I loved the book, but this movie sort of let me down; it was more of a tribute to the man Hunter S. Thompson rather than his talent as a writer. Thompson wanted to write good fiction before he became one of the best known journalists in America. There were lines in the movie that weren't in the book but based on interviews Thompson did in real life. I mean, if you want to do a biographical film then write an original script rather than taking a work of fiction and entwining it with the real life figure. I wanted to see Paul Kemp, not Hunter S. Thompson as Paul Kemp.
I don't mind it when adaptation's aren't faithful to it's source, just as long as the spirit of the story is still there. The spirit of Rum Diary was lost in it's translation to film by substituting it with a simple tribute to the journalist Hunter S. Thompson. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas still stands as the best adaptation of Thompson's work thus far until another filmmaker gets on the saddle of Thompson's beautiful prose and rides wild.
I don't mind it when adaptation's aren't faithful to it's source, just as long as the spirit of the story is still there. The spirit of Rum Diary was lost in it's translation to film by substituting it with a simple tribute to the journalist Hunter S. Thompson. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas still stands as the best adaptation of Thompson's work thus far until another filmmaker gets on the saddle of Thompson's beautiful prose and rides wild.