'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' at the Beverly Theater

This week, we review FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS (1998, 118 minutes) Directed by Terry Gilliam.  Playing at The Beverly, November 26. For tickets and info: The Beverly Theater

It is 1971, and journalist Raoul Duke barrels toward Las Vegas—accompanied by a trunkful of contraband and his slightly unhinged Samoan attorney, Dr. Gonzo—to cover a motorcycle race. What should be a cut-and-dried journalistic assignment quickly descends into a feverish psychedelic odyssey. Director Terry Gilliam and an all-star cast, headlined by Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro, show no mercy in bringing Hunter S. Thompson’s excoriating dissection of the American way of life to the screen, creating a film both hilarious and savage.

Credits:
Email us: [e-mail]
 
HOSTS - Davey Parks, Simona Grigonis, Jeff Wallitsch
 
Production Sound Mixer - Angelica-Rose Keenum

Co-Producer/Editor - Lilly Richie

PRODUCERS - Tom Bjelic, Sam Decker

EXECUTIVE PRODUCED BY - Adam Paul, Roudi Boroumand 

To read the hosts' reviews, head over to substack.com/thefilmdeptpodcast
 
This semester, The Film Department has teamed up with the mad geniuses of The Beverly Theater. Imagined by The Rogers Foundation, The Beverly Theater brings cinematic connectivity, novel collaborations, live happenings, cultural portals, and a zest for independent spirits to DTLV. With a mission to stage uncommon cinematic, literary, and live experiences, The Beverly Theater is Las Vegas’ first and only independent film house, storytelling arena, and live music venue.
For the latest screenings and events at The Beverly, visit thebeverlytheater.com
 
The Film Department Podcast is supported by UNLV Film. At the film department of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, every story has a beginning.With degree programs for undergraduates and graduates, state of the art equipment and facilities, incredible professional internships around the world, and expert guest speakers, students discover the power and potential of cinema as they prepare for the film and television industry… and beyond.
 
Learn more at UNLV.EDU/FILM UNLV Film. Find your voice. Tell your story.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
The Film Department is supported by UNLV Film.

(00:04):
At the Film Department of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, every story has a beginning.
With degree programs for undergraduates and graduates, state-of-the-art equipment and
facilities, incredible professional internships around the world, and expert guest speakers,
students discover the power and potential of cinema as they prepare for the film and

(00:24):
television industry and beyond.
Learn more at unlv.edu/film.
UNLV Film.
Find your voice.
Tell your story.
Welcome to the Film Department, the official movie review podcast and more of UNLV Film.

(00:53):
This semester, we'll be discussing film screening at our sister picture house, the Beverly
Theatre Las Vegas's only independent theatre and performance venue.
I'm D.V. Parks, a fourth year film major, about to graduate, and I'm really excited to
talk about today's film, but first I'm joined by...
Hello, I'm Jeff, I'm a third year film major, I'm the president of Freight Club, and I'm
also excited to talk about today's movie, D.V.

(01:15):
Hello, I'm Samona, I'm also a third year film major, and I'm really excited to see
what you guys have to say about this movie and hopefully you'll get me on one of your sides.
UNLV is the point to become the best film school in the country.
Now, what we've heard about today is a game-changing opportunity to report off-language

(01:38):
at the entertainment cap.
The possibility is now, let's think, this is possible, to make sure that your voices are
heard in favor of one of our other studios in the back.
Can't wait to hear that.
Today's panel is moderated by Dr. Heather Addison, chair and professor of UNLV film.
Dr. Addison has led the department for nine years in teaching film history, the criticism

(02:01):
and theory forces.
The former chair of UNLV film Dr. Hardfegner was good friends with Chuck Jones, one of
the one of those geniuses and a principal animator for Bugs Bunny.
Chuck Jones recalled that a small child once told him, "You don't draw Bugs Bunny, you
draw pictures of Bugs Bunny."

(02:22):
And Jones later observed, "That was a profound observation for me because it means he thinks
that the characters are alive, which is for us I'm concerned is true, and I feel the
same way about animation.
It isn't an illusion of life, it is life."
He quote, "That is what Warner Bros.

(02:42):
produced for over a century, the magic of bringing life to the screen in its characters,
the stories and stars.
The Warner Bros has been part of the history of cinema, every step of the way since the
very beginning, inspiring and delighting audiences all across the world.
We look forward to collaborating with them for the next century of that incredible history."

(03:05):
"You know, I have the pleasure of wearing many, many different hats, but I know which
I'm wearing today."
"For me, we're here for you guys, students, and what an exciting time for all of us to think

(03:30):
we are going to grow an industry, not quite from the ground zero, but ensuring that we give
an opportunity to every single person in all of our communities.
That we create a workforce that mirrors our communities around us.

(03:53):
What a unique opportunity, and you guys are on right at the beginning of this journey.
And if we can join hands together, we're going to achieve something really special for
the state of Nevada, is our commitment to the state is content spend equally or exceeding

(04:17):
$8.5 billion over 15 years.
We'll have a 14 stage facility, workshops, mill, offices, everything that is required to
ensure we maximize the benefits that will come from the new tax incentive."

(04:37):
"We're going to get on and work with you guys now.
We're not waiting to start a partnership for the legislation to pass.
We're here for a reason.
We believe in actions, speak louder than words, and you're going to see a lot of us."
So we hope to break ground somewhere around the last quarter of next year.

(05:03):
And that's going to take two to three years to actually build a studio facility.
But we want to get going pretty much straight away.
So myself and colleagues have already been out speaking to the filmmaking community that
already exists here.
We've been talking to a number of the facilities that already exist here, so that we could

(05:28):
hit the ground running as soon as the bill passes.
And I hope to see some of you on some of those shows that we're going to be making.
"WBD will host a series of panel discussions featuring industry experts to offer students
valuable insights into career opportunities within the entertainment industry."
I think you've done that.

