I finally watched this movie after watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas about 50 times and reading almost all of Hunter S. Thompson's books. I have to say that while I enjoyed the movie, most people won't. Unless you have a pretty thorough knowledge of HST's work, it won't make much sense, and its comedic value will not be enough to make it worthwhile. However, if you have read FNL on The Campaign Trail and Strange Rumblings in Azatlan, then the movie will probably be of interest to you. One area where this film is far superior to FNL in Las Vegas is in its depiction of Oscar Zeta Acosta, the attorney who is the basis for Carl Lazlo here and Dr. Gonzo in FNL. Acosta was actually a prominent civil rights attorney in the 60's and 70's, especially in the Chicano community in Southern California. He also was a notoriously hard partier by most accounts. This movie does a much better job of capturing his odd duality than FNL does, and Peter Boyle is quite sharp in the role - interesting to watch for those of you who only know him as the father on Raymond.
59 Reviews
Not true Thompson, but a fun film.
jrabbit-25 October 2000
Whether you like this film or not will depend heavily on how big of a Hunter S. Thompson fan you are.
On the plus side, this film is wickedly funny. Bill Murray (an actor who has been both great and terrible in his career) does a phenomenal job as the acid-drenched reporter, bringing chaos into the lives of the rigid and pretentious. The plot is peppered with "respectable" places being dragged into mayhem, and "respectable" folks trying (unsuccessfully) to cope behind plastic smiles.
It even ventures into some higher themes, such as innocent kids being jailed by a heartless criminal system, and Thompson's own struggles between being a practical reporter and a fun-loving idealist (notice how Lazlo repeatedly re-surfaces just when Thompson starts to take on "real" jobs).
It's biggest fault, however, was that it failed to achieve any of the higher accomplishments of HST's writings. What makes Thompson such a powerful writer (to me, anyway) is the way he'll often turn on a dime and deliver stunningly sober dialogs on the human animal and where he's gone wrong. Nestled in the midst of the wine, women, and song are soliloquies that drive home a more positive message, and none of those made it into this film (in fact, no significant chunks of actual text from HST's books appeared at all). It's like they shaved off the surface 50% of Thompson's work and discarded the rest.
Compare this to Fear and Loathing, which was darker and more counter-cultural, and contained whole narrations excerpted from the novel. The latter perhaps has less appeal to the average viewer, but I'd think more to a Thompson fan.
All-in-all, this film is a light-hearted romp into anarchy, and worth watching. But if you've never actually READ Thompson, do so, as this movie doesn't accurately represent him.
On the plus side, this film is wickedly funny. Bill Murray (an actor who has been both great and terrible in his career) does a phenomenal job as the acid-drenched reporter, bringing chaos into the lives of the rigid and pretentious. The plot is peppered with "respectable" places being dragged into mayhem, and "respectable" folks trying (unsuccessfully) to cope behind plastic smiles.
It even ventures into some higher themes, such as innocent kids being jailed by a heartless criminal system, and Thompson's own struggles between being a practical reporter and a fun-loving idealist (notice how Lazlo repeatedly re-surfaces just when Thompson starts to take on "real" jobs).
It's biggest fault, however, was that it failed to achieve any of the higher accomplishments of HST's writings. What makes Thompson such a powerful writer (to me, anyway) is the way he'll often turn on a dime and deliver stunningly sober dialogs on the human animal and where he's gone wrong. Nestled in the midst of the wine, women, and song are soliloquies that drive home a more positive message, and none of those made it into this film (in fact, no significant chunks of actual text from HST's books appeared at all). It's like they shaved off the surface 50% of Thompson's work and discarded the rest.
Compare this to Fear and Loathing, which was darker and more counter-cultural, and contained whole narrations excerpted from the novel. The latter perhaps has less appeal to the average viewer, but I'd think more to a Thompson fan.
All-in-all, this film is a light-hearted romp into anarchy, and worth watching. But if you've never actually READ Thompson, do so, as this movie doesn't accurately represent him.
"F*** The Doomed", Thompson's Legend Lives On!
The_Great_Fausto14 April 2007
This movie was great; it wasn't really as much a movie about Thompson, but more of a movie about his and Oscar Zeta Acosta's relationship as friends and partners. It gives a nice idea of what Thompson and Oscar Zeta Acosta's friendship was like, turbulences and all. Although "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" captures Thompson's writing, "Where the Buffalo Roam" gives more of a realistic insight on Thompson and Acosta. It also captures different stories from some of Thompson's other work, my favorite being the piece from "Fear and Loathing: On The Campaign Trail '72", Thompson's first hand account of Nixon's campaign for office. This movie is perfect for hardcore Thompson fans or just anyone wanting to learn about the legendary journalist. I give it an 8 out of 10.
