The Libertine (2004) User Reviews

Depp is our most amazing living actor

[aharmas · 7/10 · 25 December 2005]

One must see this film with a strong warning. It will repel you. Appropriately Johnny Depp does that in the opening scene, and that should suffice, but it doesn't prepare you for what is coming: a film that rivals the stylistic choices we have seen before in movies like "From Hell", experiences that were disturbing and annoying at the same time but we were also unable to stop watching.

There are some aspects of this film that will have people squirming in their seats, mainly its subject matter. It is very difficult to explore and discuss the dark side of the underbelly of society. It is impressive that there are studios that still try to take chances. In particular, it is remarkable that there are actors that are willing to dive in and portray characters that appear to have absolutely no redeeming qualities. Johnny Depp is a chameleon, a man who transforms himself into this decadent aristocrat, who probably recreates a human being that others would rather not even mention. There are scenes in this film that are astonishing because of their angle and because of the powerful interactions between two of the world's best performers. Whenever Depp and Samantha Morton, as his actress/protégée/lover are on the screen, one can feel the heat and passion they generate. It is also remarkable how good John Malkovich is in this film. There is some very fine acting here, and it should be recognized and honored accordingly.

It will probably be ignored because it is very hard to appreciate it. The film is shot in very dark, foggy, and almost impenetrable shads,an artistic choice that impairs our ability to truly take in what is happening in some of the scenes. It is an understandable move because it is after all, the recreation of one of humanity's darkest times. It is a courageous work of art, and one that demands multiple viewings. It is by no means perfect, but it is admirable, and it is as good as it can be because of Johnny Depp's remarkable turn. We can truly hope he keeps getting better and better.

Repulsive Character, Magnificent Performance

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 30 January 2007]

In 1660, with the return of Charles II (John Malkovich) to the English throne, theater, the visual arts, science and sexual intercourse flourish. Thirteen years later, in the middle of political and economical problems, Charles II asks the return of his friend John Wilmot (Johnny Depp), aka the second Earl of Rochester, from the exile to London. John is a morally corrupt, drunkard and sexually active cynical poet, and the King asks him to prepare a play for the French ambassador to make him pleased. John meets the aspirant actress Elizabeth Barry (Samantha Morton) in the playhouse and decides to make her a great star. He falls in love for her, and she becomes his mistress; during the presentation to the Frenchman, he falls in disgrace in the court. When he was thirty-three years old, he was dying of syphilis associated to alcoholism and he converted to a religious man.

"The Libertine" is the unpleasant story of the repulsive and despicable poet John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester, but magnificently performed by Johnny Depp, who deserved a nomination to this Oscar. The cinematography, art and costume directions, make-up, soundtrack, acting and direction are excellent, but the biography of this man, the way it was presented in this movie, is nasty and disgusting. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Libertino" ("The Libertine")

Johnny Depth

[Rogue-32 · 7/10 · 7 January 2007]

One thing's for certain: our boy has sure come a long way since Edward Scissorhands, even though he still continues to choose roles that allow him to delve into characters who are deeply conflicted and flawed in marvelous ways. In The Libertine, he turns in yet another supremely committed performance, where he magnificently portrays a character so morally corrupt that he's literally rotting from the inside.

The Libertine should have been hailed as a triumph, for Depp in particular and also for Samantha Morton, whose performance is equally electrifying. Unfortunately, this film was mostly panned by the critics, who found it too depressing and underdeveloped. I do agree with the underdeveloped criticism - the film did seem to go from the seducing part to the rotting part with very little transition - but I didn't find it depressing. The witty archness of the dialog kept it working for me throughout, and I thought it was very inspiring the way Morton's character, the actress Elizabeth Barry, proved to be a true artist who was not going to allow her acting career to take second place to anything or anybody, especially Depp's character, who wanted to possess her, body and soul (since he didn't know where to locate his own). She, in fact, has the best line in the film, towards the end, where she tells him, in his horribly disfigured state, "I will not sacrifice my certain glory for your unreliable love," or words to that effect.

The film begins with Depp's character talking into the camera, warning the audience what a prick (literally and figuratively) and equal opportunity defiler he is, and it ends with him talking again to the audience directly. This device could have failed miserably, if the actor didn't possess the charisma, self-confidence, and most importantly, the sheer audacity to make this work. But it works here, major big time, because Mr. Depp is most assuredly "up for it."

One of my favorites *spoilers*

[Phantasma_the_Black · 12 August 2011]

I find this movie beautiful, intriguing, touching and somewhat disturbing. Pretty much artistic, yet appealing to different types of audience. However, most likely it won't be enjoyable for everyone, because of explicit content and perhaps disturbing images.

Director Lawrence Dunmore did an amazing job and created something that could easily be considered as a masterpiece. Johnny Depp gave a standout performance (one of the best in his career; he should have won Oscar for it), as well as Samantha Morton, John Malkovich and Rosamund Pike.

I've heard many people complaining how "dark" the movie is, as if it was filmed in shadows. But that's what XVII century was like - shady, dark and dirty.

One of the best aspects of the movie is both physical and psychological metamorphosis of the main character. In the first part of the movie we see a man who has everything, but values nothing. Most people around him like him only because he's well known, gorgeous looking and influential person. Those who do really know him, such as his wife and mother, truly love him the way he is, but he doesn't seem to care much about them As the movie proceeds he finds true love, that, as he said, teaches him "how to love life", but he becomes ill and everyone begins to avoid him. Ironically, the only people who are there for him at that point are the ones whose love he had never appreciated.