(05:50):
Student Advisory Committee.
In partnership with UNLV, WBD will establish a student advisory committee to provide input
on this process.
So you will have a voice in what this partnership means.
We will provide UNLV students with an exclusive advanced screenings for the upcoming films
at TV premieres.
We will offer five UNLV rising juniors and seniors a paid six weeks summer internship

(06:19):
with a housing sign event at one of our studio's perfect.
We are providing hands-on experience in departments such as lighting, room costume,
property, studio's post-production, etc.
I think that's a pretty good step forward.
I knew it.

(06:40):
[Music]
Before we dive into this week's movie, I wanted to talk a little bit about what's going
on at UNLV Film here.
Recently we just had an incredible talk with the folks over at Warner Brothers.
Warner Brothers Discovery, I believe now.

(07:02):
Talking about the potential for the future of the film industry here in Las Vegas.
There's been a lot of news in terms of the construction of new media campuses and film studios
down here as well as a lot of action going on in the legislator involving new tax
incentives for film studios down here.

(07:24):
I wanted to reach out to you guys and see what your perspectives were.
I'm about to graduate.
You guys have about a year left.
How you feeling about this new collaboration between the studio and UNLV and the future
of film in Vegas looks like?
Yeah, I went to the panel on Wednesday and I thought there was a lot of good information

(07:46):
and it seems like they're really eager to start working with students.
It's really hopeful for what's to come.
I don't know.
I think this could lead to so many good opportunities and that's pretty much what I got out of hearing
they had to say.
That's cool.
I did not go to the panel.

(08:07):
I saw the live stream.
It seems great.
It was a really great conversation.
Yeah, I'm excited about it too.
It's not something that I don't think we're going to be able to benefit from because we're
both graduating I think within a year.
It seems like they said it's going to take a couple of years to build the studio out here.
For you future UNLV film students, I mean, good for you guys.
That sounds awesome.
Yeah, for sure.

(08:27):
I think even in retrospect, once we get our degrees and when those few years come, I think
graduating from a film school that has such a tight association with the studios and the
industry that's starting to flourish out here will be beneficial to us maybe in the long
run.
I'm just excited to finally have something outside of Mr. Beast videos.

(08:48):
But, you know, sort of secondary film studios coming out here having that sort of involvement
and getting to involve the local IATSee in film productions instead of getting California
crews out to come to Vegas to work on stuff.
So just all in all, the future is looking pretty bright for you and I'll be film and just
the film industry here in Vegas in general.

(09:10):
So, yeah, we're looking forward to it.
I think it's time to discuss this week's movie, which is Fair and Loading in Las Vegas directed
by Terry Yelian released in 1998, I believe.

(09:30):
1998.
"Palm to Oranomani" did not win.
Very polarized reviews when it came out.
Some people loved it.
Some people hated it.
I'll go ahead and ask you guys what are your thoughts on this movie?
Starting with Simone.
I am very much in the middle.
There are things that I love about this movie and other things that just kind of like really

(09:55):
frustrate me about it.
And I kind of, I've seen this twice and it seems like both times I kind of got exhausted
by the end.
Certainly, it's a very exhausting movie.
I totally get that.
I guess just a little bit of backstory.
I had always heard about Fair and Loading in Las Vegas, mostly good things.

(10:17):
My first time watching it was, I don't know if I'm sure you guys know, but Barnes and Noble
has their semi-annual criterion collection sale.
So I went and I saw it and I was like, "I bought it and that's something I don't normally
do.
I don't usually like to buy movies before seeing them because I don't want to waste 20
bucks."
But I took a chance because I was like, "I have a feeling I'm going to like this movie.
It just seems I love psychedelic audacies."

(10:39):
So I was like, "This seems like my type of movie."
And I absolutely loved it.
I've seen it like, this was like probably a year ago in the past year.
I've probably seen it like five times honestly and it just gets better for me each time.
I've read the book.
I think it's a truly, truly great movie and I'm excited to debate with you about this one
TV.
So not to psychoanalyze you, but many things you were trying to justify that purchase after
watching the movie.

(11:00):
No.
So I was thinking, "Couldn't guess, I do not like this movie.
I think just to quickly go over how I feel about it, I think this is a very gluttonous movie."
In terms of, you know, it has a lot in the way of style and not a whole lot in the way of
substance.

(11:20):
I'm a big fan of the book, Fear and Loading in Las Vegas by Honduras Thompson.
I remember I read it for a high school English assignment and just really found myself
sinking into it and I was so excited to watch the movie and I watched the movie and I didn't
enjoy it and I, you know, a few years later I thought, "Well, maybe I should give it another
chance.
I'll watch it again.

(11:41):
Didn't enjoy it."
And this time for the podcast, I decided, "Well, you know, I didn't like those last two
times, maybe.
Maybe there was something I missed that I, you know, we'll see now and I just did not
enjoy it again.
I think what I'm always surprised about is how much of this movie I don't remember and
I think that sort of speaks to how much of it just kind of passes me by.

(12:04):
You know, a movie with the insanity and the just crazy things that go on in it.
You feel like you would remember a lot of the stuff that happens in it, but I'd say I
watch this movie and a good 60% of it just goes right out the other year.
But yeah, I guess in terms of why you guys kind of attach it, like why, what works for you

(12:25):
personally?
Everything.
I love it.
I mean, I, well, I have also read the book as well.
I, I knew Hunter S. Thompson.
I think if you've heard of him, you just know him as like the drug guy.
That's what he's known for.
He's like this journalist that is just taking a ton of drugs and drinking and writing these
really crazy articles.

(12:46):
And so I knew that and I saw the movie first.
I didn't read the book, but after I saw the movie literally the day after I got the audio
book and I listened to it all in like one day.
It's a quick read.
It's not a very long book.
But what I, what really struck me was, wow, this is a great adaptation because there
are literally like monologues lined for line that are taken directly from the book.

