Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra: Actually, I've knocked down to one star since last night; one star from me means worth watching. Two stars means good; three a masterpiece; and four is rare--something very special. Schlesinger, a good director, here takes too much time trying to paint a gritty, harsh world, and sacrifices character, somewhat, in Rizzo. Voigt makes the film as the (almost dislikeable) naive Texan.
No stars for this though:
[b]Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Terry Gilliam 1998 US (1st time) A journalist and his attorney, both incredibly high on drugs, arrive in Las Vegas with orders to cover a sporting event. Because his characters are constantly junked up and hallucinating, and because he is probably aware of the film's cult potential even before its release, Gilliam feels he can get away with anything; he does, if you can take two-hours of a dramatically mundane series of surreal sketches. To say it is a self-indulgent mess may be lazy, but no less valid. [/b]
As a huge fan of this film, who tries to watch it at least once a week if not more, I will say it is a hard movie to get into. Sure. Because of this, it's probably cinema's official "Ugly Duckling". It is neglected, and has great potential... In fact, many will find it is a great film once you get used to it. Perhaps it isn't "great" in the conventional aspect, but Thompson's writing isn't exactly "conventional" either, and yet many would be inclined to say he is one of the most inspirational writers of the 20th century. The thing that I think makes Thompson's writing great (although it is a public image he had said he felt unwllingly obligated to live up to) is that it has a real quality of insanity to it, and seemed as if he could just snap at any moment. At times, it gets so bizarre that you question if he is going anywheres in his LSD-fueled ramblings... But he never fails to deliver. Eventually, you adapt to it, and recognize it as genius.
I feel the film is the same way. As Suspect_5 said, the film is very self-indulgdent, but so was Hunter. Not to slam or offend the man, he was genius, but it is agreeable to say he was a bit conflicted. Also, like Hunter, I find the film often misunderstood. It's a shame. I don't see the actual "physical" story the focus of the film, because that wasn't the intentions of Hunter's writing at all. It was an expiriment, as Gonzo is the writing of the process of finding a story, while delivering the story and focus of Hunter's journalism in the form of sub-context. And that's where it all is... Stuck inbetween the lines.
The film is great in every aspect to me. The acting is spectacular, the visuals are amazing, the writing is great; there hasn't been a single viewing of this picture that I didn't laugh outloud at the bulk of the comedy. On a scale of 1 to 10, in terms of the value of re-viewings I rate this a 10. I absolutely love the film, and seem to make new connections and spot new things each time I watch it. I understand this is hard for some of you to grasp... I'm told I'm a rather strange person by many people (friends, family... even those who don't know me well), so maybe it's just the intense obscurity of the film that holds my interest. I don't know.
To each his own.
"Somebody told me when the bomb hits, everybody in a two mile radius will be instantly sublimated, but if you lay face down on the ground for some time, avoiding the residual ripples of heat, you might survive, permanently fucked up and twisted like you're always underwater refracted. But if you do go gas, there's nothing you can do if the air that was once you is mingled and mashed with the kicked up molecules of the enemy's former body. Big-kid-tested, motherf--ker approved."
