from the states
I only have it on video and DivX, really been wanting to see extra features about it.

Dont Ban Me

I bought the Criterion Collection DVD on eBay, it was region 1, the documentery with Hunter is class!! He is off his hed in the interview, Johnny Depp plays him perfectly!!

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by Truckle
"Its not supposed to have a plot" is no excuse for a film that has no plot to be fair. Every film should have some kind of beginning middle and end, rather then a random sequence of events that frankly gets very boring after an hour.

That's just about as retarded as saying "Every film should have a happy ending."

ronano

It's grand as a stand alone film but when compared to the book it's meh, i bought it on dvd while in the states, 25 frickin dollars

Dont Ban Me

$25, I paid €30 on eBay!!!

neXus9

I loved the book, but the film just didn't do it for me. There was a previous attempt before done back in the 70's, has anyone seen this??

Cake Fiend

One of the funniest movies I've seen (haven't read the book yet). Especially funny if you can relate to the madness.

Originally posted by Truckle
Fear and Loathing in las vegas is a bit poo to be fair. Its all style with no substance, it doesnt actually go anywhere. Johnny Depp turns in a good performance but thats all there is to a film that otherwise has absolutely no storyline.

The fact that it doesn't go anywhere is the point and beauty of it all. Fair enough, not everyone will understand it, but just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's 'poo'.

ronano

Originally posted by Sico
One of the funniest movies I've seen (haven't read the book yet). Especially funny if you can relate to the madness.



The fact that it doesn't go anywhere is the point and beauty of it all. Fair enough, not everyone will understand it, but just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's 'poo'.

Come on now he means his own personal opinion so he is entitled to think of it as poo.

girella

my fave film
some show, funny out,i guess you have to be able to relate
ha bats fecking priceless

ozt9vdujny3srf

Originally posted by Karl Hungus
That's just about as retarded as saying "Every film should have a happy ending."

Not really, without some sort of structure / plot a film is just style without substance.

Anyway, even if the film had any kind of conclusive ending at all it would be nice.

I like the way you've called my opinion retarded without backing it up with an argument by the way.

Perhaps i'll give it a chance and watch it a second time to see if i can see more in it, but I am still stuck on Johnny Depps performance being the only positive about the film.

I like the way you've called my opinion retarded without backing it up with an argument by the way.

Sico
The fact that it doesn't go anywhere is the point and beauty of it all. Fair enough, not everyone will understand it, but just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's 'poo'.

I hate the condescending use of the word "understand" that some people here who claim to know about films use. Several times on this board i have seen the "you wouldnt enjoy it because you wouldnt understand" card played, and frankly it just doesnt stand up as any kind of argument.

Theres a difference between not enjoying something and not understanding something, just because someone doesn't enjoy a film, doesnt mean they don't understand it.

joseph brand

@Truckle

A lot of films are made, depicting a certain time in someones life. There is time outside the film where that person 'lives on', and has been around before that timeframe also, . . if you get me.

There IS a start, a middle and an end.

The start is after the trailers,
the middle is somewhere between here and the end, and the end is just before the credits.

When films go by the numbers, it gets boring for people who can see thru' this method.

eg Two weeks notice and Love actually = B2w
Armageddon and Con Air = D3h

Same start middle and end for people like Truckle, Aaaaagghhhh God, /pats Truckle on head.

neXus9

Originally posted by Dont Ban Me
Nope, never even heard of it! What it about??

Chopper is basically an Australian vigilante nutcase scumbag. I read that he tried to get this guy, but he was nowhere to be seen so he kneecapped his mother. Then he waited at the hospital for him to come and then jumped out and shot him in the stomach!

The guy has written biographies of himself and has also released albums. He's reformed now and has started to paint. The guy who played him in the movie (Eric Bana) actually lives only about 5 minutes away from him. Chopper wanted him to do it, but jesus talking about skating on thin ice!!

I found out that you can actually get a short chopper cartoon aswell. Yay!:D

center15

If anyone's looking for it on video Roxy Records in Cork has it for €9.99 on video.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Originally posted by joseph brand
@Truckle

A lot of films are made, depicting a certain time in someones life. There is time outside the film where that person 'lives on', and has been around before that timeframe also, . . if you get me.

