Doesn't live up to Whitaker's performance

Rating: 6/10 (30 April 2007)

It's decent, but really only survives because of Whitaker's incredible performance. The film really drags whenever he's not in it, which is a substantial amount for a leading role. I'd agree that it's much more of a supporting performance, but it could have won the Oscar in either category. James McAvoy just really pales in comparison, but he's actually not that bad - just not noteworthy. The story jumps around a lot and doesn't really seem to do justice to what was going on in the country - too much attention is paid to the doctor's sexual exploits. The climax is kind of sudden and as a result the film ends on a down note. Still, the script is well-written and Whitaker really does carry the film, but it's not that great of a film because of it.