Problems, but not all bad.
Quag79 January 2007
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.
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.
Take a walk on the wild side
StanMakitadonuts15 January 2007
I only recently heard of this movie, and i'm quite surprised that I didn't hear of it earlier. Seeing as I watched and loved Fear and loathing in las vegas with Johnny Depp, I was super stoked to watch this. After seeing the first few scenes, I noticed how well Bill Murray portrays Hunter Thompson. It's completely from the same world as Depp's variation, With more of an 80's feel. This wacky story may not appeal to everyone, people looking for a deep story line or a lot of action won't like this. But if you are into Hunter Thompsons work, or Bill Murray, you will definitely enjoy this walk on the wild side
7/10
7/10
A good flick
rabid_halfling17 December 2003
I am a fan of Dr. Thompson's work.. I also liked this movie, tho, Fear and Loathing was a much better film.. due to the director, and cast.. Bill Murray was a great choice for this film, tho it was almost too cookie cutter, no real feel of the drugs he was hammering at that time. In F&L you have the grittiness of the drug culture of the 70's, feels more authentic.. Anyhoo, if you are a fan of HST, this is worth the watch.. hey, paid 4$ for the vid, can not go wrong..
Which One?
tzer014 April 2004
The comparison of WTBR and F & L is pointless. Each actor brings something different to their version of HST, his "lawyer" etc . . . Gilliam certainly brought his own style to the more text based project, but enough of that. You'll see plenty of conflicting viewpoints in the other comments. Which WTBR you see will determine how much you like or dislike this film will depend on which version you see. I've seen at least three versions of this movie, and possibly a couple more. And although essentially the same movie, they're all totally different. The adding of a simple 30 second scene changed the entire tone of the film in one version. In another it was just the soundtrack that was changed. It was as though they lost the rights to the original soundtrack -- or just couldn't keep up the payments -- and had to replace the tunes with some second-stringers. It's amazing how much something like changing the songs in the soundtrack effects the feel of the thing as much as anything happening on screen. The original release is the only one really worth seeing. And you're not likely to. As far as I know, it doesn't not exist anymore. I caught it on cable when it was fairly new. All of the versions I've seen since on TV or video were the inferior versions that have the added scenes and or the adulterated soundtrack. So even if you've mat have seen this movie, you probably still haven't.
Chew his way through a concrete wall.....
FlashCallahan1 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Dr. Hunter Thompson, who is better known as the character in the Doonesbury Comic Strips Zonker's Uncle Duke, shows what earned his reputation for Gonzo Journalism, a sort of sideways way of looking at the news.
This includes such things as giving away superbowl tickets so that he can review it from his hotel room while bouncing a football of the walls.
A sort of latter-day cousin to stream-of-consciousness writing....
This is one of those movies that you really have to be in the right frame of mind to watch, and luckily for me it was four in the morning, trying to get my new born son to sleep.
And to say that this is a straight forward movie, is not justifying the beautiful madness of what is going on.
Murray is wonderful as Thompson, but Boyle steals the show as the mystical lawyer, always popping up just as Thompson has some normality back in his life.
There are a few moments when you are looking at the screen thinking 'really?' And it verges on almost spoof at times, but then we have sweet set pieces like the Airplane scenes, and the wonderful courtroom scene that opens the movie.
Fear and Loathing is the more psychedelic movie, and although Thompson may dislike the movie, its a thorough description of the journalist.
Well worth seeing.
This includes such things as giving away superbowl tickets so that he can review it from his hotel room while bouncing a football of the walls.
A sort of latter-day cousin to stream-of-consciousness writing....
This is one of those movies that you really have to be in the right frame of mind to watch, and luckily for me it was four in the morning, trying to get my new born son to sleep.
And to say that this is a straight forward movie, is not justifying the beautiful madness of what is going on.
Murray is wonderful as Thompson, but Boyle steals the show as the mystical lawyer, always popping up just as Thompson has some normality back in his life.
There are a few moments when you are looking at the screen thinking 'really?' And it verges on almost spoof at times, but then we have sweet set pieces like the Airplane scenes, and the wonderful courtroom scene that opens the movie.
Fear and Loathing is the more psychedelic movie, and although Thompson may dislike the movie, its a thorough description of the journalist.