(13:07):
There are moments that are literally taken word for word from the book.
I love Hunter S. Thompson's writing, you know, in terms of like the movie I know we're
not talking about the book in terms of the movie, what works for me.
I, I mean, it's just a lot.
First of all, I think that it's a movie that I think is a bit misunderstood.
And I think a lot of that comes from the perception of this movie.
I think you can trace that back to something as, you know, simple as the marketing for

(13:30):
it, right?
And you watch the original trailer for fear and loathing in Las Vegas.
It was marketed as like this wacky silly, you know, Johnny Depp, but Neseo del Toro fear
and like, you know, I mean, like that type of, and it's not that movie at all.
I think it's sure it on the surface.
It is absolutely a drug movie.
It's a stoner movie.
But I think there's a lot more going on underneath the surface in terms of a commentary.

(13:52):
It's, as I told my friend earlier, I think it's like an obituary for the counterculture
of the 60s.
And it delves really deep into sort of what happened to that culture, you know, the acid
culture and what happened to those people and how burnt out they were in the early 70s.
And we can like get further into it.
But I, yeah, I think that there's just a lot going on beneath the surface of this movie
besides obviously the fun, you know, comedy drugged out.

(14:15):
Whoa, you know, we're high on acid.
But yeah, and, you know, just really great performance is Johnny Depp is so good as Raul Duke,
and R.S. Thompson.
And if you've like seen Hunter S. Thompson in interviews, he just captures his mannerisms
so perfectly while also putting those, you know, Johnny Depp is in it for sure.
I think Benicio del Toro is great.

(14:36):
I think just performance is wise, like everything is great here.
You have so many just really awesome, like celebrity, not so bad, like just big actor names
who show up for like one scene.
I mean, obviously Toby McGuire was like the big one.
This is pre-spider, man, Toby McGuire.
You know, everyone who's in it is memorable camera and Diaz, Flee has a very memorable moment
in the movie as well.

(14:57):
So I mean, there's a lot that I love.
I won't get too in Depp yet.
But yeah, I would say that for me, this just, I can't think of a single thing in this movie
that really doesn't work for me, honestly.
So, huh?
For me, I love how visually insane it is.
It is such a stimulating movie.
I mean, it's just, I love the look of it.
It's great.

(15:17):
The production design is great.
Of course, the performances are great.
I just don't like that there is such a heavy focus on these drug-and-do states, because I
think that they kind of belittle the commentary that you were talking about.
You know, it's like, I kind of just realized that watching it the second time, but I, I mean,
being familiar with Hunter as Thompson's work and the book, I haven't read it, but I'm

(15:41):
still familiar with kind of, you know, what it focuses on.
I feel like that commentary should have been highlighted a bit more, and you just forget
it while watching these crazy moments.
Yeah.
I guess starting with one of my biggest gripes with the movie is, I think, as an adaptation,

(16:03):
I personally think it's incredibly lazy.
I think the movie approaches the adaptation.
I was reading about how they sort of went about adapting the book, and the screenwriter
himself said, "We cannibalize the story," in terms of just everything that's in the book
happens in the movie.
And like Jeffrey said, you know, there are just entire monologues and direct lines, which

(16:27):
are just lifted off the page and put into the screen.
And I think that that doesn't really do anything with the story.
I think a much more interesting and a much more engaged film would have been much more critical
of Hunter-Hest Thompson and this sort of idea of access.

(16:48):
I feel that so much of this, like, this movie starts at such a high octane, like level 10 point.
And I think, Simone, this is kind of what you were getting at is, like, these characters
are high for the entire movie.
There's, I don't think, a single point in the film where they are sober, and to that extent,

(17:08):
it's really hard to ground your audience in it.
I think this movie is, like, visually very inspired, but the downside of that is with every
scene being just, like, such heightened colors, such heightened, like psychedelic vibes and
all that, like, you don't get a time to appreciate any of the individual shots or scenes in isolation,

(17:31):
because whatever you're looking at, that's visually very cool is followed up by something
that's even more visually gluttonous or excessive.
I think, as a whole, this movie feels to me very bloated.
It's almost two hours long, and I don't think it justifies the runtime at all.
I think this could have been an hour and twenty minutes, just because I feel like so much

(17:55):
of these scenes are just, you know, character whose high-on drugs goes to one place has a
trip, and then we bleed into the next scene where they're also high-on drugs tripping,
to know exactly like it keeps going, and I feel like if this movie had a bit more structure,
or even a bit more teeth, I do like the idea that this movie is sort of like this obituary

(18:21):
to the counterculture, but I think for that kind of statement to have a meaning, I think
there would need to be some kind of theme or motif, or some kind of element to it that
made it more than just this collection of scenes of tripping people in casinos and in hotel
rooms.

(18:42):
But yeah.
Well, I guess my first question would be, what book did you read?
Because in terms of like that book, it doesn't have a structure really either.
It plays out very similarly in terms of you have seen after seen of just, you know, Raul
and Dr. Gonzo, who are plug-ins for Hunter and then his friend Oscar Zeta Acosta, who
was a Chicano lawyer and activist.

(19:03):
Just before you keep going, the real story for how the real story that leaving Las Vegas
was based off of, way more interesting than the actual book itself, even though I love
the book.
But to kind of build off that, I think that that sort of rambling nature works a lot better
in a literary form than it does in a visual one, simply because reading someone's thoughts

(19:27):
jotted down in such a frenetic manner really communicates the sort of a mine state that
they're in.
But when we're visually watching that and we see Johnny Depp, you know, having these very
wide-eyed stairs walking with his bow-legged walk and, you know, they're talking each other
about Mescalin and mushrooms and cocaine, we already know that they're very out there.

(19:51):
I could only watch that for so long before I go, okay, well, like give me something else,
give me something I can actually think about, something I can actually bite into.
I feel like this movie is a lot of fat and not a lot of bone.
Well first of all, leaving Las Vegas and fear and loathing in Las Vegas are two different
stories.
Oh, yes.
I knew I was going to do that.

