PersianPlaya408

(2013-06-18 03:04:15)

A dark film that is a bit long but pays off

This is the first Philip Kaufman film I have seen, and I was impressed.Although it isn't the most pleasant to watch, its great. A dark look atan insane erotic storywriter named Marquis De Sade (Rush) and his stayan asylum run by religious priest Abbe Du Coulmier (Phoenix). Whilethere he befriends a laundrette named Madeleine (Winslet). The film hasgreat performances, a brilliantly written script and great direction,although running a little over an hour the story is so rich andcharacters developed well enough for one to really enjoy it. Like Isaid it wasn't the most pleasant, however it is a bit exaggerated andsatirical account. My favorite performance came from Joaquin Phoenix,who was great, however Geoffrey Rush was better than I have ever seenhim, fully worthy of his Oscar nod. Michael Caine was decent in hisrole although i didn't feel his performance as much as i usually likehim (hes a fine actor). Kate Winslet was great in her role, this is myfavorite acting from her besides Eternal Sunshine. The script is verygood in this film, which is what makes it work, because a lot of thesefilms about medieval, napoleonic, etc.. times in europe are a bitboring, but this one is quite entertaining. Although I didn't think theending was perfect (a bit flawed), i still enjoyed this film a lot.9/10 #123 on my list of all time favorite films

(2013-06-17 09:52:07)

RECIPE FOR A FIERCE BUT INTOXICATING COMIC ROMP

Take a controversial character, for instance, an infamous French aristocrat who writes fearlessly explicit pornographic tales from his asylum jail cell to which he has been consigned for committing violent crimes of passion. Cast a maniacal Geoffrey Rush in that role, and use him with more than a pinch of artistic license, to philosophically discuss censorship and freedom of expression in art. Tipped in water-tight dialogue and a dramatically dark ink. Throw in some action and intrigue, for example, our incarcerated prisoner having to smuggle his lurid works out of the asylum via a sweet, innocent maid who gains vicarious pleasure from reading the stories to self and others.Of course, a dash of morality never hurt, so add a holier-than-thou priest who brings to the table a fresh aroma of common sensibility. Stir well and add spice to taste. Viewers will revel in the mind play between the sordid characters you have created and be aghast at the depths to which it is possible for them to stoop. There, you have a marvel of a film that'll be seen again and again. Quills is without reservations a fascinating cinematic masterpiece of our time, in every sense of the word, and deserves a warm place in every self-respecting film collection.

evilmatt-3

(2013-06-16 06:47:23)

The nicest surprise of 2000

After the rather bad movie year of 2000, _Quills_ was a pleasantsurprise.This movie is good. It's really, really good.Rather than become a French _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_ or a simpletale about censorship, _Quills_ takes a higher road and tells a complexhistorical tale about compassion, sadism, insanity, and the deepest longingsof the human heart. The screenplay itself is incredibly powerful andwell-written (although perhaps Michael Caine's character is a bit too overthe top) and the editing, though modest, is executed extremelywell.Then there's the matter of actors and actresses. Joaquin Phoenix, KateWinslet, and especially Rush give unbelievable performances that deserve tobe rewarded.Probably the best thing about this film though (and a rare one indeed thesedays) is that it allows the audience to work out the conflicts tosatisfactory conclusions. Unlike so many other films that seek tomanipulate the audience, _Quills_ is open-ended and non-judgmental. As athinking movie fan, I cannot overestimate the importance of thisaspect.

Alain English

(2013-06-15 15:39:13)

Mediocre fable about morality and censorship

A film about the Marquis de Sade, one of history's most notoriouspornographers, played in the right way ought to be sensual, funny anderotic. Sadly this story fails to be any of these things, despite beingpacked with a wealth of very talented performers.In the Napoleanic era, the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is incarceratedin a French asylum. Unlike most of the other prisoners, who live in virtualsqualor, the Marquis is accorded a life of luxury and his cell is decoratedwith fancy furniture and trappings to make him feel very much athome.Imprisoned over his lewd and supposedly depraved sexual writings, theMarquis continues to pen such works under the supervision of the asylum'sidealistic keeper (Joaquin Phoenix). However, when word gets out that hehas been secretly publishing his writings, a tyrannical doctor(MichealCaine) is summoned to the asylum to deal with him.....The film is mainly hindered by a conventional and uninteresting narrativedrive that fails to take advantage of the scripts alternately horrific andthought-provoking ideas (censorship, moralistic hypocrisy even necrophiliain one scene).Geoffrey Rush is a good actor and has given some brilliant performances infilms such as "Shine" and "Shakespeare in Love". Here though, in spite ofsome daring and demanding scenes, he fails to deliver. His character is soover the top and comical for most of the film, it is impossible for theaudience to get his point about life and censorship.Joaquin Phoenix fares marginally better as the asylum's keeper, as hisgentle and benevolent religious ideals are gradually destroyed by theMarquis' defiance of him. Those same ideals further prevent him fromconsummating his love for chambermaid Madeleine (Kate Winslet) and herdemise inevitably drives him mad. Good as he is, Phoenix seems to betypecast as nervy, neurotic characters with a whiff of insanity about them,and occasionally his performance here resembles a good version of his"Commodus" character from "Gladiator".This is a problem that affects both Kate Winslet and Micheal Caine, havingplayed their types of character (innocent, misguided virgin and ruthless,tyrannical hard man) for too long and it shows.The scene setting for Napolean era France is tastefully done, and the setdesign and location shoots complement the film very well.It is just a pity that not more could have been done with a story of withthis potential to make it truly come alive.

