sdbirdsi

23 May 2012

I needed a shower

A few years ago I stopped reading film reviews before going to see films.Being a student of film, I prefer to know as little a possible going intoamovie so that I may form my own opinion. I knew that Quills was abouteroticism and I know little about the life of the Marquis de Sade. Thefirst hour intrigued me. Drawn in be the character of the Abbe and heldthere by the misguided chambermaid. Both Joaquin Phoenix and Kate Winsletreflected a piece of human nature that is intrinsically good and noneperverse. Both have impure thoughts and feelings, yet cannot. will notexpress them through action. Geoffery Rush represents all that is vileandwrong with society of today and the period in which the film is set. Hiswritings, the way in which he and the public live out the darkest depthsofthe soul suggest that man is intrinsically evil and must have a way toexpress their dark desires in a form that is non-harmful; his script.Through all of this, Phoenix attempts to help the Marquis, truly believinghe can be helped, that he is a good person on the inside. The result ofthis man's love for man is the ultimate suffering. Michael Caine playstheunloving Dr. Royer-Collard and destroys all the dear Abbe has done. Heallows the one man, in the world this film creates, who could haveprovidedany shred of decency and love to fall into the same pit of hell that deSadehimself is victim.A viewer can gain two things from this film. A sense that all people inthe world are intrinsically evil and need some way to release all feelingsof hate and anger in a way so not to harm each other, only so that theycanstand to be near themselves. And that religion is only something thatbegsto be rejected. Even in his last action of grace for Phoenix must standbyand watch Rush swallow the cross that can save his soul.This film was not expressly graphic, nor was it grotesque. I admit I haveseen porn with more graphic nature and material that would turn yourstomach, yet this is the only film I have ever seen that left me with afeeling of disgust. I felt as though I needed a shower after watchingthisfilm. The ideas and images it suggested disturbed me beyond anything Icould have imagined.Now that I have seen the film, and that I understand it is tame incomparison to the Marquis true life, I still feel that if the intent ofthisfilm was to open the mind to the depths of the perversion and vileness ofthis man's life, I'd say his job is done. Cinematically and artistically,this film is a masterwork, but as the subject matter goes, I have neverbeenmore disturbed by a work of film in my life.

Clare

22 May 2012

Between a Quill, an asylum and a hard place (no doubt de Sade would approve!)

With the guillotine edge we are introduced to the Marquis de Sade in theasylum of Charenton where he's been incarcerated for crimes not specified inthis film. His writings are smuggled out of the asylum by Madeleine, (KateWinslet) a servant who finds multiple uses for her laundry basket. She'saddicted to the writings of the Marquis. Napoleon, on the other hand, ismost perturbed by the writings of this "madman" and the scientist DrRoyer-Collard (Michael Caine) is sent by order of Napoleon to Charenton toestablish order and on the way picks up his child bride from the convent.Madeleine and the Marquis find ever inventive ways of getting his word out.The person in the middle is the Abbe Coulmier (Joachim Phoenix), who's ideaof running the asylum is one of, what would be considered to be fairlymodern ideas of rehabilitation ("See, isn't it better to paint fires thanlight them?") clash harshly with those of Royer-Collard.I must admit that I know very little about the Marquis de Sade apart fromthe fact that he was a prolific writer, lived in the late 1700's (duringNepolean's era), was incarcerated in mental institutions/jails for most ofhis life and that most of his writings were destroyed without trace. I wasnot expecting to garner a great deal of information about de Sade from thisfilm and it was just as well because I'm lead to believe from a very learnedfriend of mine that there was great poetic licence taken in "tarting" up thefacts.The excellent casting in this film more than makes up for dead spots in it(of which there are few). Geoffrey Rush shines (sorry, couldn't resist it!)wonderfully as the Marquis more than managing to carry off the role withdivine duplicity. One wonders at times, who is the more sadistic character,the Marquis who dreams of cruelty or Royer-Collard who carries it out. It'sa film that will take you out of your comfort zone, and bring you back, thentake you out again. What a wild ride!

willow8

21 May 2012

Quills

Kate Winslet is a gorgeous, talented actress that I couldn't take my eyesoff. Wish she would do more roles like this in the future. As usualJoaquine Phoenix gives a performance that is so deep that you can seeeveryemotion even without his dialogue.

