175 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas



It is 1971, and journalist Raoul Duke barrels toward Las Vegas—accompanied by a trunkful of contraband and his unhinged Samoan attorney, Dr. Gonzo—to cover a motorcycle race. His cut-and-dried assignment quickly descends into a feverish psychedelic odyssey. Director Terry Gilliam and an all-star cast (headlined by Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro) show no mercy in adapting Hunter S. Thompson’s legendary dissection of the American way of life to the screen, creating a film both hilarious and savage.

DIRECTOR-APPROVED SPECIAL EDITION:

- Digital transfer, approved by director Terry Gilliam (with a DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack and an optional 5.1 mix)
- Three audio commentaries: one with Gilliam, one with stars Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro and producer Laila Nabulsi, and one with author Hunter S. Thompson
- Deleted scenes, with optional commentary by Gilliam
- Selection of Thompson correspondence, read on camera by Depp
- Hunter Goes to Hollywood, a short documentary by filmmaker Wayne Ewing
- A look at the controversy over the screenwriting credit
- Profile of Oscar Zeta Acosta, the inspiration for Dr. Gonzo
- Collection of artwork by illustrator Ralph Steadman
- Audio excerpt from the 1996 spoken-word CD Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, featuring filmmaker Jim Jarmusch and actor Maury Chaykin
- Fear and Loathing on the Road to Hollywood, a 1978 BBC documentary with Thompson and Steadman
- Storyboards, production designs, stills gallery, theatrical trailer, and TV spots
- PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic J. Hoberman and two pieces by Thompson

DVD
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled
Blu-ray
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

[J M Powell]

We were somewhere around Barstow when the drugs began to take hold.

Well, there's one thing you could ask for: a decent surround mix. I'm not sure why people keep forgetting this, but the DTS and DD 5.1 tracks on this disc are totally botched. They're missing the film's foley track! You can tell most easily by switching back and forth between a surround track and the 2.0 track during the scene near the end of the film, outside Ellen Barkin's diner, when thugs are beating a guy in the parking lot. On the surround tracks, there are no sound effects when the blows connect. Similar problems occur throughout both surrond tracks; I'm sure this is why Criterion included the optional 2.0 track. Probably the closest you can get to recreating the original release soundtrack is to play the 2.0 track and feed it through your system's pseudo-surround option (if you have a decent one). Even the 2.0 track by itself is closer to the filmmaker's original version than these surround mixes -- "Director Approved" or not. The official CC line through Jon Mulvaney was that they had to make do with the elements Universal provided. Everything else about the CC DVD is so great, it's a real shame.

(I, too, like the film a lot -- it would probably rank toward the bottom of a personal favorite top-100, a bit below Brazil.)

[cafeman]

This one is in the Top 10 favorite movies in the Crit Coll for me (alongside The Shop on Main Street, Le Cercle Rouge, Slacker, Man Bites Dog, Alphaville, 8 1/2, Straw Dogs...), and the DVD might be the greatest DVD Criterion ever put out, containing a wealth of extras, some of which surprisingly interesting and also some that could`ve easily been left out (the Zeta-Acosta reading, the CD drama excerpt etc.).It`s a package which is worth getting even if you`re just a fan of the book and hate the movie.

[cdnchris]

The surround mix is also noticeable in the hotel room segment where Dr. Gonzo is in the bathroom screaming. On the 2.0 track you can hear Del Toro screaming but on the 5.1 and DTS tracks you can't. Doesn't make much sense when you see Depp looking around almost confused and not hearing the screams.

It's still a great DVD, and I'm glad Criterion released it not only because it's a fantastic DVD but because it's like a gateway DVD for people to discover other films in the collection. At my old job, my one buddy there was asking me about this very DVD and whether it was worth the money. I told him it totally was if he loved the movie (which he did). He then asked me what that "criterion collection" logo meant as he had seen it before and I explained the general idea behind it, and he was actually kind of fascinated by it. Gave him the web address to look up their movies, which he did, because a couple minutes later I heard "Armageddon!?" from across the room He bought a couple more after being impressed by the Fear and Loathing DVD.

