March 10, 2006
The Libertine Reviews
It's been a while since a Johnny Depp movie has snuck in under the radar... and that's a bad sign if a studio won't pump a Depp film. Somthing must be wrong. Well... according to The Libertine reviews it looks like something is wrong.
Here's what some of the critics are saying in their The Libertine reviews:
"The second half, especially, grows dour and maundering, and by the end the movie seems to flail in desperation, more like a work in progress than like a finished piece."
Anthony Lane, NEW YORKER
"Despite Depp's bold turn as the scandalous poet, this disappointingly overwrought, poorly directed costume drama has more in common with Quills and Stage Beauty, all flawed movies about "deviant" artists who broke taboos."
Emanuel Levy, EMANUELLEVY.COM
"Plain and simple, The Libertine is Depp's effort to pull a Charlize: defined as a preternaturally gorgeous actor attempting to portray a visibly repulsive person for award-worthy attention."
Laura Kelly, SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL
"It's a mess of -- toward its end -- almost epic proportions, and it's nowhere near as vulgar and shocking as it would like to think it is, but The Libertine is riveting nevertheless."
MaryAnn Johanson, FLICK FILOSOPHER
As of this writing, The Libertine is holding a disapointing 35% on Rotten Tomatoes. But like I said, if a studio has a film with Johnny Depp in it... and it lets it quietly slide into the theaters, then that's not a good sign. You can read more The Libertine reviews here.
Posted by John Campea at March 10, 2006 08:35 AM
Comments
Posted by: Allen M at March 10, 2006 12:42 PM
It made me laugh when I saw a commercial for this and at the end these words flash on the screen..."The most controversial film of the year." Riiiight. Then why have I heard NOTHING about it? Not a good sign.
Posted by: Kristina at March 10, 2006 01:14 PM
nothing gets under my ocd skin more then a film i want so much to love but cant because it goes horribly wrong. that said, i have to see this film and it better not go wrong. it better not.
Posted by: bond, james bond at March 10, 2006 04:06 PM
I saw it the day it came out, and I'd been waiting for it for THREE YEARS. I knew there were problems, but the actual cinematography is SO good....the style and spirit in which it was filmed is SO good for the overall feel of the movie [to replicate the time period they were trying to convay.]
Depp was an acting God, as usual. He wasn't Depp, he WAS John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester.
I highly disagree with the comment that Depp was trying to pull a Charliez; he was just getting into his role, as he always does - and if he had to get ugly, then so be it, he did it.
[Besides, he tried "getting ugly" back in 1999, when Tim Burton and he were filming Sleepy Hollow....he wanted disgustingly long fingers, and a long long nose that hung off his face like a hook, just like in Disney's animated version of Ichabod Crane. Depp also wanted to "ugly up" for his role as Captain Jack Sparrow in 2003's Pirates of the Caribbean....again, with his nose....but this time, instead of having a very long nose, he wanted to have a background story that his nose was cut off, so he would have no nose at all. However, both Burton and [Gore] Verbinski denied Depp's requests.
AND not to mention his already "transformed" roles; Edward Scissorhands, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, etc.]
Posted by: Lacky at March 13, 2006 12:41 PM
I had waited quite a while as well, to see this film, and I have to say that I was expecting something that wasn't as dark as it was. I wasn't completely disappointed in it, and may even see it again when the DVD comes out.
Posted by: Rusty Nail ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](../../../../nav-commenters.gif)
at March 14, 2006 05:37 PM
This movie has been brutalized critically since it began playing festivals for awhile now, but I still wanna see it... more than POTC2! Not a huge Depp fan, but this, i think, looks kinda cool!