There IS a start, a middle and an end.

The start is after the trailers,
the middle is somewhere between here and the end, and the end is just before the credits.

When films go by the numbers, it gets boring for people who can see thru' this method.

eg Two weeks notice and Love actually = B2w
Armageddon and Con Air = D3h

Same start middle and end for people like Truckle, Aaaaagghhhh God, /pats Truckle on head.

Again all I am saying is I didnt like the film. Doesn't mean I'm a moron and didn't understand it. Of course you'd realise that if you actually read my post.

Same start middle and end for people like Truckle, Aaaaagghhhh God, /pats Truckle on head.

Right now i feel like i'm being trolled.

I dont even know why i am bothering with that pile of mush you posted, i should stop reacting to such condescending pieces of turd.

neXus9

Originally posted by joseph brand
eg Two weeks notice and Love actually = B2w
Armageddon and Con Air = D3h

Karl Hungus

Love the way you're calling everyone who disagrees with you condescending there Truckle!

Now, I wouldn't tell anyone that they couldn't understand the film, because lets face it, there's nothing to 'get' as such... He's on a drug trip, plain and simple. I'd be scared of a person who didn't understand that!

But the problem isn't one of understanding, it's a problem of what constitutes a film's plot, and what a film should have. Now as they say, all great art is controversial, and the fact that this is being discussed as so is a great thing.

First thing about the film is that it's based on a very real character, and reguardless of how much you could stretch the term 'artistic interpretation' you simply couldn't have this as a story about young Hunter who has a nasty brush with drugs, but by the end of the film conveniently comes around to realise the evils of his drug addled ways, and comes out a better man all clean and sober... It just wouldn't happen.

Second thing is that the film is that it can be taken pretty much as an attack on the borish hollywood cliché I've mentioned in the previous point. Hunter doesn't make any big revelation that saves him from his drugged up fate, or such... By the end of the film, he's still a mad junkie who's still spouting barely intelligible drivel! And he's all the better for it, in fact.

I suppose it raises the question that if they can tell the story of the drug fiend who had a character changing revelation, why can't they tell the story of the drug fiend who doesn't? It's still a story, and it still has a plot. Now personally, I appluaded the film for the sheer fact that it wasn't the same old borish hollywood morality play. I'm glad they told that story, as opposed to the 'other' story that's nothing but a constantly rehashed cliché.

ozt9vdujny3srf

I aint calling people who disagree with me condescending, i'm calling the people who say i'm to stupid to like it condescending. What annoyed me was that none of the replys to my posts (before your last one) mentioned anything about the merits of the film, instead pointing out that it really is good but i dont get it

You make a good argument for the films merit but i still don't find it particularly entertaining because of the fact that its the same right the way through.

Dont get me rong, the ipoint the film makes is a good one but i just dont think it goes about it in the right way

There are plenty of good films that dont go by the standard happily ever after cliche alla requiem for a dream which i found quite enjoyable.

neXus9

Originally posted by Karl Hungus
Now, I wouldn't tell anyone that they couldn't understand the film, because lets face it, there's nothing to 'get' as such... He's on a drug trip, plain and simple. I'd be scared of a person who didn't understand that!

Throughout the film he was saying that he was looking for the American dream. He said that he found it in a junkyard full of burnt out cars. I suppose there's plenty of different theories on what he means by this. I was thinking myself that he means that living life dangerously, self destructive and to the full was his version of the American dream come true and this scene was a metaphor for it.

Cactus Col

Its one of the most faithful book-film adaptations ever, but to fully appreciate it, you really have to have experienced some of what it portrays.
Not trying to be drug-chic here, but the whole movie is pretty inaccesable if you haven't

hope you're not condoning the use of drugs just to enjoy a film slightly more.:cool:

films okay ... book is better .... neither are brilliant

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Cactus Col
films okay ... book is better .... neither are brilliant

Could you do me a favour and re-edit your post to qualify it. Maybe with an "I think", or a "in my opinion"?

