Where the Buffalo Roam

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.