gws-2 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.

michael_the_nermal 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.

RResende 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

Niklas Pivic Although likable, this documentary says more about the work and public persona of Hunter S. Thompson rather than the man himself. Filled with people who surrounded him, voice-overed by Johnny Depp, it makes for a suave, exploding and chronological journey through his career, from the times he covered Hell's Angels, through his interest in politics, his trying to become sheriff in Aspen, all things feared and loathed to his eventual artistic downfall, in the shape where he became a parody of himself, to his suicide. I really enjoyed the input from his ex-wives and his son, plus archive footage from what really affected him, e.g. the Chicago riots.Interesting, artistic, but I prefer "Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride: Hunter S. Thompson on Film", another documentary on HST.