It’s a decent film, but its enjoyment is considerably lessened by the frequent depiction of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, alongside a noticeably weak narrative script. I must admit I had higher hopes for this movie. Many consider it one of the finest British comedies ever made, and there's no denying that the dialogue and situations are genuinely funny; it’s easy to laugh at the absurd conversations and circumstances presented here. However, it is also true that the film falls short of being a masterpiece. The story centers on two characters – Withnail and another young man whose name isn't revealed, who seems to be narrating from his own perspective. They are struggling actors, complete failures, broke, and sharing expenses and an apartment in Camden during the late 60s—a time of cultural upheaval and widespread drug use. Weary of their surroundings, they decide to visit Withnail’s uncle's country house, unaware that the place is completely unsuitable for city dwellers. The film does have its good moments, largely thanks to clever dialogue and absurd situations. Particularly memorable is Withnail’s near worship of alcohol—he seems unable to stay sober—or his decision to go fishing with a shotgun, or even their journey in an old Jaguar that's a shame to see so mistreated. Unfortunately, the script and story don't really develop much beyond this, lacking sufficient substance to sustain the film. On a narrative level, it’s quite flimsy. Nevertheless, I didn’t find it too difficult to overlook these shortcomings. The film's success will depend on how willing viewers are to simply go with the flow and not overthink things, taking advantage of the many opportunities for humor. More than once, I thought it would work even better as a stage play than on screen. However, the constant endorsement of alcohol and drugs is hard to ignore; I doubt that was the producers' intention, but prolonged exposure to substance abuse can be jarring for modern audiences who are less tolerant of such depictions. While I generally have an open mind about these things, there were several instances where I felt the film was venturing into uncomfortable territory. The cast is small, and only three actors deserve specific mention. Richard Grant and Paul McGann made their film debuts with this project… what a start! Grant, perhaps unexpectedly, landed what would become the defining role of his career, as no other work has achieved such popularity or recognition. McGann was also very good, although he couldn’t quite match Grant's performance, who portrays a more complex and intense character. The late Richard Griffiths also appears in a small but well-executed part. The film isn't technically outstanding, but the cinematography is noteworthy. Somehow, it manages to convincingly recreate the look of a film made in the 60s. I’m not sure how they achieved this, but it seems evident that careful attention was paid to lighting, film stock, camera choice, costumes, and props. Withnail's costume, in particular, stood out; he looks like a down-on-his-luck, alcoholic version of Mr. Darcy. There are also some visually striking scenes, such as the roadside shots or the moment when the two friends leave Monty’s house, revealing the stately demolition of an old Victorian home behind them.

Source on TMDB