Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

phd_travel It's always watchable to look into the lives of Hollywood legends so the subject matter of this movie makes one want to watch it through. Although the focus of this movie is James Dean's visit home to Indiana and that isn't that interesting.Unfortunately Dane DeHaan is so different looking from James Dean that it spoils the movie. His face is roundish and he just doesn't have the right look. James Franco was a much better fit way back when he did the TV movie. There must have been some actor out there who looked more like the subject. Also having the photographer better looking than the movie star made things unbelievable. Robert Pattinson has been struggling to get the right role after you know what and he is a good actor.Disappointing.

reelalansmithee The glimpse into old Hollywood was the only redeeming feature of this film. Dane DeHaan appears to be doing an imitation of Edward Furlong if he were doing an imitation of James Dean. Pretending you are a rebel by not having the energy to open you mouth when you speak is not acting, Dean was withdrawn but could enunciate. Dean had a look and a vibe, that DeHaan is far too dumpy looking to pull off. They say Dean was "bi", but, DeHaan had "gaydars" on blast from his seen. As always, Robert Pattinson is one dimensional, a card board cutout may have had more depth. This could have been a much better film with better casting of the two main rolls. I be surprised if Ben Kingsley isn't embarrassed by the this stinker. I want my 111 minutes back!

mashuganut I wanted to like this movie, in fact I would have liked this movie but for one very important thing: To watch this portrayal of James Dean by someone with such little charisma and animal magnetism and sorry Dane Dehaan "sex appeal" play someone like James Dean was just painful to watch, and utterly disappointing. I am not saying he is not a fine actor - IN ANOTHER ROLE - but let's get real, James Dean would have never been THE James Dean had he not been swoon-worthy, on screen and off, and I'm sorry but that simply does not apply to Dane Dehaan, at least in this role. (I haven't seen him in anything else that I can recall so I can't say he isn't fine in another role.) Unbelievable and unrealistic that any studio or the masses would have been pursuing THIS James Dean. The movie had so much potential but this unfortunate casting choice for the single most important part in the film killed it for me.

Dylan Webb You could say this movie portrays the lives of Dean and Stock superbly. You could also say that the acting was phenomenal. While both of those have the possibility to be true, I gave this a 3/10 simply because the casting. This is another primary example of a movie story with GREAT potential, but has common, well-known actors. James Dean looks like a villain in the movie, and I think Stock is going to bite Dean after every picture he takes. This film just reminds me of the Dean documentary from 2001 starring James Franco. I can only hope that one day in the near future, a better, well-casted documentary comes out. As an upcoming actor and great fan of James Dean, I hope to audition for such a role.