Gonzo (2008) Poster

(2008)

User Reviews

Review this title
31 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
A well-done portrayal of the enigmatic, volatile, emotional, altruistic, mischievous, and otherwise paradoxical Hunter S. Thompson
Darklogic14 July 2008
Before watching this film I knew a decent amount about the father of Gonzo journalism, and everything I had learned seemed to suggest a man whose many contradictions made his overall nature hard to grasp. For this reason I praise this film for doing a remarkable job of really digging into the essence of all that is Hunter S. Thompson, including his writing, his lifestyle, his acquaintances, and primarily his impact upon America.

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S.Thompson methodically covers the bulk of Hunter's life from his boyhood to his untimely suicide. With interviews from many of his close friends and relatives, as well as some substantial political figures, the movie does a great job of putting his life in perspective. Consequently, it brings with it the energy and intensity that was pervasive in those times and places, like San Francisco in the early 60s. But Hunter's life is far more than sheer counterculture excitement, and the film covers the many events of civil disarray that Thompson fell witness to, and that shaped his cynical view of modern-day America.

The film manages to draw many parallels to the afflictions of our nation today, such as the war in Iraq and Bush administration. It follows Hunter's life all the way to the end, and in spite of the last quarter of the movie being a bit too lengthy, closes decently. For its effectiveness and emotional force, this is a must-see for Gonzo fans.
18 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The smartest guy at the bar
Chris Knipp13 July 2008
After Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Taxi to the Dark Side, and this vivid, significant depiction of the Sixties and Seventies superstar journalist Hunter Thompson, Alex Gibney has emerged as clearly one of the best documentary filmmakers we've got and also one of the most prolific.

Gibney tells a very smart, very verbal, very funny but also intensely significant story here. Some of the people who speak most highly of Thompson on camera are Billy Carter, William McGovern, and longtime Republican presidential adviser Pat Buchanan,as well as writer Tom Woolf and Thompson's editors at Rolling Stone, for which he did his best periodical pieces, the notable ones turned into books. More intimate details--but the man was such a perpetual performer that public and private are hard to separate--come from Thompson's first and second wives. And the English artist Ralph Steadman, who illustrated the writing, has much to say, as do plenty of others. When Steadman first met Thompson he fed the Brit Psilocybin and he was never the same. Steadman became an invaluable cohort and collaborator and his wild drawings provide a perfect visual counterpart to Thompson's written words on screen.

Thompson was a notorious wild man from early on. "I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me," he said. Prodigious in his consumption of drugs and alcohol, he was witness to some of the great events of his time, and got deeply involved in politics and opposition to the Vietnam war and of course the counterculture. Lean, athletic, flashily dressed, with trademark balding pate, big sunglasses, cigarette holder and drink in hand, Thompson was a demon at the IBM Selectric, gleefully spinning out brilliant pieces nobody else could have written, a master of outrage and wit.

Fueled by craziness, substances, and his own tongue-in-cheek joie de vivre, he devised his own outrageous style of writing in which cold clear fact was blended with wild invention and the adjectives and metaphors flew like hornets around a honey pot. Others too partook of the kind of journalism he practiced. The times--the flamboyant and boisterous and revolutionary Sixties and early Seventies-- seemed to call for a new more violent, more committed language in journalism. Norman Mailer also wrote about the democratic convention in Chicago in 1968 and on hand for Esquire were the likes of Jean Genet and William Burroughs. Three is something of Burroughs in Thompson, the drugs and the outrage and a way of seeing convention as conspiracy. One of Thompson's famous quotes gives a hint of the link: "America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." This was the moment when the distinction between fiction and non-fiction blurred: Tom Wolfe (The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, which used raw material from the more adventurous Thompson), Thompson's act of "embedded journalism" as Wolfe calls it, Hell's Angels), Truman Capote's murder story In Cold Blood done for The New Yorker, were all variations on the idea of the "non-fiction novel." Mailer had done a heroically personal and novelistic account of the 1967 March on the Pentagon, The Armies of the Night. The film might do a bit more to put Thompson in all this context, but it's clearly implied. He called his wild style "gonzo" journalism.

Thompson also wrote about Las Vegas as the American dream and about Nixon, whom he loathed. He also used a tape recorder a lot. This provides great material for the film. So does the Terry Gilliam film version of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas; and Johnny Depp, who played Thompson in the film and became a great fan and friend, reads salient passages sitting in front of a well-stocked bar. Depp paid for the spectacular monument/funeral for the writer that Thompson had--on film--planned out long before, in which his ashes are fired into the Colorado hills. Ralph Steadman did the sketches. This is shown at the end of the film and provides a lovely son et lumière finale.

Thompson's innate violence may explain how he could have blended in so well for a while with the Hell's Angels. He kept at least twenty firearms on hand in his house, all loaded, his first wife reports. He always planned to end his life with suicide and he shot himself. He did it on a nice day in February almost as a family event, with his son, daughter-in-law and grandson at the house and on the phone with his wife, a shot to the head, at the age of 68, not an act of depression but the completion of a careful plan. It was over. And he had been here to see George W. Bush and predict the decline and fall of the American empire. A late collection of short pieces is entitled Hey Rube: Blood Sport, the Bush Doctrine, and the Downward Spiral of Dumbness.