Lady MoonDance

21 May 2012

The Quill is Mightier Than The Pikestaff

Yes, there is nudity, sex and perversion here -- just as with most modernblockbuster movies! However, there is much more to see than JoaquinPhoenix's bare chest or the endowments of Geoffrey Rush and Kate Winslet.Witty quips keep us laughing through all but the most horrifying of moments,while ironic twists and deep themes give much to think about after the movieis long over. Quills is a true work of art, well crafted in both prose andperformance.Within the walls of Charenton, a French asylum for the insane, the Marquisde Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is locked away in a prison of luxury. The Abbe deCoulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), a very positive reflection on the loving natureof his God, seeks to treat the Marquis through the therapy of writing.Madeleine (Kate Winslet), the beautiful and pure laundry maid, is the womanthat they both care for, each in his own extreme way. Into this precarious,but comfortable triangle, arrives the tyrannical Dr. Royer-Collard (MichaelCaine). Sent by the self-described despot, Napoleon, to calm the Marquis'exciting, yet embarrassing quill, the doctor is versed in such "modern"medical techniques as leeches, the iron maiden, and a "calming" chair whichis used to repeated dunk and almost drown patients.Soon we are asking ourselves who the true sadist is here:- the man who writes of prostitution, necrophilia and murder, or the man whoforces himself upon a woman half his age, keeping her caged as a gildedbird?-the man who welds restraints and floggers via the hands of others or theone who shares it all with the world via his pen?And is the one who imposes such floggers and restraint upon himself amasochist, or simply a man true to his beliefs?It is interesting that a movie based on the man after whom "sadism" wasnamed -- a sexual orientation that in actual practice is often concernedwith the consensual disciplining of another -- reflects so much on thesubject of disciplining oneself. We are shown the extremes ofthis:- the facade of outer discipline in the Doctor, and the way he tries toimpose it on others,- the maddening work of inner discipline on the Abbot, and- the desire to slip beyond discipline of the Marquis.The effect of each is shown on psyche of the man who lives it. All thewhile, Madeleine retains a reflection of simple, straightforward, acceptanceof oneself, reminding us that "Some things belong on paper, others in life.It's a blessed fool who can't tell the difference."As the Marquis literally uses a mirror to create words, his words seek tomirror life. His real "sin" a deep-seated *need* to open to the light of daythe darkness that lies deep within the soul of man. He has the power,strength and insight of a man who knows his own madness, something that theAbbe later comes to understand all too well. Again and again, we see thetheme of a man driven mad by the truth that burns within his soul, for whomwriting is his only redemption. The questions of whether art can be used astherapy and whether such productions can be blamed as something so evil thatit incites others to "immoral acts" is central to the movie. But the biggestquestion of all is who has the right to judge the artistic expressions ofanother, what drives those who would set themselves up to do this, and whathatred and immorality is stirred up when we start doing so. As a last note, I should point out that this movie is not necessarily trueto historical accounts of the Marquis' life, especially in the manner of hisdeath and in the nature of his relationship with Madeleine. Based on theout-of-print play by Doug Wright, I feel like much like "The Crucible", thispiece is meant to be more of a statement on the insanity that is created bythe judgements of society, than it is to be a historically accuratetreatise. I also believe that historical accounts of any person or event areonly one viewpoint that has been filtered and changed through time, andtherefore it does no harm to to entertain alternative interpretations andpossibilities.

