The Libertine (2004) Reviews

• movie review

  jcd2girl2004-09-21

  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.

• A personal synopsis of the Libertine

  BraveBabe2004-09-23

  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.

• Powerful, repulsive, compelling, magnificent

  filmbuff22004-09-21

  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.

• Saw the Libertine last week.

  TwilightShadows2004-09-21

  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.

• Dark melodrama with unexpected depth

  Chris_Docker2005-11-21

  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.