Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Beautiful, moving film.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

To me, the best movies feel like dreams... or nightmares. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) is very much the latter.It is fearlessly ugly. The canted, garish visuals and weird voice-over narration make you feel as though you're on drugs like the main characters, and the trip is not a good one. The world of this movie is threatening. It's a world of physical and moral decay, the graveyard of the American Dream that Raoul Duke is searching for throughout the story.Some may find this movie obnoxious or trashy, and there are moments where it leaves you utterly exhausted. If you are a person who gets what I have often heard termed "Gilliam fatigue," then Fear and Loathing will push you past your limit. But I like how it dares to be grotesque. Had the filmmakers been any softer or sentimental, the movie just would not work. The movie can be hard to stomach, but an appreciation for dark, twisted humor can help this bitter pill go down.

I tried to watch this movie several times since it was released and I had to give up on it every time till now. It took me almost 20 years to force my self to see it to the end. I love both Depp and Benicio, and I saw almost every movie they made, but this one I simply hate. This is one of the most boring pieces of crap I have ever seen in my life.If there was anyone else in leading roles but those two I would rate it 0/10, but because of those two geniuses I have to rate it 4/10.

When it comes to Terry Gilliam, I noticed a strange pattern, either you have fans who claim this is the greatest movie ever, or one of the Top 10... or you have those who give it a 1 or 2, calling it a tedious mess. And the same goes with the movie "Brazil". Why do we feel the need to make these movies more brilliant than what they seem, just because Gilliam took artistic liberties, just because they deal with true, contemporary themes and just because they're trippy as hell, doesn't make them "masterpieces" for all that. Sure, they're "special", but "special" doesn't make a film "great" from beginning to end, with your eyes glued to the screen. There are two kinds of movies if you asked me, those where you press the pause button when you got to pee, and those where you don't care because you want to get through it or you know it won't make a difference, it's not like you're going to miss a big plot point. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was perhaps the only film that made more sense the less I saw from it, which is a unique experience in its own way. I didn't hate the film, it's well-done, well- made, fast-paced, and Depp is as funny as Del Toro is annoying but we don't see Del Toro much time so it's okay. I'm okay with the film because I try to look at the half-full glass. But Gilliam has a tendency to make the same point over and over again... and no matter how aesthetically stylish it is, redundancy can get on some people's nerves, even when they try to focus on the good parts. My favorite film is still "The Fisher King" and it could have done without the needless hallucinations (you know, the Red Dragon...). I have a feeling that Gilliam is one hell of a writer and filmmaker seriously, but sometimes, he's like his worst enemy. And movies like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" are kind of brutal, in the sense that they're confusing, but you're not even allowed to acknowledge it. I read all the comments, and it's like someone who thought the film was confusing as hell, just "didn't get it". Ebert takes a lot of the heat because he didn't get the film's brilliance. This is the man who considered "Leaving Las Vegas" the best film of 1995, "Crumb" was the second and the film also dealt with the influence of the LSD wave on American art in the 60's, Ebert also admired films like "Easy Rider" or "Apocalypse Now", he's a baby-boomer who gets more than any of us the pleas and pains of his generations, so I trust his capability to read between the lines and enjoy a psychedelic experience or a self-reflective portrayal of addiction that has a few social statement sot make. Maybe he did miss the point with "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", but I don't think the film ever has a point, it's about an experience, told from the same perspective by people living the same experience. It says a lot about but in such a way that it's only by going through the experience that you can appreciate it, it's a bizarre, tautological therefore pointless mess. I say 'pointless' because it's like the film is so intoxicated by its own exuberance, it doesn't even need an audience for that. It's like this guy who's being a total annoyance because he's too drunk, he makes unfunny jokes but he doesn't care because he's not aiming for laughs, he's wrapped up in his own twisted belief that he's the funniest guy in the world. So, you're the one supposed to drink so you can put yourself at his level and enjoy the jokes. I don't think a movie or any piece of art should rely its enjoyability on the use of some drugs or whatever to be fully appreciated. I don't think one should use tricks in order to enhance some creativity, if the real experience is integral to the one narrated through the film, what's the point? Now, I'm not trying to bash the film, if someone tells me it's a stinker, I'll probably defend it as a fan would do, but when I read that it's a masterpiece, I'm pointing out the weaknesses. I gathered that it was all about the self-reflexive experience, and there was no point other than the experience itself from these two guys' standpoint as a psychological microcosm of America's youth in the late 60's... but the film "Easy Rider" did pretty much the same thing without being too verbal or psychedelic in the treatment of the story. Gilliam is an artist, no doubt about that, and he's a man of fantasy, but fantasy is tricky: to make it work, you must treat it as seriously as another genre, if you handle fantasy in a fantasist way, it's very likely to disorient the viewers and undermine the fantasy meant as the core of the story, it's like directing style stealing the story's thunder.

The first sentence that i read when i bought the DVD is ''Hate it, love it, Take the ride see for yourself''. Well I've taken the ride more than a few times and it is true u either hate it or love it :) It still fascinates me how this film was created, it's just a piece of art for me due to the way its been filmed and how it gives a pretty accurate view of how it feels to be under the influence of psychedelics. This movie is one of the few that i can watch over and over and still notice that I've missed some details i haven't seen the other times i viewed it. Also this film was dedicated to the late hunter s. Thompson who invented a new type of journalism, its called gonzo journalism. This movie is based on true events and it has made me curious about alternate lifestyles and especially the style of the 60's hippie. I found this one so special that i actually bought the book and i can say they are both equally as good, people that love movies that aren't as predictable as the common blockbuster this really is a must have seen film. I hope u will enjoy it as much as i did cause it really is one of a kind, Johnny Depp has done a wonderful acting job as well as his fellow actors ;) peace and love fellow earthlings