(20:11):
Leaving Las Vegas, so it's obvious, yeah.
I mean, I get what you're saying.
I think, you know, there's a lot of movies that I can draw comparisons to in terms of like
movies that are about access.
Like one that I just recently rewatched out that long ago would be like the Wolf of Wall
Street.
I mean, I think that's the very chaotic movie.
That's a movie about access and this is also a movie that's about access.
I think that's the exact point.
I mean, like, you know, in terms of like bones and wanting to find something to latch onto,

(20:35):
I just don't really think that that was ever the intention.
I don't think that was Thompson's intention when he wrote the book was that he wanted the
audience or the readers to be invested in these characters and like emotionally invested.
I just don't think that that was the intent.
So for me, that was never really a problem that I couldn't get like emotionally attached
to Raoul or Dr. Gonzo.

(20:56):
It's a movie again, like I said, it's about access and it's about this idea like having
these characters constantly not sober, constantly on drugs.
It adds to that sort of frenetic energy and again, it all kind of leads back to, you know,
you said there's like no theme.
I really, I think there is a theme, 100% I think in the book and in the movie.
And you could just go to the subtitle of the book, which is a savage journey into the heart

(21:19):
of the American dream.
And these are, you know, again, we're lamenting the downfall of the counterculture, we're
lamenting the downfall of the drug culture and these are like the, I would say caricatures
because they're not characters.
These aren't like real people and even Thompson himself has said that.
He said that just to kind of backtrack a little bit, right?
We have to talk about Gonzo journalism, right?

(21:39):
So the idea of Gonzo, which is 100% like attributed to Thompson, the idea is that this
is a first person's subjective account of an objective event of an objective story.
So, you know, the original stories that he was, you know, assigned to cover the Mint 400
in Las Vegas in the early 70s.
But I mean, like you even mentioned, oh, I think it was more interesting, the real story.

(22:00):
Well, the real story was that he was in the hotel room the entire time writing.
So I mean, like I totally understood it started as a piece of Gonzo journalism where it was
going to be like, this is my story of how I went to Vegas to cover the Mint 400 and I took
a bunch of drugs.
But it quickly became fiction.
It's not a piece of Gonzo journalism, it's a piece of fiction because he realized,
oh, this is kind of boring.
I'm just in my hotel room the whole time.

(22:21):
I need to like, spruce it up and have more outrageous things.
So for me, that kind of keeps my attention, the fact that it's not just a writer who's
just in his hotel room the whole time doing a bunch of drugs and writing.
That's certainly a part of it.
But you have so many great visual moments.
I mean, from the reptilian zoo when he's high on ass, I mean, that's just a great movie moment.

(22:43):
My personal favorite sequence in this entire movie is the Adrenal Chrome sequence.
I've did again, directly from the book Adrenal Chrome is not a real drug, but the effects
of it.
It's such a great shot sequence.
I mean, you have like this like super wide-angle lens.
It turns like hellish red.
It's such a great like almost like horrifying moment like it's straight out of a horror movie.
And so, you know, again, for me, it's not so much like, I don't see fear and loathing

(23:06):
as like a piece of great drama of like, oh my god, these characters, I'm so invested
in it.
It's more of like, again, it's an exercise in style.
It's an exercise in how outrageous and you know, just how decadent can we make it.
And so that just, I think it's personal for everybody, but for me, that doesn't really lose
me honestly.
Like, if anything, it makes me appreciate it more because it knows what it wants to be,

(23:29):
it commits to what it wants to be.
It doesn't pretend to be like anything else.
And it does have a central theme.
I think you just have to like really kind of, you know, look past the, and that's obviously
really hard to do.
I get it because it's a very like the drugs and the excesses like very much at the forefront.
But there's a lot, I think, under the surface and everything from, I mean, just the opening
of this movie, it starts with these, you know, images of Vietnam, the war, the protests.

(23:55):
There's just so much going on.
There's an American flag in like almost every scene.
So I mean, I guess to each his own, but yeah, for me, that's a big reason why this movie
works for me at least.
Yeah, I understand like the point of excess and I mean having it set in Las Vegas also
really, right, plays to that.
But I just, I mean, involving like Vietnam War, like, you know, all of this focus on, I

(24:20):
guess, this focus on American counterculture and the American dream and I think it is just
lost in the excess.
Like I just really, I totally forget about all that.
And I just think that it would give the film a bit more substance and just make it a bit
more hearty.
You know, I just, I really love everything like visual about it, but then it just gets

(24:44):
to a point where I'm just like how many more of these like hallucinations can I watch?
It kind of gets terrifying for me at some point.
And I'm like, how are they like alive?
I don't know.
I think, you know, the idea of excess is an interesting one and figuring out how to display
excess on film.

(25:05):
And I think anybody can put a buffet of colors and visuals and frenetic energy.
How many times have we set frenetic this episode?
Frenetic editing and just combinations of like these really interesting visual elements
and, you know, say like, oh, well, yeah, my movie is about excess and it's about gluttony.
But what is, but why?

(25:26):
Like that, I think that's, that's my big question is I walked away from this movie being like,
okay, well why?
Why was any of this important?
I think the version of fear and loathing in Las Vegas that I would have been more interested
in seeing in terms of structure would have followed like the structure of a drug trip.
You know, you have the come up, you have the peak and then you have the come down.

