The Rum Diary (2011)

The critic finds the film a thrilling, funny tribute to Hunter Thompson and a portrait of America in decline. They praise Bruce Robinson’s robust, witty script and the vintage atmosphere created by shooting on 16mm.

The review finds the film engaging but says it loses steam and lacks dramatic purpose by the end. It praises the excellent supporting performances and Robinson’s lively dialogue.

Kohn finds the film flawed and generally mediocre, though it remains an admirable, sufficiently entertaining portrait of Thompson’s early development. He praises its restrained vision and its thoughtful account of Kemp’s emerging journalistic convictions, while faulting the limp plot and muted lead performance.

Tobias finds the film loose, lackadaisical, and too aimless to convey its hero’s idealism. He praises Robinson’s depth in the tension between indulgence and justice, but says the romantic subplot goes nowhere.

The accessible page identifies this as a review, but its verdict is hidden. No specific praise or complaint is available in the supplied text.

Ebert’s review is mixed, finding the film less compelling than its source material. It faults the adaptation for not capturing enough of Hunter S. Thompson’s distinctive spark.

Trevor Johnston gives the film a measured three-star review. He singles out its substance-fuelled, raucous humour as a feature of the serio-comic story.

Clarke's three-star rating suggests a measured, mixed verdict. The available page metadata singles out Depp finding Thompson's manuscript.

The critic finds it an affectionate, droll companion to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, though it never reaches that film’s manic heights. He praises the comic antics and Giovanni Ribisi’s scene-stealing performance, while faulting the plot and abrupt ending.

McCarthy finds the film diverting but ultimately uncompelling, a mild and only partly engaging look at Thompson’s early life. He praises Michael Rispoli’s performance and Amber Heard’s flashes of wildness, while faulting Johnny Depp’s cautious characterization for limiting audience engagement.

Schenker finds the film an unsatisfying, disjointed work that forces its disparate elements into a clumsy conclusion. He praises its occasional visual flair and its effort to connect the story to American economic imperialism.

Chang finds the film more successful as a dreamy, seedy mood piece than as a coherent narrative, with Depp’s performance feeling unfocused. He praises the sharp dialogue and richly rendered atmosphere, along with the supporting cast’s lively performances.

Sharkey finds the film visually seductive but ultimately unable to capture the novel’s essential power. She praises Johnny Depp’s introspective performance and Puerto Rico’s striking cinematography.

Scott’s verdict is mixed, finding the adaptation less successful than its source material. The film’s episodic, meandering structure is a particular weakness.

Bradshaw finds the film sincere but ultimately self-admiring, calling it a vanity project. He praises its loving adaptation and occasional Withnail-like situations, but criticizes Depp for failing to convey fear or anger.

Hogan calls the film very good, though not a runaway success. He praises Giovanni Ribisi’s scene-stealing performance and the film’s beautiful use of Puerto Rico’s landscape.

The review finds the film a largely successful, entertaining tribute to Hunter S. Thompson, despite its meandering pace. It praises the humorous misadventures and faithfulness to Thompson’s tone, but notes that the lead characters lack chemistry.

The critic recommends the film as a fitting tribute to Hunter S. Thompson. They single out Johnny Depp’s restrained, rage-filled performance as its finest element.

The critic finds the film meandering and says its characters never become fully defined, recommending it mainly to Thompson and Depp fans. They praise the brief hallucinatory sequence as one of the film’s funniest moments.