Both of the HST films have problems. This film's problem is that it is too "screenwritten" (Lazlo replacing The Brown Buffalo, "Blast" Magazine replacing Rolling Stone, etc.) and lacks the weird surrealism that a drug-fueled observation of American culture at the end of the 1960s deserves, if not requires.

It does play a bit like Caddyshack, as someone else pointed out, and it's hard to get really invested in the characters. And if you love HST as much as I do, you really do want to get into the characters and in to the story, because it's as important as it is funny. Where the Buffalo Roam is, for the most part, silly. It comes off as more a bunch of sketches than anything else. I did like Bill Murray in the part. The problem is the script, more than anything else.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by contrast, does well with the surrealism and depravity but fails to make the full point I think Thompson was trying to get across - the decadence and over-the-top performances (especially of del Toro) are distracting, and really all of this is supposed to be about the death of the American dream, and the end of what was (to some) the best decade on record, or at least the one where people thought, for a time, they could make something of American life. Both movies hint at this but don't go into it enough, in my opinion.

Where the Buffalo Roam captures a little of the sadness and the creeping hopelessness of the early 70s (along with an indication of the hangover awaiting that generation in the 70s),but both movies fall far short of Thompson's books and writing in my opinion.

I was particularly saddened that both movies left out the "We're looking for the American dream" bit at the taco stand, because I think that was important, and the F&L Vegas story seems decontextualized without it (in terms of having a fairly serious (and sad) point under all of the humor and excess).

In any case, both movies are worth a watch but ultimately unsatisfying. Thompson is still best read. I think a good film about HST can be made, but the right person needs to be at the helm.

Richard Linklater or John Sayles, perhaps...someone who isn't going to miss the deeper substance underlying and buttressing the humor. That being said, there are far worse movies you could be watching than either.

And like Thompson, it still hasn't gotten weird enough for me.

This film covers a period of four years, from 1968 to 1972, in the life of gonzo journalist Hunter S Thompson. Through the film we see various episodes; many including his friend and lawyer Carl Lazlo. These episodes see him reporting on a San Francisco drug trial in 1968; preparing to report on the 1972 Super Bowl in Los Angeles; witnessing weapons being smuggled to would-be revolutionaries and finally covering the campaign to re-elect President Nixon.

This is a strange but funny film about a man who was far from conventional. While Thompson was obviously a real person how much of what we see is even vaguely true is far from obvious... that hardly matters though. Bill Murray is on great form as Thompson... a character who would seem unbelievable if he wasn't real! Peter Boyle is similarly good as Lazlo; when the two of them are together things get hilarious. As with all episodic films some sections are better than others; the courtroom scene and the events in Hunter's hotel room were very funny but his interview with Nixon in a public toilet was less so. Overall I found this to be pretty funny; it certainly contained enough laugh out loud moments to make it worth watching... as I don't know enough about the real Hunter S Thompson I can't speculate on whether it will please his fans.

I've read, or at least heard, that Hunter S. Thompson didn't like this film when it came out. I can sense the reasons why after watching it the other night. While it takes some specific events and the times of his career in the later 60's and early 70's, there's nothing really holding it together, and the scenes showcasing his madness (of course not without its truths) are so over the top at times it's questionable what is closer to the facts or closer to a Cheech and Chong comedy. On the other hand, the fact that it is a Cheech and Chong style comedy of sorts, with our two heroes wreaking havoc wherever they go in their perpetual search for the truth or the American dream or good drugs leading to some hilarious results.

We're taken through Thompson's knack for keeping his editor (here played in some good stature and tenseness by Bruno Kirby) on edge by delaying the "best story I've ever written" as Hunter says, his witnessing of terrible outcomes with his attorney Carl Laszlo on trial, his meetings with Laszlo in the 'underground', and his time spent on the campaign trail in 1972. The only problem is producer/director Art Linson (who is indeed more of a producer than a director, see his credits) and screenwriter John Kaye don't have the kind of structure that made Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas such a rush; there isn't much method to the madness (at times),which is true to the Gonzo form, but for the most part it is really just random acts of destruction and chaos from the Doctor and his attorney. This would be all fine if there was more truth to the characters.

I think it's right how other reviewers have said that if you've seen the Terry Gilliam film with Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro before this film you might have similar expectations or want something that wild on the plate here. But if you've also read Dr. Thompson's writings (I haven't read the ones listed as the inspirations in the credits, but I have read Fear & Loathing in America, right from this time period),you'll see a different man than is portrayed here, who is made more of just a simple caricature than as a full being. 'Las Vegas' had him as a caricature too, but at least there the atmosphere was set-up to compliment the characters and 'real life' scenarios. Here, Bill Murray takes the Thompson persona, but his performance really works because he is, well, Bill Murray. And Murray can only take the two-dimensional, Hollywood form of Thompson only so far.

On the end of the performances alone, the film scores some points against the flaws in the script; Murray's turn here is like a 180 from his turns in the recent Lost in Translation or Broken Flowers. Here he has unexplainable bouts of screeches, shoots random shots from his guns at objects, and if he's let out into a hotel room, watch out. The thing that's curious though is how the film isn't quite as funny when Peter Boyle, as the Oscar Acosta inspired Laszlo, comes onto the screen. Boyle's had some great performances (Young Frankenstein, Monster's Ball),but this isn't one of them. He's even more two-dimensional than Thomspon is portrayed; he starts out defending the little guy, but then turns completely to anarchy. One or two scenes are amusing, when he enters unexpectedly in a Nixon mask, but they're few and far between. If for no other reason to see the film, therefore, is for Murray, who brings a random absurdity of his own that somehow helps to bring a little more depth than the script allows.

So, if I were to recommend which Thompson film to see first, I would go to Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. However, if you're more of a Murray fan than Depp's, and might feel tipsy by Gilliam's style, then you might like the slightly safer insanity of Linson's film. Not a bad film, but it could've been better.