Kristine

(2013-06-15 02:42:59)

I don't know whether I loved or hated this film

I was caught in the middle of this. I just didn't know what to say. But"Quills" is a wonderful film. It was brilliantly made, and the actingwas great. I will not doubt that this film was made very well.SPOILERSGeffory Rush's character is a mad author in an insane asylum. He writesvery naughty stories. But a certain nurse maid, Kate Winslet, isintrigued with them. The stories get out. Of course they are burned atonce for it's content. But things get more out of hand when Gefforywrites a story about the doctor of the asylum and his young wife.Geffory is stripped of everything he can write with. But he refuses tostop there.I don't want to give away all. You'll just have to see for yourself.8/10

(2013-06-14 18:54:48)

"To my beloved reader.. prepare yourself for ther most impure tale ever to be told" By the marquis De Sade

well, well, well, this is a very impure tale indeed. Lets start off with the charcters. first we have of course the dirty writer the Marquis De Sade played by Geofery Rush (Javert in Les Miserable) who is in the Charaton Insane Asylum (where the whole movie is baed in). Next we have Madeleine 'Maddy' LeClerc played by Kate Winslet (Rose in Titanict) who is the launrdy lass and how one says......not Marquis's slave but his dilivery girl in other words he gives her the manuscritp and she would give them to the publisher's delivery man. For you see, since The Marquis was in the Insanse Asylum he couldn't go anywere and also he wrote NAUGHTY BOOKS and they weren't as Nopolain said "Appropiet", but I think he had his fare share of Marquis books. Next we have The Abbe du Coulmier who is payed by Joaquin Phoenix and he is the priest the insane asylum. And let me tell you like I said in my other review (Such a Naughty Little Film we Have Here) he is the HOTTEST PRIEST I EVER SAW. Last we have Dr. Royer-Collard who is played by Micheal Caine (Alfred in Batman Begins). Its ashame that he is such a good actor but doesn't get the best roles. His role in this movie was the doctor that treats the patients in the insane asylum. Also he marries a 14 year old girl. Then the word passes on and the Marquis De sade writes a play on it and a book called "The Crimes Of Love". Now moving on, the sets were fabulous and the costumes were the best. Let me tell you I have seen a lot of period peices but this one tops them all except for Amudaus. Now in this film the Marquis De Sade goes a little crazy because Abbe' takes away his Quill and paper because they found out that he was piblishng behind there backs. So he goes a little crazy. And I mean really crazy. I'm not going to spiol you just have to see it for yourself. I totaly recomed this film. Don't rent just bye it. You want regreet I Promis.

(2013-06-12 11:30:48)

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.

(2013-06-12 02:27:38)

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.

(2013-06-10 20:38:42)

its not perfect but still quite solid

this was one of the movies that grew on me as i watched it more and more. the performances are great by everyone including joaquin pheonix who is usually rubbish. the colour scheme gets on your nerves after a while with the green pallette used for almost the entire film. and i also thought that it could have been a lot heavier. it was a bit too light however, it was quite funny at some points and now i find it really enjoyable to watch. its not "barry lyndon" but i decided to give it 4 stars because it has a lot of nice shots and the story grabs u most of the time. also i think this is the only period film with the f word in it. the script is well written and kaufman seems to know what he is doing. not a bad one overall but i still wouldnt give it 5 stars

(2013-06-10 08:47:41)

A marvelous film!

