Quills

Rating:
Summary: Delicious dramatic period piece from Philip Kaufmann.
Review: While I can't help but laugh at the fact they made the Marquis de Sade the central character in a story about artistic expression and sexual repression, I can understand why. Here is a man who wallowed in excess, seeming unconcerned with the weight of his decisions, his only escape and expression the very thing that caused his downfall. The Marquis de Sade was not a martyr for freedom of speech. He was a seriously disturbed individual whose callous disregard for mankind (he thought murder should be a privilage for the rich) was reflected in his writing. But here he is a curious old coot, with a marvelous sense of humor and a deeply hidden soft side. But Geoffrey Rush's performance makes it all easier to swallow. He is a brave actor (appearing completely nude in several scenes) who loves to portray wounded characters and he simply shines. Kate Winslet (likewise great and brave) plays the innocent laudry maid Madeleine who secretly sneaks the Marquis' writing out of the asylum where he is kept and into the arms of a publisher. When these writings reach the hands of Napoleon, the emperor sends an accomplished doctor, Royer Collard (the great Michael Caine), to silence him, undermining the authority of the asylum's resident priest (Joaquin Phoenix), who sees Sade as a creature who must be saved and who NEEDS to write in order to clean his soul. The film is filled with sexual energy, reaching certain points of eroticism that recall director Philip Kaufman's earlier masterpiece 'The Unbearable Lightness Of Being'. This is a beautiful film, nicely detailed and extremely playful. It is also dark and grisly, nothing too graphic yet certainly unsettling at times. I suppose, if nothing else, 'Quills' does stand as a 'freedom of speech' movie. I look at it as a film which simultaneously acknowledges our fasination with sex and spanks us for our dirty thoughts. But it ultimately reminds us that we all have a right to be heard and that everything has an audience. And if you've just finished watching this movie, well then thank you for helping me prove that point.

Rating:
Summary: Geoffrey Rush is Incredible! A Stellar Film!
Review: QUILLS tells the story of the infamous Marquis de Sade, the author of vivid sexual novels in the time of Napoleon's reign as emperor. Philip Kaufman has given us a film that not only tells the story of the madness behind the genius, but also a look upon censorship and one man's fight to write his work. The storyline concerns the Marquis(Geoffrey Rush, Shine, Shakespeare In Love), confined to his asylum cell, and whose writings he gives to a beautiful and kind laundry girl Madeleine(Kate Winslet, Titanic, Sense and Sensibility). Madeleine gives the writing to a publisher who distributes them secretely. The book is taken by Emperor Napoleon, whose informants believe is the work of the Marquis, so he sends a professional doctor to oversee the asylum, run by the kindly Abbe Coulmier(Joaquin Phoenix, Gladiator, The Yards). Dr. Royer-Collard(Michael Caine, The Cider House Rules, Hannah and her Sisters) is a ruthless man whose idea of treatment is dumping the patient repeatedly in cold water for a time until he is well. He has also taken a wife who is 30 years younger than he. This story gets around to the Marquis, who in turn writes a play which is a farce playing upon the situation of the doctor and his young wife. This enrages the doctor, and the Marquis is punished severely by losing his furniture, clothes, and most importantly, his quills for writing. However, he will stop at nothing to continue writing, figuring out any way possible to write his works. Oscar-Winner(Best Actor, Shine) Geoffrey Rush gives one of the finest performances(Oscar nominated) of his career as the unforgettable Marquis. Kate Winslet is wonderful as the good-hearted Madeleine. One of the most brilliant performances come from Joaquin Phoenix, whose unforgettable turn as the Abbe Coulmier is full of emotional depth. Two-time Oscar-Winner(Supporting Actor: Hannah and her Sisters, Cider House Rules) Michael Caine gives a fiery and fierce performance as Dr. Royce. Kaufman's brilliant direction makes this film a beautifully crafted, frequently funny and terrifying look at the Marquis and the struggles he was put through. What a movie!

Rating:
Summary: A film I both loved and loathed
Review: I had very strong reactions to this film, so that I honestly cannot say whether or not this is a very good movie or a very bad one. It might be most accurate to say that there are things in it that are extraordinary, and that there are many, many elements that I profoundly disliked.

I should perhaps first point out, what others have also mentioned, that you will learn NOTHING about the life of the Marquis de Sade from watching this movie. Ezra Pound once wrote of a book that it was so filled with errors that an errata slip should have been published as a companion volume. It would take either a full length book or a documentary film to start untangling the historical errors. The movie is, therefore, not a biopic, but a complete fiction whose central character is very loosely based on the Marquis de Sade. The main historical point worth mentioning is that de Sade lived a long life and died in bed of natural causes, with full use of his oratorical faculties.

The virtues of the film are many. One must begin with the look of the film. The film garnered an Oscar nomination for art direction, and it was a nomination that was richly deserved. There are a lot of "period" films, but few that will feel as realistic as this one.