(25:48):
I think had we had that, you know, if we started with a sober or at least grounded Huntress
Thompson and, um, and route like, you know, just all of the two guys, if they were more
grounded at the start of the beginning and had that come up and that peak and that come
down, I feel like that would have been a much more visually interesting thing to watch

(26:10):
because if we're starting at 11, by the time we get to the peak where they take the adrenochrome
and, you know, we're doing these really cool things with color and with camera angle where,
you know, we're changing the shape of the lens to, you know, better suit the effects
that each drug has that they take and we're, we're pulling the focus in certain ways to

(26:31):
show, you know, their state of mind.
It's like you said someone, I feel like it's all kind of lost.
I think it gets sort of muddled because we've spent the last hour and 40 minutes, um, just
in a constant state of visual sensory overload.
Yeah.
I think I had read somewhere that someone did kind of relay, um, the movie itself to

(26:55):
that kind of like the, I guess the progress of being on drugs and I just didn't understand
that.
Yeah.
Yeah, I just didn't get that at all.
I think, um, but I think it would be interesting for it to be structured that way.
And I think there's more things that they could have played with in terms of, um, the passage

(27:16):
of time.
Um, you know, we, we, this movie has a lot of really interesting visual stuff with color
and, and, and composition and just like, oh, like now we're imagining lizards and dinosaurs
and, yeah, the, the check and ladies are more eel now.
Yes.
Um, but I think, you know, there's, there's other things that they could have played with,

(27:37):
like the editing and the, um, the passage of time in the film, which I feel like is not
at all accurate to what it's like being in the state of mind.
I wouldn't know personally.
I've never taken a drug ever in my life.
Uh, and I think that, that really speaks to this movie being more about how can we make

(27:57):
the audience feel and say, wow, that was really cool rather than actually engage with what
I think you're getting at, Jeffrey is like the theme, um, and thinking about the, the death
of the counterculture.
Um, well, a few things.
I mean, well, you mentioned the idea, because I've heard that before too.
I've heard a few people say like, I think the movie should have started with them sober

(28:17):
and then kind of gradually went up.
I completely disagree one again.
That's not how the book starts.
It starts exactly the same way the book starts with is, you know, the, we were somewhere
on barstone.
I do the desert when the drugs began to take hold and you just immediately have that awesome
shot of the red, um, I think it's a core of it.
I'm not sure what kind of a car.
Okay.
But anyways, you just, I love that it starts at 100 and it just keeps at 100 for the whole

(28:38):
movie.
I also think there are like moments that it does bring down the pacing quite a bit.
Um, my personal favorite sequence in the entire, well, I know I said the adrenochon.
There's so many great moments.
This is a great movie guys.
But um, the adrenochrom sequence is great, but also I think just the, it's also in my opinion,
the best part of the book as well is the San Francisco 60s flashback sequence where you
have, first of all, you have Jefferson Airplant singing a great song somebody to love.

(29:02):
Um, you have a, uh, Raoul going to the bathroom and he spills acid on his sleeve.
You have flea who's licking the acid off and you have that great monologue.
I wish I had it with me.
I don't have it memorized, but just this really great sort of encapsulation of the zeitgeist
of hippie culture.
And what it was, what it felt like to be there, what it felt like to know that you were a
part of that moment.

(29:23):
And as somebody who's always admired that culture, like I'm just like, wow, that's such a
great, um, just summary of what it must have been like.
Um, I also, uh, think that, um, another great moment where the movie's pacing, uh, comes
down.
It's, you know, a very, probably the most horrifying part of the movie is the diner sequence
at the end with the waitress.

(29:43):
That's a very like realistic scene, like everything from the setting, the acting.
It kind of like seems like the one moment where they're not high.
I mean, well, except for Robbie, you know, Gonzo, but, um, it's just such a great, like it,
it lets things breathe a little bit.
It lets so, I don't know, like for me, like the pacing, I don't think that it's like constantly
moving, I think it does have moments where it comes down.

(30:03):
Um, but also in terms of the idea of like simulating the structure, like a drug trip where
you have the come up and then you have the peak and you have the come down, like, that's
not the trip that they're going on in the book either.
Like in the book, the idea is not that they're taking, they're not taking one drug and then
it's like, they're going to be, no, the idea is that they're taking multiple and it's
speaking as somebody who has not done acid or mescaline.
Um, I, from what I understand, the idea is that when you get really deep into like these

(30:28):
really hardcore drug trips, you are taking other drugs to combat the effects that are maybe
not as good, right?
Like maybe you're getting paranoid, you're getting anxiety, like that great, great sequence
in these, it's called the bazooko circus.
It's supposed to be the circus, yeah.
It's the circus, yeah.
And the book, it's even the circus.
I don't know, I guess they couldn't get the rights to it for whatever reason, but either
way, you have that great moment and you have, you know, uh, Dr. Gondz was like, I think

(30:51):
I'm getting the fear.
And so I was like, well, what happens when you get the fear?
Well, you need something to like get rid of that.
So in their case, it's like it's cocaine and then it's acid and then it's, and so they're
constantly moving from drug to drug because they're trying to combat those effects.
So I just didn't, I never, I don't think Thompson's intention was for the structure to
simulate what it's like to take a drug.
It's more like, no, these guys are just on this insane binge.

(31:13):
And that's what the movie feels like.
It feels like a binge.
It feels like you're constantly moving from one state of mind to the next and that's reflected
in everything from the camera work, from the lighting like each, um, I forget the name
of the cinematographer of this movie, but I was reading this really great article earlier
that he was talking about the way they shot it and each drug has its own look and feel
in terms of how it was shot, right?

(31:34):
Like acid is very sort of wide lenses.
You get to the mescal and it's very sort of tight and very claustrophobic.
So in terms of like each drug moment, for me, what keeps it engaging, at least with me, is
the fact that it's constantly changing the look.
It's not like keeping a consistent look, you know, each drug has its own flavor almost.