[Narshty]

This movie was somewhat underappreciated before the Criterion release, but it's now flip-flopped and been reappraised as some sort of work of genius, which it's not. It's funny and entertaining, sure, (well, the last hour drags a bit) but the main problem is Gilliam's insistence on the blunt literalisation of those elements that work in the book because they're left to the discretion of the reader's imagination. The variety of grotesques and caricatures Duke and Gonzo meet throughout the book are clearly exaggerated because of the heroes' hyper-drugged state. Hence, we know they're just standard garish Las Vegas tourists and inhabitants, but we're also aware that Thompson is using the chemical filter for satirical effect. In the film, they're just flat-out freaks with no simultaneous levels to them. The whole film is just populated with weirdos, and just descends into a compendium of weirdness for weirdness' sake. The idea that "Gilliam's film also retains the book's politics" is, to be blunt, pretty laughable - there's virtually no sense of the time period in which the film is set. The only clue is a few brief shots of Vietnam playing on a TV at the start of the film - not exactly setting out a tough social agenda for the film to address.

The other thing is that the film just seems so anonymous and lazy in comparison with Gilliam's other films. There's nothing truly inventive, cinematically or conceptually, just a lot of crazy camera angles and nutty colours, especially compared to Brazil, Time Bandits or The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which genuinely inspire the imagination, whereas this one just dulls it with the constant barrage of obnoxious one-note druggy imagery. I wish Gilliam had taken more risks and not just filmed his favourite bits of the book. So many of Gilliam's films seem like a genuine voyage, and this one just seems stuck in the same rut, with lots of energy but no real momentum. It's especially astonishing given how adept Gilliam has proved to combining modern-day satire and fantasy in the past (Time Bandits, Brazil), but this is probably his weakest film. Having said that, it's worth seeing and is bloody funny at times, but all these claims that it's a prophetic masterpiece putting our modern society to rights is absolute gobshite.

[zedz]

I'm afraid I'm with Narshty on this one, finding the film generally underwhelming, though it did get across the feeling of being the only straight guy in a room full of people stoned out of their brains (far more amusing for them than for you). But then, I'm not a huge Gilliam fan (fond as I am of Brazil, I find much of its pacing draggy, for example).

However, this is a hugely impressive DVD package, the kind of lavish, in-depth treatment that presents the film in the best possible light and rewards exploration even if you didn't warm to the film.

[oldsheperd]

I always thought this movie was great. It really captures that seat of your pants feel that the book has. Plus, being a former journalism major, it's something I can really appreciate.

[Gregory]

I've wondered whether a film adaptation of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was inherently a bad idea from the start. Having said that, I think Gilliam probably did a better job carrying out the project than anyone else could have.
I think it's amusing how turned-off many viewers are by this movie. A couple of months ago I was talking with someone who likes almost exclusively mainstream, English-language films. She was saying she liked both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro but had not seen Fear and Loathing. I loaned her my DVD. A week or so later she handed it back to me without a single word! She had never seen her movie stars behave in such a disgusting and bizarre fashion and was clearly appalled at the spectacle of it. Kudos to Gilliam for not striving to make it a more palatable, popular film, at least.

[cafeman]

If there ever was a post I disagreed with, Narshty`s post is it. I would say the exact opposite of everything he said.

In a way, I never saw this movie as a possibly polarizing movie. It`s so wild, entertaining and creative to me, that I always thought people would at least not be bored by it. I guess I was wrong.

[oldsheperd]

Narshty! Pull up your shorts like a big boy!

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Only one thing really bothers me about this film, people view it the wrong way. Most people I've asked who've seen this film always describe it the same way. "Dude, it was sooo realistic, it was like this one time...." and never mention what Hunter Thompson meant to say.

[neuro]

Having said that, it's worth seeing and is bloody funny at times, but all these claims that it's a prophetic masterpiece putting our modern society to rights is absolute gobshite.

Like cafeman, I too love this film, and find it to be extremely hilarious, but I can completely agree with Narshty's comments. It has some great performances, a great drugged-up carnival-esque atmosphere, and some hilarious dialogue, but in the end, doesn't even begin to approach Thompson's political and satirical content. It makes an attempt in the "wave" scene where Duke is typing alone in his hotel room, but that's perhaps the only time it acknowledges any of the subtext present in the source material. It succeeds well as a bit of Pythonesque lunacy, but acts more of a companion piece to the novel than a faithful adaptation of it (if that's even achievable). I admire Gilliam, but I wonder if perhaps Alex Cox's vision of the film would have been more faithful. But then again, the Doctor himself seems to have approved of the existing version, so what do I know?

[cafeman]

While it is true that it doesn`t deal with politics in any direct way, I think that only works to its advantage, because the few moments when it does mention politics, it sobers you up like a slap on the cheek.

