(2012-04-30 21:14:32)

A joy to watch

I loved every minute of this movie- visually stunning, beautifully acted,cleverly written, and interesting, throughout. Perhaps the most importantthing I can say about this film is that it made me think about the hypocrisyof religion and censorship. While there are some scenes that are unpleasantto watch, there is no gratuitous violence, and it is a surprisingly sweetmovie. Highly recommended.

Boba_Fett1138

(2012-04-30 05:22:05)

A case of the quill being mightier than the sword.

The movie features a great and original story of a writer, who happensto be an insane asylum inmate, during the Napoleonic era who throughhis writing knows to manipulate and control everyone around him, of alllevels of society. His stories are daringly sexual orientated (for itstime of course) and is attracting all kinds of people. Amazingly enoughthe story is even supposedly based on a true story, although of coursethe movie story-wise took some liberties, with its characters as well.The movie doesn't only focus on its main manipulative character butalso those around him, who basically each have an own motive andstory-line in the movie but are of course all connected with eachthrough the stories and the Marquis de Sade personally. It of coursehelps in this that all of the characters are being portrayed by someexcellent actors.It's not your typical costumes drama and it also isn't a typical PhilipKaufman movie. Kaufman doesn't direct often or many movies but when hedoes it normally is always something good and also special, that isjust a bit different from the usual genre movie the movie gets made in.Of course this movie features a lot of sexual undertone, which givesthe movie a special and also yet somehow unpleasant kind of atmosphere,which I mean in a positive way.As could be expected, the dialog for this film is amazing. It'sdeliciously old fashioned and often poetic. Really some Shakespearianlike written here. And again, it really helps that the movie has somegreat actors delivering the lines.Geoffrey Rush is a real scene stealer and no wonder he received anOscar nomination for his role in this movie. It further more featuresthe other multiple nominee- and Oscar winners such as Michael Caine,Kate Winslet and Joaquin Phoenix. The four principal actors, as of yet,share a total of 13 Oscar nominations and 3 wins. It says somethingabout their qualities and the acting performances in this movie.Of course the movie is also great looking with its sets and costumes aswell as with its cinematography and directing style.On a downside note, the movie tends to be a bit overlong. Even thoughthe movie is just over 2 hours long, it still feels much longer and itgives you the feeling the movie should had reached its conclusionearlier on. It's not that the movie ever bores, it just starts to draga bit as it heads toward its ending.A special kind of movie that is worth watching.8/10

headfulofghosts126

(2012-04-29 23:44:11)

Wonderful...

I had no idea what this movie was about going into it, but it left mespellbound from its introduction all the way to the end credits. It's ashame movies like this don't get more attention. Geoffrey Rush is at the topof his game and clearly loving every minute playing the film's maincharacter: a racy writer locked away in a home for the mentally incompetent.Joaquin Phoenix really stands out in a great supporting role. This isprobably the best role I've seen him in yet. Kate Winslet is also great, asalways. Michael Caine is absolutely terrific as a conservative doctor. He'sextremely easy to hate and Caine has no trouble punching up the lessdelicous aspects of the character. Entertaining and tragic, this is a movieI won't soon forget.

(2012-04-29 10:36:11)

Very impressive but...

When it's finished, you get out really exhausted - not knowing whether agood film or not, still confused by what you had seen. The players were goodbut among them all Geoffrey Rush is showing great performance. Big bravo forart direction, set decoration and costume design also. Altogether it is verythrilling. The problem is, Marquis de Sade story was stylised (which remindsme Milos Forman's Amadeus) and became some sort of farce with its very ownethics and a load of blood. We don't get to know who is this weird mancalled Marquis. What's really in his mind? He's talking impudently, he'sbeen to hell, but we only read about it (and now watching the movie). Butthis poor and beautiful laundress is intelligent enough to understand andhelp him survive in the asylum he was kept. Though we keep the concern ofwhether it's the real story or not, it's not easy to keep from thinking whyare the characters we made to like are punished while statusquo win again.

