You will not like this review. The Libertine.

A few years back when I was living in L.A., a friend and I almost came to blows over whether to leave (him) or not leave (me) The English Patient. (For those of you who have gone to movies in L.A., you know what kind of physical and time commitment it is.) He checked his watch and sighed so many times that I had to go see the movie again a few weeks later to see what I missed. During one of his dramatic heavings of breath, I came up with my movie personality theory.

Loosely based on the Myers-Briggs assessment, I believe there are two camps of moviegoers. On the one hand, there are the sensates. Sensate types like a definite story, for that story to be told linearly, and they want to know the good guy from the bad guy. They love a big dramatic arc and a predictable conclusion. They go to movies to escape. In the other camp are the intuitives. They like having to figure things out on their own. Intuitives prefer more ambivalent characters, and they love a non-linear or open-ended plot line. They go to movies to get some cognitive calisthenics. Not that the camps never cross over - they just have their preferences.

My theory was borne out some weeks later when my friend began ranting about the review that the then-LA Times writer, Richard Eder, had written for The English Patient. "There should just be 2 boxes on the page, and the reviewer should just check Yes, I liked it, or No, I didn't." To me, this is classic sensate thinking. Richard Eder was (and is) a master of context, of bringing together initially disparate perspectives, and weaving them into a review that really, most readers are not gonna appreciate, or even get.

So Brian, wherever you are, you are not gonna like this review. 3 paragraphs in and I haven't even mentioned the movie.

A few weeks back the trailers began for The Libertine. I've been waiting for way over a year for this film to come out. So when Mr. Depp appears in his long-haired glory, proclaiming, "You will not like me," I'm thinkin to myself, oh, I think I will. And the only thing I did not like was the fact that this intelligent, wickedly funny film turned into a morality play. An intuitive beginning with a sensate finish.

The film is based on the life of the Earl of Rochester, a 17th century (talented and entertaining) royal/poet who personified hedonism, and died at 33 after trying to treat syphillis with a mercury bubble bath. Fortunately, the disappointment does not come til the end, when it's all "Debauchery bad, Puritanism good." Check. In the meantime it was a refreshing change - in story, cinematography, and set design - from anything I have seen in a long time, and Mr. Depp was consistently riveting.

Now, to get back to my theory. The Teenage Johnny Depp Posse who came in late and sat down next to us, giggling and texting and in general just not getting the movie, were such sensate types that they should have had some kind of I.D. check at the box office window - "you will not like this movie." I would have felt bad for how in over their heads they were, if they just weren't so damn annoying. Big dramatic sigh.

Oh - forgot to mention that two of my favorites from the Brit series Coupling have minor roles - Richard Coyle (the space cadet Geoffrey) was the sardonic manservant Alcock (get it?). And Jack Davenport (nice-guy Steve and was also in Pirates with Depp) had a tiny role. It's one of those films where you know they had a great time on the set.