I saw it the weekend it came out. It was supposed to have been released last September, then January. I don't know what the problem was, except the content of the film. It's rude, crude, lewd, and socially unacceptable -- or rather Lord Rochester was. It's well performed and generally well done. The costumes are good, but the film emphasizes the seamy side of Restoration-era England, so they aren't very fancy. Lots of mud and dirt -- even under the fingernails of the aristocracy. Since Rochester died of syphillis, which is portrayed pretty graphically, you can imagine that the film is not pretty.
It was originally a play, and John Malkovich played Rochester (he playes Charles II here in a really bad fake nose), so it's kind of choppy. Malkovich held the rights to the play (to film it), but it took him so long to get the financing that he was too old to play Rochester. Johnny Depp was a great job, but he's not a very likeable character. I recommend it with reservations. It can gross you out. As a costume flick, it's OK, but you won't see much in the way of court dress -- theatrical costumes (when the actors wear clothes) and servant's clothes are more likely. Kathleen Norvell _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