Well worth seeing.
The man vs. the myth.
VideoKidVsTheVoid12 May 2004
Fist of all, as far as the comparison to Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas (1998) goes, these films are completely different beasts. Fear & Loathing is a adaptation of a fictional work based on real events. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro are playing Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo, not Hunter S. Thompson and Oscar Zeta Acosta. They are playing caricatures of real people, indirect representations funneled through HST's imagination and exaggeration. Where The Buffalo Roam is more based in reality. Bill Murray is directly playing Hunter S. Thompson as he writes his writings, Johnny Depp played a character from his writings, there is a massive difference. And as such, in my opinion, both films succeed brilliantly. Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas is a visually dazzling, imaginative, cinematic adaptation of HST's novel and Where The Buffalo Roam is a quirky, splendidly fun quasi-biographical journey and pure snapshot of life.
Bill Murray is fantastic in this film. His portrayal of HST is taken from life, more realistic, more from the man rather than from his text or the legend of HST. The whole film itself, mainly because of Murray's characterization and the realistic structured style of the abrupt interconnected randomness of everyday life, is infused with a undying sense of fun and love for words, imagination, writing, and the whole creative process, which seems to me to get more to the core of HST as a man than the various vignettes of Fear & Loathing.
Where The Buffalo Roam is wildly entertaining, frenziedly hilarious, and immeasurably fun. But when the general viewing audience, who presumably do not have a true passion for HST and his works, views both films and are given the choice between the legend and the man, they more often choose the legend, which is usually the trend in history.
Whereas Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas has a romance for the stories and the myth, Where The Buffalo has a romance for the man and the process, and both have it for his personal style, politics and priorities.
Bill Murray is fantastic in this film. His portrayal of HST is taken from life, more realistic, more from the man rather than from his text or the legend of HST. The whole film itself, mainly because of Murray's characterization and the realistic structured style of the abrupt interconnected randomness of everyday life, is infused with a undying sense of fun and love for words, imagination, writing, and the whole creative process, which seems to me to get more to the core of HST as a man than the various vignettes of Fear & Loathing.
Where The Buffalo Roam is wildly entertaining, frenziedly hilarious, and immeasurably fun. But when the general viewing audience, who presumably do not have a true passion for HST and his works, views both films and are given the choice between the legend and the man, they more often choose the legend, which is usually the trend in history.
Whereas Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas has a romance for the stories and the myth, Where The Buffalo has a romance for the man and the process, and both have it for his personal style, politics and priorities.
Though not without flaws, or missteps, it still is oddly funny
Quinoa198420 September 2005
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.
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.
A cartoonish, idiotic romp that does Thompson's genius no justice
KingAwesome11 November 2006
As a massive fan of Hunter S. Thompson (I don't exaggerate when I say the man is my hero), a heavy reader of his books and articles, and a Gilliam fanboy who's seen "Fear and Loathing" approximately 700 times, I was like a kid on Christmas when I found out that there's ANOTHER movie about Dr. Gonzo starring Bill Murray, one of my favorite actors. Little did I know the disappointment I was in for.
While Bill Murray, despite not resembling HST in the least, had his mannerisms down pat in this role, this film completely mangled Thompson's character. "Where the Buffalo Roam" portrays him as a rebel only in the shallowest sense, reminiscent more of an Animal House fratboy than an American outlaw as he tours the nation, freaking out the squares and starting parties everywhere he goes. The film touches on actual issues such as the War on Drugs only to create the illusion of some counter-culture message, but it never actually quotes any of Dr. Thompson's biting insight on the era portrayed in the film.
I could also cite how Peter Boyle was entirely wrong for the character he was playing and a number of other issues I had with this movie, but in a nutshell, the most glaring problem with "Where the Buffalo Roam" is that it takes some of Hunter S. Thompson's best and most insightful journalism, dumbs it down, and condenses it into a cockeyed, silly package that retains none of the power or message of its source material. This is the equivalent of Gonzo babyfood, good for a couple chuckles but little more. Stick with "Fear and Loathing" for your HST dose in film, Depp portrays a better Thompson, Del Toro is an infinitely better Zeta Acosta, and Gilliam as a directer just plain "gets it."
While Bill Murray, despite not resembling HST in the least, had his mannerisms down pat in this role, this film completely mangled Thompson's character. "Where the Buffalo Roam" portrays him as a rebel only in the shallowest sense, reminiscent more of an Animal House fratboy than an American outlaw as he tours the nation, freaking out the squares and starting parties everywhere he goes. The film touches on actual issues such as the War on Drugs only to create the illusion of some counter-culture message, but it never actually quotes any of Dr. Thompson's biting insight on the era portrayed in the film.