Then one must proceed to the acting. Geoffrey Rush was simply Geoffrey Rush. I have often wondered if Rush has any limitations as an actor. Every role I have seen him in he has played an apparent ease and familiarity that few of his contemporaries can achieve. I wonder, in fact, if he might not deserve crowning as perhaps the best movie actor active today. And all the rest of the cast was quite superb, from Kate Winslet to Joaquin Phoenix to the least of the asylums inmates.

My primary quibble with the film was that it was unnecessarily unpleasant. I understand the irony involved in the completely sadistic treatment of the man whose name gave us the word, but it doesn't automatically translate into a likable plot. Michael Caine's character was so simple and vicious and self-serving that he was almost a cartoon. And his refusal to intervene in Kate Winslet's rather brutal murder was too nasty to be believable.

This movie is most definitely not for the squeamish. There is much maiming, blood, and explicit sexuality. I will add that the movie doesn't try to make de Sade out as a great artist. Virtually anyone who has attempted to read him will sound the same criticism of his work that most others have: he is boring, his sex scenes (of which there are thousands) are decidedly unsexy and unerotic, that he describes act after act of the worst kinds of mutilation and violence, and that his characters are cardboardish and unbelievable. Susan Sontag pointed out that Justine in the novel bearing her name is inexplicably just as shocked the 300th time that she was raped as the first time. The movie certainly doesn't want to argue with this depiction of Sade as a poor though popular writer. Geoffrey Rush's de Sade has a compulsion to write, but this does not mean that he writes well.

I think how much one likes this movie depends on how well they can deal with the unpleasant elements. I did not deal with them well, and as I result I did not enjoy the movie very much, despite being extremely impressed by many things within it.

Rating:
Summary: Fools RUSH in.... and so they should!!!!
Review: Well. I have to say I am shock. Not really because of the content. It was very well done, and it does leave you with a sense of dread of the hysterical- especially if you understand it as a writer. It is very graphic and grisly in ways, but at turns dark and delicate at the same time- in a similiar vein to De Sade's own writings. Of course it doesn't come close to the marvel that his writings were- or the perversness, but touches on it. The horror is in the remarkable scenes that are played out- in layer upon layer that gets heavier and heavier. It is like the dark tapestries of the walls in France themselves.

Very well done. The photography is sumptuous, dark, and enthralling, and no detail is left undone. The Marquis himself does not enter the film immediately but begins the voice over, which I thought was a nice touch.

Yyou will love Geoffery Rush's performance. It was brilliant. All the actor's were great, and Joaquin Phoenix once again holds his own, and at very times almost steals things from under everyone's nose.

Other reviews have ripped this movie apart, and so they should. But perhaps what they don't get- and they don't like- which I encounter often, and find rather amusing- is the hypocrisy of society and hypocrisy played out as a "virtue"- which it most often is- IS the very undercurrent that destroys works of ART- real works of art- and destroys the foundations in which socitey places all other virtues- that are in fact the real ones- and doesn't delinate a place for vices that are pure and cannot be stemmed by others. It is a film that gives voice to the individualists, and says; yes, you can hold your vices intact but beware how you use them, and what you do with them. It conveys morality as something which should be held in high regard, but not used to condemn others. The same should be said of immorality- depending on the way it is seen.

I have to say I identified mostly as a writer- with the blood as ink symbolism, and thought it was well done. There are some liberties taken, but since it will never really be known what went on in the asylum "as fact" when De Sade was there- due to the overwhelming prejudice against De Sade, and the fact he was seen more as a monster than anything else. In the end it is a movie worth seeing. If you are looking for mere "curiosity" you won't get it here. There are monsters, and there are angels and at times, the lines are well blurred. I fail to see why the critics condemn movies liek this- as I think they are as needed- even more so- than the drivel that hollywood continually passes off as entertainment. There was more horror in 5 minutes of this film that in the entire "Blair Witch Project" a film I detest, and think is nothing but a video taken by someone who had too much beer in the woods one night.

As for Quills, I am hoping it will stand the test of time. I think it's very valid, and while not a historical piece on De Sade, it is a comment on all the things we "think" are virtuous, that could easily turn on a dime, and consume us with fire, on any given day.

There is a point in the film where De Sade's wife says; "Let me tell you the one true act of horror that he has done...in the folly of youth, he made me love him..."

This sums it up pretty well, and for me- hit home more than I would like to admit. I think the horror of life is not always living it, it's just trying to get past the facades- and hypocrisy that passes for honor.

Rating:
Summary: History, Paradox, and Illumination
Review: The quality of DVD picture and sound for Quills is excellent ... it needed to be to do justice to this faultlessly directed drama!

Quills immediately informs its viewers that its primary tale is not the historical truth of the Marquis de Sade, its central character. Instead, but with significant respect for the author who has continued to divide readers' opinions to violent extremes, it communicates how there is a coexistence of contradictory extremes within individuals and within any society where guardians of public morality are involved! To quote from the movie, "Angels and demons walk among us on the earth and, sometimes, they jointly inhabit the soul of a single man!"

