The Libertine (2004)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

How sad is this?

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The story of John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester, playwright and poet of the 17th century, the man who led a bohemian life to the extreme and drove himself to early grave at 33. This role brought Johnny Depp award for the most offensive male role (Women Film Critics Circle Awards) and there are also fantastic John Malkovich, funny Richard Coyle and beautiful Rosamund Pike. Sex, drugs and rock and roll in the manner of 17th century. :D8/10

This is a movie adaptation/dramatisation of a play, written by Stephen Jeffrey, based on the life of the infamous John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (1 April 1647 – 26 July 1680), an English Libertine poet, a courtier of King Charles II, and the writer of much satirical and bawdy poetry. It's a movie about an admirable yet pitiful waste of a great talent, a cynic of his own golden age, and I think this is one of Johnny Depp's best performances, if not The Best of all his a career. His portrayal of the decadent, poetic rebel of 17th Century Restoration England, who in the end seeks for redemption, is spotless and exquisite! You have to be in tune with theatrical representations, poetry recitals and 17th Century English accents. The decadent Depp's poetry reciting and Samantha Morton's 'Opehlia' are mesmerising. The chemistry between the two is perfect and we are enthralled to watch their relationship develop first as teacher and pupil and then as lovers till separation. The entire movie was filmed with natural daylight and candles (lots of candles!!) therefore the cinematography looks rather rough and dilettante, but I guess it was intentional, to portray the atmosphere and filthiness of 17th Century life. The only thing I missed was a few period music pieces, some Purcell or Handel maybe instead of the quiet piano twinkling.Biographically it's pretty much accurate but historical events are over-dramatised.This is a period drama with a lot of visual and verbal sexuality and debauchery; therefore I rate this 18 and over!!!I loved it and will watch it again...with English subtitles though...to improve my shakespearean raunchy speech!!

This may be Johnny Depp's greatest movie role. His performance is uncanny in its depiction of an English playwright who refuses to be the hypocrite and pays the ultimate price. He is the epitome of self-destructive behavior; his addictions are obvious to all yet he is expected to conform in manner expected of a gentleman. He responds with debauchery, with scathing wit, with a rebelliousness that alienates his peers. Yet he is also loved and respected even as his life spirals downward to its ultimate doom. Nobody understands him; he lives in a rough time and there is no one to whom he can turn for support. He is reprimanded by those closest to him and he lashes out by making choices that hurts the very people who love him the most. This movie provides one of the most effective dramatizations of the artist in conflict with society. He recognizes what others refuse to acknowledge and his message is not a pretty one, but it is the truth. John Wilmot was supposed to write pretty pose for his king and be a dutiful husband, but for him such a lifestyle was a mere pretense, a phoniness that he had to reject for the sake of his integrity. As an artist he had a higher calling, that is, as a messenger of truth, and he lived it, no matter what the cost. He was driven by forces that were beyond his ability to control and which led directly to his demise, and to posthumous fame and respect.

I both loved this movie and found it SO FRUSTRATING. The best scenes in the movie in my perspective all came in the first forty-five minutes, and the movie--like Johnny Depp's character's life--went downhill from there. I wanted to know more about this character, what made him tick and why he had gotten to be the way he had, before launching into his downward spiral. He was already half-dead from consumption and half-crazy from trying to keep alive conflicting ideas at the same time in his head when we met him during the movie. He was a boor, well-played by Johnny Depp without a doubt but frankly predictable in his self-hating, life-hating, world-despising sort of worldview. He takes an actress under his wing in order to feel as though he has made some contribution to the world, like an agent representing a musician who he secretly wishes he himself could become. He is every frustrated artist unwilling to fight for his work. This in itself is entertaining, for sure, but satisfying? No.It is difficult to feel satisfied with a character whose life ends in obscurity and the kind of strange decisions that suggest he is trying to repent and make amends before his life and last chance are over.How difficult would it have been to show Johnny Depp and 'Elizabeth' playing out the abduction scene only discussed in the beginning of the film? How difficult would it have been to introduce some more FUN into this dark, depressing take on England during a time period where there theoretically should have been enough art, culture, life and sex to distract from the skepticism and awfulness of it. Shakespeare in Love was amazing because it was so much FUN to experience. This movie could easily have shown that movie up, all the elements were there--Depp, the incredible female leads, the fun of an incredibly inappropriate play, the gorgeousness of the costuming and detail involved in all of this. Clearly everyone involved was passionate about the project. So--why not insert a degree of LIFE into it?