User Score
6.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 46 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 46
  2. Negative: 12 out of 46
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. DavidH.
    Dec 5, 2005
    10
    Amazing!
  2. AndyS.
    Dec 5, 2005
    10
    A bizarre and completely intoxicating experience unlike anything I have ever seen.
  3. CathyW.
    Mar 12, 2006
    10
    Extraordinary performance from Depp, Malkovich Morton and Pike. The restoration was not a pretty venue. History is history. And these performances are outstanding. The film may have some flaws. But overall it is a rivieting story and I am proud that Johnny did the movie.
  4. KevinC.
    Mar 25, 2006
    10
    All the reviews have missed the salient point. Wilmot is bi-polar. The camera work, the music, it's all mirrors of his moods. Because he's brilliant he does thing purely because he can. When the actress finally sees he for who ge really is, her scenes on camera are transformed. When Wilmot addresses Lords, it's because he can -- and he knows James' faye as king will All the reviews have missed the salient point. Wilmot is bi-polar. The camera work, the music, it's all mirrors of his moods. Because he's brilliant he does thing purely because he can. When the actress finally sees he for who ge really is, her scenes on camera are transformed. When Wilmot addresses Lords, it's because he can -- and he knows James' faye as king will be. It's bi-polar all the way. Gripping. Expand
  5. MayaB.
    Aug 22, 2006
    10
    What a great surprise. I expected a big production movie full of moral lessons and naked wenches, but what I saw was a tale about the darkness of the human soul, and the impulse of self destruction in the face of hypocrisy and boredom.
  6. AlistairD.
    Dec 11, 2005
    10
    I don't think its the greatest movie of all time but it is a great movie and it offers something original as well. Funny, bizarre and sad in places, Depp is brillent throughout.
  7. SamJ.
    Dec 5, 2005
    10
    A decadent, satirical and devishly entertaining confection with a superior performance by Depp and the greatest score in Michael Nyman's career. Stunning monologues. Those who call it trash are not bright enough to negotiate it.
  8. DawnB.
    Mar 21, 2006
    10
    Superb! This is Johnny Depp at his best, stunning and compelling to watch. This movie is based on a play, so do not expect swashbuckling action (although there is a very short sword fight scene). If you love to see great actors performing you will love this movie.
  9. AndrewS.
    Nov 19, 2005
    10
    Nearly every performance in this film is a showstopper. I am completely unsure where to even begin--Depp is masterful, but even his performance is overshadowed by the willowy earnestness of Rosamund Pike, the sheer brilliance of John Malkovich, or, perhaps most of all, the fierce determination and brio of Samantha Morton. Period pieces that play up the squalor of 17th century London are Nearly every performance in this film is a showstopper. I am completely unsure where to even begin--Depp is masterful, but even his performance is overshadowed by the willowy earnestness of Rosamund Pike, the sheer brilliance of John Malkovich, or, perhaps most of all, the fierce determination and brio of Samantha Morton. Period pieces that play up the squalor of 17th century London are becoming the norm, but this film has an authentic vulgarity that is absent nearly all other films so set. The plot itself is gripping, taut as a bowstring. And it works so well for the virtuosity of the cast to find themselves in its development that it becomes absolutely seamless, a perfect narrative acted by performers at the very peak of their powers. Expand
  10. Aug 30, 2013
    10
    A masterpiece!!! I really loved that movie. Johnny Depp has a gift and that's why is the best actor in the world. Do not miss it!!! That's the true story of the second Earl of Rochester!
  11. Apr 27, 2014
    10
    Absolute 10. One of my favorite movies. Great story, wonderful performances by all actors involved. Very Shakespearean feel, dark and moody, and also extremely sensual. I don't know why this movie wasn't given an Oscar. I guess movies about little known poets don't provide for a wide enough viewership. See it repeatedly. It will stay with you forever.
  12. PatO.
    Jul 9, 2006
    9
    Brilliant acting. Exremely difficult role and lines delivered with mezmerizing expertise. I thoroughly enjoyed the art of Depp.
  13. [Anonymous]
    Sep 1, 2006
    9
    The painful choices of two women, wife and mistress, were as sensitively portrayed as was Johnny Depp
  14. KarenW.
    Mar 16, 2006
    8
    An amazing performance by Depp. But I wish the direction had been better. Really a thought provoking film if you take the time to think about what you've seen.
  15. ChetR.
    Jan 24, 2007
    8
    Fascinating for the first hour, especially the direct confrontation of the audience by the Earl, but then it gets confused and drops into incoherence. But the excellence of its premise, its quest of what life and love and art is, the uniformly interesting performances and mis-en-scene, makes me wish they could have pulled it off.
  16. P.MFox
    Nov 20, 2005
    5
    Beautifully directed and costumed, but tedious. Depp plays a petulant teenager in a grown man's body spectacularly - sadly the plot, and indeed characters, do not do justice to the rich species of acting talent cast.
  17. TomB.
    Mar 21, 2006
    4
    I dunno, it wasn't the worst movie I ever saw. It just wasn't very good. Suffered from very poor editing. When Depp is cast asunder by his dad, and he's playing a charlatan who has some potion that will cure the public's ills, he then has a bad eye. You figure it's something done to be 'in character' for the charlatan role. it's not - he's I dunno, it wasn't the worst movie I ever saw. It just wasn't very good. Suffered from very poor editing. When Depp is cast asunder by his dad, and he's playing a charlatan who has some potion that will cure the public's ills, he then has a bad eye. You figure it's something done to be 'in character' for the charlatan role. it's not - he's really sick, and he's gotten sick in the 6 months his father (the King) banished him. I could give you 10 other examples of that. Just really bad editing. Expand
  18. BitB.
    Mar 10, 2006
    3
    Ok, apart from Depp's strong performance, purely as an actor, this film sucked big time. I love dark, contentious, bizarre films but this was really boring.
  19. SarahB.
    Aug 23, 2006
    3
    Good actors, really foul script. Even this Depp lover couldn't stay awake for the entirety of this snorefest.
  20. TimothyP.
    Aug 1, 2006
    2
    Absolutely the most boring worthless movie I've seen in a long time!
  21. LenaB.
    Mar 12, 2006
    1
    This is a terrible, terrible, terrible movie. The last movie I can remember that had a good pedigree but was this terrible was Enigma. I cannot understand how talented people could have made something this ridicucously absurd. Please don't waste your money!
  22. VivW
    Feb 18, 2007
    0
    This is where you need a minus section, just a long drawn out ramblings out of all context,vwaste of money.
  23. RyanC.
    Sep 29, 2006
    0
    If I could vote -50 I would...this movie is that bad!
  24. PrudenceK.
    Nov 24, 2005
    0
    Trash. This film was trash. Awful. Depp gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen! It is beyond awful. Anyone who thought he could get an Oscar nod for this awful performance should seriously be tortured.
Metascore
44

Mixed or average reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 30
  2. Negative: 12 out of 30
  1. 88
    This one-of-a-kind spellbinder from first-time director Laurence Dunmore is not afraid to shock. Depp is a raunchy wonder, especially in a time-capsule-worthy opening monologue.
  2. Reviewed by: Leslie Felperin
    50
    Starting out seductive but ending up tiresome, debuting director Laurence Dunmore's pic is an honorable misfire.
  3. 50
    Deep and Morton are really flying here (the scene in which the hero instructs the heroine in the passionate possibilities of her art), and they leave the rest of the film looking heavy on its feet. The second half, especially, grows dour and maundering, and by the end the movie seems to flail in desperation, more like a work in progress than like a finished piece.