One could possibly say it's a shame that it hadn't been a major Hollywood project, because more people would have heard of it, but I think it's better this way, since it has avoided some of the boring Hollywood clichés.

Damn, It's Ugly

[Xploitedyouth · 7/10 · 27 March 2006]

Johnny Depp is a truly remarkable actor who's long and fulfilling career has including roles as diverse as the worst director of all time, a chocolate factory magnate, a rogue CIA agent in Mexico, a mental patient who thinks he's Don Juan, a drag queen, a pirate, an astronaut, and a boy with scissors for hands. His Earl of Rochester in Laurence Dunmore's THE LIBERTINE is something new, and for an actor who's built his career on playing something new, that's really saying something.

The Earl is a famous poet in the 1600's, who falls out of favor with the King (John Malkovich) every now and again but is always called back into his royal service. Why? Because the Earl, while lusty, offensive and sometimes downright cruel, is a brilliant writer and a great drinking buddy. Rochester chooses to bury his gift under a mountain of wine, women and song, until his bad habits finally catch up to him and he is claimed by syphilis at the age of 33.

The film is fascinating as a portrait of a man who prides himself on wallowing in the filth, until he realizes the filth has gotten too deep to ever emerge from. While his hedonism certainly didn't help, it was ultimately his cynicism that killed him. Depp is remarkable in this role, which is one of his ugliest and most raw performances. He starts off a miserable cur, but he's fun to watch because, though he's cruel and obnoxious, he's entertaining. As the disease starts to take hold of him and his behavior becomes fatally reckless, the fun is gone but the fascination is intensified. Not since LEAVING LAS VEGAS has a character self-destructed so vividly.

While the performances are top-notch across the board, and the screenplay is witty and moves the film along crisply, I have nothing but bile in my keyboard for the production values. The film is unforgivably murky-looking, grainy and offensive to the eyes. I can't think of the last time a film looked so ugly. Not ugly in a stylistic sense, either, although the scenario certainly calls for it and the director and crew will undoubtedly try to pass it off as intentional. The film looks amateurishly ugly, like it was shot by a first-year film student who hasn't learned anything about lighting techniques. Depp's performance deserves a better showcase.

From playing pirates as rock stars, Johnny jumps to characterising the 'wildman wordsmith' of his day.

[Howlin Wolf · 7/10 · 25 January 2007]

... and by all accounts, there were as expected, plenty of 'groupies' in tow...

Depp plays the role with a contemptuous sneer never far from his lips and - it is heavily suggested - a restless hand never far from his crotch. We are invited to wallow in the muck and grime of his time as the central figure never wavers from the glaring possibility of scandalising someone. "You won't like me" is the man's opening boast, and the rest of the film chronicles his studious attempts to live up to that promise.

One possible complaint about the film from an outsiders perspective might be that you probably need to have researched the history it covers yourself first to get the most out of it, but if you do possess the background knowledge, then I think it's a fascinating and near-flawless recreation of that period in time.

I do also think that his (BI)sexuality should have been explored better, giving equal weight to his trysts with either sex, but what can you do when the marketing wimps will do their best to sell a false image of the work as a whole?! The thought of homosexual encounters would scare off a good portion of unwitting audience members, but unfortunately "Hollywood scared of unabashed gayness!" should hardly be news to anyone who knows how the industry works...

Respect should be accorded to the first time director for being trusted with such an established cast and using them well. The constant lighting by candle is atmospheric and gives the film a uniquely dingy look. If indeed the main aim was to have me appalled by the lead character, then this must be charted as a failure, because I still like the man despite everything. I've ALWAYS liked John Wilmot. For newcomers who hold no firm opinion either way, however, it's a suitable initiation into his debauched world. If it gets just one curious soul interested in looking at his poetry after they've watched, then its very existence is a noble one. At a loss for how to close, I choose to end this personal comment in the manner of a fitting tribute: by raising a glass and cocking my middle finger.

The bawdy Earl of Rochester.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 15 July 2006]

Johnny Depp is cool, clever and calculating as John Wilmont, the Earl of Rochester. The celebrated and decadent poet, playwright and rake of notoriety is banished in 17th century London after writing a scandalous play mocking King Charles II(John Malkovich), who actually commissioned the play to impress a visiting French dignitary. In spite of his tedious marriage to Elizabeth Malet(Rosamund Pike), the salacious Earl falls in love with the struggling actress Mrs. Barry(Samantha Morton). Redemption on his own terms would be unsuccessful as his non-stop drinking and whore-mongering would accelerate Wilmont's downfall.

THE LIBERTINE in based on the Stephen Jeffrey play and is strikingly directed by Laurence Dunmore. I still profess that Depp is the DeNiro of his generation. Also featured are: Johnny Vegas, Richard Coyle, Rupert Friend, Paul Ritter and Francesca Annis.

Dull and pretentious

[quis_ego · 1/10 · 24 November 2005]

I had high hopes for this. Johnny Depp, Samantha Morton, John Malkovich, lots of good things said at various film festivals... but the lack of a widespread release should have been a hint. This film isn't very good at all.

