That was an excellent one.

Good concept, poorly executed.

Fantastic!

Absolutely the worst movie.

I think the negative reviews are all from people after a genuine biography - not a humorous, clever, dramatisation of a mans life - which this was - clever, sad and brilliantly written. Casanova was witty, gentle, sexy as sin and ugh made me go weak at the knees! This was what it was, and I for one really enjoyed it - I found Henriette and Casanova's impossible love heart wrenching, and the dreary English court very funny. Seeing the fabulous colours and music from the other court made me want to go there.(however inaccurate it may be!) Rocco as the enduring friend and Jack as the silent son who eventually does just what Casanova does, but so very differently, without the care and love and time that made Casanova "the greatest lover that ever lived"

Absolutely wonderful!! Never knew that David Tennant can be so cheeky and adorable! This is way much better than late Heath Ledger's Casanova. Ledger was sexy and everything, but Tennant really has what it takes to be a Casanova; he's cute, kind, and extremely funny. Peter O'Toole also fascinated me with his performance as usual... he really added grandeur and beauty to the work. Although it is a TV mini-series, the direction was really beautiful and managed to capture the fast-moving, adventurous and dazzling world of Casanova (the dark side of it as well!); Sheree really did a great job. This mini-series will make you cry, laugh, love and live!!

I've read through all the previous comments and there is a puzzling divergence in the reactions to this work. There are significant numbers who seem to have expected this to be a documentary drama and have berated Davies for writing something at odds with the historical Casanova's life. This is missing the point entirely. It's like criticising Shakespeare in Love for being "inaccurate." This is a romp, with a hint of sadness, based upon Giacomo Casanova's memoir/autobiography. It is obviously intended as a diversion, every aspect of the production aiming at no more than the spirit of the thing, mixing today's argot and attitudes with those of C18 Venice.Russell T Davies's work is of a very particular style, knowing and self-conscious (one critic here seemed to think this was inevitably a bad thing) and, above all, camp and celebratory. If you don't warm to his style then avoid his work is my advice. For those who can accept it for what it is and what it intends, it is glorious stuff.

I'm absolutely dumbstruck by some of the reviews I've read here. The only explanation I can come up with is that most reviewers are unfamiliar with the historic Giacomo Casanova, and have never seen any of the vastly superior treatments of his story (such as "La Nuit de Varennes"). One of the reviewers even describes it as being about a man from the "17th century". Off by a hundred years, I'm afraid, which is roughly as far off as this movie is from either a well-done biographical film or a historically-accurate one. No, it's Hollywood (or rather, the British approximation of it) through and through.This version is, in reality, a "Casanova" for the "Sex and the City" and "Men Behaving Badly" crowd; all winks and nudges and brash cheekiness. David Tenant is amusing, but absolutely lacking in charisma or depth, much less skill. In fact, he bears an uncanny resemblance to the bumbling characters that Eric Idle used to play. Peter O'Toole does an over-the-top caricature of himself; a role he seems to have been relegated to for the past 25 years. Sad, really. The rest of the cast seems to have been assembled from whoever was hanging around the studio that day, as they obviously weren't chosen for their verisimilitude or subtlety.But the story is far the worst thing about this flick. The dialog is farcical, the plot is boilerplate, there are countless historical mistakes. For example, Casanova fires a pistol into the air to threaten a group of men, and says he'll shoot them next. Problem is, all pistols were single-shot for another hundred years; it would've actually taken him another 2 minutes to reload another shot; any man of the time would've known that! They also dance the waltz; something that didn't appear in Venice for another 50 years. I was surprised to not see Casanova riding a motorcycle while chatting on his mobile phone."Casanova" isn't above trying to titillate by teasing us with an "is she/isn't she" shtick about a mulatto castrato that Casanova "falls in love with". But of course, after playing around with the faux-mosexual aspect, surprise! -it's a girl after all, so the audience can all heave a sigh of relief at Casanova's good fortune. But the real Casanova was well-known to be bisexual (look it up on Wikipedia), although actually having the nerve to show that here seems to be beyond the film-maker's integrity, the audience's stomach, or (most likely) both.The dialog swings between maudlin (when Casanova offers to rescue his prison cell-mate, he responds "but I can't leave; this is my home!") and stand-up comedy, as when Casanova makes his confession and rattles off a laundry list of the women he's slept with ("two sisters, at the same time. Many times. But at least I didn't sleep with their mother. Although I've done that. Many times. So sorry.") And I mustn't forget to mention that the sappy string synthesizers in the incidental music would be right at home in a third-rate soap opera. It's sad to see "Casanova" dumbed down this far. It's sadder still to see it overpraised by people who don't know the historic and literary Giacomo Casanova from Nathan Barley.