FlickJunkie-2

(2012-04-29 16:22:35)

One of the best films of 2000

This is a terrific film about the infamous Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush),who wrote pornography from his cell in a mental institution and smuggled itout to be published to the delight of Napoleonic France. The story isbrilliantly written by Doug Wright, who also wrote the play upon which thefilm is based. The rapid-fire dialogue is intelligent and biting and thehumor is delightfully nasty and ironic.Philip Kaufman's direction is excellent. The pace is exceptionally good andhe brings out inspired performances from the entire cast. The period iswell rendered without excessive flourishes. The costumes are appropriate,but not overly ornate as would be expected of the characters (JacquelineWest was nominated for an Oscar for best costume design for this film). Kaufman allows the characters to dominate the images rather than trying toinsert slick effects and stylish perspectives, a definite plus in thisfilm.The story is a dark and twisted examination of the Marquis and hisrelationship with the Abbe Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), who runs the asylum,Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), who is sent by Napoleon to keep theMarquis under control, and Madeleine (Kate Winslet), who helps him tosmuggle his bawdy manuscripts to the publisher. Despite all their effortsto keep the Marquis from writing, he always outwits them and producesanother `masterpiece'. The scene where he puts on a play aboutRoyer-Collard and his child bride is hysterical, with the mirthful invectivecoming so fast that you have to rewind it a couple of times to fullyappreciate it.As good as Geoffrey Rush was in `Shine', I thought he was even better here. Rush is electrifying, playing an extremely complex character on the verybrink of insanity. He plays the role like a man possessed, and ranges fromwickedly funny to frighteningly frenzied. His performance was nominated forthe Oscar for best actor that went to Russell Crowe for `Gladiator'. Bothwere deserving of the prize, and it is a pity one of them had to walk awayempty handed.Joaquin Phoenix (who ironically co-starred with both best actor nominees,and was nominated himself for best supporting actor for `Gladiator'), turnsin another fine performance as the Abbe, and continues to prove himself oneof the up and coming dramatic actors of his generation. Kate Winsletemerges from her self-imposed banishment to obscurity (`Hideous Kinky',`Holy Smoke') with a wonderfully rich performance in a supporting role. NoWinslet performance would be complete without at least one frontal nudescene, and this film is no different in that regard. However, she alsoprovides a well-acted portrayal of a very sympathetic character in Madeleinethat makes one think that perhaps her Oscar nomination for `Titanic' wasn'ta fluke. Michael Caine, as always, is fabulous as the underhanded Dr.Royer-Collard. Caine is a highly versatile actor, and he brings vibrancy toalmost every role he plays.This has my vote as one of the best films of 2000. It opened in theaters inlimited release, so many people are not familiar with it. Now that it is inthe rental market, perhaps it will find a larger audience. It is splendidlydirected, the acting is superb, and the writing is intelligent, darklyhumorous and engaging. I rated it a 10/10. Though not a film that willhave mass appeal, it is a delight for the uninhibited intellectualviewer.

(2012-04-29 10:26:31)

stunning

one of the most brilliant films of the year, this is a truly disturbing and gut-wrentching masterpiece...the script is wonderful, the performances powerful, and the ending truly shocking...gives you lots to talk about afterwards, a definite recommendation, SEE THIS!!!!

(2012-04-28 13:58:10)

The Maddening Marquis de Sade!

Geoffrey Rush gives the performance of the year in "Quills", director Philip Kaufman's probing film into the questions of morality and censorship using the infamous French writer the Marquis de Sade (Rush). Rush doesn't play the Marquis, he IS the Marquis. The lecherous sneer when he is around women, the self-satisfied humming as he begins to write, the uncontrollable sobs in the midst of personal tragedy; watching Rush, one gets the feeling of watching de Sade, the man himself, not just the character.Kate Winslet is luminous as ever as Madeleine, the chambermaid who smuggles the Marquis' writings to a publisher. Her delight in his words, juxtaposed with her sweet innocence and purity, are a delicate balance that Winslet pulls off well. Contributing a remarkable performance is Joaquin Phoenix as the abbe who oversees the asylum to which de Sade has been committed. The conflicts of duty, faith, and love ever apparent in his eyes, Phoenix ("Gladiator") further demonstrates that he is an accomplished young actor on the rise."Quills" is not a pleasant film. Over the course of two hours, we are privy to the destruction of a man by sources never made clear (himself, those determined to censor his pornography?), and it is both visually and psychologically graphic. Still, it is one that should be seen.