(31:55):
And so that keeps me on my toes.
It keeps me excited to see, okay, what's next?
And then you get to adrenal cromens, like you're suddenly in hell, you know what I mean?
And then you're going there.
I also, I was just thinking about this too.
I do think there is one moment where they are sober, which would be, I think the scene
in the restaurant when Raoul gets, I mean, I don't know, maybe they probably are drunk or
something who knows, but I mean, that's kind of like a bit of a, like, they're not, you

(32:17):
know, like as crazy and drugged up.
But they leave without paying.
They did, yeah.
Also, that's just, yeah, them.
Well, Thompson said that that was so, because they asked Thompson the writer of the book,
like, what did you think of the movie?
And he gave it a glowing review.
He said, like, I love it.
I think it's a perfect adaptation.
The one thing he objected to was in that sequence, Raoul throws change at the little person

(32:42):
waiter and he's like, I would never do that.
Like that, that was too much.
So it's like, okay, well, that's his, that's what he had to say about it.
I think two things, like I think for me, this idea that like, oh, it's like a perfect adaptation.
Again, just goes back to like, man, I think people think it's a perfect adaptation because
it's, it's just the book.
I don't think it takes any creative liberties with the story.

(33:07):
I don't think it really goes out of its way to sort of challenge the narrative or the, the
character of Hunter S. Thompson or just what the book meant to the people who read it when
it came out.
I think I'd be more interested in watching one that was maybe a bit more critical of, you

(33:28):
know, the sort of person and perspective that both made the story and who was, the story
it was meant for.
But then again, you know, talking about, you know, things are constantly changing.
It's this very, you know, sort of fluid movie where we're constantly being treated with
a new drug, a new camera lens, a new camera angle, new visuals, something that is going

(33:54):
to change our perspective.
Again, if there's nothing to ground us in the first place, it just becomes a sort of slide
show of access at that point.
I think for me, I was just like, I was waiting for a bone to be thrown where I could, I could,
like, I've said this before and I'll say it again, like sink my teeth into something I could

(34:14):
be like, okay, this is a motif or this is a theme or this is a hard sort of story narrative
beat that I can pick up and go, okay, how does this sort of affect the rest of the story?
Whereas I think the nature of the film is so fluid that nothing really feels like it

(34:39):
affects what comes before or after it's just a sequence of events.
Up until the end, like you said, with the scene with the waitress and the diner, I think
everything before that just feels sort of, what story I'm thinking of.
Amazing, really good, fun, like movie, the night.
It just lacks consequence.

(35:01):
And I think by the end of the movie, when Hunter Hust Thompson walks into the sunset and
the movie's over in the credits role, nothing has changed, nothing has evolved and I haven't
been challenged in any way as an audience member.
I was just kind of spoon-fed, a bunch of visual, dessert, and expected to enjoy it.

(35:25):
Well, to me, it sort of sounds like you don't like the book then because I mean, it is a very
close adaptation.
There are things that are changed, but I mean, it sounds like the version you want is
a more grounded version of the book and I just don't think that was ever the intention.
I just, I know that like Scorsese, Oliver Stone, like, it was in development for very,

(35:45):
very long time.
They've been trying to get the movie.
And for the longest time, Holly would consider it an unadaptable book because of the things
you just said, there's no character development by the end of the movie, they're the exact same
people they were before, right?
Because again, it's not about, I just don't see it as that type of story, it's not that type
of movie, it's not the type of thing where like, no, I need to like invest in what's going
on with these people.
It's about just sort of like going along for the trip, going along for the ride.

(36:07):
Well, I think that's the thing is, again, like I think tying a story in a narrative form
versus in a literary form are very different.
Whereas, in a literary form, you were being very active, you're choosing to turn the page,
you're choosing to read the next paragraph, you're choosing to keep coming back to the book
if you don't finish in one sitting.
And that sort of plays that sort of idea of, you know, be along for the ride, be along

(36:31):
for the trip, let it all happen to you.
You know, it's one big crazy party of excess.
Plays a lot differently when you're choosing to go back and read the story and read what
he's writing as opposed to when you're passive and you're sort of held hostage by the movie.
You know, if I'm sitting in a theater seat and I'm watching a movie, I don't want a movie

(36:51):
to hold me hostage and just say, like, look at all this crazy stuff, you know, watch it,
enjoy it, don't think about it.
Whereas, with a literary, you know, with a literary version, you're being asked to think
about, you know, why is he writing it like this?
Why is this playing out the way it's playing out?
And so, you know, you're actively being asked to ask, well, you know, how much of this is true

(37:16):
and how much of this, how much of this is stuff that he's actually just making up.
Whereas, with the movie, we're supposed to take a kind of that face value and we are with
the narrator and the main character.
I mean, I also feel like, I mean, I think one thing you're overlooking too is that most
people probably aren't going to read the book.
They're more attracted to the movie in the first place.

(37:38):
They should, by the way, absolutely.
If you've seen for a little thing, if you like for a little thing, you should go read the
book because it's awesome.
But I mean, there's a lot of other things too.
Like, one thing I was reading was when Gilliam was making this movie in the late 90s, it
was the production company was universal.
And they wanted him to update the story to the 90s, not the 70s.

(37:59):
And he said, no, because if I do that, one, you're just completely getting rid of the entire
point, which again is this theme of the downfall of the counterculture, right?
But also just, it's like you're apologizing for the book is what he said.
And I'm not here to apologize for anything.
I want to make a movie that is exactly what Thompson would have wanted, which is a very
just sort of direct adaptation of that vision.

(38:21):
And I think he succeeded in all fronts.
I know we're not going to agree on this.
I feel like we could move on other things too as well.
I just want to bring up, it's also really funny.
This is a really funny movie.
There's so many great lines.
I mean, you know, the whole poor bastard, you'll see those goddamn bats soon enough.
The lizard sequence is so hilarious.
I mean, it's just a really funny movie.
There's also a really great physical comedic acting from Del Toro and from Deb where they're

(38:45):
falling down.
I mean, they're just giving 110% into these performances.
It's so fun to watch.
It's so funny.
I don't know.
Do you have anything for humor wise?
I thought it was funny at first and then it kind of lost that and you know, turned the
complete opposite for me.
But like hearing what you guys are saying, I have not read the book so I feel like it's

(39:08):
kind of difficult for me to, I mean, I can't speak on that, but it's kind of difficult for
me to really, really get a perspective on this movie as a whole, I think, without having
read the book.
But yeah, hearing both of your sides is really, I can't, I just can't, I just don't know
what to think.
I'm still like very divided on this because I love how meticulous the visual stuff is.