Philip Kaufman made an admirable and artistic film with this unusual material about Sade Marquis in the middle of the hell. Mrs. Winslet made to date her best achievement on screen. Geoffrey Rush starred with honors this extremely difficult character with lucidity, dynamism and so far of the classic gestures so typical in some raising stars , he was possessed of Marquis' spirit , giving one of the best acting in years. Dark poetry, horror and claustrophobic anguish: you watch the film and through your mind are present not only Sade, but Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Poe, Verlaine and Artaud phantoms.Excellent film and may be this was the masterpiece of Philip Kaufman.

CHendri887

(2013-06-09 16:24:02)

This film sucks bad...

Once a paradigm is set up where certain pleasurable acts are seen as "evil",someone like the Marquis De Sade is bound to emerge in any culture. Thething is, the approach/argument/view/whatever the Marquis embraces is notreally "liberation", but more so "revenge." And my problem with this filmlies not with its terrible acting, lame script, and British accentsdominating a supposedly French setting, but with the way it presents theMarquis as some sort of "liberator from censorship." This, to me, is purenonsense. How about the reality of this type of "domination culture"? Mostpeople (even the very rich) were probably quite unhappy in aristocraticFrance because all of their acts and thoughts were tinged with guilt, shame,and fear--if not from the Church than from the Emperor. Even people likethe Marquis, who no doubt tried to "liberate" people from the absurdity ofthis good-evil/high-low paradigm, were also probably terribly unhappy (muchmore so than the jovial Geoffrey Rush portrays). And I guess the wholething seems so tragic and ugly to me that I feel it is not worth incorrectlyglamorizing on the movie screen. The one redeeming thing I was thinkingwhile I was watching this film was: Why didn't Kaufman just making thisinto a musical with everyone singing and dancing, even during the mostviolent scenes? If he had done that, I think I would have enjoyed the filma lot more.

ruthdeyermond

(2013-06-09 06:15:34)

Amazing!

A brilliant film that contains more complex and interesting ideas than adecade's worth of Hollywood films, without losing the sense of anarrative.If you want a film which gives you the story of Sade's life then don't goand see this, as it takes massive liberties with the biographical facts.Instead the film engages with some of the questions raised by Sade's workand the way it has been received - what is the relationship betweenwritingand responsibility, or between art and freedom? What creates violence andcruelty - irresponsible art and ideas, too much freedom, or the repressivenature of the state? But it doesn't do this in any didactic orheavy-handedway; instead it poses these questions in the context of a well-constructednarrative which is often moving and funny. Although he won't win the bestactor Oscar (he fails to qualify on the grounds that he's not Tom Hanks),Geoffrey Rush puts all the other contenders into the shade with hisamazingperformance as Sade. All the other main actors are outstanding too,althoughit's a shame that Billie Whitelaw wasn't on screen more often.

(2013-06-08 13:59:30)

Completely Unique & Compelling

This review is from: Quills (DVD) Great cast, thoughtful direction & cinematography and a completely fresh approach to the subject matter QUILLS is a thoroughly engrossing DVD (and certainly a bargain price on Amazon!). Extra featurettes enhance the movie experience and a delightful commentary track with the screenwriter is a real treat. Winslet, Rush and a colorful supporting cast will keep you mesmerized. Phoenix is sexy and displays an incredible range, in spite of an accent that comes and goes. Oscar winner Caine seems to walk through much of his performance, but remains a forceful presence.

Emerenciano

(2013-06-08 03:26:38)

Brilliant!

What would you do if you couldn't do what you like most? What would youdo if someone kept you from doing the thing you think is essential foryour life? Marquis de Sade was locked in a cell because of the thingshe wrote, but he just couldn't stop writing. The man in charge for theprison does everything he can to stop De Sade, but the writer seems tobe unbreakable. Geoffrey Rush (De Sade) is again really well in hisrole. This very talented actor scares us playing this very determinedman in such perfect manner (yeah, I said "perfect"). I won't say if theMarquis was right or not (it's what each one of you should do whilewatching "Quills") but there's no doubt he really wanted (or should Isay "needed") to keep on writing and spreading his ideas.

WWFStern

(2013-06-01 12:15:19)

The best movie of 2000

Quills is without a doubt the best movie of the year 2000. The acting issuperb, the script is brilliant, and the direction is masterful. DO NOTmiss Quills. It is the most deliciously naughty film to come down thepikein years!