(2012-04-27 22:27:38)

"There is in each of us such beauty and such abomination."

The story of the Marquis de Sade, whose name is inextricably linked with the word "sadism," comes alive in this absorbing but graphic depiction of 18th century attitudes toward love and sex, mental illness, religion, and crime and punishment in France. Adapting his stageplay for the screen, author Doug Wright sets the action primarily in the Charenton asylum, where the Marquis de Sade occupied a lavish cell. Philip Kaufman directs this noir film, which is filled with ironies and raises questions about who is sicker--the inmates or their wardens. Geoffrey Rush, nominated for an Academy Award as Best Actor, is a terrifying Marquis de Sade, showing his wild rages, cruelty, and self-destruction, but also his need for understanding and human contact. Obsessively writing pornographic novels from his cell, he has a laundress smuggle them out to a delighted public. Dr. Royer-Collard, director of the asylum (sneeringly played by Michael Caine) is coldly formal, a believer in cruel punishment as a deterrent from abnormal behavior, his "punishments" rivaling anything the Marquis dreams up.Madeleine LeClerq (winningly played by Kate Winslet), a lively laundress with a sense of adventure, is intrigued by the Marquis and helps him, showing herself to be more human and less a caricature than most of the other characters. Joachin Phoenix sensitively portrays the Abbe de Coulmier, a young priest who believes in the basic goodness of man, showing him as he agonizes over the conflicts between his church, his growing love for Madeleine, and his revulsion of Royer-Collard's perversities.This film is violent and graphic, with some nudity, but the screenplay is elegantly written, filled with observations which both illustrate and elevate its themes. The dialogue is brilliant, though often more formal than one would expect of the inmates, conveying ideas at the same time that it accompanies violent action. The cinematography (Rogier Stoffers), with its dark prison scenes and close-ups of blood, dismemberment, and torture (some of it self-mutilation), combined with the costuming (Jacqueline West), make the nether-world of Charenton come alive visually. Though the violence may be accurate and appropriate to the times, it is so pervasive and so graphic here that it seems to pander to an audience's baser emotions--it feels like a stage play given an extremely violent overlay for film. Still, the cast is wonderful, the story is absorbing, and the themes--what is morality, and how, if at all, should society control it?--are fully explored and presented. Mary Whipple

ophelia-29

(2012-04-19 18:55:24)

Silence of the lambs in 19th century France!!! BRILLIANT!!

I saw this film yesterday at a free preview and what can I say I wasexpecting to either see mild porn or be bored silly. But all I could say wasWOW this film had me gripped from the outset the acting is superb and Rushsteals every scene. What a breath of fresh air to see such performancesafter a year of wooden and mindless acting. Winslet does her usual turn ofbeing brilliant, and to my surprise considering the content stays prettymuch in her corset throughout the film (to the dismay of my boyfriend).This film is deliciously disturbing with lavish cinemagraphy and greatcostume. You'll be laughing one minute and cringing the next. This film isan utter delight and for the lover of A* acting and intriguing script thisis a film they can sink their teeth into. The images (no matter howgruesome) will stay with you well after. This is a cult classic in themaking. If you see one film this January make this it, it's well worth it,you'll be pleasantly surprised.Rush deserves an Oscar nomination, Winslet gets back to the meaty roles shedeserves (In my personal opinion the parts have been badly written and dullsince Hamlet. Oh yes Academy why no nomination for her amazing turn asOphelia) and Joaquin adds another brilliant film to his growing CVdefinitely an actor to watch after his performance in Gladiator. And whatcan I say in what minor role he does have; it's definitely proven why he'sSir Michael Caine.Word of warning though this film is not for the faint of heart as it doesget pretty gruesome.

(2012-04-19 11:43:32)

Quills = disgusting scenes to turn your stomach.