Thanks.

Cactus Col

No, I won't be re-editing it (although I should probably put in an apostsraphe(?) between the m and the s in films ... so it reads film's)

I won't re-edit it because I think it's pretty obvious that it just represents my opinion, even if I think what I said is fact.

Don't take any guff from these ****ing swine.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Cactus Col
I won't re-edit it because I think it's pretty obvious that it just represents my opinion, even if I think what I said is fact.

Fair enough, be an obtuse, unhelpful asshole. See if I care.

Cactus Col

okay ... while I read the book (it's one of those books everybody has to read), and enjoyed it, I have enjoyed other books a lot more ....

and while I also enjoyed the film, I found it to be a bit too disjointed .... more a collection of incidents that were too haphazardly thrown together ... doesn't mean I didn't like the individual incidents .... white rabbit class ... attending the police mans conference ...

but I've enjoyed a lot of other films a lot more

in essence

film's okay .... books better .... neither are brilliant

Fair enough, be an obtuse, unhelpful asshole. See if I care.

if you didn't care you wouldn't have written it

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Cactus Col
more a collection of incidents that were too haphazardly thrown together

While you're entitled to your opinion, I'm also entitled to mine. And mine is: you're wrong.

It's very easy to criticise Fear and Loathing as being a series of disjointed setups. But then, it's very easy to criticise a lot of films for the same thing, especially Gilliam's (See: Munchausen; Time Bandits). But this doesn't mean that this is all they are - a series of "incidents". There's a definite progression in Fear and Loathing - a descent into ugliness from the comedic stoned antics at the beginning to the terrifying binges on mescaline. A perfect rhythm of increasingly disturbing highs and lows, right through to the feeling of "okay, we've gone too far" at the end where Benicio del Toro threatens the waitress.

This rhythm alone should at least indicate to you that these sequences were not "haphazardly" thrown together, and that by using such words to describe the movie, you're actually demonstrating your ignorance of the movie. You're showing that you just weren't paying attention.

Originally posted by Cactus Col
if you didn't care you wouldn't have written it

Nice detective-work, Columbo.

Cactus Col

Nice detective-work, Columbo.

Thanks, I'm pretty proud of it, Quincy

As I said before

it's pretty obvious that it just represents my opinion

and you are of course entitled to your own .... and we disagree ... although I'm pretty sure there was no need for the agression shown in your posts ...

anyway ... I do understand what the film was trying to show ... in the exact same way as I understood what was happening in the book ... however the film didn't do as good a job as the book ... hence it felt more haphazard.

My knowledge might be limited, but at least my ignorance is boundless

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Cactus Col
although I'm pretty sure there was no need for the agression shown in your posts ...

I used manners. I asked politely, and said "thanks". No aggression there. Calling you an asshole - well, that was just a joke. And I thought I was perfectly civil in my disputing the validity of your opinion. I even deleted the words "idiotic" and "durrr" before I pressed the "post reply" button. So no aggression there.

Originally posted by Cactus Col
anyway ... I do understand what the film was trying to show ... in the exact same way as I understood what was happening in the book ... however the film didn't do as good a job as the book ... hence it felt more haphazard.

And again, my opinion is that: you're wrong.

Having read the book, you must understand its nature is not one of "once upon a time" - conflict/resolution - "happily ever after". It rambles as only a gonzo book about a gonzo journalist on heavy drugs can. As a result, one of the words you're bound to read in any review or summary of the film is "unfilmable" ("Results 1 - 10 of about 2,280 for "fear and loathing" unfilmable"").

To film the book straight, without giving it any kind of cohesion would have been commercial and creative suicide. I think there's definitely more of a "plot structure" in the film (although obviously not enough - the film still bombed).

And Thompson hates Gilliam for this plot structure.

Cactus Col

I still don't think it's a fantastic film ... the film didn't convince me it was great so I doubt you will in explaining it to me ....