(2013-06-01 07:18:30)

Monsters, Madmen & Art

This tale of the supression and imprisonment of the Marquis De Sade in the insane asylum at Charenton and the ensuing struggle and turmoil caused by the arrival of Dr. Royer-Collard to stop his smuggled-out writings from being published has much to recommend it, especially in the first half of the film. Chiefly the performances of Jeffrey Rush as De Sade, Joaquin Phoenix as the caring and humane Abbe Coulmier in charge of Charenton, and Kate Winslet as the sympathetic laundress, Madeleine, who is smuggling the manuscripts for fun and profit.This De Sade is a monster of sorts, not so much of depravity, as of vanity and selfishness & self-obsession. He is compelled to write at any cost, and is by turns clever and obnoxious and self-destructive and indifferent to anything or anyone but his own need for self-expression. Well-played by Rush, he is a reminder that art mustn't be confused with the artist--terrible people can create beauty. In this instance, the art of De Sade may not be beautiful and may not even be "art" to most minds, but the need to create is real and just as valid with bad art as with genius and must be protected. Winslet and Phoenix present foils for De Sade in the forms of, by turns, an enticing virgin intrigued by and intriguing with the Marquis and a conflicted man of the cloth enjoying the intellectual challenge of the man while protecting and seeing to his care. Both are fine.Alas, we come to the fourth character in this drama, the conservative Dr. Royer-Collard played by Michael Caine. A bureaucrat and a closet sadist, before the name had become attached to the behavior (bit of irony there), he is such a villain that he only lacks a long black moustache to twirl. I won't fault Caine because I imagine he's playing him as written, and, especially in one scene at a door in the Apocalyptic finale I felt expected to hiss & boo him. The finale was a bit much as well.But it is the Caine character that brings the movie down to my mind. It is too much an obvious and cheap shot. The mendacious conservative. It would have been so much more interesting had the character not been so one-dimensional in his evil. When we first are introduced to him, Dr. Royer-Collard looked to be interesting: a true believer in his own nutty cures (soaking madmen upside down to calm them) so I had hopes of an exploration of two halves of crazy extremes, the libertine (De Sade) and the orthodox conservative, the incendiary & the politician. Both monsters & madmen in their own ways. Well, you won't find it here. What you get is beknighted artist and slimy bad guy. Cliches. Also, the subplot of Royer-Collard's young wife is a wasted & unnecessary plot device, no more.What you will find is some extreme behaviour from Rush in a good, but at times mannered performance, [an incomplete] defense of art at any cost, a penny-dreadful villain, some nice honest performances from the younger set (Winslet & Phoenix), a fiery finale that is over-the-top and a bit silly, and an ending that is not a twist or surprise but wants to be. Snappy dialogue isn't enough to carry the day.Yet, Phil Kaufman is too intelligent and talented a director to make a boring film, and this isn't one. The production values are great and this is a film at least about SOMETHING, and there are ideas afloat here. While I think it ultimately didn't convince me, it is a worthy effort. Probably 3-1/2 stars.

(2013-05-30 22:22:59)

A "Rorschach" movie

What you get out of this idiosyncratic movie depends heavily, far more than in most movies, on what you bring to it. The Marquis himself and treatment of him will evoke any of many different feelings, depending on the viewer's background and beliefs. I choose not to touch on those feelings, except to say that Rush, Winslet, Phoenix, and all the rest did exceptional jobs in dealing with this complex character and setting.I'm not forgetting Michael Caine, by the way. Instead, I single him out for special recognition. His rendering of the viciousness that de Sade's name attached to is outdone only by the genteel and brutal hypocrisy he brought to his character. Caine has done it before, when he created a startlingly similar character in an utterly different setting, in The Statement. Perhaps, in Quills, the character has slightly more awareness of his own dark nature. Outside of that, I find the characters nearly interchangeable.Given the character it describes and the state of mental health care in the first years of the nineteenth century, many won't find this easy to watch. If you tolerate it, though, its musings on just which lunatics are running the asylum might lead you analogies in many parts of today's society.-- wiredweird

Moritz-11

(2013-05-30 06:04:25)