His dissipation took its toll and so did fame. He fell into playing a self-parodying avatar of himself and his writing deteriorated after the later Seventies, so he had about ten good years and about twenty not-so-good ones. Some have dwelt on his decline; Gonzo doesn't. His writing faltered as early as 1974 when he went to Zaire with Steadman to cover the Foreman-Ali "Rumble in the Jungle" and he got drunk at the pool during the fight and never finished the story. Given how bright he burned and how hard he lived, it was inevitable that the man would burn out early And writing did not by any means fizzle out even into the Nineties. There is an immense wealth of spinoffs on film; Gibney had rich, rich material to work with here.

The best that could happen is that this beautifully edited and greatly entertaining film makes a host of new converts to the writing.
24 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Good Doctor
jimi991 July 2008
This is an absorbing doc not only of the good doc but the whole counterculture that he championed in many ways. For all his excessive lifestyle that became almost a parody of the drug culture, he remained a true intellectual and anti-corruption/hypocrisy crusader. He embraced the vision of a new world not ruled by greed and war-mongering, and as early as 1971 proclaimed his great sadness that the movement and the moment of flower power had passed and with it the chance for sane politics. This moment was captured well in "Where the Buffalo Roam" starring Bill Murray as HST, which is given kind of short shrift in this documentary in favor of scenes from "Fear and Loathing Las Vegas" with Johnny Depp as HST. Considering that Depp produced and narrates the film as well as financed the grandiose send-off that Thompson envisioned for himself, it's not strange that Murray's portrayal would be downplayed, as excellent as it was (and Peter Boyle's as the Samoan lawyer.)

All in all, it is a well-balanced account of Thompson's life and work, with many pertinent interviewees like his two wives and son, Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone, Sonny Barger of the Hell's Angels, Jimmy Buffett, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan, Tom Wolfe, and various Aspenites. His passion and wit were undeniable, and his addiction to guns, booze and dope were in many ways forgivable. But his absence in today's disastrous political scene, his voice against war and corruption is sorely missed, and lamented by several of the interviewees. The parallels between Nixon and Bush are easily drawn, and "Gonzo" does this without hammering the point home except to exhort the audience to take up the fight that the Good Doctor waged in a seemingly crazy, but noble and honorable way for most of his life.
29 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Successful Movie but a Less Than Successful Human Being?
isabelle195514 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr Hunter S. Thompson is a very well put together documentary from Alex Gibney, whose Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room was a fascinating insight into the fluff and fraud of a section of Corporate America in the early years of the 21st century. Not sure how I managed to miss Gibney's Who Killed the Electric Car? but I intend to track it down now, as on the evidence of this movie, it will be worth the effort. Gibney frames his subject well, with a wealth of background detail on the 60s West Coast counter culture which launched Thompson's literary career, and he has assembled a great soundtrack; it's almost worth watching this movie just to hear the music. Gibney follows Thompson's story coherently. He tracked down some revealing home movies and some unexpected people (Pat Buchanan, Jimmy Carter) to explain Hunter S Thompson to the world, (his first wife seems remarkably lacking in angst despite having to call the sheriff when she feared for her safety), although I felt there could have been a little more emphasis on the early years (the air force, the time in Puerto Rico and Brazil). There is some suggestion that Thompson carried a fairly major chip on his shoulder from his teen years, when his father died, leaving his mother to raise 3 sons in genteel near-poverty. Hunter, with his sharp intellect, mixed with the rich kids but was in actuality a fairly poor kid, and one incident when he was jailed for his proximity to a crime, may have contributed to his life long despising of authority.

I'm slightly too young to have been a fan of his writing back in the late 60s and early 70s, when I was a teenager living on another continent, and although I've caught up with some of it since, the movie of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which I re-watched recently, produces little reaction from me these days beyond a yawn. It's better on the page. But he was a fascinating character, no doubt about it, and I can't think of anyone around today who can write with quite his accuracy and style (and how we need it.) My husband confessed that he had never heard of Thompson (well we are foreigners!) before watching this movie, so it may well be an indication of how good a documentary this is, that we both enjoyed it so much.

Gonzo tracks the journey of Thompson from outsider journalist and acute spectator, whose acid sharp observations skewered the Great American Dream, to the sad situation where Thompson himself became the story, stoned, drunk and wasting his talents, apparently feeling a need to live up to the over-the-top persona he had created on the page. On an objective level, it's intriguing to watch the winding path from the great and original writing of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hells Angels and the 1972 presidential election - where he championed the decent McGovern - to the debacle in Zaire, the Ali Forman match-up, where Thompson gave away his tickets and spent the time drunk in the hotel pool, thereby missing one of the greatest boxing matches of all time, (and failing to report on the fight for the mugs who had paid his expenses.)

