The Libertine (2004)

I enjoyed the film very much! There were lots, as you say, of anachronisms 'shag', for example, meaning 'to copulate' originates from 1788, nearly a hundred years later. They mispronounce both 'flaccid' and 'trait' - common enough errors, both, but they really shouldn't occur in a film of this nature.

Even the conceit of the film was something of an anachronism - why on earth should the Earl of Rochester give a fart whether people like him - particularly those with modern sensibilities? I thought him an amusing and engaging figure - pity about his deathbed infection with religion, but his brain was addled with tertiary syphilis, so you can hardly blame him. I thought him remarkably un-debauched, actually, a trifle over-indulgent, certainly, but not debauched in any sensible meaning of the word - at least that's my view! John Malkovich is considerably less irritating than usual - probably because he is trying to speak English (he doesn't do too badly, though he makes some errors that no Native speaker would and that ought to have been corrected by the producer).

The lighting is nicely atmospheric and the sets pleasantly sub-fusc. There are some witty exchanges and enjoyable visual effects. It must have taken them ages to set up the scene where the spaniel shits behind the King's back.

I thought his wife was portrayed as a bit slow - surely she wouldn't have been so thick as not to have understood his point about the monkey.

I liked his servant - though I fear that he took more of his character from Baldrick in 'Black Adder' than from any historical Alcock.

I think that the film would be improved if the spoken introduction and epilogue were removed - as I say, I think that the view is anachronistic and the arch post-modernist attempt to have us see the film as an auto-biography is silly, vain and fails.