I could also cite how Peter Boyle was entirely wrong for the character he was playing and a number of other issues I had with this movie, but in a nutshell, the most glaring problem with "Where the Buffalo Roam" is that it takes some of Hunter S. Thompson's best and most insightful journalism, dumbs it down, and condenses it into a cockeyed, silly package that retains none of the power or message of its source material. This is the equivalent of Gonzo babyfood, good for a couple chuckles but little more. Stick with "Fear and Loathing" for your HST dose in film, Depp portrays a better Thompson, Del Toro is an infinitely better Zeta Acosta, and Gilliam as a directer just plain "gets it."
And I thought Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was great!
southern_jew3 October 2005
I just happened upon this movie while perusing my "Bill Murray" Favorite Actors Wishlist on my Tivo. I had never heard of it before, but since I enjoy reading Hunter S. Thompson's work and having seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, I instructed my faithful DVR to record the movie at 4:30 one Sunday morning. WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!! I cannot express this sentiment enough. From the dead on impersonation of Dr. Thompson's mannerisms by Bill Murray to the militant antics of 60's radical lawyer Peter Boyle (Lazlo) throughout the movie, these two more than faithfully portrayed the crazy antics well documented in Gonzo journalism. Please, do yourself a favor, if you consider yourself a fan of this genre, or if you just want to see a timeless piece of funny, witty, action filled cinema, find a way to see this woefully under-advertised classic.
Fair weather fans need not apply
johnnynitro3714 February 2006
Very interesting to see everybody's opinion on this film...from the Murray fan's who know nothing of Thompson to the Thompson fans who think nothing of Murray. To those who have seen both Buffalo and FnL, it should be apparent that either HST really acted like that, or Depp just copied Murray. Either way, this film falls just short of passable only due to Linson's mis-direction...The film seems to serve better as a pastiche of popular Thompson pieces rather than a cohesive succession of events...with no overarching direction, the movie dovetails into preachy idealism and disjointed plot angles that ultimately don't arrive at a narrative conclusion...Still, as has been the common disclaimer, the movie is necessary for anyone who considers themselves to be rabid HST fans...It should be noted, also, that several critics, and even HST himself, have hinted, if not completely insinuated, that his use of drugs in his work, to an extent, was exaggerated for numerous reasons, not the least of which is to expand and authoritative his voice as that of his disgruntled generation...I cringe when I see so many people who seem to be more fascinated by his drug use than his actual body of work...Obviously he used a fair amount of drugs in his life, but it seems to have cast a permanent, impenetrable shadow over his legacy, as if using copious amounts of drugs somehow solidified his credibility...I like drugs, but this misunderstanding of HST and his work is demeaning both to his family and his future...
Pointless & lame
Michael_Cronin20 September 2004
It would be nice to be able to say that this film suffers in comparison to Terry Gilliam's brilliant adaptation of 'Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas', but it wouldn't be accurate. 'Where The Buffalo Roam' just isn't any good. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it doesn't seem to have any point to make & so doesn't work as satire, & it completely fails to convey the insane, savage & hilarious spirit of Hunter S Thompson's writing.
Bill Murray, while doing a pretty good impersonation of Thompson's voice & more pronounced mannerisms, really just acts like Bill Murray with a cigarette holder sticking out of his mouth for the whole film. The angry, driven, borderline psychotic journalist is nowhere to be found in this film, just a kind of goofy idiot that makes you wonder why anyone would bother to make a movie about him, or why anyone would read any of his writing.
Peter Boyle as attorney 'Carl Lazlo', a character better known as Dr Gonzo in Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas, or as Oscar Zeta Acosta in real life, is completely & utterly miscast. The real-life attorney was a fighter for human rights in the Chicano community who hung out on the fringes of the law, the fictionalised Dr Gonzo of Thompson's writing was a far more dangerous, drug-crazed, perverted degenerate. 'Lazlo' is neither, just a dull, pathetic fool who thinks shouting his head off in court might achieve something, runs off to hang out with arms dealers, then turns up again with some idea about starting his own country in the desert.
