User reviews

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.

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")

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.

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.

The Libertine was a brilliant period piece. It was a tragically realistic yet witty and humorous look at the Restoration period in England, but more specifically depicted the latter stages of the life of the Second Earl Of Rochester, a poet, who endured a short and debauched life. Here was a man so highly intelligent, yet so bored with life that he thrived by consistently pushing his limits and the boundaries of his relationships.

Johnny Depp eloquently and emotionally portrayed the Earl of Wilmot. This has to be by far his most brilliant achievement in a long line of unique and amazing performances. Mr. Depp's portrayal of the Earl showed a range of emotions, incredible nuances and a depth of empathy never before seen on screen, best illustrated during the scene where The Earl addresses parliament - which has to be the most gut wrenching scene, rife with fervor but with credibility. Suffice it to say by the end of this movie I had been reduced to tears and cheers, both at times coinciding. This is definitely an Oscar worthy performance. The golden statue is a must.

The supporting cast was also excellent; most notably, the actor who played the Earl's servant, and who appeared to have a great rapport with Mr. Depp, on screen. Samantha Morton, also superb as Mrs. Barry, gave a lovely and unobtrusive performance as was required for this character.

Laurence Dunmore captured the atmosphere of the period exquisitely with simplicity yet with a keen eye to detail. The reproduction of the 'family' Portrait of the Earl with the monkey is an excellent example. The lighting, the sets, the costumes all added to the reality of the movie. The musical score by Michael Nyman beautifully augmented the spirit of the times and of this production.

The Libertine was a work in progress when I viewed it twice at the Toronto Film Fest. I cannot imagine a scene being cut; even the more risqué dreams are required to impart the true emotional state of the Earl at that time in his life. Before passing judgment on this film I suggest that one see it at least twice so as to appreciate the full impact of the movie – to fully identify with the meaning and the thought behind this production.

The Libertine is a wonderful piece of art, representing the true raison d'être of this poet with incredible wit and insight. Congratulations to all who graced the production of the Libertine.

This wasn't a glamorized period costume drama that Hollywood loves to overdo and it wasn't NC-17 for nothing! There was some technical roughness and lack of continuity but they were minor quibbles in what I considered a triumph. The mood, the sets and cinematography, the script and, most of all, the acting were all of the highest and most innovative caliber. Depp was in almost every scene and was fascinating beyond anything I'd ever experienced. His force and range of emotion and naturalness were exceptionally powerful and moving from first to last. You hated him and loved him, were repulsed by him and felt pity for him. You were drawn to him almost against your will, like a vortex pulling you in. All else paled in comparison. This was a Johnny Depp that I'd never seen before but so hope I have a chance to again. This performance is the crowning glory to date of his illustrious career and I see no limits to what he can accomplish in the future. Everyone else was uniformly excellent although Samantha Morton didn't portray the allure the Elizabeth Barry in the play had.

My primary recommendation for improving this work in progress before theatrical release center around clarifying motivations up front for why these people were the way they were. This could be done by a combination of edits and additions. I found I liked it even better and was more moved by it the second time I saw it when I wasn't concentrating as much on following the storyline.

This was a movie I loved and can't get it out of my mind. It was stunning and compelling beyond anything I've seen in a very long while.

... 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.

Having experienced this as a "work in progress" at a festival, The Libertine was unlike many films I've seen--bizarre, vulgar, gory and difficult. And, though such a mix CAN work in some motion pictures, The Libertine just doesn't seem like one of them.

The Libertine takes place in 17th Century England and follows the questionable life of John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester (a very atypical role played by Depp). Scenes of erotic images (not for the prude or faint of heart) seem to plague this film unnecessarily, as do bad modern puns spoken with a 17th century tongue (I found this to be very misplaced). One can argue that The Libertine was done in poor taste and dragged at many points, as does it leave the viewer completely puzzled in many areas.

However, the acting by Depp and all supporting cast was SUPERB, the costuming was wonderful and the grim atmosphere was achieved with utmost ease by the director (in his own words at the screening, he wished it to portray England as "a very dirty and vile place".) Like it or not, The Libertine will leave you thinking about it's message and images long after you leave the theater.