Good actors, bad script

I saw Quills twice in a non-dubbed version, mainly to see Kate and GeoffreyRush, and I certainly wasn't disappointed of them. I'm not so sure about themovie itself, though (that's also why I wanted to see it a second time). Myfavourite scene is the "kiss for each page" right at the beginning, becauseit is a very well acted dialog with a process going into a clear direction.And it has aknock-down charming Kate in it! At this point, the film is still workingfine, developing characters in a believable way. Unfortunately, from then onthe movie starts eroding, disintegrating, just lagging increasing orders ofmagnitude behind its own demands.I appreciated the timeless idea of the movie, choice of setting andcharacters. Also I found the Marquis to be a believable person in a way,that is, he takes truly some effort in expressing himself (ink, wine, ..,nice idea, but wearing out fast), he even humiliates his wife. Some of hisfeelings can be easily identified with: He wants to kiss Kate (and does so,too, lucky chap..). He is deeply concerned, that she might be in greatdanger, which of course is dealt with truly sadistically in turn by the badguy. But is he also a really convincing agent of anti-censorship? No, he isnot. I'm not talking about the contents of his art. Personally, I don't haveany problems with peoples' choices of their individual ways of lifewhatsoever, besides, there aren't any truly "risque" scenes in this movie atall (and I mean it). The screenplay tries to put across a serious statementon censorship, and it does so by focusing on de Sade's private longing forpublicity. But what are his motives exactly, why does he insist on writing,what is his "inner agent"? We hardly get to know. "I'll never be with thecharacters I create" he says (correct quote?) - that's about it. I wantedan -artistic- argument for the protection of art, because I believed thismovie to be inspired by artwork itself (D. Wright's play, which I haven'tread). What I got was a lame de Sade merely gibbering about his obsessionover and over again.The movie features a timeless idea, choice of setting and characters.However, it succeeds only in the slightest respect when comes to a diligentinspection of the issues. The additional "Sadism"- facette is by far notproperly dealt with. The existence of the "Abbe" as a moral institution isso much out of date, so stimulus-response-like, that it stands proof of thelimitations of either the scriptwriter or the expected audience.*** Little spoiler *** And, for heaven's sake, why should Madeleine suddenlyfall for a bland, if good looking priest, when she even dared opening deSades' bedroom curtains? I don't buy it.Still, the lighter moments of the movie are very enjoyable and it featuresgreat actors throughout. They don't have enough coherent screentime though(as they had in the kissing-scene), possibly due to the adaptation of atheater piece.

Bil-3

(2013-05-28 04:03:42)

**** Excellent!

Excellent drama about the Marquis de Sade's influence on the keepers andinmates of the madhouse Charenton, where he spent his last days after beingdeclared criminally insane by French authorities. Geoffrey Rush lives it upin a mostly-convincing performance as the Marquis, and Kate Winslet isletter-perfect as the charwoman who he adores for her innocence. The issuesof censorship and its backwards application by authoritative figures is themessage here, and it is executed gracefully by Philip Kaufman's suredirection and the performances by the ensemble cast, particularly Winsletand Joaquin Phoenix as the noble hearted priest who runs the asylum. Betterthan the other film about the Marquis made the same year, Benoit Jacquot'sSade, but in that film its star Daniel Auteuil made a better lead. This filmhas some very explicit content that is at the same time shocking andrefreshingly honest. Very handsome production and a very good film.

dunbare

(2013-05-27 08:35:25)

What a Wicked Sensation!!!

The plot of Quills surround the life of the Marquis de Sade while he isin an insane asylum in 18th century France. His stories are smuggledand printed bringing much excitement in France!I liked this movie mainly because of the 18th century French settingand the wonderful actors involved. While some other viewers point outthe problem of having British accents in French roles, I too laughed atthe idea as Hollywood seems to think everyone in Europe has Britishaccents, but I do not think that hurts the movie.The movie stars Geoffrey Rush as the perverse Marquis. I had neverheard of him at the time, but he does a wonderful, sickening Marquis.The Marquis was not actually insane some say he was ahead of his time agenius of misfortune. Most likely he was just a highly sexual soul whomay have been misunderstood. His status of nobility probably hurt himsince he is suppose to be a gentleman and gentleman are not such filth!Michael Caine, always impressive is the evil doctor sent to 'cure' theMarquis. Ironic how disgusting and perverse he finds the Marquis, sincethis esteemed doctor had a lovely child bride. A piece of informationthe Marquis has fun with during one of my favorite scenes where theasylum inmates act "The Crimes of Love" AMelia Warner portrays the beautiful convent education orphan Simone.Trapped in a gilded prison with a husband old enough to be hergrandfather. She finds elation in one of the MArquis banned books. Thisleads to her elopement with the handsome Proix, the architectremodeling her home. AAhhh the crimes of love. Of course after learningof SImones departure with Proix and the existence of her guilty readingpleasure, the doctor knows exactly who to blame.Madeline is the tragic, free spirited, laundry girl. She is portrayedby Kate Winslet. She is a central character of this story as she is theone smuggling the stories and encouraging the Marquis. She also has agrowing affection for the new priest who is running the asylum.Joaquin Phoenix, WHose name I have just learned to correctly pronounce,is a wonderful surprise as the sympathetic priest who is tested to thepoint of insanity himself.A truly marvelous movie, the workings of the everyday asylum and thequirky loonies in there are all entertaining. A 10 out of 10.