The Libertine 2004 123movies

Watch: The Libertine 2004 123movies, Full Movie Online – In 1660, with the return of Charles II to the English throne, theater, the visual arts, science and sexual promiscuity flourish. Thirteen years later, in the midst of political and economical problems, Charles II orders the return of his friend John Wilmot, aka the second Earl of Rochester, from exile back to London. John is a morally-corrupt drunkard and a debauched, cynical poet. When the King asks John to prepare a play for the French ambassador so as to please him, John meets the aspiring actress Elizabeth Barry in the playhouse and decides to make her into a great star. He falls in love with her and she becomes his mistress. During the presentation to the King and the French ambassador, John falls into disgrace with the court. When he is thirty-three years old and dying of syphilis and alcoholism, he converts to being a religious man..
Plot: The story of John Wilmot, a.k.a. the Earl of Rochester, a 17th century poet who famously drank and debauched his way to an early grave, only to earn posthumous critical acclaim for his life’s work.
Smart Tags: #public_nudity #breasts #scantily_clad_female #virgin #teenage_girl #lesbian #kiss #hand_on_woman’s_crotch #flashing #fingering_vagina #extramarital_affair #dildo #womanizer #unfaithfulness #unfaithful_husband #sexual_desire #sexual_attraction #sex_talk #prostitution #prostitute #oral_sex

Find Alternative – The Libertine 2004, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	6.2/10 Votes: 36,694
	33% | RottenTomatoes
	44/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 406 Popularity: 7.915 | TMDB

Reviews:

Powerful, repulsive, compelling, magnificent
This wasn’t a glamorized period costume drama that Hollywood loves to overdo and it wasn’t NC-17 for nothing! There was some technical roughness and lack of continuity but they were minor quibbles in what I considered a triumph. The mood, the sets and cinematography, the script and, most of all, the acting were all of the highest and most innovative caliber. Depp was in almost every scene and was fascinating beyond anything I’d ever experienced. His force and range of emotion and naturalness were exceptionally powerful and moving from first to last. You hated him and loved him, were repulsed by him and felt pity for him. You were drawn to him almost against your will, like a vortex pulling you in. All else paled in comparison. This was a Johnny Depp that I’d never seen before but so hope I have a chance to again. This performance is the crowning glory to date of his illustrious career and I see no limits to what he can accomplish in the future. Everyone else was uniformly excellent although Samantha Morton didn’t portray the allure the Elizabeth Barry in the play had.

My primary recommendation for improving this work in progress before theatrical release center around clarifying motivations up front for why these people were the way they were. This could be done by a combination of edits and additions. I found I liked it even better and was more moved by it the second time I saw it when I wasn’t concentrating as much on following the storyline.

This was a movie I loved and can’t get it out of my mind. It was stunning and compelling beyond anything I’ve seen in a very long while.

More falsely romanticized Eng. Lit.
“The Libertin”e is about John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester, the Restoration rake and poet, and he’s played by Johnny Depp, whom most of the people in the movie address as “Johnny.” Did Depp feel right at home? This is an intentionally dark, vile, obscene picture of the wild, literally brilliant post-Puritan interlude and one of its lesser known, more posthumously famous literary figures, who lived quietly with his wife (Rosamund Pike) and children in the country, drank himself to death in town, and had a deathbed conversion. Somewhere in between, we don’t know when or why or how, he found time to write great, if scurrilous poetry. “The Libertin”e is quite literally dark, since it is shot almost entirely in candlelight. It is the life (and death) of Rochester (he only lived to be 35, died of syphilis) and focuses on certain inevitable biographical things, mainly, since he spent little time as far as we can see actually writing, there are: his debauchery; his relations with: his wife, whom he professed to love but left in the country; George Etheridge (Tom Hollander, acceptable here but not as good as in the Joe Thomas “Pride and Prejudice”) the Restoration playwright, and others of that circle; Lizzie Barry (Samantha Morton), a young actress of the stage whom he helped make famous, and loved; Rose (Trudi Jackson), a whore who cared for him; his suitably named servant, Alcock (Richard Coyle); and most importantly for his survival, King Charles II (John Malkovich, logically cast here but not at his wicked best as in Dangerous Liaisons or The Talented Mr. Ripley), with whom he fought but whom he ultimately championed.

