I've read, or at least heard, that Hunter S. Thompson didn't like this film when it came out. I can sense the reasons why after watching it the other night. While it takes some specific events and the times of his career in the later 60's and early 70's, there's nothing really holding it together, and the scenes showcasing his madness (of course not without its truths) are so over the top at times it's questionable what is closer to the facts or closer to a Cheech and Chong comedy. On the other hand, the fact that it is a Cheech and Chong style comedy of sorts, with our two heroes wreaking havoc wherever they go in their perpetual search for the truth or the American dream or good drugs leading to some hilarious results.
We're taken through Thompson's knack for keeping his editor (here played in some good stature and tenseness by Bruno Kirby) on edge by delaying the "best story I've ever written" as Hunter says, his witnessing of terrible outcomes with his attorney Carl Laszlo on trial, his meetings with Laszlo in the 'underground', and his time spent on the campaign trail in 1972. The only problem is producer/director Art Linson (who is indeed more of a producer than a director, see his credits) and screenwriter John Kaye don't have the kind of structure that made Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas such a rush; there isn't much method to the madness (at times), which is true to the Gonzo form, but for the most part it is really just random acts of destruction and chaos from the Doctor and his attorney. This would be all fine if there was more truth to the characters.
I think it's right how other reviewers have said that if you've seen the Terry Gilliam film with Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro before this film you might have similar expectations or want something that wild on the plate here. But if you've also read Dr. Thompson's writings (I haven't read the ones listed as the inspirations in the credits, but I have read Fear & Loathing in America, right from this time period), you'll see a different man than is portrayed here, who is made more of just a simple caricature than as a full being. 'Las Vegas' had him as a caricature too, but at least there the atmosphere was set-up to compliment the characters and 'real life' scenarios. Here, Bill Murray takes the Thompson persona, but his performance really works because he is, well, Bill Murray. And Murray can only take the two-dimensional, Hollywood form of Thompson only so far.
On the end of the performances alone, the film scores some points against the flaws in the script; Murray's turn here is like a 180 from his turns in the recent Lost in Translation or Broken Flowers. Here he has unexplainable bouts of screeches, shoots random shots from his guns at objects, and if he's let out into a hotel room, watch out. The thing that's curious though is how the film isn't quite as funny when Peter Boyle, as the Oscar Acosta inspired Laszlo, comes onto the screen. Boyle's had some great performances (Young Frankenstein, Monster's Ball), but this isn't one of them. He's even more two-dimensional than Thomspon is portrayed; he starts out defending the little guy, but then turns completely to anarchy. One or two scenes are amusing, when he enters unexpectedly in a Nixon mask, but they're few and far between. If for no other reason to see the film, therefore, is for Murray, who brings a random absurdity of his own that somehow helps to bring a little more depth than the script allows.
So, if I were to recommend which Thompson film to see first, I would go to Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. However, if you're more of a Murray fan than Depp's, and might feel tipsy by Gilliam's style, then you might like the slightly safer insanity of Linson's film. Not a bad film, but it could've been better.