Yes, it is another well crafted, well acted and well done movie, but with such sadistic scenes to leave one thoroughly disturbed, upset and utterly sad. Yuck! It is so easy to use scenes of torture and the degrading of the human spirit (in this case of the Marquis de Sade) so as to make a movie seem profound. The film begins with a bloody beheading and I personally left near the end when a mentally deficient inmate was put in a small cage to be tortured. You know, folks, it takes greater skill and creativity to make a point with out the viewers all having to go through hell to "get it". This movie, in its savoring of revolting violence, is in itself a sadistic act.

teegz

(2012-04-13 14:55:34)

Shockingly Disappointing...

In a movie that could have been so good, it is stunning to seehow much went wrong. Quills is not thought provoking, since eachtheme is laid out with the subtlety of a shovel to the head. All thefuss surrounding Eminem in today's culture is spelled out inQuills; how far can freedom of expression go?... Does life imitateart?... Are artists responsible for deeds done in the names of theircreations? Conservatives and Liberals have argued over theseissues for centuries, likely with more tact than Quills.With the infamous Marquis de Sade as the protagonist in thefilm, the audience should be able to figure out the issues at stake,but Quills feels the need to recreate every known cliche of plot andcharacter to set the stage. The acting is superb (especially Rush),but, aside from the Marquis, the actors are given little to work with.-SEMI-SPOILER- The characters of the Doctor (Michael Caine),and his wife, are laughably one dimensional. Caine, the 'villain'who wants to silence de Sade's immorality, is, of course, not somoral. His young wife, brought up by nuns, is, you guessed it,tainted by the Marquis' writing. Phoenix, the priest and head of deSade's asylum home is (gasp!) tempted by the pleasures of theflesh and in turn questions his religion. The script is cute, rife withsmart one-liners, which are not smart enough to hide the fact thatthey are still one-liners. Everything takes place for the purpose ofmaking the viewer think, instead of helping them think.Of course, the subjects that Quills raises are important ones,and the movie does bring them into the open. The means by whichis does, however, are both insulting to the movie going audienceand film itself. Art is about a dialogue between the artist and theaudience, a dialogue which is non-existent in Quills. Beingspoon-fed does not make for an enjoyable movie experience.

Shahrad

(2012-04-12 22:07:44)

I don't appreciate QUILLS

Marquis De sade was a mad man who was also a writer, but Quills tries toportrait him as a writer who was also mad. But why? Does it try to make hima genius? He's no genius but a psych. I can't believe that he's a writer atall. He used to write, alright but it doesn't make him a writer. Don't youthink that it would be better if the movie dealt with his entire life? Hehad an adventurous life and I believe that his entire biography is moreinteresting than its last part and Quills focuses on the last days of hislife in an asylum. Besides, I didn't like Geoffrey Rush's acting in thisfilm. He was magnificent at his previous movies(Shine, Shakespeare in Love,Elizabeth), but at this one he was too ordinary. And the character Dr.Collard doesn't suit Michael Cain.

Viuvens

(2012-04-08 10:27:50)

nice movie but disappointing for real Marquis De Sade appreciators

the movie is rather good with great quotes (in a movie based on Sade whatelse would you expect?), but for all that know more of Sade the movie isnotby any means biographical. maybe in the beginning, but then the abbestartsbecoming the main character, which i disliked. anyway i enjoyed the movie,but when i knew a movie about Sade was out I, personally, expected a lotmore...

dorothy68

(2012-04-08 05:29:47)

