Quills

Rating:
Summary: Kaufman should have studied history first
Review: Not only this movie is absolutely inaccurate about historical facts, Sade's real life and date of death, life in asylums in Napoleon's time, but also the plot vanishes, it seems quite lost, almost unbelievable. In brief, it's the second movie of this year (Quills and Unbreakable), where the chance to tell an excellent story is lost due to this kinf of problems.

Rating:
Summary: Provocative Film From Philip Kaufman
Review: The infamous Marquis de Sade spent the final months of his life in Charenton Asylum for the insane, where within the confines of his cell, he was free to put quill to paper to record the erotic musings of his imagination, thereby (it was hoped) purging his bedeviled mind of them. The writings were not, however, to leave his cell; but-- as they say-- where there's a will, there's a way, and soon his anonymous manuscripts were causing a stir among the good citizens of France, up to and including the Emperor himself, Napoleon. "Quills," directed by Philip Kaufman and written by Doug Wright (adapted from his own play), is a fictionalized account of the Marquis during that period, and of the effect he (and his words) had on those with whom he came into contact, either directly, or through his writings. It's a film that runs the gamut from the bawdy to the perverse, while maintaining an objectivity throughout that allows each individual member of the audience to judge the ramifications of it all for themselves. It's an interesting film through which some insight into human nature may be gleaned; or not-- depending upon your own perspective and point of view, as well as the level of sensitivity and sensibility with which you receive the information afforded herein. Visually, the film is striking; Kaufman successfully captures the essence of the era, and the performance by Geoffrey Rush (as the Marquis) alone is worth the price of admission. Rush accords himself a freedom of expression entirely consistent with the character he portrays, holding nothing in reserve as he brings him so vividly to life. His Marquis is emotionally complex-- personable and repugnant at the same time-- and it's that depth of character with which Rush manages to imbue him that makes him believable. Rush was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor for it, and deservedly so. Kate Winslet gives a notable performance, as well, as Madeleine, the laundress who smuggles the Marquis' writings from the asylum and turns them over to an agent of his publisher. There's a natural, earthy quality to Winslet that lends just the right touch to the character and makes her memorable. And a nod must go to Winslet for making some bold career decisions after her mainstream success in "Titanic." With her pick of any number of "safe" roles from which to choose, she had the daring to take parts with substance and character-- like Madeleine-- as well as the roles she opted for in "Hideous Kinky" and "Holy Smoke," rather than sit on her laurels and let her talent stagnate. It's a rare quality in an actress of her caliber, and it would be an injustice to let it pass without comment. Michael Caine, on the other hand, though arguably one of the most talented actors of our times, turns in a fairly anemic performance as Dr. Royer-Collard, who is personally dispatched by Napoleon to the asylum to rein in the exploits of the Marquis. And the fault, perhaps, lies not with Caine, but with the character itself; for as a battle of wills ensues between Royer-Collard and de Sade, the good Doctor must maintain a rather stoic countenance, which contrasts unfavorably with the flare and single-minded zealousness of the Marquis. Joaquin Phoenix, too, as Coulmier, the Priest in charge of Charenton, gives a passable performance, but one that seems somewhat tentative, especially compared to his superior turn in "Gladiator," for which he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The supporting cast includes Billie Whitelaw (Madame LeClerc), Patrick Malahide (Delbene), Amelia Warner (Simone), Jane Menelaus (Renee), Stephen Moyer (Prouix) and Stephen Marcus (Bouchon). A provocative film that makes something of a statement about righteous hypocrisy, "Quills," taken as the work of fiction that it is, will be a satisfying cinematic experience for most; but be forewarned-- this is not a film for everyone. The content and subject matter may be a bit too strong for some, depending on personal taste and sensibility. And, those who come to this film seeking historical enlightenment may be disappointed. But taken with regard to artistic merit, this is filmmaking at it's best; work for which Kaufman and Co. are to be applauded.

Rating:
Summary: It Doesn't reach every level intended.
Review: I really wanted to enjoy "Quills" more than I actually did. In the end I admire the film but I never really felt emotionally attached, which means it has really failed on some levels.

If a film fails to draw the viewer into the drama, it has failed on some level, and that is exactly what happened here, and all the Brilliant Performances in the World can't turn the picture from merely a Great film, into a Spectacular one; but boy do they try.

