The 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.

The Libertine is definitely not for the faint-hearted or those who are easily offended. For those who love great production values, storytelling and acting, The Libertine will be a treat. It may not be a personal favourite as of yet but I for one found it an exceptionally good film and think it doesn't get enough recognition.

It is a very meticulous-looking film, the photography is wonderfully moody yet sumptuous, the film has a very telling atmosphere and it really feels like you're transported back into the 17th century looking at the costumes and sets. Michael Nyman's score is understated and haunting, fitting beautifully with the atmosphere, though to me it could have used more music from the period which would have given off even more authenticity. The script is funny, thoughtful and packs emotional punch while the story while occasionally dragging is told rivetingly with scenes like the chair scene between Wilmot and Elizabeth, Wilmot's address to parliament and the final scene really lifted by the quality and the acting. Laurence Dunmore directs most admirably, remarkably good for a debut, inexperience occasionally shows but a vast majority of the time it's incredibly well done.

Characters are compelling, especially Wilmot who is very multi-layered, but if there was one thing that was truly exceptional about The Libertine it was the acting. Johnny Depp gives a powerhouse and multi-layered performance that ranks among his best. The dependable Samantha Morton marvels too, John Malkovich does stately and ambiguous in a suitably restrained and regal way while still maintaining interest and Rosamund Pike gives the most heartfelt performance I've ever seen her give(coming from someone who has liked a lot of what she's done),particularly a revelation in the chair scene. The chemistry throughout convinces though that between Depp and Pike came over personally as stronger than that between him and Morton.

All in all, a fine film if not for everybody and really deserves much more praise than it gets. 9/10 Bethany Cox

In 1660, Charles II (John Malkovich) is restored to the English throne after years of repressive Puritan rule. By 1675, Charles is facing a difficult hangover and a broke country. He recalls his friend John Wilmot (Johnny Depp),second Earl of Rochester, three months into his year long banishment to take up his family seat in the House of Lords. John returns to London with his wife Elizabeth (Rosamund Pike) and is taken with failing actress Lizzy Barry (Samantha Morton).

It's a period piece done in a hand-held, dark and dreary style. The colors are yellowy and greenish. The great actors are compelling until I got bored with the meandering story. Johnny Depp floats as he physically deteriorates later. It has a dreamlike quality but not necessarily an exciting dream.