The Libertine Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
He didn't resist temptation. He pursued it.
In 1660, with the return of Charles II 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, 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 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.
| Johnny Depp | Rochester |
| Samantha Morton | Elizabeth Barry |
| John Malkovich | King Charles II |
| Paul Ritter | Chiffinch |
| Stanley Townsend | Keown |
| Francesca Annis | Countess |
| Rosamund Pike | Elizabeth Malet |
| Tom Hollander | George Etherege |
| Johnny Vegas | Sackville |
| Richard Coyle | Alcock |
| Hugh Sachs | Ratcliffe |
| Tom Burke | Vaughan |
| Rupert Friend | Billy Downs |
| Jack Davenport | Harris |
| Trudi Jackson | Rose |
| Laurence Dunmore |
6.50 out of 10 (6930 votes)
Visitor Reviews
No virtues, not even in the movie
posted on 10 Aug 2009The Earl of Rochester states that in the prologue, saying that "he does not want you to like him". That's a promise the movie keeps. It seems that actors and actresses are doing fine, but there's something missing both in the dialogues (which happens to be not that clear) and in the directing (with a bunch of "focus tricks" i totally dislike). You can even see Malkovich nose changing shapes in a couple of minutes (and it's not a story about Pinocchio). The most hilarious scene is about a dog, and i guess it wasn't written in the screenplay. I know that's the first attempt by Mr Dunmore in the making of a movie, but i think that there's a lot more to do about it, it not just filling the screen of great actors that you can achieve a great result.
Captivating, and not just for Johnny
posted on 10 Aug 2009I am among the very small portion of film viewers that have actually read Marquis De Sade. For that minority, there is extra icing on the sinfully tasty cake that is "The Libertine". Whether or not viewers are well read, or even literate, the film entertains as more than just dramatized philosophy, but a rare breed of period entertainment.Depp plays Rochester, who's prologue informs us that we won't like him and that he doesn't want us to. The warning proves appropriate because before the prologue is even through, our libertine has already begun immersing us in the excesses of his lifestyle. He is a poet in 17th century England, a husband, a father, and a friend to the King (John Malkovich!). His debauchery knows no bounds and life has no meaning to him. He is a man who dares you to condemn him and because of this, his few good deeds (more or less the focus of the film) are such a surprise that they themselves are like a brilliant prank."The Libertine" has several elements that will come as no surprise: a rock-star like hero taking on and purging an entourage, a shaky relationship between Rochester and the king, and the constant reminder of his excessive existence and its costs. Depp is addictive here, especially because his character is so unredeemable. Again, that is not surprising.Some may look at this hero as something impossible, but in that time the libertines were real, as was their philosophy (as any reader of Sade will know). It comes as a sort of surprise that the film lets Rochester show us himself as he'd like to be seen (sorry boys and girls, that does not translate to nudity on Johnny's part) and emerge the same way. Not that Hollywood hasn't spiked this punch just a little. However, it is surprising in that it is a period piece with actual life that doesn't surrender the Merchant/Ivory standard of being stuffy and slow.Almost all the key roles on this production were filmed by people without a long list of credits. It may be their freshness that lent this story so much life. As I said, it is a period piece, and every shot is appropriately a good double for a period painting. The color is muted, the compositions are impressive, and the lighting looks completely natural. But the sin of stillness is never committed here. Dunmore's camera is free to roam the filthy, foggy world of 17th century England. I doubt we'll hear from him again after the cold reception of this film, but I would very much like to.Most importantly, this is an honest film. Too often is history glossed over as some kind of age of innocence. I know revisionism and muckraking have reached the screen before, but this is not "Lisztomania". It does fall into the a same league with "Quills" however, although with a somewhat different angle along with a very different look. If you aren't a complete prude you will likely find something to enjoy here. Just remember that it's history, not a parade of plush costumes and then let yourself be entertained.