Geoffrey Rush truly gives his greatest screen performance yet. He is Utterly Brilliant in his portrayal of the Marque De Sade and it's a Shame that the film has been release against Performance Guggernauts like "Cast Away" and "Traffic".

Joaquin Phoenix also gives his best performance yet. Kate Winslet has given too many to count, as has Michael Caine, who doesn't have enough screen time to really give a memorable performance.

On a whole, it really is a great film, and in time will still be looked on favorable. But you can't blame a guy for having Elevated Expectations. The Acting is Thoroughly Top-Drawer, the Sets and Costumes are Spot on and the Screenplay and Direction are also Well above average. I really eludes me how the film manages to miss fire in drawing in the audience. (and a fair few critics)

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant! Oscars all 'round!
Review: This is one of the few movies in recent memory where, at the end, I turned to my movie going companion and said "Can we make them show it again!? Right now?!". Rush is amazing, Caine oozes slime and disdain, Winslet glows in her sexiest role to date, and Phoenix delivers a wondrous performance as the inncocent priest seduced by his own desires (with a little push from the Marquis, of course). The film begins as a lush visual treat and decends quickly into madness and gore. Not for the faint of heart (or the morally high-minded), this is a wonderful film that has made MY top 10 list.

Rating:
Summary: Bringing the marquis de Sade back to life
Review: This film is a period piece during the last prison-years of the Marquis de Sade, whose name was later used to classify particular sexual perversities. Two hours or so, of absolute feast for the eyes, a banquet of colors, amazing live-in-worn-in costumes and settings that carry traces of master paintings! But above all, it is Mr. Rush's performance that repeatedly drove me to the edge of my seat. Joe Morgenstern, on his Wall Street Journal's column rates Rush's acting as over-shining the SHINE one. I could not agree more. It goes beyond portraying, it resuscitates de Sade. Imagine a silk"ed" and wigged aristocrat, over-flowing with Id, whose electrified spirit delivers arrogantly Doug Wright's lines! You end up..believe me.. somewhere in the twiligt zone, mesmerized. Some favorite scenes: the "chocolat pastilles eating scene" where voracity, lust and anger combine in front of your very eyes as compulsive eating; the "bone searching scene" so convincing down to the dirty finger nail; the "wine pouring scene" where gluttony feels the glass beyond the rim. Yet,I disliked the Grand Guignolesque aspect of certain scenes, like the large wooden vat filled with red, the prolongued tearful jeremiads of the Abbe Coulmier. Joaquin Phoenix has difficulties delivering Doug Wright's bold lines. In conclusion, in all the buzz around QUILLS more is said about de Sade than about Rush. How amazing! Rush brought the marquis back to life.

Rating:
Summary: falsely romanticized
Review: This film functions as an apology for Sade, just like many works of so-called "literary" value. The problem is, when one has read many biographies and historical records of this transgressive novelist (as I have) one tends to become disdainful of any attempt to romanticize this man.

First of all, there are still hundreds of documents from Sade's period, recorded by the police of his time, which point to the fact that he had been the perpetrator of horrendous acts of rape and sexual violence on prostitutes and working-class women. He was never penalized for these activities (he was a Marquis, they were peasants) until he performed these same acts upon a woman of more respected standing.

Secondly, reading Sade's actual essays on his personal philosophy reveals a very sexist vision of the world: women are only fit to be used sexually by a male dominator. This belief lead him to kidnap and terrorize hundreds of women.

Thirdly, the period of Sade's life in which Rush portrays him, is highly inaccurate. By all accounts, Sade was, at this point, overly obese and debauched; his days in the Bastille prior to the Jacobin revolution had lead him to gluttony while he worked on "120 Days of Sodom" (published post-mortem). During his release from the Bastille and the subsequent French Terrors, Sade's death was actually ordered by Marat (when this revolutionry discovered who Sade was and why he was in prison), but Marat was assassinated before the sentence was carried out.

Although Rush and Winslet performed their roles rather well, and the costumes and cinematography of the film were interesting, this film's attempt to romanticize Sade follows a tradition of literary dishonesty which ammounts to nothing more than revisionism.

Sade is interesting as a deviant transgressive novelist who prefigured Freud's and Krafft-Ebbing's theories. Read the many accurate biographies about him or read his own works and you'll get a far more realistic picture than this film provides.

