Rating: 
Summary: INTENSE; NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED
Review: The major actors and actresses in this film all deserve awards for their passionate, fearless performances. Each one of them bled their hearts dry in this movie. From the very first minute, wherein a young woman seems lost in sadomasochistic ecstasy, to the concluding line of dialog, this movie is relentless--and merciless. Arguably, it's one of the most violent movies I've ever seen, and its artistic presentation only intensifies the horror, rather than mollify it. So while I acknowledge this is a powerful film, I have no desire to ever see it again.
Rating: 
Summary: only one complaint
Review: Only one complaint with this interesting semi-fictional telling of the life of Marquis DeSade. Geoffrey Rush is naked, Kate Winslett isnt...
Rating: 
Summary: Self-honesty and Tenacity
Review: My lines are addressed to the unfortunates who did not view "Quills" in theatres. Its video box is now staring at them, hidden treasure amongst a clutter of average. "Quills" reached in me the part that loves to be entertained, provoked and did so beautifully and completely. Set at the turn of the 18th century, this theatrical and alluring dark comedy is visually superb and somewhat reminiscent of master-paintings. The juxtaposition of meanings makes most scenes amazingly rich. The opening one, where an aristocrat is being guillotined (Sade's notorious literary character believed to have embodied the Marquis himself) while sadism is revealed through the executioner's glee, and framed within the French upheaval, gives us an amazing flash to the whole story rather than the habitual initial expose. The gem of the film, Geoffrey Rush, with verve and insolence brilliantly delivers the spirited work of Dough Wright (whose lines, by the way, I...savagely envy). Whether we owe part of Rush's feat to Kaufman's baton or to his own innate tendencies is a good question, but that the Marquis' skin will be a hard one to shed is not. This is no dismissal of Rush's extensive theatrical background, talent or hard work (if one believes what one reads on his extraordinary dedication) rather it is a certain floating wonder at his unsuspected and astonishing mercurial side. Roger Ebert, the movie critic, questions Director Kaufman's casting choice - the pianist from "Shine" -. He qualifies it as "curious" and proposes instead Willem Dafoe or perhaps Christopher Walken (I have difficulty picturing Dafoe or Walken erupting wildly on the inmates table in a phrenetic self-display). He goes on assuming that Kaufman chose Rush in view of his previous association with madness ("Shine" again). He is comparing apples with oranges here; on one side a sadly impoverished borderline and on the other a fine and lucid Ego at the entire service(alas!)of a surfaced and uncontained Id. I am unconvinced that Kaufman's choice rests on this basis. Might I suggest other roles where passion and fiery obstinacy are most appparent. As far as the scornful superiority needed to portrait the Marquis, Rush turns it on at will and, apparently with great ease. Never mind if the theme is believed to be concerned with the consequences of the forces of repression when applied to the ones of expression, and if selecting Sade to carry the flame would be sort of fair play - provided most of the Marquis' wrinkles were not smoothed out -, what I hang on from "Quills" is Sade's self-honesty and tenacity.
Rating:
Summary: Kinds of evil
Review: T. S. Eliot wrote of Henry James that he had "a mind so fine no idea could violate it." And indeed the open mind never feels violated by an idea. When we are open, we consider an idea with a view to adopting it, modifying it, or rejecting it. The one thing we will not do is prevent others from considering it. The one option an open mind never chooses is censorship, for the open mind is not afraid of an idea. Set during Sade's final incarceration at Charenton, Quills is a fine fable of the horrendous physical consequences that can follow when people are afraid of ideas. Joaquin Phoenix as the enlightened abbé who finally reverts to authoritarianism as the pressure rises, Kate Winslet, and Michael Caine give strong supporting performances. Geoffrey Rush's brilliant portrayal of Sade ranges from salacious good humor to outrage at the ongoing efforts to silence him and defiant anguish as the means of writing are successively taken away. The movie downplays the acts that, as well as words, made Sade notorious, in order to dramatize an evil that he apparently never engaged in--the chaining of minds.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie
Review: This was an incredibly enjoyable movie. It had a developed, yet easy to follow storyline, and the characters all had depth. The 18th century insane asluym setting was both haunting, and sureal. Not to mention the fact that the acting was excellent. I had shivers running up and down my spine while watching, and I felt like I was thrown into Sade's insane world. Quills is a truly artistic theatricial experience!