Martin Bradley

21 May 2012

Highly enjoyable carnality

A great. dark lewd comedy about sex and art and how the two can beindistinguishable. Geoffrey Rush is the Marquis De Sade, imprisonedbehind the walls of the asylum of Charenton but still managing tosmuggle his books out to be published and his performance is awonderful, full-blooded piece of carnality. His nemesis is the vile Dr.Royer-Collard played by Michael Caine with equal measures ofviciousness and pomposity. They are, of course, the same face of thesame coin but it is the Marquis who is the film's hero and while nevershying away from the horrors inherent in the Marquis' writing, Kauffmangives him his due. In this case it really is the devil who gets thebest tunes. Good work, too, from Joaquin Phoenix as the Abbe caught inthe moral crossfire. A brave and original work.

20 May 2012

Marquis of Madness

Donatien Alphonse-Francois de Sade did not have his wicked tongue cut out -nor did he commit suicide by ingesting an Abbe's rosary. These incidents are the result of playwright Doug Wright's "artistic license", as he wrote the screenplay, giving us an intense historical drama that could be said to "be based on actual events". The swarthy and histrionic goings on of the plot was often performed by characters based on actual people, but so was BILLY THE KID VS. DRACULA (1966). Later Wright won a Pulitzer Prize for his play, I AM MY OWN WIFE. In QUILLS when De Sade's prose is read aloud several times, it is actually Wright's words, not the Marquis'. Director Philip Kaufman, a writer that directs, has only given us 14 films since 1965. Two other controversial films having an erotic nature were THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING (1988), and HENRY AND JUNE (1990). To his credit, with QUILLS, even though it is based on a play, we never feel the normal claustrophobic and pedantic responses that adapted plays have given us in the past. The asylum at Charenton became a real place, and the action flowed interestingly. He edited the film tightly, and kept the pace up, leading us cleverly from one plot twist to the next. In this tale the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) has been a "guest" at Charenton for several years, living a luxurious lifestyle in a suite of cells, surrounded by books, wines, and good food, and allowed to continue with his writing. It was all paid for with a "letter de cachet" set up by his wife, Renee (Jane Menelaus -the actual spouse of Geoffrey Rush). An empathetic fetching chambermaid, Madeleine, (Kate Winslet) smuggled out his manuscripts and delivered them to a publisher's representative. He was befriended by the handsome asylum director, Abbe du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), and he is allowed to direct fellow inmates in theatrical plays as therapy; and they become popular to attend with the aristocracy. Monarch Napoleon becomes "appalled" at the libertine eroticism of De Sade's provocative prose. He bans the books, which guarantees their financial success with underground presses, and he sent in a callous completely sadistic administrative hatchet man, Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine). After De Sade publicly humiliated Royer-Collard with an erotic and violent play barely masking the real life situation of the good doctor, Collard has De Sades personal belongings confiscated and removed from his cell, including his ink and quills, leaving it even more barren than the others. But De Sade would not be stopped, feeling that his writing, and the artistic freedom allowing him to write, was worth being martyred for. To get his prose out to his readership, he wrote first in wine on his sheets. When that too was taken, he began to prick his fingers, and using his own blood, he wrote on his clothes. Stripped naked, beaten to a pulp, tortured, chained and censored, on the very day of his death, after his tongue had been cut out, he continued to write with his own feces, filling up the walls of his cell with his odiferous scribbling. Not having the visceral and emotional power of watching William Wallace being eviscerated as he screamed, "Freedom!" -still we are left with an image of an artist, a pariah, a political hot potato, lying naked chained to the floor and walls, but somehow triumphant as he chose the actual time of his death committing suicide by swallowing the Abbe's rosary. This film presented the Marquis de Sade truly as a martyr, destroyed by the thick arrogance and censorship of church and state. We found ourselves cheering him on, accepting him as a protagonist, watching him manipulate the mob and laugh into the vicious teeth of torture. Nothing could stop him from continuing to produce his writing, not even death; especially death. His prose, erotic and political, irrepressible and conventional, often well composed and refined continues to fascinate, to interest new generations of active minds. It lives on, and this will not be the last film to depict his life.

