isn't Roger Ebert is *beep* critic ever? - Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) Discussion

[–] ecvz 9 years ago

This movie is in my top 10, and I actually agreed with Ebert on a lot of what he said about this movie. He has some good points to make.

- This is definitely "a horrible mess of a movie, without shape, trajectory, or purpose" (but that's the point)
- "Beyond a certain point, you simply inhabit a state" - Exactly, it's an experience more than a story
- "I've heard a lot of funny jokes about drunks and druggies, but these guys are stoned beyond comprehension" - absolutely
- The characters are 1-dimensional to a degree, especially Gonzo. The only time we really see any development with Duke is when he recalls San Francisco in the 60s and how Timothy Leary was wrong, creating "permanent cripples, failed seekers".

Ebert analyzed a lot of the movie correctly, he just didn't like it, and that's fine. It's still an amazing piece of art.

reply

[–] sergey-woropaew 9 years ago

he didnt like every good movie out there. every his review is full of hipocrisy - likr old fart that hate young people.

reply

[–] taran-rod 8 years ago

Yeah, and he contradicts himself. *beep* on Thursday and Usual Suspects for the same reasons he praises Devil's Rejects and Last House on the Left (two completely awful movies in my personal opinion). When you come to this point, you should think about retirement before you become a parody of yourself...

reply

[–] zingzangspillip 8 years ago

Ebert was an excellent critic, but critics judge art based on their opinions. Ebert obviously didn't like Gilliam (his review of Brazil is the only rotten one on Rotten Tomatoes), but that's okay. Gilliam is a polarising artist.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

It certainly isn't without trajectory or purpose, though.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] taran-rod 8 years ago

"I've heard a lot of funny jokes about drunks and druggies, but these guys are stoned beyond comprehension"

I actually have a hard time to see how is this an issue if we consider the fact that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT... Jeez, I love a lot of his reviews, but sometimes he really proves himself being an hypocrite and a moron... I just can't understand how you can *beep* on Usual Suspects...

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

isn't Roger Ebert is *beep* critic ever?

Is was he

!

Can't stop the signal.

reply

[–] knish2 8 years ago

Yeah, he was terrible. But a lot of critics are.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 7 years ago

He's a terrible critic because he didn't like Fear & Loathing?

Anyway I find his dislike of it somewhat puzzling - he claims to admire the book and yet the film is actually very faithful to the book. Not just in terms of narrative, but themes come through loud and clear as well.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] ElMaruecan82 7 years ago

Give him a break, just because he doesn't love your darling doesn't make him a *beep* critic, whatever you meant.

It's not as he criticized "The Godfather", "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" IS a polarizing film, you love it or hate it, well, he hates it and states with intelligible words why he does.

I'm on my fifth viewing right now because I still can't get what this whole thing is about, but there's something strangely hypnotic about it, but it is really a mess of a film.

Darth Vader is scary and I  The Godfather

reply