(39:34):
But then again, it just kind of like holds you hostage and I just couldn't do that when
it got to a certain broad your e-book made a joke in his review that if these were characters
that you met in an elevator, you would get off at the next floor.
But because it's a movie, you're forced to sit with them for the whole two hours and I
couldn't have said it better myself.

(39:56):
I don't find a lot of this movie funny.
I think, you know, it just really must have gone right over my head, but I think these characters
are kind of boring and try.
I think they're really one note and I don't think that's particularly interesting and I think
you can make the argument that like, oh, you know, this movie isn't trying to make a big

(40:19):
statement and it is just, you know, a visual feast for the eyes, but that's not particularly
interesting to me.
Yeah, I was going to say it's not very accessible to a lot of audiences when you just kind of
make it this visual feast and have no substance when it comes to the characters or the meaning
of the excess or kind of understanding that as the movie goes along.

(40:41):
Well, it's important to note too.
This is a movie that flopped when it came out.
It did create your right, Roger Ebert, you know, shout on it, by the way, he also didn't
like the thing either.
So I really go too much for Roger Ebert's didn't have that.
So I mean, you know, he called it like a one joke movie, which is fine, that's his opinion.
I personally think there are, there's more than one joke, but you know, this was a movie
that when it came out, again, it didn't find its audience and a lot of that was the marketing.

(41:04):
It was market is this, you know, silly goofy comedy.
And sure, there is a lot of dark comedy elements.
There's also, I think there's a road trip element.
There's a psychedelic audacity element.
There's a lot going on in this movie.
But exactly what you guys are saying, like I would imagine if Terry Gilliam is he alive,
if he's dead or alive.
I think he's, he's so alive.
He's alive.
Okay.
I think if Terry Gilliam was here right now, he would tell you both, hey, that's exactly what

(41:26):
I wanted you to feel.
I wanted you to feel trapped by this movie.
I wanted you to feel like it's just constantly getting worse and worse and worse, and it's constantly
closing you and that's exactly the emotion that he wanted you to feel.
Now whether or not you guys liked it, that's totally subjected.
That's up to you guys, but that was 100% the intention.
That was the point.
And you know, this is, it's, it's not a mainstream, I mean, it is kind of mainstream, you have

(41:47):
like big name actors, you have a big name director, it's come, you know, universal.
And I feel like from the get go, this was meant to be a cult movie.
This is a movie that is divisive and Gilliam has said that himself too, that this is a movie
that you're either going to really love or you're going to really hate.
It's very rare that you get a Simone who's like in the middle, right?
But I think I am leaning towards one side now.
That's fine, that's fine.
Hey, you know, it's, it's a cult movie.

(42:09):
It's a movie that you want to see at a midnight screening, maybe even at the Beverly
Halloon, but you want to see it in a theater with a packed audience.
I can't tell you whether or not to be intoxicated, but that's totally up to you.
Might make the movie better by the way, just saying who knows.
But I do think like with that in mind that like, oh yeah, like, okay, this movie is trying
to be confrontational.
It's trying to sort of test your patience and your ability to watch things unfold.

(42:34):
I don't think there's anything particularly experimental or new that it's doing that other
movies haven't done before or better.
I think in terms of like a sort of gauntlet-esque, oh, sit and watch this movie and see how long
you guys can watch these two men just spiral into their drug addictions.

(42:58):
That doesn't, I just, I can't figure out why this is worth, you know, $20 worth a ticket.
Like I can't, I can't picture why this is sort of worth the critical acclaim that a lot
of people give it.
I don't know, it just, it just, it misses me.
Well, it's not critically acclaimed.
I mean, if you look at Ron Tommato's, I think it has like a 50 something, so it wasn't a critically

(43:22):
acclaimed movie.
And I think even the audience score, not that Ron Tommato's is a great, you know, like whether
or not a movie is good.
But even the audience score is, is rotten too.
I mean, so like, again, this is a movie that has like a very specific niche audience.
I also just want to bring this up as like a last ditch like, oh my god, this is another great
thing about this movie guys.
I am somebody who loves a good soundtrack.

(43:46):
I don't think this is the best.
I would probably give that to either Dazed and Confused or almost famous, but that's also
because I love 70s Rock.
Yeah, you like the pro rock.
I do.
I love me some pro rock.
And man, this is a great soundtrack.
And there's so many good songs.
And first of all, you have the opening.
You have this really awesome cover of these are a few of my favorite things from the Lennon
Sisters.

(44:06):
You have Bob Dylan.
You have the awesome closing jumping Jack Flash from the Rolling Stones.
You have two of the best Jefferson Airplane songs.
Somebody to love and White Rabbit also.
I agree.
I do love Jefferson Airplane.
They're amazing.
Jefferson Airplane is awesome.
And their music is like front and center and they have two songs.
The White Rabbit sequence is iconic in this movie.
The throwing the radio in the tub.

(44:27):
And he throws a great food out his head.
A great comedic moment there too.
So yeah, like this is a great soundtrack.
There's so many like just like it envelops you in what it felt like to be there in the
70s.
It gives you that vibe.
This movie just oozes 70s.
Another thing I want to also bring up to talking about the cinematography.
There's a choice in this movie that I think came out of necessity, but I think it's an

(44:48):
awesome stylistic choice.
I love the sequences when they're driving through 70s Vegas because as you guys I'm sure
it can tell, it's rear projection.
And the images that we're seeing are footage from an old, sorry, old, I know.
But from an old show called Vegas, which was like how about this footage of Vegas in the
70s.
They were filming in the 90s and I think they shot a little bit in actual Vegas.