19 May 2012

Utterly Lucious

This movie is wonderful! The acting, the script, the story, the drama, the tension and resolution are all perfect. Great humor and horror mixed fantastically together. Plus Kate Winslet is gorgeous.

19 May 2012

what a boring movie but yet its okay

this movie is a sleeping pill and the end is disturbing.but mr.rush does a great acting job.but it was hard to keep my eyes open.

rapunzel_01

18 May 2012

Satisfies, but disappointed (spoilers below!)

I returned from "Quills" slightly disappointed. I thought the film's lookwas excellent, appropriate for the time period and the plot. The scriptprovides complex and compelling characters. I thought the acting wassuperb. Joaquin Phoenix's performance as the tortured abbey blew me away.He is an excellent actor and his talent has much improved since hislukewarm"Gladiator" performance. Kate Winslet proves yet again what an amazingactress she is, and both Michael Caine and Geoffrey Rush deliverconcentrated, convincing performances.So why did I feel let down as I exited the theatre? I commented to myfriend that the movie died when Kate Winslet did. The Marquis de Sade allbut disappeared near the end of the film. The death of laundressMadeleineseemed totally unneccessary. After all, her rape was foreshadowednumeroustimes and her would-be rapist cut her tongue out? There are worse fatesthandeath, after all. Wouldn't it be interesting if she, rather than theAbbeyhad been driven mad and carried on de Sade's work?My other problem involves the Abbey's insanity. Why would a man who dealtwith all obstacles by removing himself from them ultimately embrace thevileprinciples he abhors and fears. I just did not buy his madness at all.Itseemed totally incongruous with his character.Lastly, my comments on the final scenes. The symbolism should have beentoned down. Gee, the evil doctor is a hypocrite? The prudish maid is nowthe doctor's coquette? The good abbey has been driven mad? Sex hastriumphed over piety? Freedom of expression cannot be stopped? I knewallthis at the Marquis' death, so why must it be blatentlyrehashed?Otherwise, I enjoyed the film. In spite of its shortcomings, I rate iteight out of ten stars.

Peter Brownlee

18 May 2012

Witless travesty

If you want to know anything about the Marquis de Sade, avoid this inane,profoundly unhistorical travesty.Dumbed-down, sensationalised-up, amazingly ignorant of the period, grossandchildishly prurient in its depiction of sex, violence and excretion - andyet avoiding (indeed, denying) what was almost certainly the fully sexualrelationship between the characters played (hammily) by Rush (where did heget that accent?) and Winslett!There are far too many biographical, factual and continuity errors tobotherlisting them - Quills itself is a pathetic goof.Let's hope someone like Patrice Leconte decides to rectify this - and inRidicule he has already made a start.

17 May 2012

a magnificent breakthrough for Rush, Winslet and Phoenix

Quills will not only stun you with its amazing brilliance and beauty...it will take you on an impure journey through the mind and writings of the infamous Marquis de Sade.Geoffrey Rush (as the Marquis), Kate Winslet (as the laundry maid Madeleine), Joaquin Phoenix (as Coulmier the Charenton Asylum's resident priest) and Michael Caine (as the doctor) deliver top-notch performances in this provocative tale filled with erotic passion, desire, and true love.Quills contains strong sexual content (including dialogue), violence and language. Definitely not for the younger audience.I highly reccomend Quills, probably one of the best dramas out there.

jltredinnick

16 May 2012

Quills inspires a seemingly improper sense of affinity and a terrifying new definition of sin.