Johnny Depp triumphant as repellent Johnny Wilmot
posted on 04 Aug 2009The Libertine takes as its subject John Wilmot, the second Earl of Rochester (Johnny Depp), an English 17th century courtier, who was a drunken, womanising rake (with a taste for the occasional man or boy) and a writer of obscene verses, which made fun of his peers, including his friend, King Charles II (John Malkovich); but who, at the same time, was a sublime poet when he chose. One major lapse of the movie is that it makes little of this last aspect of Rochester's character; focusing almost exclusively on his seamy side. (The real Rochester was also a war hero at one period in his life, but the film seems to make no reference at all to this.) Though more than a tad stagy (betraying its origins as a play), and possibly not making as much of its "hero's" contradictions as it might (how could such a proponent of personal freedom so strongly defend the monarchy?) the film provides a compelling portrait of Rochester, and of the times in which he lived. No elegant, sparkling, pastel-tinted, period piece, this - the light is dim, the colours drab, and if FX smells were yet available, the director - ex-commercial director, Laurence Dunmore, at the helm of his début feature - doubtless would have used them. Few of the characters are outstandingly attractive, and even the actress Elizabeth Barry (played by Samantha Morton), who becomes Rochester's ingénue and mistress, wears little make up, and is unglamourous by today's usual standards.But above all, this is Depp's movie, though he is ably assisted by the prosthetics technician responsible for constructing his ravaged face, crumbling under the effects of drink and the pox. Once more, Depp demonstrates that his versatility has few bounds, and he is equally compelling as the handsome, manipulative seducer at the film's outset, who confides to us "you won't like me"; and as the repulsive, broken figure at its end, wearing a silver cover to protect his decaying nose, who overcomes his infirmities to make a bravura speech to the House of Lords, in favour of the right of succession of the King's catholic brother.It's ironic, but evidence of Depp's vast range, that his recent Golden Globe nomination is not for this role (though perhaps the film was not eligible) but for Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory! For my part, Johnny's Rochester deserves every accolade available, including the Oscar, and Governor of the US state of his choice!
A decent film, Depp is great as always
posted on 02 Aug 2009Dunmore's costume drama/demented medieval film which is kind of reminiscent of a more impressive Quills from 2000 starring Geoffrey Rush, is a decent effort, but although Depp's performance was first-rate as always, this film didn't impress me much. It achieved one thing which was being a gross picture which created an account of a unlikeable person like the Earl Of Rochester, and most of this was due to Depps performance. Stephen Jeffreys screenplay from his play is solid although all the ideas don't work in this picture and at times it is boring and slow. The performances are good as JOhn Malkovich and Samantha Morton were very good in their roles in the film. IMDb rating: 6.8, my rating: 7/10
praise
posted on 29 Jul 2009I just have to agree with everything in the brave babe review. The only people who could find any real fault are those who know nothing about the life of Rochester and the period through which he lived. Depps performance is outstanding and Malkovich is wonderful as the world weary cynic Charles II ( he even had the correct nose shape in profile). If I were to wish to make any criticism (which I do not)then there were three historical inaccuracies: 1, Charles was noted for not swearing. 2, the play though written, was never performed and yes the stage directions quoted in the film are correct. 3, Unfortunately Rochester never did make the speech in parliament, though it was a popular myth that he did. Having said that we are talking about a film not a documentary and you just wish that the play really had been staged and the speech made.
Unparalleled in the history of film
posted on 23 Jul 2009Move over Olivier and all others with any pretensions to being the greatest actor ever. Depp is IT as of "The Libertine". You'll never see another movie this brilliant unless Depp manages to outdo himself which I suspect he will! There was not a sound, not a rustle, not a cough, not a movement in the theatre from the first scene to the last.If you are a narrow-minded, illiberal, prude - stay away; you'll almost certainly find plenty to offend you. However, if you are the adult, sophisticated, possessor of a sense of hum our, no need to worry that the film goes beyond the limits even you find tolerable. It edges around pornography in the most elegant, mature way and never steps over the bounds into smut.Lovers of British comedy will recognize some familiar faces perfectly cast who bring their own particular comedic talents with them.
