![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An obvious movie lesson that has been brought to my attention by The Libertine:
If a movie lets you spend any time thinking about whether you like it or not, it loses.
I spent most of The Libertine thinking three things: "What the hell is going on?" "Man, Johnny Depp is always awesome," and, "So is this understated intelligence or just boring?" (Toward the end, I was also begging Depp's character to shut up, because Hamlet levels of longwindedness much? Really. Stop talking. You haven't said anything new for the last hour. Shut it.)
The movie frustrated me because it had potential - there's a good political story in there, which I think is supposed to be Plot A, but it's hard to tell because the movie never really gels - but it was all lost in the bad storytelling. I left feeling like it expected me to know about the Duke of Rochester already, so it didn't waste time on pertinent details that would have brought the story together. Hi, I went to an American public school. I don't know shit about this guy or about the court he was part of or the king who was ruling. And that really shouldn't matter, because a well-told story should give you everything you need to know, but with The Libertine it was like I kept blinking and missing the scenes that advanced the plot. There's spoonfeeding, and then there's letting the audience in on what's going on, you know?
There were scenes where I was completely engaged, and scenes where I was just out of it because I wasn't sure what was happening. "Wait, what, when did he - dammit!" The former tells me that there was a good movie in there somewhere, and the latter tells me that stronger storytelling could have brought it out. Nothing in movies drives me crazier than wasted potential.
The movie does, however, have the major-brownie-points bonus of reuniting Johnny Depp and Jack Davenport. So there is that. =D
If a movie lets you spend any time thinking about whether you like it or not, it loses.
I spent most of The Libertine thinking three things: "What the hell is going on?" "Man, Johnny Depp is always awesome," and, "So is this understated intelligence or just boring?" (Toward the end, I was also begging Depp's character to shut up, because Hamlet levels of longwindedness much? Really. Stop talking. You haven't said anything new for the last hour. Shut it.)
The movie frustrated me because it had potential - there's a good political story in there, which I think is supposed to be Plot A, but it's hard to tell because the movie never really gels - but it was all lost in the bad storytelling. I left feeling like it expected me to know about the Duke of Rochester already, so it didn't waste time on pertinent details that would have brought the story together. Hi, I went to an American public school. I don't know shit about this guy or about the court he was part of or the king who was ruling. And that really shouldn't matter, because a well-told story should give you everything you need to know, but with The Libertine it was like I kept blinking and missing the scenes that advanced the plot. There's spoonfeeding, and then there's letting the audience in on what's going on, you know?
There were scenes where I was completely engaged, and scenes where I was just out of it because I wasn't sure what was happening. "Wait, what, when did he - dammit!" The former tells me that there was a good movie in there somewhere, and the latter tells me that stronger storytelling could have brought it out. Nothing in movies drives me crazier than wasted potential.
The movie does, however, have the major-brownie-points bonus of reuniting Johnny Depp and Jack Davenport. So there is that. =D