It will mark me as a philistine to say so but I thought about 7/8 of the film was pretentious rubbish. Much of the dialogue was authentically 17th century, but it was hard to listen to because the sound mix was bad, and the print was so grainy it looked like a pirate DVD. Perhaps not being able to clearly see or hear the goings-on was intentional, but the lack of plot didn't give us much else to concentrate on. There was lots of artful focusing and un-focusing which just appeared as though the cameraman didn't know what he was doing. But most obvious of all was the fact that it was all pretty boring and everyone was acting their little socks off in it to make it "worthy". There are several scenes between Depp and Morton where he coaches her to be a better actress. These scenes drag terribly, they are unmoving and long-winded and slow the film to a virtual halt.

I will give credit where it's due and say that Johnny Depp in a long curly wig, eyeliner and cocked hat was worth seeing. The servant character was excellent. And to be fair the whole boring shebang massively improved about 20 minutes before the end. At this point, the Earl gets syphilis, becomes horribly disfigured, loses control of his bladder and has to start wearing a strap-on metal nose when his real nose rots away. He also gives a jolly rousing speech in the House of Lords which makes us actually care about him for the first time in the film. If the whole thing had been anything like as engaging as the last 20 minutes it would have been an excellent film. As it is, our Christmas and Thanksgiving turkey has been served up early.

Still, worth going to see if only to witness John Malkovich's 'English' accent. You'd think he'd know better after starring alongside Ted Theodore Logan in Dangerous Liaisons, but no.

Dark melodrama with unexpected depth

[Chris_Docker · 8/10 · 21 November 2005]

What images are conjured up by the title! Especially when we know in advance the lead is to be played by the handsome Johnny Depp. Perhaps a likable rake, a dissolute, even fashionable but very colourful icon of male supremacy - to be forgiven by female fans if they can watch from the safety of a cinema seat!

The reality is a disturbingly different film, dark and sombre, a 17th century candle-lit England, a portrait of the poet and debauchee John Wilmot, and one that ultimately bows out to a feminist heroine in the form of the great actress Elizabeth Barry (played by Samantha Morton).

In an opening prologue, Wilmot tells the audience that they will not like him. With the gusto characteristic of Depp, he throws himself into his melodramatic character in a way that is markedly different from his many half-serious, half-comic roles. As if to win his wager, he is out to repulse us - but not just with licentious excess: the tragedy of Wilmot is that he possesses genius but is unable to use it to furnish his own fulfilment. He is a tragic character, no Don Juan that follows a promiscuous lifestyle as a summum bonum, but a man of inner greatness for whom the outer world is so boring that he loses himself in drink and sexual excess and eventually alienates those around him. "I have to speak my mind," he says, "for it is always more interesting than what is going on around me."

As the 2nd Earl of Rochester, Wilmot is in and out of favour at the court of Charles II (John Malkovitch) and frequently upsets his lovely wife (Rosamund Pike) with his whoring and drinking. But his wife's jealousy is eventually piqued not so much by the loose women or the ale-house, but by Wilmot's love of the theatre - especially in the form of prostitute-destined-for-greatness, Elizabeth Barry. At a time before the emancipation of women, when the stage had recently been the sole province of men, Barry is determined to make it as an actress. She is hobbled by inexperience and a lowly position, but Wilmot takes her under his patronage and tutelage. Wary of the deal, Barry resists, saying she wants to rise by her own efforts - not so Wilmot can take the credit! He asks her what drives her, and her response, her passion for theatre, the desire to thrill and move an audience, is one that Wilmot identifies with, for he is tired of the lukewarm pastiches that trivialise even great writing.

Unfortunately for Wilmot, his own greatness is on the ebb. It was said of him that he was, "A man whom the muses were fond to inspire, but ashamed to avow." His taunting of the king and a scurrilous lampoon of Charles II in front of the French ambassador help to seal his fate.

Samantha Morton continues to show her acting talents with a substantial (if not substantial enough) part and Malkovitch is an adequate counterbalance to the very considerable stage presence of Depp. The screenplay (based on an earlier play starring Malkovitch) sparkles with wit and, even if the direction is a little uneven or turgid at times, it is an admirable and important debut from Laurence Dunmore. The desaturated colours and muddy, rain-sodden English countryside create an air of foreboding entirely appropriate for a work that is more serious than its title suggests.

Intellectually, we are treated to the drollness and intelligence of Wilmot but realise that he is a 'locked-in' and isolated character, a loner and barely appreciated trailblazer (in some respects like the great Marlon Brando to whose memory, among others, the film is dedicated). We also see the folly and weakness of his philosophy.

Wilmot wrote:

"Consider real Honour then, You'll find hers cannot be the same; 'Tis noble confidence in men, In women, mean, mistrustful shame."

Yet it was the honour of the lowly Elizabeth Barry that ultimately inspired him and, somehow, remained ever out of reach.

A deep look at humanity at its worst.

[toyboxmonster · 7/10 · 11 July 2007]

I was a little unsure about renting this movie at first, simply because it did not seem like the typical adventurous, fun-filled and slightly over-the-top Johnny Depp movie. I did eventually rent it and did not regret it one bit. "The Libertine" is a masterfully arranged movie that manages to capture the dirty, grimy feel intended to be associated with Rochester, the people he knows, and the places he frequents. The movie relies heavily on the characters and hence on the actors, who do a magnificent job of keeping the story on its feet. Each actors was greatly convincing in his/her role, giving each character a very 'real' feel and enhancing the movie's impact. Lighting and sets, while not particularly pretty to the eye, are fitting in every way. All in all, this movie was a great success and has managed to penetrate (no pun intended) the barrier between entertaining and interesting.