Genuine Movie Commentary
posted on 09 Jul 2009I didn't like this Film because its entertainment value was very, very, very poor. Its quite disappointing because Johnny Depp usually plays characters at a wide range and variety - i daresay, Johnyy Depp executed his character brilliantly, he was excellent, but the movie itself just had too much dialog and it put me and a lot of my friends into boredom - BIG TIME. I do understand that it may be considered as a classic later on and it may receive Oscars - I'm not stopping older people from going to see it - but it really is nothing for teenagers who are into action and entertainment, which is what i personally think movies should be for. Cinema cant really teach you or fascinate you anymore - especially if its a big-money movie like this one. Johnny was correct to say 'I do not want you to like me. You will not like me when we begin, and as we commence, you will dislike me even more' That is precisely how i felt during the movie.
Depressing and Bizarre...
posted on 29 Jun 2009The 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 isn't 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.
I'm 33 years old..and I'm dying.
posted on 23 Jun 2009The 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.
Johnny Depp's best performance
posted on 17 Jun 2009I can't claim to have seen every movie Johnny Depp has every done, but of the ones I have seen, this is by far his most amazing preformace. Which is saying a lot because he's already a great actor, but the intensity to which he portrays the role of Lord Rochester is superb. He really took it to the next level, which is why I truly believe it's his best performance.The cast of the movie also happens to pretty much be the entire supporting cast of Pride and Prejudice. Rosamund Pike also plays excellently ans Lady Richester.I Highly recommend this film, I know I am getting redundant, but it honestly is Depp's finest portrayal and is a must see, even if it has "adult" themes.
started off good, but left off boring
posted on 09 Jun 2009Johnny Depp was hot in this movie, no lie. This movie started off as an interesting movie, I figured that it was well worth the rent as I watched Johnny do nothing but drink and play around with women. But the downfall in this movie is when he met the actress, at this point it went downhill because first of all she was not that attractive looking in the first place to picture love scenes with her and sexy Johnny Depp and this is basically what the rest of the movie consisted of was him and her. I would have rather seen him drunk during the movie. He ends up drinking himself towards his early demise and the actress had little or nothing to do with him other than use him for his teaching her more talent and sex. This movie I would not recommend and not one of his best.
God Awful
posted on 07 Jun 2009I saw this movie on the pretense that Depp is a phenomenal actor. He may be, but one actor can't save a movie. While buying the tickets it was suggested that I reconsider and see something else, as the early showings had lines of walkouts. I stuck to my guns and saw it anyway. I'm even proud to say I stayed, but only for the sick sense of self punishment. Watching this movie had the feeling of staring at a car wreck - where people are lying near the cars dying. I felt ashamed the entire time I watched but didn't want to look away for fear of missing something that could shame me more. While the movie was perverse only for the sake of perversion, the movie was bad for other reasons as well. The scenes jumped together with such reckless abandon that, at times, I had no idea what was going on. Then once I realized what was happening, I came to figure out that I still didn't know what was going on. This movie was hailed as being highly controversial. Honestly, the only controversy I can think of, is arguments to the degree of how bad this movie truly was. This movie was simply a biography of a man undeserving. And as such is undeserving of an audience.
Not a good one
posted on 07 Jun 2009I didn't like this movie at all. It was hard to follow, and I didn't understand half of the dialog. I didn't understand why it was important for the Earl of Rochester to impress King Charles. Also what was the importance of the servant that he kept giving the money too. The plot was never developed. Johnny's diction was not clear. The movie was too nasty and distasteful. I would not recommend young teenagers see this movie. The love story between Johnny and Samantha never developed into a full understanding for the audience. I still do not understand what he died from. I think the Earl was supposed to be a genius but that was never fully conveyed. The only thing I got from the story was that he liked sex with anyone but his wife.