Much as I admire his well pointed vitriol and satire – and wish we had it around today - I have a very limited amount of sympathy for people who choose self destruction as a life style, and Thompson always seemed to blow it just as true greatness beckoned. He comes across as utterly self obsessed and I found myself lacking any real sympathy for him, or connection to him, rather feeling impatient that he chose not to hang around long enough and stay sober often enough, to wield his pen a few years longer. Everyone, of course, is free to chose their own path to death, and Thompson's makes interesting viewing. Just don't ask me to feel much sympathy for the guy. Still, it's a good movie.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Post-Counter Culture Portrait of a Counter Culture Icon
jzappa6 October 2008
In the sphere of all the memoirs collected in this post-counter culture portrait of a counter culture icon, narrated by Johnny Depp who played him to some extent in Terry Gilliam's film version of Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, there was one issue I found noticeably absent: The reality of the unhappiness and suffering of this comic book character of a painfully vague crustacean. The film finds remarkable approach to the people involved in his life, but not even from his two wives do we get a picture of what he was like the inevitable physiological drawbacks caught up with him. He was plainly, intensely addicted to drugs and alcohol, and after a trance-like sleep not much different than passing out at the right time, he would have awakened in a mess of depression and alienation. What did he say on those mornings and afternoons? How did he act?

Of course, it is said during the film that he would drink all day or take drugs and there was no discernible effect. I don't think I buy that. What if it was a front? The main thing is, he wasn't killed by day-to-day simultaneous intakes of alcohol and pills, which can really tear up your head, which are said to cause a likelihood of seizures. He was killed by himself, which he himself scripted and all of his friends totally assumed would happen. He took every reckless risk there was to take, and he, not time or drugs or people, ended it all because his own agenda was dried out. As a journalist, for instance, he reported that at some point in a presidential primary Edward Muskie consumed Ibogaine, a psychoactive drug given out by a "mysterious Brazilian doctor," information which was entirely fictitious yet was actually learned and passed along as truth. Thompson's stunt may have been part of the cause of Muskie's furious irritability throughout the 1972 Florida primary. No other journalist could have carried such a fib, but Thompson was fortified by his myth that he could publish anything.

He was an unpredictable, nearly spellbinding writer, with a savage hilarity in his style. He was never aware of impartiality. In 1972 he backed George McGovern as the Democratic nominee, and no slander was too degraded for him to attach to McGovern's rivals in either party.

This documentary by Alex Gibney is notable, to begin with, for recapitulating to us through how many fires Thompson ran of his very own volition. He rode with the Hells' Angels for a year. Ran for sheriff and lost, but came in very close. Covered the 1972 and 1976 presidential primaries, and had an inexplicable personality, so that for instance McGovern, Tom Wolfe and his wives and son think of him lovingly, but also as enormously cruel and spiteful.

Nobody in the film was around while he was doing things that initially fortified him within the sphere of legend. He became celebrated for writing about that edge of speed going around a bend which you could never pass without killing yourself. He rode loads of edges on his motorcycle, and never got killed. He said persistently that the way he chose to go was by doing the job himself, with a gun, before his success declined. He died that way, using one of his 22 firearms, but he had most definitely declined by that time.

Without doubt he made an impact on his generation like not many other journalists ever have. This documentary is all you could wish for about the man's career and involvement with different people, but there is something at his core that we are inhibited from fully understanding for sure. And it results in you speculating on how so many people liked him when he didn't even seem to have liked himself?
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Riveting and sympathetic with touching insights
ecto-327 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Going into this preview screening, I knew very little about Dr. Hunter S. Thompson's life, except that he lived on the edge in a very take no prisoners and unconventional manner, often assisted by drugs and alcohol, and that his highly charged descriptive journalism was poetic and amazingly beautiful. I didn't know about his far reaching political and social impact, nor the parabolic curve of his meteoric rise, and eventual decline.

It was not a good sign that the theater was about a quarter empty, highly unusual for an independent film preview, which usually packed the house.

However, from the first scene, until the credits, some two hours later, I was hooked, visually and emotionally. Nothing was sugarcoated, none of his excesses with drugs, booze, or women, or his at times manic conduct, but the effect on myself and the rest of the audience was surprisingly sympathetic, shown by loud clapping as the lights came on at the end. Another positive sign was that the two hours flew by without boredom, because of the visually stunning footage, the engrossing interviews, and the historical backdrop and its relevance to the current political scene.

Mr. Thompson was a rebel with a cause who spoke blunt truth to power, and he used language as if touched by both genius and a higher consciousness. I came away enlightened and saddened by the foreshortened arc of his life.

This is a very beautiful, brilliant gemstone of a film, with many sparkling facets. I hope you may enjoy it as much as I did.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Horror!
ferguson-613 July 2008
Greetings again from the darkness. Another excellent documentary from Alex Gibney, who has also blessed us with "Taxi to the Dark Side" and "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room". Here, Gibney takes on the fascinating story of Hunter S. Thompson ... he of Gonzo Journalism.

With enough material to support a mini-series, Gibney culls the material down to two hours and provides some insight, but mostly commentary on this uniquely talented writer and observationalist. The highlights include George McGovern heartfelt description of the man and interviews with Thompson's two wives, and "Rolling Stone" editor Jann Wenner. Through their own words and body language, we get a glimpse into the immense respect this man's talent generated. Of course, no punches are pulled on his weaknesses and transgressions.

I couldn't help but chuckle of the irony as Tom Wolfe, resplendent as always in his tailored white suit, explains that Thompson created this character and its uniform/costume and felt the burden of living up to his legendary exploits. He was a captive of his own creation.