Also, I always felt the ominous presence of the way the film opens up with the documentary footage followed by the logo bleeding onto the screen and the quote and the music and then just completely shunning it in favor of two crazy guys in a desert doing drugs and speeding. I really feel that there has never been a picture more escapist than this one. Just the fact that this sort of craziness is going on in that backdrop amkes a stronger statement than if it had dealt with it more directly.

[oldsheperd]

I also thought it showed the apocalyptic attitude towards that time effectively. There is a very somber attitude underlining the film in that the optimism of the 60's gave way to the cynicism and selfishness that has defined us as a society since that beginning of the 70's. If you read more of Thompsons's work, almost every real figure has some sort of redeeming characteristic that Thompson likes.

[Narshty]

I don't think Thompson is particularly addressing politics in this film, but rather a crass new era of societal change in America towards vulgar commercialisation of "dreams". The film seriously needed some form of sobriety to get this across, otherwise there's no telling the "dreams" and "drugs" apart.

If something's escapist, I'd classify that as something that makes you want to enter into the world of the film itself and embark on your own voyage of imagination. This film doesn't. It offers no possibilities or implications beyond what you see on screen, because we only see the landscape and events of the film through a drugged paranoid haze of the two main characters. It certainly offers an alternative to the "normal" world, but then so do most numbingly over-stylised films.

Narshty! Pull up your shorts like a big boy!

There's a joke in there somewhere, but damned if I can find it.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

This movie was somewhat underappreciated before the Criterion release, but it's now flip-flopped and been reappraised as some sort of work of genius, which it's not. It's funny and entertaining, sure, (well, the last hour drags a bit) but the main problem is Gilliam's insistence on the blunt literalisation of those elements that work in the book because they're left to the discretion of the reader's imagination. The variety of grotesques and caricatures Duke and Gonzo meet throughout the book are clearly exaggerated because of the heroes' hyper-drugged state. Hence, we know they're just standard garish Las Vegas tourists and inhabitants, but we're also aware that Thompson is using the chemical filter for satirical effect. In the film, they're just flat-out freaks with no simultaneous levels to them. The whole film is just populated with weirdos, and just descends into a compendium of weirdness for weirdness' sake.

I would have to disagree with you on this point. If anything the film is showing the delineation between "straight society" and "hip" society. Most of the people that Duke and Gonzo run into fall into the former category but are seen as some kind of demented freaks through Duke's POV. True, that is the only POV we are allowed to see in the film but there it is. I think that the point Gilliam is trying to make is that the American dream is reflected in these bloated, disgusting, racist, sexist (etc.) stereotypes. The film is saying that the American dream is rotted from the inside with very little hope of things getting better.

The idea that "Gilliam's film also retains the book's politics" is, to be blunt, pretty laughable - there's virtually no sense of the time period in which the film is set. The only clue is a few brief shots of Vietnam playing on a TV at the start of the film - not exactly setting out a tough social agenda for the film to address.

I think that Gilliam does a good job in establishing the time period much in the same way Scorsese does it in GoodFellas -- through music. The songs peppered throughout the soundtrack only reinforce the time period we are in. Not to mention the clothing and the attempt to recreate (through CGI) Vegas in the '70s. As someone else pointed out, Duke's speech towards the later part of the film is obviously the point where the book's politics are blatantly revealed but if you think about it, Duke's journey through Vegas is his Vietnam. He never made it over there and so bombards himself with drugs and alcohol with cops, hotel managers, rival journalists, etc. as the enemy. The key to this is when he hallucinates and sees LaCerta as a Vietnam soldier.

The other thing is that the film just seems so anonymous and lazy in comparison with Gilliam's other films. There's nothing truly inventive, cinematically or conceptually, just a lot of crazy camera angles and nutty colours, especially compared to Brazil, Time Bandits or The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which genuinely inspire the imagination, whereas this one just dulls it with the constant barrage of obnoxious one-note druggy imagery.

Again, I disagree. I find the cinematography truly astounding. Especially in how he recreates various effects of drugs. I know several people who said that Gilliam really nailed the effects of being on acid, ether, etc. Hardly one note imagery. The skewed camerawork is obviously Gilliam's way of showing a world that has been turned upside down, that is messed up, beyond repair. The excess of the camerawork is meant to reflect the excess of Duke and Gonzo.

It's especially astonishing given how adept Gilliam has proved to combining modern-day satire and fantasy in the past (Time Bandits, Brazil), but this is probably his weakest film. Having said that, it's worth seeing and is bloody funny at times, but all these claims that it's a prophetic masterpiece putting our modern society to rights is absolute gobshite.

