SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

Motompa Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

SnoopyStyle In 1660, Charles II (John Malkovich) is restored to the English throne after years of repressive Puritan rule. By 1675, Charles is facing a difficult hangover and a broke country. He recalls his friend John Wilmot (Johnny Depp), second Earl of Rochester, three months into his year long banishment to take up his family seat in the House of Lords. John returns to London with his wife Elizabeth (Rosamund Pike) and is taken with failing actress Lizzy Barry (Samantha Morton).It's a period piece done in a hand-held, dark and dreary style. The colors are yellowy and greenish. The great actors are compelling until I got bored with the meandering story. Johnny Depp floats as he physically deteriorates later. It has a dreamlike quality but not necessarily an exciting dream.

amethystwings32 This movie was the worst movie I have ever seen in my life time.Johnny Depp's performance was great. However the movie itself was down right awful.It was demented and degrading to gays and women. Toward the end of this piece of crap movie,he looked like a decaying corpse. I did not know that rotten flesh bad language and a lot of sex made a good movie.I thought that good acting and a good plot made a good movie.Not a man with a horrible affliction and bad acting. That is my mom's take on this ghastly movie, mine is I found it be appalling and an abomination! I did not know that obsession with man's genitals and orgies! Made a movie good! Depp's performance was one of his best ever, it is to bad. He wasted on such a disgusting , perverted piece of tripe! This movie is like the plague, it lingers and makes you suffer as you watch it! I think the worst part was his body deteriorate and wither in decay! We give this movie an F, not suitable for everyone due the pervese and disturbing content. How it made it to theaters we have no idea!

Deb Herter The Libertine is now on my list of...oh... best three movies ever.Johnny Depp shows his best acting here in his least known movie.If you think you can love a slovenly, lazy, drunken, and disgusting character watch this movie.The acting, the direction, and the setting along with the touches of humor and tragedy will draw you in to this film as if you are here.I refuse to give a spoiler for this movie. I'll just say I truly loved it and recommend it highly unless you are very, very, very sensitive to nudity. And actually, I'd recommend it even if you are disgusted by nudity.The portrayal of London in that time is so accurate it's frightening. Check your English history and you'll see how true this is.But, mostly see it for Johnny Depp's best acting ever.

PWNYCNY This may be Johnny Depp's greatest movie role. His performance is uncanny in its depiction of an English playwright who refuses to be the hypocrite and pays the ultimate price. He is the epitome of self-destructive behavior; his addictions are obvious to all yet he is expected to conform in manner expected of a gentleman. He responds with debauchery, with scathing wit, with a rebelliousness that alienates his peers. Yet he is also loved and respected even as his life spirals downward to its ultimate doom. Nobody understands him; he lives in a rough time and there is no one to whom he can turn for support. He is reprimanded by those closest to him and he lashes out by making choices that hurts the very people who love him the most. This movie provides one of the most effective dramatizations of the artist in conflict with society. He recognizes what others refuse to acknowledge and his message is not a pretty one, but it is the truth. John Wilmot was supposed to write pretty pose for his king and be a dutiful husband, but for him such a lifestyle was a mere pretense, a phoniness that he had to reject for the sake of his integrity. As an artist he had a higher calling, that is, as a messenger of truth, and he lived it, no matter what the cost. He was driven by forces that were beyond his ability to control and which led directly to his demise, and to posthumous fame and respect.