While it is difficult to understand how someone with such self-destructive tendencies captured the respect of so many close to him, Thompson is truly an interesting and fascinating topic and was right in the middle of much of the history of the 60's and 70's. Quietly narrated by Thompson's friend, Johnny Depp, the film uses many topical songs selections to accompany moments in time.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Paging Dr. Gonzo
Seamus282931 July 2008
Let's face it, either you loved or hated the life & words of the late Dr.Hunter S.Thompson,you have to admit...he was a piece of work. This documentary attempts to delve into the life (and head)of Thompson (not always with success,but don't let that throw you). The film (narrated by Johnny Depp,who played Thompson in 'Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas',some years back,making him a natural for the job)delves back to his association with the Hells Angels in the mid 1960's (which ended badly),to his being embraced by the whole Hippie counter culture of the later half of that era (along with massive intakes of various drugs),to writing several novels in the early to mid 1970's,to his subsequent downward spiral (in the creative sense),to his eventual death in 2005,by suicide (and his unorthodox memorial service). Hunter Thompson managed to make a name for himself. What I admired was the fact that it goes out of it's way to prove that the sixties was not always the hippie utopia that the baby boomer's make it out to be. What I could have done without was some of the more forgettable music from the 1960's & 1970's (does anybody really want to hear Jimmy Buffet's 'Margaritaville'for the twenty thousandth time?---I sure as hell don't). Apart from that, 'Gonzo:The Life & Work Of Dr.Hunter S. Thompson' will be a "must see" for those who tend to embrace the counter culture, rather than pop culture/trash culture.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Gonzo The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson...Buy the ticket, take the ride.
juliankennedy2317 November 2009
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson: 6 out of 10: Is Hunter S Thompson any more relevant to modern journalism than Joe Namath is to modern football? After all, both were men of their times. In addition, both faded badly by the mid-seventies. Thompson's early work is excellent (a copy of "The Proud Highway" sits on my bookshelf) and reached its pinnacle with Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.

A mere three years later Rolling Stone publisher Jenn Warner had become so fed up with Thompson he basically tried to have him killed.

As Gonzo.org puts it "Then, early one evening in March 1975, Hunter was watching a nightmarish film of the evacuation of Da Nang on the evening news. The phone rang, and Hunter picked it up. It was Wenner, saying, "How would you like to go to Vietnam?" Hunter could not resist. The collapse of the American empire was a happening tailor-made for his talents. Within days, he was heading out over the Pacific. He arrived in Saigon hours after Thieu's palace had been bombed and staffed by his own Air Force. For a man who lived with the conviction that the world was going to end next Monday, this was an especially ominous portent. Thompson had the sense of "walking into a death camp." This was it. He would never get out alive. As it turned out, the fate that was in store for him was even worse. Thompson discovered that, even as he was on his way to Vietnam, Wenner had taken him off retainer - in effect, fired him - and with the retainer went his staff benefits, including health and life insurance." Also leaving him no way out of Vietnam... a one-way ticket if you will.

Dude that is cold...

And that is the very nature of the problem with this documentary. Why is not this story mentioned? Who knows? It certainly was a turning point in Thompsons life (He apparently became more withdrawn and paranoid afterwards... understandably so) Gonzo is a pollyanna look at Thompson. The abuse of his first marriage gets a glancing look and all the interviewees (Including Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan and Jenn Werner) seem hesitant to speak ill of the dead.

The fact that in a few short years Thompson turned from a well-respected writer into a Muppet and Doonesbury cartoon is not covered well. The fact is mentioned but the reasons are glossed over. It is as if the film is worried that by mentioning his failures it will reduce his significance.

Yet, I would argue that Thompson's effect on Journalism is larger than he gets credit for. Reporters nowadays often ignore facts, concentrating instead on how events make them feel. Anderson Cooper crying during the Hurricane Katrina coverage threatened to become a bigger story than the storm itself. (He was not helped when fellow Mensa candidate Wolf Blitzer said "You simply get chills every time you see these poor individuals…many of these people, almost all of them that we see are so poor and they are so black") The documentary never really focuses on this aspect either. Gonzo seems to fear pulling back any of the masks its subject wears presumably scared of what it might find. Gonzo would have been better served concentrating on one period of time and focusing its energies.

That said, for those unfamiliar with Hunter S Thompson outside of his Muppet form this is a good start. Moreover, if it gets people to read his early work so much the better.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Story of a contradiction
paul2001sw-127 July 2009
Hunter S. Thompson was an often astute commentator of American life, and an always astute commentator of his own mental disintegration, a process driven by his own enthusiastic use of mind-altering drugs; a gun freak who opposed American involvement in Vietnam; and a critic of capitalism who became, pretty much, the living embodiment of his own brand. He also, years after his best work was done, died by shooting himself. This documentary provides insight into his strange journey, which does have a tragic dimension: the values of the life he lived, the adulation he received for living it and the damage it did to him appear in the end inseparable. By the end, he was still celebrated (by new generations of kids who love to get high) but no longer relevant, his final act a desperate (and arguably failed) plea for attention. This documentary tells us much of the story, mostly interestingly, though there are times when it fails to disentangle the process it describes, the overwhelming of man by self-created myth. Still, while it's the prerogative of every generation to feel jaded, I find it hard to imagine another figure like Hunter emerging today, if only because a large part of his quality was that no-one expected him. But the film reminds you of another part as well: he could certainly write.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting Bio-Pick, But Did Not Fully Explore the Man
michael_the_nermal29 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This film was pretty decent; it was made by the same guy who created the brilliant documentary on Enron, and the quality was evident. I understand that two hours is plenty of time for a documentary on a semi-famous writer best known for his books on the Hells Angels and his drug-fueled adventures in Las Vegas, but I didn't feel completely satisfied with this movie. The movie ought to have spent more time on Hunter Thompson's boyhood and youth. Why did he go into writing? When did he begin? Did his time in the Air Force influence his later career? There was no elucidation on Thompson's nascent work, such as the recently-published "Rum Diary." I had a feeling that much of Thompson's career as a writer stemmed from the experiences of his youth. Just how did he get that job at "The Nation", which led to his articles on the Hells Angels? This movie should have focused more on that, rather than the inordinate amount of time it spent on the 1972 election.