Quills is a delightfully unsettling account of the demise of theMarquis de Sade and those he brings down with him. The film presentsviewers with all the evidence they need to identify the fallacies ofsociety's separation of "good" from "evil" and "moralists" from"sinners." It subtly asserts that the values traditionally used to passjudgment are compromised by convention and religion, and that there ismoral danger in accepting these values without question.During the film, one form of sin is only replaced by another, whichdefeats its resistors and beguiles the rest by hiding behind apretentious shroud of religion and convention.Viewers are horrified to discover that they can actually identify withthe marquis, whose name inspired the word "sadist" to describe thosewho derive sexual pleasure from violence. Most viewers' senses ofmorality are sullied by the realization that they are hanging on everytwist of the plot, desperate to know what will next beset thesewretched characters.Based on historical fact, Quills catches up with the Marquis (GeoffreyRush) during the twilight of his life, when he has already beensentenced to life imprisonment in the Charenton Asylum. No longer ableto pursue the perverse sexual escapades that had landed him in themadhouse after decades of unspeakable offenses, he now purges hisdemons by writing. At the urging of the saintly, ever-tolerant andeven-tempered Abbe Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), the marquis describeshis imagination's disturbing scenes on paper.Trouble arises when one of his books, smuggled to a publisher by asympathetic admirer - innocent laundry maid Madeleine (Kate Winslet) -catch the disapproving eye of Emperor Napoleon.There is no escape from sin when the man sent to purify the Charenton,Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), only seeks to replace it withintolerance and unimaginable cruelty.True to the spirit of the film, the sets are imbued befittingly withgloom and grime, and the inhabitants of the Charenton are realisticallyragged.Rush and Winslet's performances as the marquis and Madeleine arestunning. The film's delicious impropriety is heightened by theirchemistry, which is so potent as to be communicable to viewers.The super-intelligent plot is unexpectedly circular, leaving viewersfeeling as though they may well be next in line for the madness bred atthe Charenton. Their fears are seemingly verified by he change theyknow the film has already inspired in them.Far from resolutive, the only solace the ending holds for viewers is asense of, "Aha, now I know," and a new way to evaluate the good in evilin themselves and others.

naughtytiffy

16 May 2012

Good but not that good

The first part of the movie was quite funny and hilarious. The second partwas pretty depressing. It's like watching 2 movies crudely joint together.That's probably a script or directing problem.Geoffrey Rush's performance is excellent in the movie, worthy of the Oscarnomination. The motivation behind his writing though is not depictedclearlyand the viewer has to blindly accept his passion in writing.Still one of the better movie around.

Ken-202

16 May 2012

Entertaining, engaging

QUILLS-- 01/07/01As for QUILLS, I don't know what to say. I'm going to have to see it asecond time to get a handle on what I think about it critically. But pushthat aside and I'll tell you that, emotionally, it's one of the most intensemovies of 2000. (REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is probably the most intense.)Unfortunately, Rush's performance does not come close to anything that he'sdone before, but no matter (e.g., see him LES MISERBLES).QUILLS actually engaged me and made me feel more than a mere tingle here andthere for this whole sorry year in film for 2000. The writing is good, butnot excellent. The story is adequate, but nothing new. The acting isacceptable, but not exceptional. Yet, this movie is still somehow in the topten of 2000 for me. Both its characters and sexual proclivities ACTIVELYENGAGE YOU. That's the key, I think.8/10

13 May 2012

**SPOILER** **SPOILER**I just saw a sneak preview of a film that really blew me away. Quills is afilm about the last days of the Marquis de Sade and it is so outrageousthatit had me both laughing and crying.It begins during the French Revolution, when the aristocrats were beingguillotined, and then cuts to the Marquis years later in a mental prisonduring the Napoleonic period. The film is about good and evil (but it'snotwhat I expected to see!) and has a lot to do with today's mentality ofrepressing artists. It relates so much to what is in today's news.The real revelation of the film is the brilliant and funny Geoffrey Rushwhoplays the Marquis de Sade. He and Kate Winslet (she's really stunning inthefilm), who plays a maid in the mental asylum, have amazing chemistry. Rushis a genius who can play anyone in the world and get you to like them. TheMarquis is one of the most wicked characters in history but Rush gives youadeep sympathy for him.Wonderful acting from Michael Caine as the real villain Royer-Collard whoissent by Napoleon to silence the Marquis. Caine has a way of smiling thatgave me an eerie feeling of someone like Ken Starr, who really enjoysgoingafter people's private lives and seems to get pleasure from inflictingpainon others. Ironically, the Marquis says that he's a man after his ownheart!A real Sadean hero.Joaquin Phoenix plays the tortured priest who runs the asylum and has todeal with all the fireworks. He acted well and I've never seen a priest dosome of the things he does! What a powerful performance. He and Kate havetheir own terrific chemistry as they try to keep their hands off eachother.The other actors were all top stuff, especially a really hot young actresswho plays `Simone.' There are great actors all through the film, but Iespecially enjoyed the mental patients and in particular the bird man wasreally rad!I loved this wild film and I can't wait to see it again.