There is no plot to speak of, just a loose collection of scenes that happen to include these two characters in some way, none of which go anywhere at all. Thompson watching Lazlo in court, Lazlo turning up again at the Super Bowl & dragging Thompson off to his ranch, & finally Thompson covering the 1972 presidential campaign & Lazlo popping up again with a dumb idea. Then the movie ends. No mention of the real-life events which would actually have made a good story - Nixon's victory, followed by Watergate, or Oscar Acosta's mysterious disappearance - just the end of the film. It's not even an anti-climax, which is often how Hunter S Thompson ends his stories, to give them a realistic, bittersweet edge, it's just the end. Nothing of any real interest has happened & the film's over.
I can't really recommend this film to anyone. If you're not a Thompson fan, there's no reason to see it, & if you are, you'll just be disappointed.
Bill Murray, while doing a pretty good impersonation of Thompson's voice & more pronounced mannerisms, really just acts like Bill Murray with a cigarette holder sticking out of his mouth for the whole film. The angry, driven, borderline psychotic journalist is nowhere to be found in this film, just a kind of goofy idiot that makes you wonder why anyone would bother to make a movie about him, or why anyone would read any of his writing.
Peter Boyle as attorney 'Carl Lazlo', a character better known as Dr Gonzo in Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas, or as Oscar Zeta Acosta in real life, is completely & utterly miscast. The real-life attorney was a fighter for human rights in the Chicano community who hung out on the fringes of the law, the fictionalised Dr Gonzo of Thompson's writing was a far more dangerous, drug-crazed, perverted degenerate. 'Lazlo' is neither, just a dull, pathetic fool who thinks shouting his head off in court might achieve something, runs off to hang out with arms dealers, then turns up again with some idea about starting his own country in the desert.
There is no plot to speak of, just a loose collection of scenes that happen to include these two characters in some way, none of which go anywhere at all. Thompson watching Lazlo in court, Lazlo turning up again at the Super Bowl & dragging Thompson off to his ranch, & finally Thompson covering the 1972 presidential campaign & Lazlo popping up again with a dumb idea. Then the movie ends. No mention of the real-life events which would actually have made a good story - Nixon's victory, followed by Watergate, or Oscar Acosta's mysterious disappearance - just the end of the film. It's not even an anti-climax, which is often how Hunter S Thompson ends his stories, to give them a realistic, bittersweet edge, it's just the end. Nothing of any real interest has happened & the film's over.
I can't really recommend this film to anyone. If you're not a Thompson fan, there's no reason to see it, & if you are, you'll just be disappointed.
An episodic comedy about the strange life of Hunter S. Thompson
Tweekums14 June 2019
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.
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.
What is this country doing for the doomed?
GonzoHans4 March 2021
I think Bill Murray embodied the personality of Hunter S Thompson with perfection. He really nailed his part in this and I loved the films sense of humor. It was definitely a bit corny from time to time but was able to remain on course with describing what to expect from Hunter in his prime as a writer who never followed the rules. Peter Boyle did a decent job capturing the attorneys rebelliousness but all and all didn't much resemble the actual personality of the real Oscar Zeta Acosta. This film could have been better and I've read that Hunter Thompson himself was not much of a fan of it.
WATCH THIS...........
xtc_lord30 January 2002
If anyone has seen this movie and is a little confused watch FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS and when they say "AND THEN WE WENT TO...." but they do not say where put in WHERE THE BUFFALO ROAM and watch it all the way through and then finish FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS. These 2 movies are almost impossible to understand without having seen the other, watching them in this order will shed light on both movies.
True Thompson-style
scobbah7 June 2004
As I've seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, who is based on the same story by Mr. Thompson, I saw Johnny Depp instead of Bill Murray sort of all the time. I was thinking stuff like "hey!, they're talking the same way!" and stuff all the time, but anyways...
I'm a huge fan of Mr. Thompson, and this movie really breathes the vibes and feel of his wicked, unbelievable stories. If you haven't been introduced yet to the adventure of drugs, consciousness expansion and the developing of the mind, well here you got your piece. Feel free to enjoy every second of it, as it surely gives me 96 minutes of pleuseure. This is art, so strap in and enjoy the wicked ride.
I'm a huge fan of Mr. Thompson, and this movie really breathes the vibes and feel of his wicked, unbelievable stories. If you haven't been introduced yet to the adventure of drugs, consciousness expansion and the developing of the mind, well here you got your piece. Feel free to enjoy every second of it, as it surely gives me 96 minutes of pleuseure. This is art, so strap in and enjoy the wicked ride.
a sad day - a true original lost
psycohn21 February 2005
Apparently Hunter S. Thompson shot himself last night. I remember seeing this movie classic when I was just a kid, and I became so fascinated with Thompson's character for years. You never hear this movie mentioned when people discuss Bill Murray's best films, but it is one of his classics, and I don't think I ever saw Peter Boyle any better. I was extremely sad when I just heard of the suicide - a true American original will be missed. I never saw Johnny Depp's "Fear & Loathing", but I've always heard it was good. Maybe I'll now finally catch that one. In any event though, "Where The Buffalo Roam" is a wonderful movie and one that hopefully won't be forgotten...