Personally, I find Jaberwocky to be Gilliam's weakest film, but I digress. On the contrary, I find Fear and Loathing to be one of Gilliam's strongest films. Agreed, it's not a prophetic masterpiece... maybe more like Gilliam described it, "a cinematic enema." At any rate, I still find it to be an excellent film and one that makes a powerful statement on how morally bankrupt our culture was and still is.

[ben d banana]

I think that Gilliam does a good job in establishing the time period much in the same way Scorsese does it in GoodFellas -- through music. The songs peppered throughout the soundtrack only reinforce the time period we are in.

like the dead kennedys' version of "viva las vegas".

[BWilson]

I love the book and agree that the film is a terrific companion to the book.

While not the pinnacle of anyones career, it's nowhere near a "bad" film, and certainly didn't deserve the critical drubbing it received upon it's release. Critics didn't just pan it, they fucking shit all over it. Reports were that it was strongly booed at Cannes, then placed on most attending critics' "Worst of Cannes" lists. Upon release in the US most critics hated it and many named it the worst of the year. All of this was really overboard in my opinion. Not only that, I think it hurt Gilliam's ability to rebound from the project and get another film.

IMO, to criticize a film that is so faithful to the book becomes a criticism of the book. I began to suspect that if these critics went back and revisited the book (or read it for the first time) they'd probably pan that too, which is horse shit because the book is genius.

[Narshty]

IMO, to criticize a film that is so faithful to the book becomes a criticism of the book.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain bollocks. The issue lies in the fact that it's not a faithful adaptation of the source, but an unimaginative literalisation of it instead. There's a gulf of difference. If ever there was a distinctive voice in modern cinema, it's Terry Gilliam, and throughout this film he just seems to be doing an odd Hunter S. Thompson impression from the director's chair, which is where I think the problem with the film mostly lies.

I should add, I don't think the film is without merit - it's very funny, although a little goes a long way - but there's a new wave of critical opinion that's cropped up that seems to peg this as among the most cutting social critiques since Rules of the Game, and I just don't buy it.

[BWilson]

but there's a new wave of critical opinion that's cropped up that seems to peg this as among the most cutting social critiques since Rules of the Game, and I just don't buy it.

You know, that's the second time you've made this arguement, yet no one here is saying that.

[Gregory]

Perhaps the film could have been better if Thompson had not been as directly involved in it. Of course, in that case, more people might have charged that the film was not faithful enough to the book. However, I find the idea convincing (articulated by Robin Wood among others) that since we "read" a film in a very different way than we read a book, there can be no such thing as a "faithful" adaptation, because even if the film follows the book's plot in a completely parallel fashion, it can never hope to reproduce the author's voice, nor should it attempt to do so. Bearing that in mind, Gilliam could have gone in some interesting directions with the film, not all of which might have appealed to Thompson.

[Steven H]

I get the feeling that he made the movie FOR Thompson (the movie he thought Thompson would approve of). The personal expression is there, but it seems like a gift. More in the way a gift can sometimes just be something you know the person would never get for their self. I always think it's funny, but t's theatricality both attracts and repels me. Part of my brain keeps expecting everyone to break into choreographed dance and song.

The drug effects did seem awfully realistic. The floor moving in the hotel lobby reminded me of a few things... y'know.

[colinr0380]

A couple of months ago I was talking with someone who likes almost exclusively mainstream, English-language films. She was saying she liked both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro but had not seen Fear and Loathing. I loaned her my DVD. A week or so later she handed it back to me without a single word! She had never seen her movie stars behave in such a disgusting and bizarre fashion and was clearly appalled at the spectacle of it.

It is fun to shock people by revealing something about their favourite film star! A lady at work is completely infatuated with Johnny Depp from Pirates of the Caribbean (to the point of having posters of him all over the wall!) and it is horribly tempting to point her towards his performance in Before Night Falls as one of his "classic performances" - but I couldn't shatter her dreams like that!

[Narshty]

but there's a new wave of critical opinion that's cropped up that seems to peg this as among the most cutting social critiques since Rules of the Game, and I just don't buy it.

You know, that's the second time you've made this arguement, yet no one here is saying that.

I was referring more to reviews like this and comments I've seen on other boards but, admittedly, can't remember precisely where.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

like the dead kennedys' version of "viva las vegas".

Heh. Touche. Although, to be fair, the song only plays over the end credits and doesn't actually appear in the body of the movie.