With brilliant performances, it's a shame this is not a brilliant movie

[angel-273 · 5/10 · 4 February 2007]

The cast is amazingly brilliant. The direction was raw and honest-- no matter the subject. The play on which the screenplay is based is a great work in and of itself which gave me a cause to be rather expectant of the movie's release. Depp, Pike, Morton, Malkovich (who originated the lead role on the stage) and the supporting cast were all wonderful. The disappointment came with the unfolding of events, with the editing choices, and the decisions to cut and paste so roughly that ultimately resulted in a rushed story line and a confused audience. What had the potential for immense cinematic greatness was defeated by pace and form. Very disappointing, but 5 out of 10 simply for the beautiful cinematography and outstanding performance by the cast.

Worthy of much more praise

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 27 March 2015]

The Libertine is definitely not for the faint-hearted or those who are easily offended. For those who love great production values, storytelling and acting, The Libertine will be a treat. It may not be a personal favourite as of yet but I for one found it an exceptionally good film and think it doesn't get enough recognition.

It is a very meticulous-looking film, the photography is wonderfully moody yet sumptuous, the film has a very telling atmosphere and it really feels like you're transported back into the 17th century looking at the costumes and sets. Michael Nyman's score is understated and haunting, fitting beautifully with the atmosphere, though to me it could have used more music from the period which would have given off even more authenticity. The script is funny, thoughtful and packs emotional punch while the story while occasionally dragging is told rivetingly with scenes like the chair scene between Wilmot and Elizabeth, Wilmot's address to parliament and the final scene really lifted by the quality and the acting. Laurence Dunmore directs most admirably, remarkably good for a debut, inexperience occasionally shows but a vast majority of the time it's incredibly well done.

Characters are compelling, especially Wilmot who is very multi-layered, but if there was one thing that was truly exceptional about The Libertine it was the acting. Johnny Depp gives a powerhouse and multi-layered performance that ranks among his best. The dependable Samantha Morton marvels too, John Malkovich does stately and ambiguous in a suitably restrained and regal way while still maintaining interest and Rosamund Pike gives the most heartfelt performance I've ever seen her give(coming from someone who has liked a lot of what she's done), particularly a revelation in the chair scene. The chemistry throughout convinces though that between Depp and Pike came over personally as stronger than that between him and Morton.

All in all, a fine film if not for everybody and really deserves much more praise than it gets. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Wig show

[stensson · 6/10 · 13 April 2006]

The earl of Rochester says in a prologue, that you will not like him, and surely we won't. He really has a libertine's life, drinking too much and having too much sex with other people than his wife. And he is punished in a way, that I should not tell you about.

Johnny Depp is making a great performance, being bored, bored, bored and having this hatred for life. Both the way he's having it and the way other's do. Out of his punishment, he comes to some insight, but it's a little too obvious. As a spectator, you don't have to think much for yourself; the film makers do that instead.

Still it's a bit touching and if you decide to see this as a moral tale, go ahead. But it's hard to like the earl, whatever you decide.

I don't like your Movie

[ferguson-6 · 3/10 · 12 March 2006]

Greetings again from the darkness. In real life there are few things more pathetic that those who are desperate to be cool. The same is true of films. First time director Laurence Dunmore was handed a top notch lead cast and a terrific story (but a horrible screenplay). The result is quite simply, a bad film.

The camera work wreaks of desperate attempts to mimic Soderberg, the score is overwrought with mood that just does not exist on screen and the dialog is pure rubbish. The truly amazing Johnny Depp is the only thing that prevents the film from becoming Hollywood lore as eclipsing "Plan 9 from Outer Space" as the all time worst. Although Depp dominates the screen as John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, the supporting cast is also solid. John Malkovich, Rosamund Pike ("Pride and Prejudice"), Samantha Morton (brilliant in "In America") all make brave but futile attempts to salvage this mess.

Do not mistake my dislike for the film as some prudish defense on debauchery. For significantly better films with similar subject matter, please see "Quills" or "Amadeus". Another tip of the cap to Mr. Depp who escapes this catastrophe with his dignity intact. Looking forward to the next "Pirates".

movie review

[jcd2girl · 21 September 2004]

I had the fortunate pleasure of viewing The Libertine in Toronto on Saturday 9/18/04 and wanted to share my thoughts and feelings. Before doing so, in reply to those who have seen it and have made comments on things such as the sound, camera work, lighting, etc., it should be reminded that this film was shone at the festival in the "Special Presentations" category and was listed as "a work in progress." The filmmakers were hustling to get the film edited as much as they could before the first showing, in hopes of finding a distributor. That said, minor details such as those mentioned need to be taken with a grain of salt. If released theatrically, or to DVD alone, it will be further "cleaned up" and edited. But I digress, because that wasn't what I was paying attention to while watching this movie. I go to see a movie for the story, the characters, and/or the actors; not the lighting, sound or costumes. Now, on to my review: In a nutshell, this movie was fantastic and the performance of Johnny Depp was nothing short of brilliant.