Damn, It's Ugly
posted on 22 May 2009Johnny 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.
Stylish Movie About A Despicable Person
posted on 18 May 2009I really didn't like the Main character. I'm fairly certain I wasn't supposed to. Depp didn't go soft and play him for lovability and I respect his decision. If we were supposed to get some kind of "he's a genius so he can and should get by with it" moral, I didn't agree with it. He was an original and he stuck by his artistic impulses whether they led to disaster or not so like the Marquis De Sade, I put him in the brilliant but disgusting category.I thought Samantha Morton was Brilliant, as usual. I watched it, I appreciate how well it was made and I just didn't like it and I won't watch it again.I will always watch Depp in the Uber Brilliant "The Ninth Gate" but this one is a once only movie.
Great Movie
posted on 10 May 2009This was one fantastic film. I just finished watching it and I have to say, I was sad I didn't see it sooner. Top notch acting by all. Perfectly paced. Perfectly directed, and beautifully shot. It is not often that a movie make me feel anything. This one did in spades. It was sexy, funny, and very very sad. A great job done by all involved. If you are looking for an action packed blockbuster piece of crap look somewhere else. If your looking for something that makes you remember why you love film, this is it. With all the lousy movies and terrible remakes out there, it's good to know that some people are still making movies that mean something. I think this movie will stand the test of time and become a classic.
A Dark Historical Commentary on Contemporary Art and Society
posted on 08 May 2009"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.
Magnificent! Acting at its finest. Innovative and captivating.
posted on 14 Apr 2009Finally! A role worthy of Depps ability as an actor. This was one of the finest films I have ever seen. It pulls no punches in theme or fashion. Expect to be revolted and inspired at once. This is not the plastic Jack Sparrow that spurts the expected pablum before winking in recognition at the audience. This is acting at its finest. Cast and Writer Jeffreys take a scalpel to the nature of man and force you to peer into the darkest inner workings. Director Dunmore transports you to the 17th century by shedding the shackles of traditional lighting and camera-work. Many scenes are lit by actual candle light. - Have you the stones to take a leap out of your comfort zone to seek true brilliance? If so, The Libertine will not leave you unfulfilled.
Clearly I missed this when it first came out?!?!?!??!
posted on 12 Apr 2009I have just seen this movie yesterday (being March 12,2006), and I am in shock that this movie was released some point in 2004 (by the way I saw it in a regular theatre). I knew nothing of the movie, except Johnny Depp, John Malkovitch and the title "The Libertine". With those three facts I went to see it without knowing anything else...Surprised and in awe of what I saw? - Absolutely. I am a huge fan of this genre of epics and I must say I thought the cinematography was exceptional and the portrayal of the characters were breathless...I definitely will have to see it again to grasp half of the dialogue as it was filled with complexities and subtleties and emotions that were missed the first time around. I was not expecting to see a movie so heavy, dark and rich with dialogue as what I saw, but I am so pleased with the talent of actors and the director. WHY DID THIS MOVIE NOT EVEN APPEAR IN THE Oscars???????? WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT????? I would give it a 10/10 except I personally thought the makeup near the end was a bit over the top,however, I may be wrong and I would have loved to see more of Mr. Malkovitch.
A Pretentious Mess of a Film.
posted on 20 Aug 2009I have never wanted to walk out on a film more than this one. A few other people in the theater had the same idea except they actually acted on it. This movie is a mess. It can never pick a theme and stick to it. I think we are supposed to see John Wilmot as some kind of free thinking liberated person. Apparently the theme of the play it was based on was that Wilmot could have been remembered as one of the great writers of his age if he weren't so debauched. The film missed this point completely. All I saw was a drunk stumbling around from one aimless, pretentious scene to another. Though the acting was good, no one could save this terrible film. If you want to see a film that has a similar theme and actually makes a point, see Quills with Geoffrey Rush.