Rating:
Summary: Beware!
Review: First of all, to watch a movie so boldly handling issues of freedom ofspeech and self-expression by means of sexual freedom was extremelyrefreshing (also knowing it has been nominated as the BestPicture). As usual with film-makers interpreting history, corners arerounded and contrasts are smoothed giving to M-s de Sade the air ofunnecessary martyrdom. M-s de Sade, who was quite a controversialhistorical person, is represented as a forerunner of sexual revolution(although, by no means he was the first to scribble and publish lewdverses and obscene stories). However, as it's wont with a good movie,it's not important, after all.

The plot, in a nutshell, isinveigling: in a lunatic asylum M-s de Sade (J Rush) keeps producinghis sacrilegious and perverse stories (that would be considered mildpornography today). A laundry maid (K Winslett), who also enjoys hermind to be soiled, for a handsome pay smuggles them outside... Theadministrator of the asylum - Abe (J Phoenix) is quite human andprogressive in methods of treating his patients: they paintwatercolors, perform plays, sing in a chorus. He also has to put upwith Sade's pranks. He is tormented between earthly attraction to themaid and his call before God. Dr - a very French name - (M Caine) whouses quite opposite methods of treatment (like flogging, the Iron Maidand the drowning stool), arrives to the asylum to check on itsadministration and on behavior of M-se de Sade. The latter becomes hismortal enemy by sharpness of his tongue and indecentassaults. Passions flare high with such characters and don't expect asimple ending. As many reviewers have noted, the actors were splendid:verbal duels between Rush and Phoenix, Phoenix and Winslett, Rush andWinslett kept me glued to the screen in anticipation how this sinisterspectacle would culminate.

I'm also not the first to warn you thatif you're Puritan of moral and strict of mind, blush instantly hearingf-words and alike, like simple stories and smiling chirping characters- you'll abhor the movie provoking you with its violence and nudity. Iliked it very much, but I'll think twice before adding it to my homecollection - my mind kept me returning to some scenes again and againand it left me disturbed, uneasy and moody.

Rating:
Summary: Ambitious alternative to the usual period drama.
Review: Any repressive government is based on a network of power that runs from the head to the lowliest serf. The Marquis de Sade's principal subversion was to obvious alternative networks of naysaying, the body attacking the body politic, whether in the dissemination of his books, from cell to public, or in the creation of his art, from author to reader. This latter, distorting pattern subverts De Sade's authority as an author as disturbingly as he did that of the ruling classes.

'Quills' offers a heritage movie closer to the Carry Ons, Jean Rollin and Walerian Borowczyk, exponents of 'lower' period dramas, than the conservative likes of Merchant Ivory; shabby, disintergrating, raucous. Its didactism is less interesting than Kauffman recovering the style perfected in 'The Right Stuff', revelling in instability of modes, tones, forms, narratives. The script, while containing much funny dialogue, runs out of steam, and Kate Winslet's part is too big for such a minor character, eventually capsizing the film. The play put on for Royer-Collard is so shockingly marvellous, though, in its mixture of Artaud and pantomime, that one regrets theatre has generally stagnated.

Rating:
Summary: Rush and Winslet Make A Great Team
Review: The setting is an insane asylum in Paris, 1807, and infamous author and sexual maven Marquis de Sade (Rush) is treated for insanity by a doctor (Caine) assigned by Napoleon to crack down on him, much to the frustration of the Abbe Coulmier (Phoenix), who runs Charenton Asylum, and has in a way befriended de Sade, even though the two engage in a debate about morality and sin. Added to the mix is de Sade's maid (Winslet) who visits him frequently, smuggling out what will become his last writings. These people, thrown together in an asylum, are the mixings of a scenario that challenges the concepts of freedom of literature and its censorship...

Rating:
Summary: Rush shines and Phoenix is to die for!
Review: Quills is the most intense movie I have seen in a long time. Geoffrey Rush plays an extremly complex character that will take coffee talk to a whole new level. Impress your friends with insight into the Marquis de Sade's life. Joaquin Phoenix plays the most spell binding "every man" that has graced the screen in over a decade. Audience members will have a hard time deciding whether they are inside his head or he is inside theirs. Thrilling and enthralling. A must see.