 | |
List Price: $14.95 | | Label: Weinstein Company
Salesrank: 8214
Released: July 4, 2006 |
| Our Price: $3.15 |
| Used Price: $0.96 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Oscar® nominee* Johnny Depp delivers "a tour de force performance" (Baz Bamigboye, The Daily Mail) in the "seductively entertaining" (Jan Stuart, Newsday) The Libertine. As the celebrated writer and bad boy John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester, Depp brings to life a decadent 17th century London. There, Wilmot falls passionately in love with his aspiring actress muse (Oscar® nominee Samantha Morton**), but is cast from the heights of privileged society when he scandalizes King Charles II (Oscar® nominee John Malkovich***) with a shockingly audacious play. At the depths of ruin, the rebel seeks redemption on his own terms. "Johnny Depp is brilliant," raves Cosmopolitan, while Peter Travers of Rolling Stone calls The Libertine a "one-of-a-kind spellbinder."
Description of The Libertine:
The beautifully sculpted face of Johnny Depp fits right in with this masterpiece of design. The Libertine--filmed in a grainy, color-muted chiaroscuro--captures the lush costumes, extravagant decor, and remarkable filth of Restoration England. John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester (Depp, Pirates of the Caribbean, Ed Wood), warns the audience at the very beginning of the film that they will not like him. From there, he treats his wife cruelly, drinks to relentless excess, abuses his friendships, and generally wallows in dissipation, much to the dismay of King Charles II (John Malkovich, Dangerous Liaisons), who hopes that Rochester will write a play glorifying his reign. But Rochester finds his true inspiration (and the movie comes to life) when he sees a young actress named Lizzie Barry (Samantha Morton, Minority Report, Morvern Callar). Rochester sets out to make her the greatest actress of their time--and she, with some reluctance, submits to his teaching. The weakness of The Libertine is not that Rochester is unlikable; it's that he doesn't want to do anything. Barry galvanizes the movie because she burns with ambition, but Rochester's only apparent aim in life is an agonizingly slow self-destruction. Still, The Libertine has lurid Saturnalian visions, Morton is superb, Malkovich gives a typically insidious turn, and Depp, as always, finds moments of sad poetry in the bitterest of speeches. --Bret Fetzer
The Libertine Reviews:
DEPTH WITHOUT MEANING 
2009-05-25 - THE LIBERTINE presents a sumptuous, and at the same time filthy England, wallowing in the decadence of the Restoration, and no one seems to be happier wading through this moral decay than John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester. Johnny Depp is astonishing in this role, despite the sliminess of the character he portrays. Samantha Morton as his protege, and love interest is also excellent, and John Malkovitch as Charles II turns in a ( for him ) restrained, well-tuned performance. There is plenty of style, but little substance in this movie.
"You will not like me" but you will like this movie
2009-05-21 - Very dark and seductive film. As one of the opening lines, he really doesn't want you to like him in this film and with good reason. A little peak into what it might have been like back in the day in the Theatre. His sickness is played out and gets pretty ugly even for beautiful Johnny! But still worth watching.
UNIQUE AND VERY INTERESTING
2009-05-01 - FIRST OFF I AM A PRETTY BIG FAN OF JOHNNY DEPP! HE ALWAYS PLAYS TRIPPY ROLES! THERE'S SEX, VOILENCE DISTURBING IMAGES, A RAW HUMAN EMOTION IN THIS FILM! JUST A GOOD FLICK!
Uncomfortable, for all the wrong reasons 
2009-03-23 - Johhny Depp's character promises the audience in the very beginning of the film, that we will not like him. Well, for me, it was more the fact that I didn't like the film. Besides the performance by Depp, which is pretty good, but not his greatest, the movie offers no other redeaming value. For some reason, I was more amused with the fact that half the cast of Pride and Prejudice and Pirates of the Caribbean were in this film, than I was with anything that happened in the film. The washed-out hues which normally help set a mood in a film actually detracted and distracted here.
The plot is messy, the characters completely bland, unlikeable and one-dimentional. I want to say that the Earl of Rochester (Depp) got what he deserved, but I couldn't even care enough to feel anything, which is a rarity for me. I happen to love flawed characters, but for some reason, this entire film just left me cold and irritated. This is a very adult film, complete with perversion and nudity and graphic language but it all felt out of place. Perhaps if the script was stronger, the whole film might of worked. It's a pity, for all the talent was wasted.
Dark, brutal, and brooding; yet strangely beautiful and haunting.
2008-12-29 - Depp is triumphantly weird and wonderful as John Wilmot in Laurence Dunmore's 2004/5 film adaptation of Stephen Jefferys' 1994 play. Wilmot's life was weird enough. In this version it is taken to a particular extreme to make a tragic point about cynicism and rebellion. Wilmot is an arrogant user; a womanizing drunk, literary pervert, and rebellious libel of the King. Depp's portrayal is far too bitter to be considered a "Bon Vivant" - Wilmot's off hand rejection of every social more feels like adolescent rebellion writ large.
Forget, for a moment the moral content. Just as a visual period piece, Dunmore's "Libertine" succeeds brilliantly. The entire film is antique sepia toned with dramatic chiaroscuro lighting. The period costume and scenery is stunning and each scene is composed like an old master's painting.
But it's Depp's wry yet parched portrayal of Wilmot's simultaneous lust for and disgusted rejection of life and society that seizes and haunts. Indeed, days later I cannot get it out of my mind. Wilmot time and again has love and worldly success in the palm of his hand; only to throw it away with contempt. His love of the theater is deep and profound - or seems to be in his scenes where he teaches Elizabeth Barry to be a brilliant actress. Yet his own production is a libelous piece of pornographic fluff. A huge middle finger raised to the King and to the audience and to his cast - a literal outright disaster. Where does Wilmot stand?
If this film is so extreme, why isn't Wilmot's historically hinted at bisexuality not more prominently featured? Another mystery. All in all, this is an enraging, offensive, and hauntingly beautiful film. Rather like the character of John Wilmot himself.