The movie seemed like a paean to the man and his writing, but it provided balance by citing his destructive behavior and its toll on loved ones. The comments by Thompson's first wife were especially poignant, and her feelings about his suicide were the most mature and heart-felt of any in the documentary. It is from Thompsn's ex-wife that the viewer gets a relatively full picture of the man, for here was a woman who knew him as well as anyone, and could describe the good and bad of the man in all of its gritty detail.

Some of the film seemed a bit creepy, but that's probably because it reflected off the weird vibes of Hunter Thompson and his followers. Johnny Depp has a wonderfully sonorous voice, perfect for reading excerpts of Thompson's work. It was really odd to see Depp get into his narration by holding a pistol up with his right hand while he read a leaflet from Thompson's ill-fated campaign for sheriff of Pitkin County, Colorado; on the front of the leaflet is Thompson's "gonzo" symbol. I guess Depp wants to play the part of the cool hipster in this scene by showing how down he is with the counterculture; but, lest we forget, he *was* in three rather lame CGI-laden Disney blockbusters as a not-too-funny, dopey, effeminate, so-called pirate. But I digress (which I love doing).

This movie really didn't elucidate what exactly "gonzo journalism" is, other than the following: it involves heavy editorializing and the imposition of personal opinion on events, laced with sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek humor; including yourself in the story; searching for hope and morality in the most immoral of people and places; and, as a matter of course, getting stoned and zonked on hallucinogenic drugs and alcohol. (Ironic that most people know the word "Gonzo" as the name of the lovelorn blue weirdo Muppet from "Muppet Babies"; wonder how Thompson felt about that?)

Confession: I've not read a thing by Thompson, but have heard of him and his reputation as a counterculture icon of sorts. Overall, the film was decent, and I might read some of Thompson's writing as a result of what I saw in this movie. I hope that's what that film will do for others as well.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Surprisingly wonderful
gws-25 October 2009
Hunter S. Thompson was a supremely funny man but, alas, was a deeply unhappy one. Thompson's political positions could have hardly been more different from my own. Nevertheless, I admired his work because he was such an original and so entertaining. I did so mainly because I knew better than to ever take him seriously. Unfortunately, Thompson never learned to not take himself too seriously and that failing led to his self destructiveness and, ultimately to his suicide.

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson is a mostly loving look at Thompson through the eyes of many of his friends and the politicians he wrote about. It shows a man with a profoundly dichotomous nature: creativeness and wit on its positive side but dark, self destructive depression on the other. It created the richly entertaining Gonzo journalist who those of us who admired his work so enjoyed but also planted the seeds for his depression and death.

Near the end of the film, Thompson's first wife, Sondi, takes issue with those who characterize Thompson's suicide as "heroic." I think she has a point. Thompson had largely fallen from the public eye some years before he killed himself in 2005 at the age of 67. In a note delivered to his wife four days before his death, which was described by both his family and the police as a suicide note, Thompson wrote, under the title "Football Season is Over":

"No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax — This won't hurt."

That about sums it up.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great documentary for fans and non-fans
frenchiesh27 January 2008
I saw the Premiere at Sundance 2008 in Park City, Utah. I am not a Hunter S. Thompson fan but after seeing the documentary I got a better idea of who he was. Only negative feedback. The documentary was about his life but some periods were not as covered as some other. Too much of the 1972 Presidential Campaign is an example. I regret not having staying for the Q&A with the director and the film crew because he might have had an explanation to why he covered some periods of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson life. He might not have wanted to make this too biographical sort of Biography Channel documentary. Lots of personal footage were included in that documentary and also great interviews with the key people in his life.
11 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Mostly a Snoozefest
arfdawg-116 February 2020
There's nothing new here and most of it is rather boring. Depp's narration is even more sleep inducing. What a bore.

What we really want to see is Hunter talking. Not clips and 60's music and periphery characters telling you about him. Who cares?
2 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The function of the social critic
onepotato28 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie tracks the enthralling, bizarre, in-your-face work of Gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson from dizzying rock-star heights to the ravages of excess, decline and self-parody; the usual unforgiving life-story arc. Think Jack Kerouac ...only with violence and politics. George Burns was known to say "Fame is a hideous bitch goddess." and both are present here. The goddess can be found in his rising star, and fame on his own terms. It becomes a hideous bitch as Thompson ages and finds no place of honor waiting for him (just as he expected).

