 |  | A good film, but should have been a lot better....spoilers.... |  |
This is a good, thought not great, movie. I was rather disappointed in its simplifying of the life of Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade, aka the Marquis de Sade, into a rather boring, staid debate on free speech and its limits (or whether it should have any limits). Contrary to popular belief, de Sade was a much more complex figure than people give him credit for. While he was an indulgent libertine for most of his life, when he decided to start writing (at a comparitively late age), he threw himself into it totally and wrote some of the most startling and terrifying literature ever written. He was a great writer, though an incredibly bleak, twisted one. This film just seems to concentrate on the usual "individual freedom vs. the state" stuff, along with "artistic freedom", and honestly, it's boring. It's almost like they tried to sugarcoat de Sade, which is not the thing to do with him. Not to mention de Sade did not die like he did in this film. Nothing like that. De Sade died rather quietly, not chewing on a rosary while in the arms of the inquistor (Michael Caine's character).
The film is very well shot, with excellent performances by all, especially Geoffrey Rush as de Sade and Michael Caine as his main tormentor. It's directed by Philip Kaufman, a very underrated director who has made many extraordinary films (Henry and June and The Right Stuff for example). This is not an abysmal film, but it's nowhere what it shoudl be. It's a tame biography of one of the most notorious (yet brilliant) writers ever to be seen by humanity. Being a student of de Sade, I have to take exception with the rather simplistic way this story was rendered, and honestly, Kaufman should have known better.
September 17, 2008 | | Somewhat Disturbing but Impactful | |
The Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is locked in an insane asylum because of his casual treatment of erotic phrases. His books are popular with the public, although the Abbe (Joaquin Phoenix) is unaware that his writing is being released. In comes Madeleine LeClerc (Kate Winslet), a laundress with an appetite for dirty novels. In spite of her interests, she remains pure and attracts the eyes of many of the inmates. The town is in a fury over the Marquis' graphic descriptions of the forbidden and sometimes blasphemous acts, so Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) comes to the asylum to remedy the situation. However, the doctor's methods are much less humane than the Abbe's.
An excellent commentary on hidden desires and supression, Quills is a memorable historical film. Unlike the public's assumptions about the behaviors of people in the past, permiscuity existed hundreds of years ago, and this film does a fine job of describing why even now, we believe differently. Quills is no picnic, and as the name implies is often uncomfortable, but it is powerful. The cast deserves a great amount of credit for bringing the story to life; if they faltered, it would not be as impactful as it is.
August 15, 2008 | | An erotic and emotional journey, never fails to overwhelm you! | |
To be frank I didn't know a lot about Geoffrey Rush neither did I keep much expectations from this film. Now, I cannot deny at all that he is indeed a true artist and an excellent actor, he potrayed 'Marquis de Sade' really well and, simply an amazing performence by him, keen enough to overwhelm the viewer totally. Kate Winslet at her sexiest, her charimsa is easily shown in screen, she was just plain gorgeous, probably one of her best performences ever. Billie Whitelaw, as most are familiar with her as a charismatic actress, delivers a good performence even though her appearence was very brief. Last but not the least, Michael Caine who potrayed the 'Doctor' really well, his performence is beyond words. Almost everyone delivers a worthy performence. I have always been fascinated by movies potraying the 18th Century, "Quills" is erotc, steamy, a little disturbing, nevertheless, wildly entertaining if you appreciate the film more of an Entertainment and less of a Historical Biography of 'Da Sade'. The cinematography, the musical score, the sets are beautifull. "Quills" is a film definately to watch out for, worth appreciating for the wonderfull cast-performences.
August 13, 2008This film was very good. I enjoyed it very much. Quills is fairly historically accurate in its depiction of the Marquis de Sade's personality (Geoffrey Rush did a superb performance as the Marquis de Sade). Several of the characters that play a major role in Sade's life in this film really did exist, and they really did play a major role in Sade's life. Of course, there is quite a bit of dramatization, and fictionalization in this film, as well as characters who did not really exist, so as to make an entertaining story for viewers. However, there was enough truth added to the story to remain faithful to the legacy of the Marquis de Sade. For a more biographical depiction of Sade, one should read one of the several biographies that are out there. (I read "At Home with the Marquis de Sade: A Life" by Francine Du Plessix Gray). After reading a Marquis de Sade biography, one can piece together the fact and fiction about Marquis de Sade depicted in this film. For the casual viewer, this film is enough to get a decent picture as to who Sade was and what he was like, as well as see an entertaining movie. For those who are more interested in knowing more about this man who was so controversial in his day, Quills is an excellent place to start: not only is it a very good film, but it gives the viewer a taste of the essence of Sade, before going on to read one of the Sade biographies for more in depth knowledge about this man.
July 12, 2008This was an interesting view, and I was fascinated by the story line, but it's a downer, so "warning."
May 14, 2008More reviews at Amazon.com ...
Daily Birthdays