Rating: 
Summary: artistic jingoism
Review: Anti-censorship films have a tendency to be blustering and obvious. In part this is because the issue of censorship is presently such a straw man and all involved must resort to a sort of cinematic McCarthyism: reduce the conservatives to closeted sadists, give the hero a sort of puerile charm (say Howard Stern meets Henry Miller), and dress it up as important social commentary. I don't disagree with their intentions, but I'm always troubled by how facile the final product is. Quills is a good example of this. The misunderstood Marquis, foil and faux-savior for so many crusading intellectuals, is here reduced to something of a naughty pulp writer. We are of course never allowed to get to the really nasty bits of his imagination. Instead we get innocent jokes about lubrication and de Sade's erectile state. He's not the fearsome evil beast we know, he's morning radio material for third-tier American markets. Because the film is more about the message than the art form, plot twists are seen miles away. Thus Royer-Collard takes his nubile bride from a convent. Shame. If he had read some of his famed patient's material he might have saved himself the trouble. For as we know, only licentious nuns with hidden stores of vibrating crucifixes can be found there. But it's the simplification of character and motive that troubles me the most. By making Caine's character into such a devil, all possible moral ambiguity is obliterated. I think this is a disservice to the very cause the film crusades for. To make caricatures of the opposition does not allow for intelligent judgment when weighing issues of social responsibility and artistic license. Instead, it reduces us to the same reactionary state that we condemn.
Rating:
Summary: Im one of those Right Wing Conservatives
Review: .... I thought it was a good movie. Great acting and story. It totally supports my views on censorship and destroys Tipper Gore's. I cant get over the acting though. It was seperb and this movie is definately one of the best films i have seen in a while. The subject matter could have turned this movie into trash and made it more of a porno than a movie, but it did not the director and the writer of this movie should be commended on keeping it not only entertaining but not turning it into trash. The music was also very well placed and done. Overall a very good movie...perhaps as good as it could be for its subject matter. 4 out of 5 stars. A lot of people out there would enjoy this movie, but it may be too riske' for some.
Rating:
Summary: So-so.
Review: Fine as the casting was, and pitched though the atmosphere, Quills disappointed me. (Then again, I don't think I've seen a single movie that *hasn't* disappointed me since the late 90s sometime.) I suppose it just has to be expected that any film made about the Marquis De Sade is going to portray him as some kind of sleek, crafty, over-the-top devil, as opposed to the girlish, cowardly (though hardly uninteresting) fat man I've been given to understand that he was, and is going to milk those (to me, somewhat tiresome) "What is Art?" and "Where is the line between Madness and Genius?" kinds of questions. But in fairness the film must be evaluated on its own merits. And it certainly has a few of them. Much as I would like to see De Sade portrayed at least a touch more *accurately* on film, Rush is a talented actor, and his performance here leaves little to complain about. Phoenix particularly impressed me as the compassionate but confused Abbe who attempts to juggle being a friend to the Marquis while remaining a devout man of God. Winslet, Caine, and the rest of the supporting cast all fare nicely, too. However, I very much would've liked to have seen the dynamics between the various players developed in greater detail. I wanted to really believe Winslet's maid was longing for Phoenix, and that Phoenix was battling his own attraction to her. I wanted to witness the Marquis encourage and use that to his advantage. I wanted Caine to play more prominently into the story, and I wanted to see a little more of his young bride's transformation and rebellion against him. It also would've been nice to see the Marquis *before* he was an inmate, maybe through some extended flashbacks or something, just to pull the reins on the cackling, sinister scoundrel/liberator/martyr schtick. I would've like to have seen more evidence that he was in fact a man, with a past. Also, well-played though the characters are, their actions do not always ring true. I certainly found Phoenix's ... um ... so as not to spoil, let's say, his disturbing scene with Winslet towards the end ... unbelievable. I understood he was struggling and tortured by what had happened to her, but it just didn't ring true that he'd be sinking that low. It was an unsettling scene, but it should've been earned, if it wanted to be truly powerful -- and I don't think it was (earned, or powerful. Just kind of cheaply "shocking.") All in all, I guess the simplest way to put it would be that I just wanted more from the movie. Quite a bit more. Like so very many movies of the past five to ten years, Quills is a film which tries hard to raise a lot of important questions, while forgetting and/or neglecting to include an actual, fleshed-out *story.* Raise the questions it does, and well-acted it is. The sets are captivating and the visual design is nice. But Quills, though hardly unengaging or unworthy of viewing, leaves more than a little to be desired. Ah, yes, and I'd almost forgotten. The very ending is incredibly laugh-out-loud stupid. Groan-worthy. One of those cheap, gimmick, "Do you get it??? Hunh?? Do you get what we're saying?? Do you see how clever we are??" kind of endings. It really should've been cut or altered.
Rating:
Summary: The Maddening Marquis de Sade!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Quills Ryhmes with Swill
Review: When I read the Amazon review I did not get any idea of what this movie was really about. It is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. The narrative was poor, the dialogue tasteless, the setting grim, and the characters unbelievable. Don't waste your money!
| 