I was captivated from the moment Depp begins his monologue as the Earl of Rochester to assure the audience that "You will not like me," to the very end of his epilogue where he asks "How do you like me now?" Depp impeccably captured the essence of a man who despised life, drank profusely, seduced women, condescended everyone from the King to his mother to his servant, and preferred to have his portrait done with a monkey rather than his wife. Hmmm, not too much to like, right? On the contrary. Mixed with his utter disrespect for life was his charm, his wit, his irresistibility, and his desire to do whatever he pleased. As such, I had conflicting feelings of hatred, pity, love and admiration for Rochester. This was due, entirely, to Depp's performance. As Rochester's fatal disease begins to take it's toll, Depp transforms into a creature almost too unbearable to look at. You will weep and shudder at the same time. It is without doubt Depp's best work to date and I'm convinced that no other actor could have portrayed him as brilliantly as Johnny. John Malkovich as Charles II, and Samantha Morton as Rochester's mistress are wonderful as well, and contribute nicely to a movie mixed with humor, sex, tragedy, and darkness. All said, it was a movie I would highly recommend and would love desperately to see again.

Depp Delivers Again!!

[thecelticpoet · 7/10 · 27 March 2006]

The Libertine is definitely not a feel good story, but it is interesting, funny at times and delightful in its wickedness. However, if there is anything brilliant about it, it's Johnny Depp's performance. He is my favourite actor; I've seen almost everything he has ever done and he has NEVER been better and should be nominated for an Academy Award for this role. I couldn't take my eyes off him; he totally blew me away! This is a very decadent story, set in 1675 during Charles II's reign, of a man's moral, emotional and psychological slide into oblivion who manages to redeem himself somewhat in the end. Johnny plays a drunken, debaucherous court poet of noble birth, John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, who falls in love with an actress played by Samantha Morton who doesn't love him back although she acknowledges that he is responsible for turning her into a great actress. Wilmot is a cynical man who no longer takes pleasure from life and ends up dying a slow, horrifying death from syphilis.

Depp was stunningly beautiful to look at for the first half of the film but as Wilmot deteriorated from syphilis his face became hideous while his character's emotional conflict was never more evident.

John Malkovich starred as Charles II and he was excellent as always, as was the exceptional Samantha Morton who stole many of her scenes with Depp. Rosamund Pike was very good as Wilmot's devoted but tortured wife although why she stayed with him is a bit of a mystery. The fantastic Richard Coyle of the BBC sitcom Coupling, played Wilmot's servant Alcock and he was wonderful, offering several moments of comic relief. Jack Davenport, who also starred in Coupling and with Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean was underused but did well with what he had to work with.

I was a little distracted by the way the film was lit and the fact that the focus wasn't always sharp but I would watch it again for the sheer enjoyment of Depp's sensational performance.

Bravo to the Weinsteins!

[adamwhite · 7/10 · 20 April 2006]

What a bold film with which to launch your new production company! This is anything but typical, a truly dense and complex story that explores the dark corners of the human psyche with unmistakable style and impact.

Johnny Depp's Earl of Rochester walks a tightrope in this story, between the threat of being crushed by his own excesses and becoming a caricature of the British aristocracy's lifestyle attitudes during this time period. He leans dangerously close to falling at numerous points within the story, until finally suffering a doom that is best described as a combination of both.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of this film - quite a compliment considering both the production design and acting - is the complexity of the dialog, which weaves a wonderful ambiguity around practically all of the major characters and prevents the audience from "categorizing" any of them. Depp's Earl is equally charming and revolting, confident and terrified, likable and despicable. John Malkovich's king is just as complicated, at times genuinely concerned for his friend while never failing to consider how his deeds and decisions will inevitably reflect on his legacy as a ruler. Samantha Morton gives a tour-de-force performance as the actress who steals the Earl's heart, yet recognizes the danger of giving herself completely to a man who consumes all within his grasp to such excess. A dash of comic relief is vital to survive such a raw and intense journey, and comes courtesy of the Earl's manservant Allcock.

The Libertine is certainly not a typical commercial period piece, in which the aristocratic lifestyle is glamorized and romanticized. Instead, the muddy boots and somewhat-less-than-housebroken dogs within this telling add tremendously to its overall feel of edginess and the impending hangover of despair brought on by overindulgence and excess. Bravo to the Weinsteins for picking such a complex piece of film art with which to launch their latest venture.

Feels a little aimless but is that the point?

[zlove-1 · 7/10 · 8 January 2007]

The first thing that struck me about this film is its dirty look and shaky camera-work. The second thing was its vagueness. While obviously a biopic focused on the Earl, following the beats of his life to find its narrative, it just doesn't seem to lead anywhere, perhaps with the exception of the Earl's speech to parliament (bordering on cheesy 'redemption for the devil' territory - until Depp convinces us with the delivery of one line that his intention was completely self-indulgent). Even the romance with Elizabeth kinda meandered into nowhere. And yet, with the Earl being the character he is, a genius who is unable to find a place to be at peace in life or find a happy place in which to completely indulge his peculiar and lustful desires, one realises that this is probably the filmmaker's intention - the style of film and its constantly collapsing narrative mirrors the life and personality of the Earl himself. Period England has never looked so dirty, and (based on what I've learnt in English Lit classes anyway) it is great to see a realistic portrayal of the debauchery and excess, not to mention the brilliantly poetic foul language which prevailed at the time. Depp is once again superb, and does not overplay a larger than life character in the least, where many many great actors I'm sure would've done so. He holds his own against Malkovich in their scenes with little strain, and it is amusing to see some of his fellow 'Pirates' actors turn up in new guises. Perhaps a little frustrating for many in that there is arguably no redemption for this character you probably want to like...and maybe you will...this is the very question asked directly by the Earl himself, at the film's close, and a very very interesting one at that.

it almost makes me want to check out Wilmott's poems, BUT...

