The Libertine Reviews

Page 1 of 2
November 27, 2006
[Director] Dunmore creates a memorably grimy London, but the moral grime covering the film proves less memorable.
August 1, 2006
I enjoyed it - or much of it - for reasons that have everything to do with Johnny Depp.
April 1, 2006
The story, like the cinematography, is overly foggy and under-illuminated.
March 18, 2006
Has some choice words to say about following one's heart in matters of art.
March 10, 2006
What emerges from the bilious murk of first-time director Laurence Dunmore's film is a sad picture of an intelligent and talented writer who opted for self-indulgence and gratuitous insult over anything more meaningful.
March 10, 2006
As the character grows sicker and quieter, the drama's energy fades.
March 10, 2006
The point seems to be that too much of a good thing leads to a vast sense of nothingness and bleak cinematography. Alas, it also results in transforming a film about a sensualist into a remarkably sexless enterprise.
March 10, 2006
A bawdy Restoration romp that doesn't. Romp.
March 10, 2006
From time to time, a gem-like line shines from the squalor, but in general, it's merely the film's suffocating cynicism that registers.
March 10, 2006
Depp's depraved character does have twisted poignancy.
March 10, 2006
A movie that serves up what its debauched subject would never have countenanced -- sanitized smut with a moral attached.
March 10, 2006
Dunmore slogs through the story with an overripe sense of gravity that, when mixed with the film's carefully botched look, makes for one murky moviegoing experience.
March 10, 2006
Without context and reason to care, I never understood why I was lurking about here the first place.
March 10, 2006
Rochester may have been a cultural visionary, but the movie reduces this notion to a parable of bad-boy celebrity hitched to an uninteresting love story.
March 10, 2006
It's a bit too muddy, dismal-looking and smoky to beguile us, too fixated on filth and too dreary-looking to really shock us.
March 10, 2006
Stinkers this rapturously self-assured don't come along often, and when they do, they deserve to be honored with the proper giggling disbelief.
March 10, 2006
Depp portrays Wilmot, who was also remembered for scandalous poetry and theatrical satire, as a careless and generally unpleasant fellow, who is neither funny nor profound. And we're supposed to spend two hours with this guy. Ugh.
March 9, 2006
It is Depp, as the debauched and decaying Restoration rake, who holds the camera. It's a strong, sturdy performance, but one that asks more of the audience than it might be possible to give.
March 9, 2006
One of the few films to maintain an air of stuffiness even while sharing intimate details of debauchery.
March 9, 2006
We are supposed to thrill to the devil-may-care attitude of this Byronic rebel-gent, yet we never find out what he's about or what he stands for. He's a self-impressed question mark.
Page 1 of 2