This film may bring to mind (though it’s not very memorable) Richard Eyre’s 2004 “Stage Beaut”y starring Billy Crudup, the filmed story of Ned Kynaston, the last of the female impersonators at this period when women could play women again, as Lizzie does. Both films share a certain claustrophobic slightness. Libertine is at times terrifyingly edgy, or tries to be, with its dirty talk and pissing and pantomimes with giant phalluses, but it fails as a representation of the period because it doesn’t grasp that these men were fops and wits. Dunsmore and crew (who are working from an adaptation of his stage play by Stephen Jeffreys) should perhaps have looked more closely at some good English productions of Restoration plays like Wycherly’s “The Country Wife “or Sheridan’s “The School for Scandal,” “She Would If She Coul”d (by Etheridge himself) or Congreve’s “The Way of the World”. When the men converse, their lines should ring; they should be snappy, timed for maximum effect and delivered with the confidence and snottiness of the true social extrovert/snob. They should put ironic, snotty English on every phrase; they should speak for an audience and their timing should be perfect. They should draw laughs. None of this. The Restoration was a bright period, a time of new hope and freedom, not a descent into some dark abyss of debauchery. It was superficial and fun and wit came first.

Instead this is a ROMANTICIZATION, a “Tom Jone”s-ification (a la Tony Richerdson) of a period that was, in fact, anti-romantic in the extreme. In its own different manner it is as bad this way as Joe Thomas’ Pride and Prejudice, which in Anthony Lane’s phrase “Brontesized” Jane Austen. But that was met with rapture by most at least in North America, whereas Libertine is receiving lukewarm reviews and stunned or bored audience response.

Charles II as shown is too much in isolation, not in the context of court his court. Everything is personalized, and hence romanticized, since the romantic period was the time of quintessential individualism, not the 1660’s. The life of Rochester is turned into a love story, with Morton here, or love-hate of the Pygmalion kind. Morton is fine in her major scenes where she acts for Johnny and brings here Shakespearean characterizations to a fine point. But again, why Shakespeare — in an age when English drama for the first time almost rivalled the Elizabethans, and was so different from them? “The Libertine” disappoints. It is too long, yet the effect is slight. In representing an age of wit, one must remember that BREVITY is its soul. Mind you, Depp is good in some of his scenes and, as always, interesting to look at with his big eyes and high gaunt cheekbones and this time, a sense of sadness and defiance. And Morton is quite fine, though one might wish she and the relationship were developed more fully, and some of the rest left out. The time of syphilis and the blind eye, the despair and rejection, is dragged out too long (brevity, remember?). More time ought to have been spent on the attitudes and the writing that have left Rochester remembered. It is true, he is not utterly typical of the Restoration; he is more extreme, as the contrast with the somewhat prissy Etheridge shows. But he was a part of the age, and couldn’t have existed without King Charles’s indulgence, and so the age should have been better represented.

A failure to capture a sense of period sinks this film, despite some memorable performances and a host of characters. Its most memorable aspect may be the bookend cameo monologue which begins, “You will not like me” and ends, “Do you like me? Do you LIKE me? Do you like ME?

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 54 min (114 min)
Budget 0
Revenue 10852064
Status Released
Rated R
Genre Biography, Drama, History
Director Laurence Dunmore
Writer Stephen Jeffreys
Actors Johnny Depp, Samantha Morton, John Malkovich
Country United Kingdom, Australia
Awards 2 wins & 8 nominations
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix Dolby Digital
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Arricam LT, Cooke S4 Lenses
Laboratory Soho Images, London, UK, Technicolor, London, UK
Film Length 3,140 m (Portugal, 35 mm), 3,190 m (Finland)
Negative Format 35 mm (Fuji Super F-250T 8552, Super F-250D 8562, Super F-500T 8572, Reala 500D 8592)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format), Super 35 (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic)