SummaryLast Days is filmmaker Gus Van Sant's fictional meditation on the inner turmoil that engulfs a brilliant, but troubled musician in the final hours of his life. (Picturehouse)
Directed By:Gus Van Sant
Written By:Gus Van Sant
Last Days
Metascore
Generally Favorable
67
User score
Mixed or Average
5.2
My Score
Drag or tap to give a rating
Hover and click to give a rating
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Top Cast









Metascore
Generally Favorable
67% Positive
24 Reviews
24 Reviews
25% Mixed
9 Reviews
9 Reviews
8% Negative
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
100
Last Days is a definitive record of death by gradual drug exhaustion. After the chills and thrills of "Sid & Nancy" and "The Doors," here is a movie that sees how addicts usually die, not with a bang but a whimper. If the dead had it to do again, they might wish that, this time, they'd at least been conscious enough to realize what was happening.
88
The result is a movie that seems not quite real and yet never false but somehow partakes of both -- rather like the prospect of death.
80
What Last Days offers is a blank and narrative-free, but pitch-perfect, dreamscape on which to project your own personal ruminations on Kurt, fame, whatever, nevermind. If you have none, you're on your own.
70
In the leading role Michael Pitt is neither good nor less than good. He simply mopes along druggedly for the film's ninety-seven minutes. Van Sant's inculcation of this non-performance is clearly part of his dogged negativism, his intent to purge his film.
63
Van Sant has mastered this kind of driftingly contemplative imagery and his layered soundscapes would make Sonic Youth proud (of course, Kim Gordon makes an appearance), but the introduction of other characters fracture the film's greatest asset, its lonely first-person atmosphere.
50
How can one defend this prolonged mumble of a motion picture? Well, some of the motion has a hypnotizing grace.
0
In trouble from its first minutes.
User score
Mixed or Average
38% Positive
10 Ratings
10 Ratings
35% Mixed
9 Ratings
9 Ratings
27% Negative
7 Ratings
7 Ratings
Dec 9, 2014
3
I do not like how artificial all exchanges, gestures and statements appear in Gus Van Sant films - all actions feel overtly premeditated, as if rehearsed 100 times. There is nothing about a character's behavior which denotes normal human meaning. Overall his work comes across as too abstract, lacking in heart and genuine spontaneity. There is no fire - everything is 'too cool'. I observed this first in his terrifying-yet-disappointing and depressing "Elephant", a biopic inspired by the columbine massacre. None of the students acted like they were people - they acted like people acting like people. Given the huge cast and wide array of characters I'm afraid the blame for this falls squarely on Gus's shoulders. Perhaps he simply shouldn't be choosing his scripts. Good Will Hunting was a fantastic film that did not lack for heart. Why then, in the years proceeding from this, does he choose these sombre, ambient films with little or no humanity in them? Each character is a sterile puppet, a purely symbolic entity that we cannot see into or interpret thought from. They're like place mat cards, a coffee-coaster, representative version of people. It feels like he's given them a set of rote tasks to perform, and in having to remember them, they have little time to emote. The only sense of emotion in this film is a sense of laconic depressiveness - much like The Virgin Suicides, Elephant, etc. Is this the only trick this one pony can do? Having seen Good Will, I don't think so, but Gus is quite happy retreading the same ground, hoping for recognition, without realizing that a failing approach is a potentially flawed approach. If there were some sense of progress, contrast in mood or form, there would be some sense of this being a film. Instead we get a film trying to be reality. As depressing as that is, as depressing as reality is, it's not a worthwhile approach. Because film never represents reality as well as reality does. His films certainly Look pretty, but they leave you with no conclusion, no easy resolution, no lesson, and a deep feeling of emptiness. What, then, is their point? To make people feel worse? Sorry Gus, you've lost me. As for the biopic content of this film, I have no deep feelings either way. It's possible it would've had more impact if it'd been actually based on Kurt's life, but without that it's left feeling a little bit fragile. Occasionally Gus will just focus on some bit of scenery and force the viewer to just Calm Down and just watch something peaceful for a while, which comes across a little bit patronizing. I can watch scenery all the time - I don't need to be instructed. Overall the film comes off as a whim, and an expensive one. It's irritating and intense and stupid. But at least the ending is tastefully and well done.
Production Company:
- HBO Films
- Meno Film Company
- Picturehouse
- Pie Films Inc.
Release Date:Jul 22, 2005
Duration:1 h 37 m
Rating:R
Tagline:Rock and roll will never die.
Awards
Cannes Film Festival
• 1 Win & 2 Nominations
Village Voice Film Poll
• 2 Nominations
Golden Rooster Awards
• 1 Win & 1 Nomination




























