gavin6942 I do not claim to know all that much about Hunter Thompson. I have seen "Fear and Loathing" and having gone through a phase where I loved counterculture, I knew some degree of his life...This documentary brings out a whole new level of Hunter I was not aware of. I knew about the Hell's Angels, but his appearance on game shows was foreign to me. And I was never aware that he took his run for Aspen sheriff so seriously or received so much coverage.Johnny Depp as narrator seems fitting. I thought it was a bit too obvious, but somehow Depp has come to represent Hunter... why not Bill Murray? I have no idea.

Jeff Lawshe 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.

davideno 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.

David Ferguson 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.