This is such a mess,but a somewhat interesting/entertaining mess nonetheless.Both actors r comiitined imo,but Dicaprio is not convincing .this film could of been so much better.I'm a fan of Rimbaud and in that respect I am let down by this,he deserves better then this.
When an artist creates something, it is because they have something to say. Anyone who does it for any other reason is a liar head to toe. The director and writer of this movie have stollen the name of Rimbaud! And they didn't have anything to say! They didn't show the Rimbaud that saints and whores have adored, the genius that "knew us all and loved us all", as Arthur put; instead they poorly chase Verlaine's story.
There's actually not a single character in this film who is really likable. There are moments that you adore them, then minutes later they couldn't be more loathsome. How like the real world. How like ourselves.
While Leo is actually a good (and occasionally great) actor, during his early years, he was mostly a face... I give this movie props for introducing me to the Divine Arthur, but it's sketchy historical-accuracy wise and shows mostly just the delinquent side of Rimbaud, not the groundbreaking poet who has influenced so many.. if you want to see Leo play a good role as a poet, check out The Basketball Diaries,