Where the Buffalo Roam

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.

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.

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..

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

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.