To communicate this universal drama, the actors become transcendent! They become credible historical characters AND timeless symbols of human neuroses/joys/tragedies AND justification for an optimistic vision for "the great eternal truths that bind together all of mankind the whole world over"! Truly, Geoffrey Rush, Michael Caine, Kate Winslett, Joaquin Pheonix, Billie Whitelaw and, of course, the nascent screen goddess Amelia Warner (who plays Simone, the symbol of natural -deliciously irreverent- freedom from history and institutionalization), all the actors. ... they are faultless!

To be brief, this movie awakens rather than dulls thoughts; it instills both horror and a sense of optimism! It has so many diverse elements in such a meticulous metaphor of artistic balance that a renaissance of quality cinema once more seems possible.... A great addition to the DVD library!

Rating:
Summary: Not for the Squeemish
Review: This is not a film for the squeemish or with those who have issues with sex, or what is 'considered' pornography. The film is about the boundries of what was pornographic in 18th Century France. I say 'considered' because you the viewer have to decide if what he was writting was really pornographic or just lustful love. The Marquis de Sade has no qualms writing from his asylum about the things that lead to the forbidden. Sex is something that happens but not in the ways the Marquis writes about. Writing about these things makes him sick and therefore he must stay locked away.Along the way he manages to corrupt a laundress ( Kate Winslet) who, helps his work see the outside world, but to some degree finds him repulsive and tries to resist his advances. He also tries to corrupt the young Abbe (Joaquin Phoenix) but you have to see for yourself if that happens or not. He also manages in some ways to corrupt the other patients in the asylum who perform his towdry plays for people who come and see them. When Michael Caine's character comes to 'rehabiitate' the Marquis, thing start to go awry. One has to wonder how hypocritical his character is because he marries a young girl who is 14 and he is already into his 40's or 50's. Even when the Marquis starts to lose his priviledges such as paper and pens, he finds creative ways to get his works out. A very well done film about censorship and the power of the Catholic Church, not only in France during this time but much of Europe. The cast is a wonderful small ensamble. All give wonderful performances.

Rating:
Summary: An Interesting Romp
Review: I did not quite know what to expect before watching this. I knew the majority of the story, and expected great performances by all of the cast. I got this and a little more. It was a dark and dreary story with a set of unlikeable characters. Actually the only character that I seemed to like was Joaquin Pheonix's. Rush gives an awesome performance that rightly deserved the Oscar nomination. The story however was a little dissapointing and seemed hollywoodish at times. The movie tells us the story of the somewhat insane Marquis De Sade (Rush), imprisoned in an asylum for the insane. There a simple maid, who lives there, smuggles out his erotic stories. They are published and all of France is in an uproar for them. Send in the devilish Michael Caine, who plays a man bent on correcting the insane with his uses of torture. I definately think this movie was worth a watch, but be cautious. One who does not like gore or items of the erotic nature should beware.

Rating:
Summary: Thrilling, gripping, and mad!
Review: This film is undescribably wonderful. It was not safely held within the happy Hollywood limits. It is written about a dark subject, and shown in a dark light.

Every piece the of the story is integral. It is a thrill to see such naked human emotion shown so exceedingly well by all those involved.

Geoffrey Rush makes a disturbing, and yet, loveable Marquis de Sade.

Kate Winslet, as always, shines in this film. Her stunning portrayal of a beautiful laundry girl is unforgettable.

Joaquin Pheonix plays a wonderfully tormented soul.

The cast and the direction truly make for a masterpiece. I wouldn't let the kids watch this one, but it is a thrill. Be ready for a dark, dark film, though.

Rating:
Summary: A great speak out against censorship!
Review: This movie was a hard sell for those familar and into DeSade were upset because it was not truely about him, and those who are against DeSade would not see it because it involved jim. After seeing this movie I can say that it uses DeSade to speak out against censorship, just as the Crucible used the Salem witch trials to speak out against the Red Scare.

This movie shows how taking what is happening in the world and transcribing it onto the written page can get you into trouble, especially if you write about people with power. De Sade wrote about society, what he wrote may have been an abhoration back then but what is worse is that society lived what he wrote about. WHat better way to speak out against censorship than in a wonderfully produce film with one of the most notorious of history's characters? Geoffrey Rush is amazing in his role as DeSade and Kate WInslett is a pleasant surprise. It is a powerful and intense film.

If you like this film you may want to try reading DeSade's work, but believe me don't get yourself all hyped. Compaired to society today it is not at all as bad as people say. Maybe if you are not in The Lifestyle it may be more shocking, but basically he is from a time where sodomy was punishable by death, so a lot has changed. But still a wonderful read!

Rating:
Summary: One of the Top Ten Films of the Year
Review: This film deserves to be on the Top 10 movies of the year. Don't watch it or buy it if you are just into action films but if you like sex, profanity, nudity and all the stuff people just hate about humans then you have to see this movie. This is supposed to be a small film but have a few big actors which makes this film rise to the occassion. I would recommend this movie for all you women out there but remember that this movie would have been a NC-17 back in the hay days of strict sex and nudity guidelines. This has the romance you can look for with a few twist and turns. Oh and temptations. Don't forget to close your eyes when you get to the naughty parts.