Where the Buffalo Roam

I am a fan of Dr. Thompson's work.. I also liked this movie, tho, Fear and Loathing was a much better film.. due to the director, and cast.. Bill Murray was a great choice for this film, tho it was almost too cookie cutter, no real feel of the drugs he was hammering at that time. In F&L you have the grittiness of the drug culture of the 70's, feels more authentic.. Anyhoo, if you are a fan of HST, this is worth the watch.. hey, paid 4$ for the vid, can not go wrong..

I only recently heard of this movie, and i'm quite surprised that I didn't hear of it earlier. Seeing as I watched and loved Fear and loathing in las vegas with Johnny Depp, I was super stoked to watch this. After seeing the first few scenes, I noticed how well Bill Murray portrays Hunter Thompson. It's completely from the same world as Depp's variation, With more of an 80's feel. This wacky story may not appeal to everyone, people looking for a deep story line or a lot of action won't like this. But if you are into Hunter Thompsons work, or Bill Murray, you will definitely enjoy this walk on the wild side

7/10

Both of the HST films have problems. This film's problem is that it is too "screenwritten" (Lazlo replacing The Brown Buffalo, "Blast" Magazine replacing Rolling Stone, etc.) and lacks the weird surrealism that a drug-fueled observation of American culture at the end of the 1960s deserves, if not requires.

It does play a bit like Caddyshack, as someone else pointed out, and it's hard to get really invested in the characters. And if you love HST as much as I do, you really do want to get into the characters and in to the story, because it's as important as it is funny. Where the Buffalo Roam is, for the most part, silly. It comes off as more a bunch of sketches than anything else. I did like Bill Murray in the part. The problem is the script, more than anything else.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, by contrast, does well with the surrealism and depravity but fails to make the full point I think Thompson was trying to get across - the decadence and over-the-top performances (especially of del Toro) are distracting, and really all of this is supposed to be about the death of the American dream, and the end of what was (to some) the best decade on record, or at least the one where people thought, for a time, they could make something of American life. Both movies hint at this but don't go into it enough, in my opinion.

Where the Buffalo Roam captures a little of the sadness and the creeping hopelessness of the early 70s (along with an indication of the hangover awaiting that generation in the 70s), but both movies fall far short of Thompson's books and writing in my opinion.

I was particularly saddened that both movies left out the "We're looking for the American dream" bit at the taco stand, because I think that was important, and the F&L Vegas story seems decontextualized without it (in terms of having a fairly serious (and sad) point under all of the humor and excess).

In any case, both movies are worth a watch but ultimately unsatisfying. Thompson is still best read. I think a good film about HST can be made, but the right person needs to be at the helm.

Richard Linklater or John Sayles, perhaps...someone who isn't going to miss the deeper substance underlying and buttressing the humor. That being said, there are far worse movies you could be watching than either.

And like Thompson, it still hasn't gotten weird enough for me.

I finally watched this movie after watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas about 50 times and reading almost all of Hunter S. Thompson's books. I have to say that while I enjoyed the movie, most people won't. Unless you have a pretty thorough knowledge of HST's work, it won't make much sense, and its comedic value will not be enough to make it worthwhile. However, if you have read FNL on The Campaign Trail and Strange Rumblings in Azatlan, then the movie will probably be of interest to you. One area where this film is far superior to FNL in Las Vegas is in its depiction of Oscar Zeta Acosta, the attorney who is the basis for Carl Lazlo here and Dr. Gonzo in FNL. Acosta was actually a prominent civil rights attorney in the 60's and 70's, especially in the Chicano community in Southern California. He also was a notoriously hard partier by most accounts. This movie does a much better job of capturing his odd duality than FNL does, and Peter Boyle is quite sharp in the role - interesting to watch for those of you who only know him as the father on Raymond.

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.