(45:11):
Like I think maybe like the golden nugget they might have shot some exteriors there, but
for the most part they couldn't shoot in Vegas in the 90s because Vegas in the 90s looks
nothing like 70s Vegas.
And so the way they had to do that was a combination of a bunch of different effects.
You have the rear projection.
You have like just really great effects and it really you for me, at least even though
you can tell it's rear projection, it just kind of contributes again to that sort of

(45:32):
surreal style.
I mean, yes, it's not realistic, but it is such an awesome depiction of what that would
feel like.
I think it captures Vegas just amazingly.
I love the way Vegas is depicted in this movie.
All right.
Well, final thoughts, you know, gluttony.
I just think this movie is very bloated and very gluttonous.

(45:56):
And I just don't feel like there's much I can say about it in a way of substance.
Oh, just a whole lot of style.
And maybe that's what people, what some people enjoy about it.
But I personally think a movie should have plot and characters and a structure.
But yeah, I think in a way of a story adaptation, like you know, Jeff, he said it's a very faithful

(46:23):
adaptation to the literary form.
That's about all I can say about it.
What about you, Simona?
You know, I think I'm more on your side, but not completely.
I get, I totally get you, Jeff.
In some ways, yes, I get it.
But yeah, I, like I've said, I love everything visual about it.

(46:47):
But I just got really, I guess overwhelmed being stuck in that constant cycle of all these
bugs, induced hallucinations.
And yeah, I mean, the performances are great, but I did lack substance in the film.

(47:07):
Go see it at the Beverly, go watch it, go enjoy it.
And then whenever you have a party and you want something on the TV, put it on.
It makes it great.
It's a great, it's a great party.
It's great, right?
Something you can check in and, you know, be a little drunk.
We've come back 20 minutes later.
It doesn't matter.
Well, let me also just say this too real quick as somebody who has feasted on Thanksgiving

(47:30):
dinners and has drunk a lot of beer before.
There's nothing wrong with being bloated, guys.
All right, like I'm not trying to fat shame anyone out there being bloated is just fine.
This is a bloated movie, absolutely.
I think, I think it's a great movie.
You should absolutely watch it.
I think, I mean, yes, it's a great party movie, but again, I feel like you guys aren't
giving it enough credit.
There's so much underneath the surface of this movie.

(47:51):
This movie is an obituary for the counter culture.
It is a farewell to this culture that was absolutely murdered by America.
Like when you look in the history of what happened, you know, you have this great social
change that was going on in the '60s where you have the civil rights movement, you have
the sexual revolution, you have the drug revolution, and you have this great culture that emerges
from it.

(48:11):
And some of the greatest art of like ever made comes from that, some of the greatest
movies you have New Hollywood, you have this great rock music that comes from it.
And this is a culture that was just like, in my opinion, it was murdered by America.
You have these old white politicians who are like, no, we hate these dirty hippies.
You have the Manson murders and you have like, they're dirty and they stink and they murder
people.

(48:32):
And no, forget the hippies, but it's like, guys, the whole point of that movement was a very
left social change.
And it was about peace and love and it was absolutely eradicated.
It's the death of the American dream.
Just to kind of close out, I just want to say there's a great quote by George Carlin,
who's a famous comedian.
He's also a very famous counter culture figure as well.
He said that the reason it's called the American dream is because you have to be asleep to believe

(48:55):
in it.
And I think that that's what this movie absolutely captures.
That not only concludes this episode of the film department talking about fear and
moving in Las Vegas, but that concludes this season with me, Jeff and Samona.

(49:16):
Do you guys have any parting thoughts or words you want to share with our audience?
This has been a very cool and new experience for me.
I have really enjoyed hearing your guys' thoughts.
A lot of different perspectives that I had never thought about and I really appreciate
that I got to experience this with you guys.

(49:37):
Yeah, it was great working with you guys.
You guys know your **** when it comes to movies.
I could not have asked for two better co-hosts.
I want to thank our producer Adam Paul and Rudy.
You guys have been great.
You've guided us through it.
It's been a really great experience.
I also just have to take this moment to shout out the like three people in my life who actually
do listen to these episodes.

(49:58):
My best friend Nathan, Hi Nathan, love you, pal.
My mom and my brother.
Those are the only three people in my life who have actually bothered listening to these episodes.
So thank you guys for listening.
It's been fun for me and I hope you guys have enjoyed hearing our thoughts and yeah,
guys have a great Thanksgiving, great Christmas break and it's it for me.
Well, so sweet.
I also want to shout out Angelica and Sam.
Yeah, absolutely.

(50:18):
Yeah.
Like Jeff said, you know, I couldn't have asked for two better co-hosts.
You guys are just incredible.
Jeff, so funny, everything you say is just incredible.
And Samona, your input is always so appreciated.
You're so articulate and I love hearing everything you have to say.
Honestly, you guys, this has been such a blast.
I'm going to shout out some people too.

(50:39):
You know, shout out the barrack team.
I'm going to have to Marjorie Barak Museum of art.
You know, shout out to my boyfriend Floyd and shout out to everyone else who listen to
this podcast and who, you know, told me, you know, just go for it.
I couldn't thank you guys enough.
And, you know, go see movies, go see movies at the Beverly, go see movies at Regul, go see

(51:00):
movies at AMC, go watch movies.
That's the biggest thing you can take away from this if I had anything is, you know, if there's
a movie out there that you're thinking of, maybe go see it.
Doesn't matter.
Watch more movies.
Media is important.
Film is art and art is important and art is the reason why we live our lives.
So, with that being said, you guys, I think it's time to head out.

(51:21):
Goodbye, everybody.
Yeah.
Bye.
Bye.
Imagine by the Rogers Foundation, the Beverly Theatre brings cinematic connectivity,
novel collaborations, live happenings, cultural portals, and assessed for independent spirits
to downtown Las Vegas.
With the mission to stage uncommon cinematic, literary, and live experiences, the Beverly

(51:42):
Theatre is Las Vegas's first and only independent film house, story, and the film.
Storytelling Arena and live music venue.
Check out our event calendar at the Beverly Theatre dot com.
[Music plays]