Yes, it has religion

Luckily for the Marquis, at first anyway, is that there is something ofan understanding priest in the Abbe du Coulmier, another wonderfulperformance from Joaquin Phoenix. An intensely religious man, Coulmierbelieves that the Marquis should be allowed to write, if only to purgehimself of the sadism with which his head is filled and which wouldlater be named after him.Kate Winslet plays Madeleine, a laundry maid who smuggles the Marquis'writing out of the asylum so that it can be published, for which manypeople are not happy, but many others are. The Marquis dips into theextensive world of the forbidden sexual taboos of the 18th and 19thcenturies, writing extensively about them without a care in the worldfor propriety. One may wonder to what extent the Marquis' writings weresuch a hit because they were forbidden, or because of their lewdcontent, which may euphemistically be described as guilty pleasures forthe masses. Indeed, Larry Flynt was not working, so graphic pornographywas something of a rarity.There is a curious relationship between the Marquis and a physiciannamed Royer-Collard, played by Michael Caine, who is assigned to lawdown the law with the Marquis and prevent him from writing anymore. Theglee with which the Marquis mocks and taunts him are some of the bestparts of this outstanding film. There is a great parallel between thetwo characters, as well. Royer-Collard pretends to be a moral rolemodel, at the same time taking a wife who is young enough to be hisdaughter, possibly even his granddaughter, and treats the Marquis withexactly the same sadistic (if I can again use the term for the behaviorfor which the Marquis would later be named) behavior that he condemnsthat Marquis for writing about. Both men engage in many of the samepractices, it's just that the Marquis makes no attempt and has nointerest in hiding his interests in the pleasures of the flesh.

Leonard

(2012-03-31 04:08:30)

Don't judge the book from its cover

I had only a smidgen of knowledge about The Marquis de Sade but outofcuriosity and liking most of the stuff Director Kaufman had been involvedwith I watchedit and came away with the opinion that this must be a totally fictionalizedversion of deSade's final days. I really did not enjoy the movie being myself soill-informed about theman. I had an idea de Sade was a horrible person who had inflictedunspeakable torturesand murdered many people. I was wrong.I decided to read a summary of his life and even though he had writtenaboutterrible things he came off to me as an abuser of prostitutes and anexcellent writer. Thefinal days his life in the asylum are depicted somewhat accurately. I dowonder why thescreenwriter took such liberty with the end of de Sade's life. It waspointless andinaccurate. After informing myself a little about de Sade I decided themovie was prettygood and I may watch it again.

(2012-03-30 07:37:52)

Excellent period piece, definitely a hidden gem.

Having read the works of the Marquis at great length, I was quite enthused to see Quills, and I was not the least bit disappointed. It depicts the Marquis as a man of great talent with words, but a man haunted by lust and perversion. His imprisonment in Charenton (a French insane asylum) only inspired his insatiable lust, which spilled out onto paper. Geoffrey Rush gives his most memorable performance as the Marquis, giving wit and grace, as well as repulsion. Joaquin Pheonix (donning a convincing English accent) plays Abbe, the preist who runs the asylum, who is pushed to his wits end by the Marquis resistance to his treatment. Much of the movie focuses on the duality between these two characters. Kate Winslet and Michael Caine give stellar supporting roles, with Winslet as the laundry lass who falls for the Marquis, and Caine as the menacing doctor who comes on behalf of Napolean to silence the Marquis, who is smuggling his writings out of the hospital for publication. All actors play their roles with passion and compassion, making Quills one of the most entertaining movies I have seen in a while.What was equally striking was the costumes and sets, which were made, at great expense no doubt, to fully resemble the attire and settings of that time. Charenton, in which much of the movie takes place, is amazingly detailed, giving the movie a very authentic feel. What is covered at great length on the DVD is the costume and set design, in which we get to meet the people who labored intensely to create a masteful period piece.After seeing Quills, you will most likely be tempted to read the works of the Marquis. That is the real gift of a good movie, where it inspires you to think beyond the scope of the movie itself. What you will get from Quills, at the very least, is a well acted, well written, and superbly made movie.

Ryan Love

(2012-03-22 19:32:55)

Such good acting, such a bad movie

Joaquin Phoenix is amazing, and Geoffrey Rush is nothing to sneeze ateither. But the movie is garbage. Many people have commented on it beingthought provoking. It could have been. Instead, the viewer is beaten overthe head with the theme of "we're no better." I usually love things thatdeal with that theme, but this was beyond ham-handed. We could have easilygotten the point without all of the pretension. My biggest problem with themovie, however, is that its main attraction is simply being ghoulish. Asthe movie continues, it falls deeper and deeper into "shock the audience"territory without any need. Some would argue that its showing its theme,but there was no need to pound it in like that. And given the brutalviolence of the last tale, how can anyone POSSIBLY identify with theMarquis? The movie's success hinges on that one point. The viewer MUSTrecognize that there is a part of the Marquis in everyone. But he is tooghastly to possibly evoke such empathy, and the movie fails.Great individual scenes, great acting, but great movie? Far fromit.3/10

taranga

(2012-03-22 13:26:59)