[Quinoa1984 · 4/10 · 11 March 2006]

...you'd have to pay me to think about sitting through this film again. Part of me, I suppose, is glad that I saw it (and got it over with), and part of me wonders still hours after returning from the theater what went wrong here. What I think happened is this: a good leading cast (Johnny Depp, Samantha Morton, and John Malkovich) was assembled with a first-time director, Laurence Dunmore, who either didn't know quite what he was doing with the material &/or tried too much (ok, we get it, you can do a hand-held camera move going in circles around two actors, what are you driving at though?), along with a screenplay that just doesn't work for me. Is it perhaps a little too 'wordy'? It's a term that is hard to use in a sense as it is based on the play by the same author. But throughout the film I kept on thinking that there COULD be a better film made about these people, about this Earl of Rochester John Wilmott (Depp); there are a few moments that do make the film watchable and even interesting. But should every character who speaks sound like they're saying something completely profound and 'big'? It's a case where saying less would've done more than having there being line after line of sometimes good, sometimes overbearing, dialog.

It's also a case where the actors are there doing what they can, but almost being trapped within the limits of the direction and script. For an atmosphere that gives off such debauchery and with a main character who does spark some interest in how he looks at the world (amid all of this royalty and wealth and artistry and not enjoying it), the whole tone and movement and style of the picture reminds me of a scene where a carriage is riding up to a castle, stuck in the mud, not being able to move out of place. Depp plays John, the Earl, for half of the film one way, and then the other half another (I preferred the second half, where he got to use some of his darker instincts to better effect), as a drunken poet who finds some kind of solace in an actress (Morton, dependable as always if definitely not at her best), while serving a King who could give a damn about him (John Malkovich, who is good, but what gives with the obvious hook nose). His plight into eventual depression, exile and disease would earn more merit if the audience could be let in on this world a little more. I can get into dour films, but this isn't one of them.

And it's a shame, since the scenes of a) the Earl's moments of poetry (which, as a poet myself, are quite good), b) the scene with the pornography/King play, and c) some of the juicier dramatic moments in the last twenty disease-ridden minutes, do bring a viewer in and sparks some fascination. But it's a mess in terms of just how all of this is steered by Dunmore, who implements a bad musical score, has no imagination with the camera, and doesn't know where to cut down on the 17th Century-era English dialog. Then again one can sense the pressures of being both a Malkovich AND Weinstein brothers production (Lord knows what was snipped off by Harvey at the last minute). But at the end it wasn't that I didn't "like" this character of the Earl (reffering to the prologue and epilogue done to the camera by Depp), but that I just didn't care. So, it's a mess, however, if there could be anything kinda sort of OK to say about it, it's the kind of mess that could only feature such consummate professionals like Depp and Malkovich; bad actors wouldn't go this far.

I'm 33 years old..and I'm dying.

[Scarecrow-88 · 8/10 · 29 November 2006]

The Earl of Rochester(Johnny Depp, in his finest performance I believe)is invited back from being banished in the country by Charles II(Malkovich, very effective as the long-nosed King)to London where he begins where he left off..embellishing himself with women, wine, and the theater. Charles allows the burden of such a troubled genius because of his intellect and amusing banter when it doesn't sink it's fangs too deep. Unfortunately, his willingness to submerge himself into depravity will destroy him. He really isn't a very happy man and his pleasuring purge is a way of drowning out such sorrow. When he takes on an understudy, Lizzy(Samantha Morton, a bit too theatrical)to show her the proper way to exude her true talents in her performances on stage, Earl falls madly in love with her. It awakens something within, a passion for life that isn't there when he is home with his gorgeous wife, Elizabeth(Rosamund Pike). When he pulls one prank too many(a hilariously perverse play for a French man of great importance that Charles wishes to impress for money his country has a lack of consisting of dildo's and the Earl himself dressed to the nines exactly as his King in a form of mockery)his life descends into disease and poverty. His body ravaged with pox and his face overwhelmed with horrible diseased scarring..his nose needs a silver covering while he can barely walk, hobbling everywhere he goes. He would lie dead, a shell of what he once was, at age 33.

The film doesn't judge John Wilmot, but certainly shows who he was and the film is frank in dialogue how he spoke. He followed the wants of the flesh despite the feelings of his God-fearing mother or his dutiful wife who took and took without anything given back to her. Wilmot was kept by Charles because of his abilities, but even those become futile as he slowly washes out reality with the alcohol he consumes. Though, the film is fascinating to me because of Johnny Depp's performance. Depp is enigmatic and Rochester..he held my interest the entire time. The film is directed by a hand-held which may drive purists batty who are used to period pieces being lensed in a slick pattern. The director here seems to what to bring an ugliness and poverty-stricken feel to Charles' land at this point and time..by having the camera move, even at times where the camera seems to be held by some amateur using his camcorder taping live events from the 1800's, we feel like we're actually nearby watching Rochester ruin his life as a voyeur. I always felt that is why directors of today like to binge on the hand-helds. They want to bring a personal feel to the viewer as if we are placed right within the action of that moment. I liked the use of this device in this film, not to mention the "dirty" cinematography so many critics fussed about. I like that the film shows the period as ugly and deformed as Rochester becomes. But, without Depp's giving his all to this character, showing him with all the faults and loss, the film wouldn't be as successful as I thought it was.

Profound, but not very good

[zebraspots · 7/10 · 9 October 2006]

"The Libertine" is one of the worst great movies I've ever seen. Allow me to explain more throughly. At first, I was expecting some sort of rotten, more evil "Casanova" to come skirting about the screen, ending with the man acting exactly as he did before the film started. Instead, we got an almost profound look at theatre and leaders in the 17th century.

This is Laurence Dunmore's (the director) first film, and it shows. He is increasingly creative in his camera shots and keeps the movie in a slightly surreal state as you go through. The camera placements, etc. are by no means new ideas, but they are still interesting.

John Wilmot (Johnny Depp) is the Earl of Rochester, and is also the "Libertine". His actions appear to be no worse than those around him, it is his words that set him apart from his fellow man. He is very blunt, if he does not like someone he says so, thus making him cruel. "I don't mean to upset people, but I must speak my mind. For what's in my mind is far more interesting than whats outside my mind." No one really likes him as a result. His wife leaves him, the only ones who mange to stay at his side are servants. One would begin to wonder what the point of the whole movie is. He dies in his thirties and the world seems no better and no worse a place.

However, onward to why such a film should warrant an astonishing three stars. Because the character of Wilcot is so straightforward, he manages to impart some very deep wisdom. For the life of me, I cannot now put that wisdom into words of my own. At one point he does speak of consequences. How life is boring because not everything you do has a consequence, but in the theatre, everything matters. . . "drop a handkerchief, and it comes back to smother you later," referring to "Hamlet". It is also ironic he would say this as such because his lifestyle comes back to kill him.

One more thing. At the beginning of the movie, Wilcot wears a terrible wig. I did no think it possible for anyone or anything to make Johnny Depp look unattractive, but there you have it.

Possibly the worst major film of 2006

[catuus · 1/10 · 18 July 2006]

I don't very often 86 a DVD from my collection. My copy of "Libertine" went to the used DVD store this morning. I made a special trip because the thing might infect my other discs.

Strangely, this should never have happened. The life of John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester, is a fascinating subject for a film. Rochester, virtually the most decadent man in a decadent age, epitomized Restoration England's rejection of Puritan tyranny. Unfortunately, you would never realize this from the film – in which Charles II and his world exist virtually in an historical vacuum. In fact, just about the only actual history intruding upon the film is the scene – incidentally far and away the best in the film – in which Rochester (largely incapacitated by his galloping syphilis) appears in the House of Lords and contrives the passage of a bill that will assure the accession of Charles II's brother, James II. (This of course in turn assured the accession of William III and Mary II, not quite what Charles had in mind.) Rochester, a brilliant poet and playwright, could have been a great ornament to Charles II's court had he not chosen to alternate between defying the megalomaniacal king and vilifying him. This aspect of their relationship isn't exactly ignored in the film, although it appears to come from nowhere rather than having a history. The film opens with a monologue by Depp, pushing the point that Rochester's rather unlikable character is primarily a deliberate pose. This unwonted diluting of his personal tragedy is only the first misjudgement of many that tie "Libertine's" shoelaces into such an awful knot. We then progress to Rochester's position at court, which is shown to be precarious. Rochester's main concerns at the moment are a new production requested by the king and an actress, a protégée of his, Elizabeth Berry.

The production, once staged, is obviously intended to represent the entertainment that so offended the king as to provoke a break between him and the abrasive Rochester. It's hard to judge the historical accuracy of the film's representation of that event, which seems a bit much. However, one would have to go some in order to scandalize what was without doubt the most dissolute court in Europe. In disgrace, Rochester disappears for a time, taking Miss Berry with him. The film, alas, doesn't inform the viewer about actresses during the Restoration. For one thing, until about this period women weren't allowed on the stage. In fact, nobody was allowed on the stage during the Puritan tyranny (the "Commonwealth"). "The Libertine" doesn't even mention that Charles II's primary mistress, Nell Gwyn, was herself a well-known actress.

When Rochester reappears, he is much ravaged by terminal syphilis. Wearing a false nose and barely walking with 2 canes, he aids the king during the crisis over the succession. He eventually dies – probably not much more frustrated than the audience.

Generally speaking, it takes bad actors to make bad pictures. Here, however, the excellence of the cast throws the awfulness of this film into high relief. Rochester is played by Johnny Depp -- who, if anyone could, might have saved this thing. He plays the part with enormous verve and sincerity, as he always does. Alas, all he does here is manage to highlight the banality and stereotypicality of the script.

John Malkovich, whose understated sophistication doesn't always endear him to viewers, is the perfect foil for Depp as Charles II. Malkovich, in full makeup, is shown as a perfect descendant of the supremely ugly James I (but, of course, Charles – unlike James – was partial to women) (hence the later references to the era of "good King Elizabeth and good Queen James"). His performance is absolutely spot-on, even to the extent that he's frequently able to upstage Depp.

I've not run across the obviously talented Samantha Morton before. She tends to appear in films that, were I to watch them, would have me thinking, "Gee, I could be watching the 'Toon Channel instead!" Here, her performance as Elizabeth Berry is first-rate.

Other performances become increasingly minor, but I can't say that any of them was badly done. Notwithstanding, these valiant efforts are swallowed up in this great sprawling confusion of a film. It's difficult to say which is the murkier aspect of this: the photography or the combined results of script and editing.

Much of the problem with the film's photography is that it appears to be a failed attempt to use natural lighting – including candle light. The result is mostly varying degrees of off-focus dimness. One constantly has to squint to make sure that one's eyes are working properly and what's wrong is on the screen.

The script may have been, at the beginning, a model of orderly logic. Once processed into a final product, however, the result is jumbled and more non-linear than any storyline should be. While the general development of things is more or less evident, following motivations and the order of events can often be frustrating.

I have no idea whether anything herein constitutes a "spoiler". Some people spoil very easily. Anyway, I said there was one just to be safe.

If you want a well-made film set in this same period, one that develops its themes with great force and clarity, watch "Restoration". This reminds me of another problem with "Libertine". "Period" films often benefit greatly from scores featuring music of the same period. Unlike "Restoration", which gives us an auditory feast of Purcell and other musicians of the era, "Libertine" gives us hardly anything – and certainly not the glorious music of the reigns of the late Stuarts. It may be of interest to note that it was Purcell who wrote incidental music to a play by Thomas Shadwell called … wait for it … "The Libertine". This last almost certainly trod the boards more successfully than this latter-day success

Debauching lives in the XVII century

[jpgonc · 8/10 · 8 February 2006]

The Libertine is a central story centered in one debauching, drunk, poet, charismatic, relentless and magnific man called Earl of Rochester.

As it often happened with other great men in the past centuries, Earl is posthumously recognized later as a great personality.

More than excellent acting for all the cast with Johnny Deep equal to his mastery performances, Malkovich, with a small role, equally great, a classical set of the XVII century, the royal court, the local vagrant Inns, brothels and theaters makes this business fly.

The story of a man without moral principles but at the same time intelligent, subtle and with a possession of a genuine libertine archetype, rare for the most common men.

The frantic image of a poet-drunker, embedded with the long-time relationship with prostitutes and a somewhat laziness ambiguous behavior of irrational life against the reason.

He falls in love with a rookie actress, "humiliates" the English King with an uncommon play presented to the french ambassador/representative of the French King and dares to do what it pleases him most: Erotic playwriting...

Excellent movie, that's all... but not for everyone.

A Dark Historical Commentary on Contemporary Art and Society

[noralee · 7/10 · 25 January 2006]

"The Libertine" takes place during the reign of England's Charles II, in movie terms at the same time as "Restoration" and "Stage Beauty". But this far darker and literally muddier view of the impact of the fall of the Puritains on culture and, like "The Crucible," is intended less to be an historical pageant than to defend artistic and sexual freedom in the late 20th century. Syphilis seems to stand in for AIDS, a point that gets confused at the end.

Adapting his own play, Stephen Jeffreys emphasizes its theatrical origins with extensive defenses of the role of the theater. Johnny Depp as the titular nicknamed Earl of Rochester, who is very much not the fop in extensive wigs, is a witty, sexy, seductive Oscar Wilde type with bon mots and intellectual vulgarisms.

So it's a bit disappointing that the Earl's king-commissioned piece de resistance is more like a tableau by Karen Finley crossed with the Open Theater by Caligula than as lasting literature which Wilde did produce while also making his life his art and artistic statement. Maybe the Earl was making the point that in a licentious and jaded Gilded Age one has to go to extremes for political protest. His articulate but disease-wracked defense of the king at the House of Lords is moving to show that politics itself is theater, but seems a sad finale for a broken man, if I'm interpreting it correctly.

Depp is the center of attention, but this could be promoted as Samantha Morton Talks! While she has been captivating in pantomimes or virtually nonverbal, suffering roles in "Sweet and Lowdown," "Code 46," "Morvern Callar," "In America" and "Minority Report," here she is womanly and feisty as the Earl's protégé. Certainly this is her first strong woman with a lot of beautiful hair.

So it's ironic that Depp actually has less chemistry on screen with her than with Rupert Friend, playing his third released pretty hunk role of the year after "Pride & Prejudice" and "Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont".

There are several other cast members from "P & P" who get to fully unleash other sides of their talents, such as Tom Hollander and Rosamund Pike as the Earl's loyal wife (and there's an implication at the end that the family's bitterness may have resulted in destruction of his literary legacy). Claire Higgins is marvelous as a cynical theater manager. John Malkovich is the best Charles II on screen yet, making him a real man and politician despite the costumes.

The location shooting on English estates is beautiful. Either it was a very rainy season or mud was intentionally shipped in for realism. The shadowy interiors authentically recreate a pre-electric environment.

While Michael Nyman's music doesn't seem to make any period effort, it is beautiful.

There's extensive memorial tributes in the closing credits, including to Marlon Brando and Hunter S. Thompson.

Ugly

[kenjha · 1/10 · 26 December 2012]

This film recounts the life and times of a 17th century poet who wallowed in drink and debauchery. This is a dull and dreary film that not only tells an ugly story about an uninteresting fellow, but also looks ugly. The cinematography is gray and grainy, making for a very depressing viewing experience. The script is too murky. It starts with Depp seemingly talking to the audience from beyond the grave and goes downhill from there. The dialog is too pretentious and there's too much of it. It's just an unpleasant way to spend a couple of hours. Depp tries hard and there are other good actors, but they are given little to work with. Curiously this is the only directorial credit of Dunmore.