Um, was there originally another photo to go with this review? 'Cause I do not see a menacing, disheveled Viggo here. Actually he looks like one of those well-dressed lounge lizards/adventurers that hung around the Euro watering spots in the early 20th C between the 2 World Wars, smooth and fanged and amoral, looking for victims to swindle.

This review is weirdly lacking, lots of words that tell nothing about the movie, the acting, directing, mood, cinematography....Some vague stuff about Highsmith's bleak worlds and Oedipal complex. Bleak how? Oedipal how? How old is Dunst's character supposed to be in this movie? Surely not old enough to be the other dude's mom, and since Viggo & him are unrelated swindlers who don't like each other according to this review, what does Oedipus have to do with him?

Two swindlers, no matter how ruthless and/or amoral do not a bleak world make. And the reviewer says nothing about anything/anyone else. Just a throw away phrase about Dunst deserving a better role, without saying anything about the role/character and why Dunst deserved better.

Words have meanings! A younger guy having the hots for a slightly older married woman does not make him Oedipus. Even if he sees Viggo as a father figure (why would he? the reviewer just say so without giving us any example/explaination for this interpretation) does not make Dunst his mom. And there's a weird sentence about homoeroticism! If he has the hots for Viggo (which I'd totes get, MAN is FIIIINNE! Did y'all see Alatriste? HOT HOT HOT) then he DEFINITELY is not Oedipus.

I have not seen this movie, and this review tells me less than nothing!

I guess the Stranger no longer have editors? Or did the Slog gremlins eat half of this review?