A great, great film
ianjessup11 May 2005
Most negative reviews seem to come from people who saw Depp before Murray. Pity. For serious HST readers or even those who only know The Great Shark Hunt, WTBR offered a comic relief side so sadly lacking in Depp's one-dimensional, cardboard, just quote your lines performance (and I'm a big Depp fan). As for "Murray being Murray" - such a comment can only come from people who saw this after the rest of Bill's work. It was one of the earliest and best - indeed laid the base for much of his 80s and 90s work. Boyle is frenetic, allowing Murray to play sidekick for a change. A great option. HST's written rants were always harsh but always fair, no doubt composed coming off a bender. Who then is to say WTBR's omission of much of these is wrong, rather than simply a portrayal of the benders. We all know what he wrote and how he wrote - I'm glad WTBR chose to portray who HST was and the chaotic situations he put himself in rather than become some art-house naval-gazing about the tortured creative process of a scathingly intelligent commentator. Mind you - I did see it as the second part of a double header with Eraserhead ! Sadly, no video copies of WTBR exist in Australia. Can anyone help me ?
Enjoyable mess.
suzy q12319 June 2001
I love Bill Murray and Peter Boyle as much as the next, but how they got mixed up in this must be a story in and of itself. A big sprawling messy glop of a film, it's still worth seeing, and maybe in tandem with the Terry Gilliam film. This one has a better cast and better actors, that one has much better camera work, they are BOTH kind of disasters.
Unbelievably NOT Funny
sgoldgaber28 January 2003
It's hard to believe Hunter S. Thompson's life and writings could be made in to a movie without making it funny. Yet, Where the Buffalo Roam has done it. Even Bill Murray, who should be perfect as Thompson, is unconvincing, self-conscious, and... not funny. Virtually every gag falls flat as the movie bemuses you with badly it can mess up something with so much humour potential.
On the bright side, it's interesting to see how many scenes Terry Gilliam stole directly from this film for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and how much of Johnny Dep's acting style for that film was taken from Bill Murray.
On the bright side, it's interesting to see how many scenes Terry Gilliam stole directly from this film for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and how much of Johnny Dep's acting style for that film was taken from Bill Murray.
A Great Movie
jl49925 February 2005
This was a great movie. Bill Murray did an outstanding job of capturing HST's voice inflection and mannerisms Granted this film appears more low budget than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (also a great movie), however that does not mean it is any less funny or enjoyable to watch. If you can get a copy with the original soundtrack, it does make a difference. Look on ebay, you can most likely find one for cheap. I got my copy for about ten dollars and was worth every penny. Just wish I could have found it on DVD with the original soundtrack, but that's something I've never seen.
Gonzo Journalism is dead...RIP HST....you will be missed.
Gonzo Journalism is dead...RIP HST....you will be missed.
Not perfect, but still great.
memery-12 August 2007
HST purists may scoff, but this movie still holds its own. Not as dark as "Fear and Loathing..." but way more fun, this is a great party movie. In a way, its aimlessness reflects the early 70s era and Murray's performance is pretty hilarious. Not sure if there was any of his patented improvising, but he's pretty off the wall (washing his sneakers in a public bathroom and disrobing while talking to Nixon?). There's no real plot, just random adventure of HST with reocurring visits from Peter Boyle as the radically liberal Lazlo. I remember that "Fear and Loathing..." generated a ton of hype, but this film better captures the drunken spirit of HST and his tales.
Disappointing
QuinnRose13 April 2016
Although Fear And Loathing may be my favorite movie of all time, I was totally willing to go into this movie with no expectations and give Bill Murray his chance. That being said, this movie was objectively bad. The plot has no central idea or themes and feels more like a completely random series of events. At times Fear And Loathing felt random but there was always meaning to it, there was always a lesson meant to be taught. Here, there was none of that, only a bad time. I felt no compassion for Hunter or any other character. Also, every single actor in this movie is very weak. I did find some enjoyment out of Bill Murray's performance and a few events, but other than that, I really did not like this movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