I've said what I thought of it and I don't think I need to expand on it anymore

okay ... you think I'm wrong .... never said you shouldn't be able to do that ... but that doesn't make you right ... in fact it seems a lot of critics think less of it than I do:
www.rottentomatoescom

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Cactus Col
I still don't think it's a fantastic film ... the film didn't convince me it was great so I doubt you will in explaining it to me ....
...
okay ... you think I'm wrong .... never said you shouldn't be able to do that ... but that doesn't make you right

Oh, I'm not really trying to convince you that you're wrong. I'm just adding a counterpoint to your opinions. For posterity, and perhaps to help convince people that haven't seen the movie to at least give it a chance, and hopefully give them some meat to chew on while they're watching it.

Originally posted by Cactus Col
in fact it seems a lot of critics think less of it than I do:
www.rottentomatoescom

Roger Ebert hated it. Even if I hadn't seen this film, I'd want to now.

Cake Fiend

Originally posted by Truckle
I hate the condescending use of the word "understand" that some people here who claim to know about films use. Several times on this board i have seen the "you wouldnt enjoy it because you wouldnt understand" card played, and frankly it just doesnt stand up as any kind of argument.

I'd agree with this point actually. I didn't mean 'understand' from an intellectual standpoint - you either have experienced an acid/mescaline trip or you haven't. If you haven't, you'd probably find it harder to 'get' the movie and relate to the characters' experiences. Thus you might think the movie was a load of bollocks.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Could you do me a favour and re-edit your post to qualify it. Maybe with an "I think", or a "in my opinion"?

Thanks.

Normally I would find myself agreing with ObeyGiant, but on this particular occaision, I beleive I have to quote Maddox:

Everyone already knows it's my opinion by virtue of the fact that I said it, no need to restate the obvious you dopey twat.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Karl Hungus
Normally I would find myself agreing with ObeyGiant, but on this particular occaision, I beleive I have to quote Maddox:

Well, some people's opinions are close enough to fact that they don't really need to qualify them.

And until we all meet up and have a great big boards scrap to sort the men from the boys once and for all, I think we should all do our best to help people know that our opinions aren't actually worth shit.

(I hate maddox).

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Well, some people's opinions are close enough to fact that they don't really need to qualify them.

And until we all meet up and have a great big boards scrap to sort the men from the boys once and for all, I think we should all do our best to help people know that our opinions aren't actually worth shit.

Yes! Because obviously any opinion needs to be backed up with violence in order to be valid! :rolleyes:

Am I the only one wondering what this blithering idiot has done with the REAL ObeyGiant?

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Karl Hungus
Yes! Because obviously any opinion needs to be backed up with violence in order to be valid! :rolleyes:

Am I the only one wondering what this blithering idiot has done with the REAL ObeyGiant?

Dude, you seriously need to step off the high horse, then step AWAY from the high horse, leaving the Japanese Cinema 101 book with the high horse, and I dunno.. read some Flann O'Brien or something, because your humour muscles are seriously out of shape.

Because.. seriously.. gathering everyone from boards together for a giant mill, just to see who gets to be taken seriously when they post? I dunno, that sounds pretty funny to me, and I don't see how that suggestion could be taken seriously at all.

Karl Hungus

...and I don't know how my reply was taken seriously either...?

But don't diss the high horse tbh.

echomadman

I'd agree with this point actually. I didn't mean 'understand' from an intellectual standpoint - you either have experienced an acid/mescaline trip or you haven't. If you haven't, you'd probably find it harder to 'get' the movie and relate to the characters' experiences. Thus you might think the movie was a load of bollocks.

that was my point, I want implying that it was intellectually beyond anyone, quite the opposite in fact, but its like watching a really detailed film about yak husbandry, If you've farmed yaks then obviously different facets of the film will have more relevance to you and you'll derive more enjoyment from watching it .

I was able to relate to every moment in that film based on my own personal experience, which makes it one of my favourite movies as it reminds me of a particularly crazy period in my life.

I cant comment on how the film would come across to a non-drugs user (*cough* Truckle ) as that perspective is forever barred to me, but i would imagine a lot of it just seems silly and pointless.