The Libertine

Johnny Depp and the movies in which he acts are a safe bet for me. Either I really like them or at the very least they don't offend me, but The Libertine is the first case where negative feelings prevail. It's not because of Johny Depp himself, as he delivers his standard performance, but the other components of the film don't work as I had imagined. No matter how hard the filmmakers try to evoke any emotions in me, they completely miss the mark and the only feeling I took away from it was boredom and a sense of dragged-out length. The film seems to be playing with drama rather than truly embracing it, and it all feels rather artificial and lacking spark. Samantha Morton, for example, doesn't have nearly the same charisma as Claire Danes did in a similar role. Even in a situation where Johny Depp practically falls apart in front of the viewer due to his illness, I didn't feel any sympathy or resistance - absolutely nothing. I have no reason whatsoever to revisit this film, one encounter was more than enough. The film pretends to contain spicy events, animalistic passions, and bohemian heroes, but it's all just pretend. Overall impression: 45%. (09.05.2010)

An annoyingly sleazy and meaningless mix of medieval soft porn and a story about a wannabe eccentric pervert, poorly portrayed by Johnny Depp. Samantha Morton, on the other hand, is a fantastic actress (see Minority Report) and I like her in every film. Rosamund Pike does something similar, after her debut in Die Another Day, I expected her to fall into the trap of commercial and artistically undemanding waters, but fortunately, it's a bit different. Apart from one scene, there is nothing particularly gripping or provocative, but there are plenty of sleazy and incredibly tasteless remarks. Often, it is deliberately gratuitous and does not confront the structure of the plot, the portrayal of the gloomy times, or the considerably torn inner state of the main character. Unfortunately, the film never manages to get under the viewer's skin and, as a result it’s nauseating, so to speak. (19.02.2007)

Johnny Depp played one of the other characters. It is none other than John Wilmot. Does that mean anything to you? How about the Earl of Rochester? Still nothing? Well then, know that John Wilmot was a libertine, I don't understand why the Czech title of the film is "The Libertine", he enjoyed life to the fullest. John was at the court of King Charles II of England, Scotland, and Ireland, but he was minimally interested in the court. What he cared about was his literary work, not to mention idleness and indulgence. Alcohol and women were a natural part of his life. Charles II was not happy about it, but what could he do? He couldn't watch him every step of the way. And so John enjoyed himself. Women of questionable reputation, alcohol in larger than small quantities. It had to take a toll on him. He was sick. Very sick. Towards the end, as John's illness worsened, Johnny stopped playing a little. Johnny wears the mask of a sick person, but underneath he is still a healthy person. I simply didn't believe his illness. His performance is otherwise good, he plays a quite interesting character, but according to the screenwriters, it is enough to have an interesting and controversial character, the story itself is not so important. That character attracts attention and that is enough. The film will be good. Not that good though. There are interesting scenes, but the creators themselves did not rush into controversy and remained on the edge of taste. They never crossed it enough to portray the controversial personality truly controversially. The film is rated as "R", the second strictest level of accessibility. In principle, it does not shock in any way. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/11/prada-tlumocnice-sveraci-kazajka.html (02.03.2013)