I have no interest in drug use (the film shows much), but it's simply amazing to see someone live out the all too rare "maverick" story arc that we're supposed to have so much of in America. In reality this happens about twice a century, because nothing frightens the average American quite like individuality or freedom. Thompson follows his conscience, his own style, his talent and eccentricities, and compromising none of them, actually parlays them into fame. Mere talent doesn't lead to fame anymore, without handlers. Think about those two concepts; Hunter S. Thompson and "handlers." Ha hah... As horrible as the '70s were, anyone who only has the eighties and the nineties in their psyche, is missing the codex that explains those decades, and doesn't even know it; doesn't even know the blandness we're swimming in. In a freak of timing, a mouthy malcontent was exactly what that decade needed, and lucked into the right forum (Rolling Stone).

This is a thought-provoking movie that I'll be thinking about more this week. It also offers a glimpse of Ralph Steadman's astonishing work and working style.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Tremendous Trip Down Memory Lane
harborrat282 August 2008
I don't know a lot about Thompson although I did read the Hell's Angels book a couple of times and I saw (the very awful) Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I have always felt that he was a man I prefer never to meet in person and wouldn't have wanted him for a neighbor. Although I am very much a child (??) of the sixties, I was more mouth than intellect. As a young lawyer, I was active of the civil rights and anti-war movements, but didn't have much interest in political campaigns. Hated Nixon and voted for whoever the Democratic candidate was.

Thus I am surprised how much I enjoyed this movie. It brought back the sixties and seventies very vividly--the music and the documentary footage was very effective.

Yes, it was fairly uncritical of Thompson. Tellingly, however, it closed with his ex-wife taking umbrage with the statement that his suicide was "heroic." As it is with most suicides, his was the act of a terribly angry man who was bound to show us how much we would miss him. Well, I'm still around & so is his wife & so many others. I actually felt sorry for him...I wonder if he ever had a truly happy day.

This movie, then, for me, should have been subtitled "The Times of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson," because that was where it was most successful.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
pouring wine in a vase
RResende9 October 2008
I saw this inserted in a festival. Festivals are great occasions. There is a mood in the air, which invites us to see new things, ambitious ones. Most of the time, it must be said, i see failures, some glorious, others pure crap. But the possibility to see new surprise life altering creations compensates for all the eventually boring proofs we might have to endure. This little documentary is something of an exception in these types i described.

As a film in itself it has little value. It's a collection of photographs, testimonies, old videos and testimonies made for the documentary, with a plus, Johnny Depp narrating Thompson. It is tailored like the serial documentaries the Discovery or History channel usually makes. But i actually enjoyed it. For one reason, i was ignorant about many of the aspects in his life, namely the politic involvements, which is a contradiction, among others, in the life of a counter-culture icon.

Anyway, it's the very facts of Thompson's life that move the whole thing, and sparks the whole interest this may have. Because there was something that displeased me, a kind of formal contradiction which nevertheless is fun to find: H.Thompson was important as a writer, fundamentally because he broke forms, and in the process created a genre on its own. His kind of writing is essentially visual, which means it's also potentially cinematic - Gillian understood this, but in 'Fear and Loathing...' he was either to literal in his interpretation, or to attached to his own vision, so though he made a good piece, he was not fully faithful to Thompson. The visual quality of his writings can be tested in this documentary, whenever Depp reads. It's powerful, and probably more effective than any of the footage used. There lies the contradiction. The documentary is vulgar, it uses a worn out formula for serial documentaries, equivalents to the kind of dull journalistic writing Thompson wanted to evade. See my point?

So, probably, Hunter will last for what he wrote, not for what he 'was'. After all, it's not uncommon or specially thrilling the kind of things he effectively did. Though that provided most of the juice and energy he puts in his writings, it's not the orgies, or the guns, or the acids that make his life worth knowing.

Nevertheless, Thompson would perfectly incarnate the mood of a film festival. That's a complement.

My opinion: 3/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good!
davideno13 October 2008
I really liked this movie. It's basically like watching one of those history channel shows about the 60's, and as the thing proceeds you see all the major events and the material nicely accented by the personal story of Hunter S. Thompson.

It's more like the craze years : a personal story than a documentary on Hunter S. Thompson.

As for the documentary aspect about the late father of Gonzo which many fan's that part of the plot is also carried out quite well. I think honestly they go a little overboard about how much influence the guy had, but the story is at its heart honest. The producers make Hunter into more of a tragic hero, a man consumed by his and others need for him to be a generational icon and then the story of both the world and more importantly the man coming to terms with stark reality.

Honestly, the movie is great. I would recommend it to anyone.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good chronicle, unremarkable film
jefflawshe14 November 2009
Gonzo is a traditional documentary in which the director remains mute behind the camera, allowing the subjects to develop the story independent of outside commentary. The film's foundation is its subject matter--not the fireworks of post-Michael-Moore documentary film making.

If you're into the Hell's Angels, drug culture, gun culture, psychological and sometimes real violence, the 60s, the 70s, Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, Tom Wolfe, Neal Cassidy, Rolling Stone, Haight-Ashbury, and, most importantly Hunter S. Thompson (aka Raoul Duke) himself--if you're into that kind of thing--this film will work for you.

I am into that kind of thing--but mostly because I'm intellectually fascinated by the prototypes of many of the people I've chosen to surround myself with now. You have to understand that a film like this is sort of about my imaginary ancestors. Or maybe the imaginary ancestors of a family I've loosely adopted as my own.

