|
Directed by: Laurence Dunmore Starring: Johhny Depp, Samantha Morton, John Malcovich The wife and I went to see this this weekend, and, let me tell you, we came out simply amazed, if not just a tad stunned. This is quite possibly the most risky undertaking most of these actors have ever undertaken. The basic story seems simple enough; Depp's character, John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, is summoned out of exile (imposed due to a rather nasty poem about the king) to employ his talents as a poet and playwrite to impress a French ambassador. As he arrives in London, he falls in love with a young aspiring actress while he's training her. He's married, but he sleeps around anyway, and the wife's well aware of it, and stands by his side to the last. The thing is, along with being an adulterer, Wilmot's a bit of a pervert, and there are several scenes that, rather starkly, show the mental state he is in, including the (rather pornographic) play that he writes for the king. The film opens and closes with Depp's face on the screen, alone, first introducing himself, and then putting a bookend on the film. These are some of the best bits of acting that I've seen in some time, and are almost worth the price of admission alone. A quick warning, this film is NOT for everyone. If you want to see Johhny Depp do some of his best acting to date, you might enjoy it. If you don't mind the pervasive sexuality throughout the film, you might enjoy it. If you want another piece of fluff like Pirates of the Carribean or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or something heartwarming like Finding Neverland, then avoid this like the plague. Several couples got up and left during the movie, I can only assume because they wanted to see something like what Depp's done recently. This is not very much like anything he's done, or anyone's done. It's dark, it's sexual, and it's ambitious. Go, enjoy, but don't expect generic Hollywood tripe. RATING: 5 PROS: Fantastic acting by the entire cast, several rather erotic scenes, seemed to fly by CONS: Not for everyone ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375920/
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2006 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Let me first say that I am a huge Johnny Depp fan, and have been looking forwards to The Libertine ever since it was announced. I was furious at the constant delays that the film had to endure (first red flag that i completely ignored), as I was under the assumption that it was supposed to be a major Academy Award player. The few reviews I had read, mostly on IMDB (mostly populated by either Harry Potter fanatics and Johnny Depp stalkers), were glowing. The second red flag was an "F" review from Entertainment Weekly, which I dismissed immediately due to the source of the review. I shouldnt have. The movie itself is a trainwreck. The main problem is that nothing much happens, and what does happen is ridiculously dull. I went into the film expecting a visceral, perverse, uncomfortable, amoral picture, and what I got was pedestrian. Most of the film follows Depp as he trains and eventually falls in love with an aspiring actress. I cant describe how boring this is. John Malkovich sleepwalks through the entire thing, which is a rarity for him. I dont know what to attribute it to, as this was Malkovich's baby from the get go. The natural lighting utilized in the film was a failure. It makes an already boring movie even more dull due to the softness and grainyness of the picture. Everthing appears to be in a slight fog, which drags down the picture even more. It looks about as professionally shot in some spots as The Blair Witch Project. The editing also needed major work. It was almost as if Laurence Dunmore had watched a bunch of Godard films and then tried to apply similar editing techniques, but then given up a third of the way into it. The first third of the movie or so is TOO fast in pacing, as things are happening so quickly that we get little in the form of character development or story. The last two thirds of the film is so overlong that its excruciating. The choppy editing of the first part makes the second part seem even longer. Depp himself is, as usual, fantastic. Unfortunately, his interesting, sometimes hilarious, and incredibly nuanced performance is not enough to save to film. Its not even enough to watch the film only for the performance. Depp has saved a few otherwise mediocre movies before with his performances (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Pirates of the Caribbean), but not even he can save this. 1.5 I admit to being a bit tired and not in the best of moods when seeing this film, but there is no way, under any circumstances, that the film is even "average", let alone "good".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2006 22:08
|
|
|
I completly agree with you Cigar, the only this movie had going for it was the acting. Throughout the whole movie I couldn't help but wonder why they decided to use candles as a main source of light. The grainyness (due to compensating for how under-stopped it must of been I guess) was the worst part of the movie by far. Most of the scenes that obviously used lights looked beautiful, in comparison. Did they not see this problem in the dailies? Who knows. I couldn't help checking my watch again and again waiting for Depp to die. Another thing that dragged this movie down for me was the poetic speech. Sure it takes place in England in whatever year it was, but for todays audience do we really need to sit through that almost un-understandable dialouge? If you like dull, poorly filmed period pieces with great acting, then this movie is for you. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2006 01:27
|
|
|
While I thought the acting was fantastic by Depp and Malchovich, I thought the movie itself was not exceptional. There was little coherence, especially during the transition from after Depp's play to his friend getting killed to Depp contracting some mysterious illness. The movie had more false endings then the last LotR movie (there were a good 4 points where the movie could have come to a close after Depp puts on his play). Also, while Depp's acting was nothing short of incredible, many of the speeches, instead of flowing naturally, felt more like forced grabs for an oscar. The movie felt a little like a string of epic speaches by Depp with some filler plot in between. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2006 04:36
|
|