An incredibly good film

First, I want to say that I think it's not a film "rated R for his strongsexual language and scenes". I'm only 16, and I saw the film with myparents-who don't like me to see films with sexual content-, and they didn't saynothing about it.In my opinion, the plot is very interesting, although I know it isn't thereal history of the last years of the Marquis of Sade. At the begginningwasquite funny, but after it becomes sad, specially some moments.The actors were incredible. Geoffrey Rush, as the Marquis, was perfect,likein his other masterpiece, Shine. I think he deserved the Oscar, much betterthan Russell Crowe.Joaquin Phoenix was superb. I recently saw him in "Return To Paradise",where he takes the role of a turmented man in a prison of Malaysia, and hewas startling. Then I noticed that he is an incredible actor. I don'tremember very well is acting in "Gladiator", maybe because I didn't like somuch this film. In "Quills" he is AbbГѓВ© Coulmier, an innocent and idealistpriest who, as the movie goes on, suffers a great change. I think Joaquinisone of the better actors nowadays. I'm waiting for "The Yards" -here inSpain, this movie hasn't been released-to see him again.Kate Winslet also is incredible in the role of Madeleine. She isdemonstrating that she is much, much more than "Titanic".Maybe Michael Caine is not the best actor to take the role of the doctorRoyer-Collard. I can't imagine him being a bad person. However, he givescredibility to the paper.I don't know the other actors, but the young Amelia Warner -the doctor'swife- was absolutely delicious.One thing I didn't like so much was the end. It was quite good, but alittlepredictable.I just think the film is very fine, but it may need a lot of publicity,because it isn't very known. I will recommend it.

Joga-2

(2012-03-20 18:22:26)

sorely disappointing

Amid the trite dialogue, unbelievable characters, and an oh-so-hollywoodstoryline, Geoffrey Rush still comes through with a stellar performance.Hewas one of the reasons I wanted to see the movie so badly. I just wishhischaracter (the Marquis de Sade) would have been the FOCAL point of thefilm.This movie could have been a great piece of art. It's more like a soapopera with the Marquis as the loveable scamp.

(2012-03-20 00:12:34)

The Freedom of Madness

Come with me to the bowels of France's unspeakable hell: Charenton Abbey, a madhouse of the 18th century. Here, within its thick stone walls, inmates are subjected to every possible cruelty, many of which are beyond watching, at least for this reviewer. And now we enter the lavishly appointed cell of the infamous Marquis de Sade, whose brilliant rendering by Geoffrey Rush will leave an indelible imprint on your mind. Incarcerated in the asuylum for his sadomasochistic writings (and doings, one presumes), the Marquis is, despite his predelictions, a sly, brilliant, and totally mad genius. His writing keeps him alive; his life has become narrowed to the point where his writing IS his freedom, and nothing can or will stop him.Smuggling de Sade's risque and shocking manuscripts out of the madhouse, virginal laundress Madeleine, played wonderfully by Kate Winslet (who is given much more of a chance to show her considerable acting talents than she was in "Titanic"), is drawn to his writings--and to the Marquis himself--like the proverbial moth to the flame. But their strange relationship is never consummated. Nor is the strong desire between Madeleine and the tortured Abbe Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), torn apart by his conflicting loves of the church and the woman.Michael Caine gives a chilling performance as the cold, evil hypocrite, Dr. Royer-Collard, sent to take control of the madhouse and silence the Marquis (whose smuggled works are being read by all of France) once and for all.The darkness and horror of this film, rendered beautifully by Philip Kaufman's inspired direction, is sparked throughout by the increasingly insane brilliance of the Marquis' incredible wit and ingenuity in continuing to write. Deprived of his quills, he turns to wine and a chicken bone, then to his own blood, and finally, his feces as he leads the viewer on an inexorable descent into the madness of despair.Very hard to watch, very depressing, but so brilliant, especially in the tour de force by Geoffrey Rush, that it is a must-see for anyone who takes film seriously.