I'm a seven-time participant in Burning Man. The people I know (whether they admit it or not), are still carrying the torch for pranksterism and hippydom. And if I wasn't so square myself, I'd probably be even deeper in the middle of what the counterculture has become. I appreciate tranquility and sanity too much to be more than a voyeuristic observer in this experiment. It's not dead quite yet, believe me.

About that intellectual curiosity: I've never really been able to tease apart my ambivalent feelings towards Hunter S. Thompson. I've read Hell's Angels, seen Johnny Depp in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, seen Bill Murray in Where the Buffalo roam. I admire Thompson's success and enjoy his writing.

But on the other hand, my admiration is tainted by a small part of something negative--maybe disgust or distrust, or maybe just spiteful envy that someone could become so successful primarily by flaunting moral and journalistic convention.

The movie helped me see the man more than the character--and I have a much deeper appreciation for his experience of reality: for Hunter's experience, and what it led him to do. I don't know that the film resolved my ambivalence, but it certainly helped me not to be quite so judgmental.

What fascinates me the most about this era is not the traditional narrative that pits the authority against the counter-cultural freaks. What continues to fascinate me is the way in which the so-called 'failure' of the era was really just the final, incontrovertible admission that the counterculture was another facet of the mainstream culture, and that there were easy ways in which the latter could bend itself into an acceptable version of the former.

In today's context, it's nearly unthinkable to me that a person like Thompson could not only make a living but really be quite successful by adopting outrageousness and rebellion for its own sake.

Somehow, even then, when long-haired (or bald-headed in Thompson's case) rock-infused freakiness was still too nascent to have found its way into the stripmall mainstream, there were people who managed to make money off of the system while mouthing off about it at every opportunity.

And maybe that's what made the movement so absolutely enticing as a force of social revolt: because it had the money to make revolution not just a moral imperative, but also really really fun.

For all of its outsider mentality and oppression complex, the counterculture was still white, still disproportionately privileged, still more capable of wielding its resources to create a reality other than the one presented to its members at birth.

It remains to be seen whether that's something we should really feel ashamed of, or whether it's just a good thing to keep in mind as we launch our future projects as DIY culture-builders.

The ability to reshape one's cultural reality without drastically impacting one's economic future is, arguably, the greatest privilege we whites have maintained over time. I truly wish everyone could experience that kind of freedom.

Hunter S. Thompson personifies the problem of white outsiderness to me. He was the bad boy and people with money liked the spectacle. Didn't seem like he felt any pressure to assimilate.

Because ultimately he was producing more (social and material) capital than the suits and minor politicians he ridiculed. Was he really any more pure of the taint of money and privilege than they were, or was he just smarter about it? Should I despise him for his fame and spectacle, or should I feel proud that some one made it while saying no to that stereotypical straw man we call normal? Like a lot of author bios this film brought a third dimension to Thompson--one I hadn't seen before. By listening to his struggles and the accounts of his friends, I learned who Hunter was beyond what he has come to represent in my head.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Life of the Father Of Gonzo Jouranlism!
razorramon-117 January 2009
No holds barred documentary covering the bizarre life of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson - the father of Gonzo journalism.

This film covers all his classic moments:Hell's Angels, Race for Sheriff of Aspen, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and on the Campaign Trail; Muhammad Ali vs. George Foreman, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, etc. The articles he wrote over several decades for Rolling Stone Magazine are given heavy perspective and no one represented the voice of the turbulent 60's and 70's like Hunter aka Raoul Drake.

Great soundtrack, clips & guest from Johnny Depp to Jimmy Buffett. The loss of a great voice we could really use today!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
What parts are re-creations?
jaygalvin14 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A lot of archival footage its clear, but it doesn't seem possible that Thomspon road around with his own video-agrapher. Assuming several scenes like him shooting the typewriters were recreated, why aren't the actors given credit?

i.e. IMDb is not about Gonzo-tainment, it supposed to be about the facts about a movie (or show) collected in a database, leave it to the reader to sort out what part is myth, etc.

There are a few names Pierre Adeli, Joe Cairo, are these the stand in actors?

I'm not sure why Gibney took artistic device in a documentary and chose not to put the names under some of the people talking into the camera. Three quarters of the way through the movie we find out that this woman commentator is his first wife. Took me awhile to figure out Pat Buchannon was and therefore I missed the irony of his comments.

One final question: Is it possible to write a Gonzo-hagiography if the subject's genius and attractiveness is so intentionally inverted by himself (i.e. Duke, et al) He knew when he became a caricature of himself, so which part are we idolizing?

THX
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Gonzo journalism..
ZombieFlanders8 December 2008
Opening with Hunter S. Thompson's written reactions to seeing 9/11 unfold on TV, Alex Gibney's Gonzo thrusts us into the idea of Hunter first as a journalist, a rebel, a successful writer, a political campaigner and finally a man, the product of all his excesses, who was loved and admired by many. In-between detailing the author's rebellion, out of control gun enthusiasm and drug use, we focus on only three major writings of his - his breakthrough novel; Hell's Angels, his most popular work, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas and arguably his best work; Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.

