Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Excellent, a Must See

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

The story of John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester, playwright and poet of the 17th century, the man who led a bohemian life to the extreme and drove himself to early grave at 33. This role brought Johnny Depp award for the most offensive male role (Women Film Critics Circle Awards) and there are also fantastic John Malkovich, funny Richard Coyle and beautiful Rosamund Pike. Sex, drugs and rock and roll in the manner of 17th century. :D8/10

As an actor and director, I am constantly amazed at the laziness of many actors vis-à-vis researching their roles. (For example, there are innumerable instances of actors who blithely commit major grammatical errors when they're supposed to be playing erudite language professors - e.g., "between you and I" instead of the correct "between you and me.") In THE LIBERTINE, which takes place in the 17th century, Johnny Depp, when using the word "flaccid," pronounces it "flassid." Now, any actor worth his salt would have researched the etymology of this word and discovered that the pronunciation of the word among the literati throughout the 17th century was always "flaksid." It was only in the 19th century that the alternate pronunciation, regrettably, came into vogue. Depp's error occurred early in the film and basically ruined the experience for me because I could no longer take him seriously as the literate poet and wit, John Wilmot. Do your homework, Depp!

I both loved this movie and found it SO FRUSTRATING. The best scenes in the movie in my perspective all came in the first forty-five minutes, and the movie--like Johnny Depp's character's life--went downhill from there. I wanted to know more about this character, what made him tick and why he had gotten to be the way he had, before launching into his downward spiral. He was already half-dead from consumption and half-crazy from trying to keep alive conflicting ideas at the same time in his head when we met him during the movie. He was a boor, well-played by Johnny Depp without a doubt but frankly predictable in his self-hating, life-hating, world-despising sort of worldview. He takes an actress under his wing in order to feel as though he has made some contribution to the world, like an agent representing a musician who he secretly wishes he himself could become. He is every frustrated artist unwilling to fight for his work. This in itself is entertaining, for sure, but satisfying? No.It is difficult to feel satisfied with a character whose life ends in obscurity and the kind of strange decisions that suggest he is trying to repent and make amends before his life and last chance are over.How difficult would it have been to show Johnny Depp and 'Elizabeth' playing out the abduction scene only discussed in the beginning of the film? How difficult would it have been to introduce some more FUN into this dark, depressing take on England during a time period where there theoretically should have been enough art, culture, life and sex to distract from the skepticism and awfulness of it. Shakespeare in Love was amazing because it was so much FUN to experience. This movie could easily have shown that movie up, all the elements were there--Depp, the incredible female leads, the fun of an incredibly inappropriate play, the gorgeousness of the costuming and detail involved in all of this. Clearly everyone involved was passionate about the project. So--why not insert a degree of LIFE into it?

I really didn't like the Main character. I'm fairly certain I wasn't supposed to. Depp didn't go soft and play him for lovability and I respect his decision. If we were supposed to get some kind of "he's a genius so he can and should get by with it" moral, I didn't agree with it. He was an original and he stuck by his artistic impulses whether they led to disaster or not so like the Marquis De Sade, I put him in the brilliant but disgusting category.I thought Samantha Morton was Brilliant, as usual. I watched it, I appreciate how well it was made and I just didn't like it and I won't watch it again.I will always watch Depp in the Uber Brilliant "The Ninth Gate" but this one is a once only movie.