Jessie Robertson

13 May 2012

a poetic tragedy, steeped in eroticism

SPOILERS MAY APPEAR!I thoroughly enjoyed Quills from start to finish. It was a brilliantscreenplay and should have gotten an Academy Award nomination. First off,the setting was a quirky and fun place as well as a dreary and destitudeplace towards the ending. Each character was played to perfection and thestory unfolded with anticipation and delight. The Marquis de Sade was oneof the best characters I have seen in a movie in a very long time, andwhat's more interesting is that he was actually alive. Someone that vibrantand controversial is what has stemmed our current society towards it's freespeech and uninhibtedness, what little of it we have. I thank him for that. I thought the writers of the film continued that honored tradition bydisplaying him in his full range and Geoffrey Rush should have won an Oscarhands down, if for nothing else, being naked through the last 3/4 of themovie. Kate Winslet was a tragic heroine, and her love story with the Abbeywas right out of a Shakespeare play. She was a free spirit who thrived onthe work of the Marquis and it was fun to see her get excited over hismaterial. Joaquin Phoniex is a tremendous actor and can play any part inthe world. He showed his whole gammet of emotion and the course of hischaracter is as tragic as Hamlet. Michael Caine played a wonderfully wickedvillain and really played him to the hilt. Another amazing thing about thispicture is that is was inspired from true events and it really makes youappreciate the world in which we live, as well as hate and despise thethings that have transpired, but had they not would we be where we aretoday? This could have easily been made into a self-glorified porno, andI'm sure it has in another market of films, but the director and writerreally made the movie about people and subject matter that is still relevanttoday, and not just sex, but also religion and power, which seems to alwayscorrupt. I thought Quills was a great, great film.

Coventry

12 May 2012

Grade-A perversion story

Despite realized with a large budget, despite featuring eminent namesboth in front and behind the camera and despite scoring reasonably wellat box office, "Quills" is quite a popular movie among the fans ofprimitive and out-of-the ordinary exploitation movies. This selectedgroup of cinema freaks (myself included) usually avoids the bigblockbusters, but still took the effort to check out "Quills" and labelit as a successful amalgamation between mainstream film-making andcult. This has everything to do with the legendary character of Marquisde Sade, whose notorious writings were – and still are – a rich sourceof inspiration for underground movie makers. Just think the sleazyclassics directed by Jess Franco ("Jusine" and "Eugenie") or Pier PaoloPasolini's hugely controversial classic "Salo, or the 120 days ofSodom". These are genuine cult gems and, naturally, the avid fans areinterested in a full-feature film dedicated to the life of the Marquis.I don't know how accurate Doug Wright's screenplay really is when itcomes to details, but it's generally known that Marquis de Sade indeedspent several years locked away inside a mental asylum and indeed henearly got executed for spreading literature of perverse nature. UnlikeI expected, "Quills" doesn't focus on how the Marquis ended up at theCharanton asylum or how he managed to convince the ordinary chambermaidMadeleine to smuggle his sex-laden stories to the outside world forpublishing. The film merely revolves on how the Marquis continues toexpress his perversely wicked imagination even after the hypocriticalDr. Royer-Collard confiscated all of his writing-material. The absolutegreatest sequences in "Quills" center on how he thinks up new storiesand writes them down on sheets, walls and clothes using basic equipmentlike chicken bones and even his own blood and faeces. Talk aboutdedication! The more his opponents realize this man is impossible tocensor, the more unendurable his living conditions at the asylum get.Especially when Dr. Royer-Collard's under aged wife runs away with ayoung and potent architect, clearly influenced by Marquis de Sade'sgraphic novel "Justine", his stay at Charanton turns into a livinghell. "Quills" is a fascinating film that surprisingly doesn't holdback on strong sexual content and violence. Listening to GeoffreyRush's insanely perverted imagination, you often get the impressionyou're actually watching a sleazy and exploitative 70's gem, but withthe masterful set-designs and costumes of a fancy Hollywood film. Speakof the devil; Rush obviously enjoyed depicting the Marquis andliterally his every grimace and monologue is performed with diabolicaldelight. Michael Caine, in a rather unusual role, is perfect as theill-tempered 'curer of evil', hypocritically hiding himself behind aveil of religion and political protection. Kate Winslet and JoaquinPhoenix are adequate performers but rather miscast in their roles ofwell-meaning supporters of artistic freedom. And, last but not least,another reason for horror fanatics to check out "Quills" is that itfeatures numerous gruesome images of severed heads, attempted rape,cold & uncanny interior shots of a Napoleonic asylum and naughty younggirls.