Since I am an only occasional fan of Depp's, I was not sure what to expect when I watched this. I must say I was very impressed. It is a rare thing to see a non-foreign film which does not deteriorate into "warm fuzzies" and smear and blur it's content to make it saccharine enough for American audiences to swallow. We seem to be stuck in some Hollywood Hell of happy movies with happy endings. Even when a film isn't bright and shiny, how often do you not have the safety net of knowing in the back of your mind that somehow everything be "be all right" for at least someone in the movie? I found it refreshing to see an unpleasant movie full of unpleasant people, where even if someone was a good person, it didn't really help them at all. Real life sucks, and so do a lot of people. Depp's character wasn't a nice man. The people around him did not have an easy time. Nobody really had a good life. Welcome to the real world. Real people are very often very, very unpleasant and unlikeable. Depp was in this---and I loved him for it. It made him human.

First of all, let me start by saying that the only reason I didn't give this movie a 1 is because the acting was good. However, without an engaging plot and with the overextended monologues and dialogues, as well as the dreary sets and general lack of beauty except for some very brief scenes, this movie is not in the least bit entertaining. I watched all the way through waiting for something to happen, but nothing really did. To be honest, it's very boring, and not even the very fine Johnny Depp or the touted importance of the subject-matter could save it.

Watch it only if you're an insomniac. It might work better for you than Lunesta.

The Libertine is a movie that is of Oscar caliber. Stunning, unbelievable and brilliant....even these words do not accurately describe Depp's execution of this part.

We were blown away and that is the best way to describe it. It was funny in parts, raunchy in others and finally, tear-jerking. I found myself holding my breath so many times, because Depp's acting was so amazing.

When Rochester starts to show the ravages of his disease towards the end, all I could think of was that Johnny FINALLY got his wish....to play a character as ugly as possible with his face so mutilated and scarred that he was almost beyond recognition. It was MAGNIFICENT!! He was truly hideous and it was a good reminder of the toll that syphilis took on a person in those days.

This movie is not for the faint-hearted or easily offended. It's mid-17th century England at it's grubbiest, filthiest and most depraved. There is foul language, plenty of nudity and phallic symbols are used liberally throughout this film, although Rochester is always fully clothed.

We definitely felt there was much more chemistry between Johnny and Rosamund Pike, who played his wife, than between Johnny and Samantha Morton. Perhaps it was supposed to seem that Morton's character Elizabeth Barry did not really 'click' with Rochester, as that was the impression we were left with.

The sex scenes, even between Rochester and Barry are rough -- almost emotionless, as opposed to being actual 'love' scenes.

It was the opinion of our group that Johnny Depp has elevated himself to that upper echelon of actors who are to be revered for their skills and talent. This role is the crowning glory of his career to date and it's time he is given his due for being one of the best actors of our time.

Although the film needs some fine-tuning, we left the theater in awe of the magnificent performances we had just witnessed.

this movie is very similar to the movie "quills". it is about the many adventures of the second earl of rochester, played by johnny depp. johnny depp's acting in this was brilliant. i loved it. he amazed me throughout the movie. his character had sooo many great quotes, as well. the story was absolutely brilliant, and even more interesting seeing as it is a true story. as one might say, you can't make this stuff up. rosamund pike, who plays elizabeth malet, the wife of the earl, was surprisingly good. i last saw her in pride and prejudice, and i didn't see much that was special. however, i now realize that that was simply because her character was not meant to show much emotion. pike gave an outstanding performance, completely different from her pride and prejudice performance. she and depp, for me, completely stole the show. their relationship in it was outstanding. as for the one bit of the movie i did not like...the character lizzie barry was very underdeveloped. i don't think it was necessarily the acting as much as it was the writing. you never seemed to know where she was coming from. throughout the movie, i could never decide what her true feelings for the earl were. they were so scattered. as for john malkovich, well, you gotta love him. as a warning, this movie does have some very...risqué things in it. if you're not up for it, then don't try.

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.

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.