Gibney gives us a cross section of interviewees, hearing mainly from his former wives and son, Juan Thompson, various ex-politicians including George McGovern and Jimmy Carter plus his Rolling Stone editor and contacts during his prolific 1970's period. Friends and peers are present too of course; Ralph Steadman, Tom Wolfe, Jimmy Buffet, but most notably Gibney avoids the trap of having an onslaught of celebrities reminisce about Hunter which helps to give the audience a more serious view of his importance to journalism and American politics, at the same time successfully evading or rehashing comments or ideas from Tom Thurman's 2006 documentary, Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride.

It's put together with a professional pace, combining large amounts of archival footage and photos with narration by Johnny Depp, who reads from - and is sometimes shown reading, relevant passages from Hunter's writings. The biggest coup, however, is hearing various excerpt from Hunter's own tape recorder - showcasing unique "in the moment" time capsules with the writer whilst on his wild escapades of gonzo journalism.

Ironically, the film's most clunky moment is when focusing on his most popular novel, F&L in Las Vegas. The director spends too much time showing clips from Terry Gilliam's film adaptation and not enough exploration via the interesting Depp reading device or Hunter's at the time comments - the segment certainly stamps the novels importance, but the overuse of movie footage broke up the tone a bit for me. It's a rare moment of ill judgment on Gibney's part, but the following sections on his political campaigning alongside George McGovern and his influence as a journalist on American politics during the late 60's, early 70's retain the best moments of the documentary alongside an earlier part which shows in detail Hunter's attempts to run for Sheriff of Aspen, Colorado. These are poignant moments and one where ex-wife, Sandi Hunter recalls it being Hunter's greatest moment, "having the passion to move people".

As the film moves onto Hunter's suicide, the tone shifts and even though his son admits "that it was no secret" his father had planned to kill himself for many years, there's a difference between that and it actually happening. Above all, the emotion is still clear on some of the interviewees during this part, recorded not three years after the event. Appropriately, we are shown the construction of the "gonzo fist" tower Hunter had organized for his funeral and we're left with the feelings of if only he'd waited, or perhaps not killed the man over the myth. A man that Tom Wolfe describes as probably being "trapped in Gonzo".

Though not definitive, Gonzo is definitely recommended for fans of Hunter Thompson, anyone with an interest in American politics or who just want to see what effect a true visionary can have on people and culture.

4/5
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A portrait of Hunter S. Thompson
Bored_Dragon18 November 2018
I do not like documentaries and I do not like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", but this is really worth a look.

7/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Hunter Thompson was a son of a gun! See this doc to learn on his bullseyes and misfires of his life!
meeza9 August 2009
Can you just imagine if there was another Hunter S. Thompson twin with the equivalent eccentricities as Gonzo himself? That would be pretty scary, because one Gonzo is all we needed. Love him, hate him, or unsure sometimes on how to judge him (as yours truly) there will never be another Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. Renowned documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney gets the write stuff on depicting Thompson's roller-coaster life in the doc "Gonzo: The Life & Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson". I was perplexed on how much Hunter footage Gibney was able to hunt down, and on the diverse group of popular people who were willing to be interviewed for the doc. For those of you who lived under caves in the 60's or 70's or who were not embryos yet, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson was a no-holds barred journalist whose inclusive, illustrative, and candid writing style became a revolutionary literary art form entitled Gonzo. Thompson's human brand was of liquor, hallucinogens, guns, cigarette holders, sunglasses, zany hats, and fast gab. While his writing brand consisted of political conservative bashing, American dream searching surreal trips, and ruckus to the stable establishment. His infamous literary themes were the Hell's Angels adventures, the 1972 Presidential Election, and the Fear & Loathing series. Hunter was an adjunct reporter for Rolling Stones magazine and his most successful books were "The Rum Diaries" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". The documentary discloses all of the aforementioned with revealing footage of his distinct life & work. Not to mention (I think I did mention) edifying interviews with those who loved, tolerated, or despised him including: Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan, rocker Jimmy Buffet, former Presidential candidates Gary Hart & George McGovern, Hells Angels' leader Sonny Barger, Hunter's first wife Sandi Wright, second wife Anita Thompson, son Juan, and a roundabout of others. Thompson was his own contradictive existence as he sporadically despised some of the same behaviors he would interject himself in. And Gibney successfully articulates that theme in some of the film's disclosures. Hunter sadly committed suicide in 2005 by a self-inflicted gunshot to the head. It was in his disposition that is the way he wanted to leave Planet Earth, but somehow is still shocked many it would actually happen, present company included. The only aspect of Hunter's existence that still baffled me, and was not presented in the doc, is how this guy was able to avoid hangovers. Maybe he had some Hemingwayism in him, but Hunter was an everyday Wild Turkey man, and maybe that long term abuse was an adrenaline rush; but there is still something called Hangovers that causes all humanoids to eradicate their cerebral function. It did not seem to affect Thompson's diverse knowledge & memory. Maybe Hunter was one of a kind. I doubt it. Maybe if Gibney had researched this Hunter phenomenon, we would now why he was not Gonzo many times due to his massive drinking. Nevertheless, "Gonzo: The Life & Times of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson" is a cinematic documentary journey that is worthy enough to buy the ticket and take the ride. Therefore, no need to fear and loathe seeing this Gonzo bio doc. **** Good
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed