Limerculer
A waste of 90 minutes of my life
Invaderbank
The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.
Lidia Draper
Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
kenjha
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.
kiwisago
I discovered this film after reading a biography of Charles II and looking up related material. For history buffs, this is a real find. It strives for authenticity much more successfully than the vast majority of historically-inspired films. For one thing, Malkovich really does have a pretty good resemblance to Charles II...and the main character really was a total babe, just like Johnny Depp. The dim lighting, and acres of muck add a further sense of realism. The script is great, but an old enough form of English that it's rewarded by more than one listen to get the full gist of it. Because of this, I enjoy the film more every time I see it. But if anyone is checking out the film purely because of it's near-pornographic reputation, don't bother. It's more repulsive than attractive on that score. Yes, it's hard to believe, but Johnny does not come across as anyone you'd really want to sleep with in this film.
classicalsteve
"You will not like me," Depp as John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, states at the beginning of the film. This story is about the issue of actors and playwrights being either liked or disliked on and off the stage. Although the events take place in the late 17th century, the issues about acting and performance are the same as they are today. The audience will either love you or hate you. There is little in between.For 10 years, from 1649 to 1660, England and Scotland became a Republic under the Puritan leadership of Oliver Cromwell. The theaters were closed, gambling banned, drinking discouraged, and Bible study became mandatory. (However opera did continue.) Sort of the 17th-century equivalent of the southern Bible-Belt in the United States several centuries later.When Charles II became king and restored the throne in 1660, the Puritan restrictions were lifted. The theaters were reopened along with the brothels and the ale houses. As a result the country's libido went sort of wild. Sex, drinking, and gambling came back into vogue full force--things that make life worth living. Apparently, St James Park and other places in London became a hot spot for orgies that would give the bordellos of the 19th century a run for their money.This swinging of the "moral" pendulum toward a libertine sensibility manifested itself through the voices of playwrights and poets. Bawdy and risqué theater, poems and songs became all the rage and is often called "Restoration Comedy". No poet/playwright of the era was more bawdy and risqué than the young John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester. He led a double-life as a poet/playwright of Restoration Comedy but was also a member of the House of Lords."The Libertine" is a cinematic portrait of John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, as the most liberated and uninhibited of the playwright-poets of the era, which also included the likes of John Dryden and George Etheridge. According to the film, Rochester doesn't just write risqué plays and poems. He lives the life of a sex-fiend and an alcoholic, constantly looking for sex and drink when he's not working at the theater. He is considered simultaneously brilliant and erratic; he is his own worst enemy as he neglects his duties as a nobleman. He was one of the few members of the House of Lords who commiserates with theater artists. He begins training a young woman in acting who is at first reviled by the audience at a performance. They then become lovers.Rochester is commissioned by his friend and patron, King Charles II, to write a spectacular play to impress ambassadors from France. But little does the king know that Wilmot's intentions are far from honoring his king. Behind the scenes, Wilmot trashes his sovereign and the entire institute of the monarchy, and he reveals that these opinions will be manifested in his work. During the performance in which the king and the French are in attendance, the ambassadors say his play (which I will not give away) would cause King Louis XIV of France to hang the playwright.Underneath the bawdiness of the era is a kind of somber undertone, a lack of depth of feeling and honesty which may be the main point of the film. Certainly, they threw off the shackles of Puritanism but also may have inadvertently put on a different kind of bondage, missing out on the comforts of love and fulfillment. The bawdy songs and the sex orgies are fun but have little to do with love and real relationships. The entire look of the experience is somewhat reminiscent of the darker filters used in the Godfather. Much of the landscape is probably relatively true to what the time and place was like. We still have the palaces, the music, the poems, and the books from the era. What we don't have are the strange mix of unease and monarchy in an era that was still trying to figure out what it wanted to be. Or do we? An incredible and underrated film.
paul2001sw-1
Most historical dramas follow a deadly-dull formula, based on pretty costumes, convention and romance. But 'The Libertine' is a wholly refreshing film, showing that it's possible to make an original period drama that shuns the formulae that mar many others. The film is boosted by terrific performances from the entire cast, and a poetic dialogue that has the feel of that of a 17th century play, but subtly infused with a naturalistic and contemporary flavour. The story is based on a real life libertine, and the court of Charles II was known for its debauchery, but I doubt the real figure was quite as extraordinary or publicly obscene as the character played here by Johnny Depp; but the world depicted here makes perfect sense in its own terms. And the creation of this world is really the film's entire point, as the plot is fairly linear and limited. But this is a movie of unusual flair and verve.
