It was a great concept but poorly executed. They showed way too many clips from the Fear and Loathing movie, and the DVD Extras. And a lot of it i just Johnny Depp reading Hunter'w work. It has its moments but overall I felt they could have done a lot more.
shareI enjoyed it but I agree, there were some parts I could have done without. I agree about the clips from fear and loathing and I also think that some of the 72 election stuff could have been trimmed down. On the other hand, I thought Depp reading exerpts from Thompson's work was a good touch. It kind of let Hunter speak for himself.
shareLet Thompson speak for himself? That decrepit old drunk was largely incoherent.
shareI wasn't all about the fake b-roll footage. I would have rather seen Johnny Depp reading the material than a clip of someone whose not thompson riding a motorcycle
I agree and disagree. The Depp concept was good, the Fear and Loathing/Where the Buffalo Roam was bad. That shouldn't have even been covered. But as for the 72' Election being cut? Nuh uh. You fail to realize that the 72' Election story is quintessential Hunter Thompson. It is what made him, even moreso than Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas. Fear and Loathing On The Campaign Trail is his greatest work, bar-none, and it still is considered the best piece of Political Commentary/Journalism to date, and perfectly encapsulates what it's like to be on the Campaign Trail. I really liked this movie despite poor editing, not only because of Hunter Thompson but because of it's great story. That's really all it was, the story of a genius, and it was told well and simply.
I feel the same way about disco as I do about herpes
Agreed about on both Fear and Loathing points--too much Vegas, just enough Campaign Trail.
I would have liked to see some attention paid to the Doctor's fiction work, The Rum Diary in particular.
My favorite part of the film had to be the coverage of Hunter's bid for sheriff. Great stuff.
What in the name of all that's gracious is a semi-virgin?
I guess you're right about the campaign part. I think I had the idea of the movie being a straight biographic documentary and not so much a story about his life and work, as the title says.
shareI was a little bit disappointed too. (To be fair, it would have been very difficult to get this documentary right.) It was too long and yet didn't have enough stuff in it. There is nothing about Puerto Rico, nothing about the Air Force, nothing about New York and very little about Louisville. The documentary hits the ground running right at Hell's Angels.
So the documentary jumps in at the point in his life where Thompson became famous. It gives us little about how this all happened. In that respect, it sort of plays up the myth and panders to the people who like Thompson only because he talks about drugs. There is so much more to this guy than the partying. He was a brilliant journalist.
I do agree there was too much time spent on non-primary information. Inclusion of Fear and Loathing and Where the Buffalo Roam is my case in point, but so is the reading by Depp. I know he admired the guy, but this isn't about Johnny Depp or any other famous people. Let him read it, but as voiceover. Also, I agree with the "b-roll" stuff. That was just stupid.
I do think it's amazing they got Pat Buchanan, Jimmy Carter and George McGovern interviewed though.
I fully agree on most of you're points.
This was one of the documentary's where they got it 69% right.
So many things were lacking though, puerto rico for instance i feel like that was an important part of his life, that was not covered at all. Unlike the other bio docu's good thing was that there was almost no focus on Hunter's childhood, which is rather monotone, and most of the time irrelevant.
On the other hand there was alot of wasted time on certain things like, a close up's of Depp reading. I like the guy, but, there is no need to show a picture oh him reading a book, i would rather have seen clips of Hunter, or pictures which were Hunter/work related.
Puerto Rico and the Air Force are critical parts of Thompson's life. Also, he wrote letters profusely. This doc took the easy road and rather than cover the interesting depth of Thomson's life they chose to stick with Hollywood Hunter. It's really a shame because there was much more to the guy than Fear and Loathing.
That is true, its almost an easy milking road that they took, and people who dont know Hunter either get scared, intimidated or feel sorry for him. Which is rather black and white.
Now that i think about it, it seemed like one of those documentary's Hunter would loathe. It made him look like he was only a good journalist for a few years, then lost it due to drugs and alcohol. He was a *beep* role model for his son, and took his marriage for granted.
Also i didnt like the sappy ending, where most people went "it was a selfish act, he had more to give" give what? it was over for him and it has been for a long while, and he knew it.
Ultimately if you ask me, like he said it, he should be more then happy, to lived through the things he did, and the success which he achieved, even though he acted like it didn't mean anything, i personally think it meant alot.
[deleted]
I agree. Although I enjoyed the all the threads of his life being brought together in the one doco, I thought there was too much taken from elsewhere. And they got a little off track during the McGovern stuff.
If it was an essay. 67% for my money.
Totally agree. I had high expectations but the Docu is not that good.
No highlights. Just regular footage. Sorry but just 4/10.
Couldn't agree more.
This suffers from the same problem them most things about Thompson suffers from -- way too much aggrandizement of the drugs and lunacy and not enough biographical material or enough critical-as-in-not-flattering looks at Thompson's career. It turns him into a one-hit-wonder (Fear and Loathing) and makes the rest of it seem irrelevant.
The one thing that was interesting about it were the TV interviews, particularly the one about Muskie and the Ibogaine controversy. The telling part seems to be Hunter's amazement at the credulity with which people accepted any craziness he chose to report. I think at some point he just decided it was easier and more fun to be a drug-crazed lunatic than it was a serious journalist, since people would believe you no matter what you proffered.
What we never seem to get is "In spite of how it seems, you really can't drink wild turkey by the case and eat drugs by the kilogram without turning into a drooling moron" type biography or documentary. I'd like to see one that says "Hunter S. Thompson, talented writer and reporter -- where did it go wrong?"
At the end of the day, I'm tired of the hero worship and would rather see something a bit more telling.
I love the sound of Johnny's voice so I can't wait to see it. Also, his interest in Hunter is interesting. I don't know what to make of Hunter yet. He seemed to be more of a performer to me than a writer.
shareSurely you could only think of Hunter S Thompson as primarily a performer if you'd never read his writing?
I felt the movie missed out important stuff as well, but the problem with documentaries about writers is that the whole essence of what they do fails to translate to the cinematic medium. Even Thompson reading Thompson doesn't really capture the manic edge of the words on the page, still less Depp's reading (much as I love him).
Nonetheless, this is unmissable for the footage, the interviews and the snippets of writing we do get. And in fact the drug-crazed escapades are downplayed here if anything - no mention of Steadman waking up in a distant airport minus his shoes after Thompson introduced him to hallucinogenics or to their attempt to write "F___ the Pope" on a racing yacht at the Americas Cup...
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
Nonetheless, this is unmissable for the footage, the interviews and the snippets of writing we do get. And in fact the drug-crazed escapades are downplayed here if anything - no mention of Steadman waking up in a distant airport minus his shoes after Thompson introduced him to hallucinogenics or to their attempt to write "F___ the Pope" on a racing yacht at the Americas Cup...
I read through this thread and some other negative comments before seeing the film and it had me a little worried. However, I had none of the gripes people have expressed here. I didn't find there was too much footage of Johnny Depp reading from his works, I thought him reading from the back of the campaign poster holding the gun totally appropiate and funny.
The footage from the other movies I believe were successful because I feel they were not put in there for the sake of showing their were movie adaptions of his work but because they were fine ways of illustrating the narration and progression of the story, if they had produced their own recreations with actors like they did in some parts I think they would have just turned out looking like poor imitations of the movie scenes.
To me it made sense. It all made sense. And I thoroughly enjoyed it.