Where the Buffalo Roam

I'll say this for Murray; he tried, he really did. He just has rather limited range and lacks the schwung required pull of a movie that's about a person rather than a story. The film is a handful of loosely connected scenes about a guy who is in love with himself, so casting Murray makes total sense. Aside from the boredom because of the lack of anything happening, there's an overwhelming feeling of vicarious embarassment. There are people over the age of 12 who think this is cool and edgy? Wow.

Great performance by Murray, but the script really doesn't do the man justice. He was more than just a weirdo, he was also a genius, and none of his wit and brilliant insight ended up in this mess, it all seemed like a pale imitation, written by someone who simply wanted to romanticize the politics and lifestyle of the time rather than capture it truthfully.

This film captures the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson. Bill Murray does a good job in portraying Thompson. The plot is all over the place but there are several enjoyable scenes. Overall I would recommend this strange film.

Everything Fear And Loathing fails so miserably to be. One of Murray's best films. How does this not have a cult?

The cults of personality surrounding Thompson and Murray are all that prop this frivolity up. Boyle as "Carl Lazlo" (Oscar Zeta Acosta whitewashed beyond meaningful recognition) is nevertheless the film's best asset only because he's possessed of a motivation and coherent personality befitting a character in a buddy comedy. Murray's Thompson comes off not as an eloquent American adventurer but merely an irresponsible bum concerned chiefly with cultivating a reputation as an eccentric.

Eh, just kinda meh. Not really hard to watch but at the same time nothing was especially compelling. Not knowing who Hunter S. Thompson was going in I can't really say I learned a lot about him or that I really wanted to learn more afterwards. Still Bill Murray and Peter Boyle are good despite an aimless plot.

A hyperbolic account of a hyperbolic man, so it's quite the exaggerated film. Yet, there's not enough driving force behind this narrative (perhaps due to a lack of any real conflict), despite containing some fun scenes, beat dialogue, and a good performance from Murray who more or less encapsulates Thompson's persona (although he's no Johnny Depp).

What a mixed bag this film is. On the one side, both Bill Murray and Peter Boyle are excellent as the well known personas of Hunter Thompson and his attorney, and the film pulls no punches with Thompson's drug use and politics. On the other side, everything about the direction is dull and TV-like and the script, even as an excuse to fit in Thompson's one-liners, sucks. It's not only bad, it's non-existant.

Unpopular opinion alert: I like this more than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It probably isn't a better movie technically, but it sure as hell is more watchable.

A really good movie that acts pretty well as an early Bill Murray role. The story of Thompson as a person is well presented here and seems to give him some qualities that are set different then Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. However, they're two different films. Murray is Thompson, not Duke. This film is based more on a life, than a book. As such, it's good. Worth the watch for Thompson readers.

Plotless, pointless and not very funny at all. Bill Murray is always good though and Peter Boyle was good as well. The script is the main problem, which presents Thompson not as genius nutter but more of just a nutter.

The original -- better than Fear and Loathing.

While it lacks substance it's entertaining start to finish and does not lack replay value.

A very under rated stab at the mania of Hunter S. Thompson. It feels scattered and random, yet somehow linear not unlike the man's writing.

Bill Murray is quite good as the legendary Dr gonzo.