ttttttara

11 May 2012

You Will Love It! (to the open-minded person)

***A lot of people will sneeze at this movie because they think it's"inappropriate, inaccurate, promoting sadism..." blah blah blah!INAPPROPRIATE - this is not a movie for the kids!INACCURATE - it's not accurate, but this movie was NOT intended to paint aportrait of the real Marquis de Sade or anyone else.PROMOTING SADISM - oooh puh-leez.***I would recommend this movie to anyone with an open mind. The realmessage is about freedom of speech/censorship, simple as that. There's alsolittle hidden ones you might find, as the movie also revolves around peopleother than the Marquis.***I just wanted to give you all a piece of my mind and tell you that it'snot terrible, it's meaningful, it's a good movie.GO SEE IT!!!!!

iliad-2

10 May 2012

An incredible film. Catch it in the theater if you can.

Turns everything you have ever thought about De Sade on its head. I neverexpected so much wry, intelligent humor--but I guess the film was made bythe same guy who directed The Right Stuff and Henry and June. Really, ifyoucome to this film expecting an extravaganza of sex and pain, you willprobably walk away unsatisfied. This film takes you by the scruff of yourneck and puts you face to face with the darker part of yourself; then ittwists things around until you have a hard time knowing which way is up,what is good and what is evil. You walk away with you mind reeling andhavea hard time telling your ass from a hole in the ground. How the hell can amovie about DeSade be one of the more tender and touching romances thathascome out in a while, I have no idea. Go and see it. Rush's acting blowsawayeverything I have seen this year.

Tim Johnson

09 May 2012

Too tough for me

I was extremely impressed by this film: the acting by the fourprincipals, the no punches pulled script, Kaufman's superb directionand in short, a movie for lovers of good cinema. However, after sayingthese positive comments about a wonderful film, I must say that I amtoo soft for an in your face film such as Quills.Not knowing almost anything about the Marquis De Sade, I was onlyprepared for the sexual nature of a movie about his life but I was notprepared for the difficulties Sade faced as that life unfolded duringhis imprisonment. As a viewer, I am in no way troubled by anythingsexual but I confess to being a total softy when it comes to physicaltroubles and troubles is a hugely soft word for everything that befellpoor old Sade. The wonderful script for this film focused on theseproblems and the ramifications surrounding these events. As a resultthe whole movie was a hard go for me.If you are not troubled by the darker side of life and you do enjoy anhistorical look at a harsh period then you will enjoy this film. Thepeople involved are as good as you could ever hope to see on thescreen: it looks real, it feels real and as a result, there seemednothing out of place. This says much for an historical drama.