Nordling here.
I missed last night's RUM DIARY screening here in town. It's getting busy around here and I had to cancel on my own attendance last night. But Planty McPlant (and yeah, the name's ironic) was at last night's screening and had a few words to say about what he saw:
The Rum Diary Review
I know that many AICN reviewers like to go into great detail about the events leading up to the screening and how they met so-and-so or did such-and-such, but honestly, I've always found such lead-up to be tedious and unnecessary. So, on to the film:
The question you're wanting answered is, “Should I see this film?” Well, that depends. If you're a film fan who sees two or three movies per week, and you're looking for something to plug into one of those slots (during a time of year where pickings are notoriously scarce), I'd say, without reservation, yes.
If, on the other hand, you're one of those people who only sees movies once or twice a week (or less), you might want to wait for Netflix on this one (if it's still around by then).
This is one of those movies that is not going to be a game-changer or a life-altering experience for anyone. It's just not that kind of film. It's a subtle, relaxed movie that reveals its charms at its own leisurely pace. In fact, with one notable exception, it feels like a film that harkens back to an earlier time, a time when movies insinuated rather than insisted.
The one exception is a very brief scene involving halluciagenic drugs (a foreshadowing of events to come for anyone familiar with Thompson's life). Other than that scene, however (and that scene is pretty funny, if not altogether essential), this movie feels like something that could have come from the time and place in which it's set: 1950's America, insofar as Puerto Rico is part of “America.”
The sex and violence, such as it is, is implied. There's no gore. No graphic nudity. Everything is painted between the lines. If that sounds boring to you, then it probably will be. But I personally found it to be refeshing and even charming. The soundtrack and cinematography are also very old-school. Dean Martin's “Volare” plays in the opening scene as a private plane jets through a near-cloudless sky over a crystal-blue ocean, and that pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the film.
But that's not to say that the movie lacks spark. The omnipresent threat of violence establishes a mood of unease that makes the danger of being a stranger in a strange land feel very real. And the chemistry between Depp and Heard is palpable (Vanessa Paradis could understandably be wary of the two working together again). But again, everything is implied. The sex scenes are more Garfield/Turner than Nicholson/Lange. The violence is more Hitchcock than Tarantino.
The comedy (and there is comedy) is also understated. There are no laugh-out-loud moments, but plenty of chuckles. Most of them involve the two most essential supporting actors, Michael Rispoli and Richard Jenkins (and his toupee), although honorable mention must be given to the truly bizarre and tragi-comic character created by Giovanni Ribisi.
As for Depp himself, several critics I've read have commented that he seemed “disengaged” or “disinterested” in this role, but honestly, I think that is how his part is written. Depp's character is a jaded journalist who already views most of American society with a certain degree of contempt, an opinion he politely disguises with detachment. But periodically, when he feels something that goes to the core of his humanity (children suffering, American corporate apathy), you see some fire in his eyes. While that might not make for a flashy performance, it suits the character.
I guess that leaves only one elephant in the room, and that would be Aaron Eckhart. So how was his performance? Good – when he was called upon to flex his considerable chops. Sadly, that wasn't often. He gave about 3-5 minutes of great performance in his 10-15 minutes of screen time; the rest being given over to tedious, and in most cases unnecessary, exposition. The most disappointing thing about Eckhart in this movie is that when I heard that he was to be starring opposite Depp, in an adversarial role, I thought that there would be something of an acting summit. Quite the opposite, actually. In the first of their only three one-on-one scenes together, I checked my watch for the first time during the film. And their second and third scenes together alone felt like awkward attempts to tie up a loose plot thread. This didn't kill my enjoyment of the movie, but it was disappointing.
Overall, I'd give this movie about a 6.5 out of 10. Above average, but just so. As far as prequels go (and while it's based on a posthumously published novel by Thompson, it's obviously at least semi-autobiographical, making it a clear prequel to Fear & Loathing, with Rispoli being essentially a surrogate Del Toro), it's certainly no The Good, the Bad & the Ugly or Godfather II, but it would fall somewhere squarely between Temple of Doom and Blade II, even though such comparisons may seem apples to oranges. If that sounds like a reasonable enough gamble for you, then by all means, go see it. As long as you go in with reasonable expectations, I think you'll be pleasantly entertained.
If you use this, call me “Planty McPlant!!!” ('cause somebody will anyway).
Looks like I'll be seeing this one over the weekend. Nordling, out.
