Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-22 13:14:16

**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.

DannyBoy-17 2012-05-22 01:08:44

Perfect for the age of Eminem

FargoFan's reaction to how Quills treats history is totally valid.However, Arthur Miller's Crucible commits the same crime of taking realpeople and distorting history for dramatic effect; I don't attack thatworkor Quills, because essentially both are allegories addressing biggersocialissues.Quills is perfect for the age of Eminem- another "artist" whose profanescandalous works of sex and violence are selling like wildfire around thecountry and world (The Real Slim Shady was No. 2 on the top 40 inIreland.)Meanwhile, the content is assaulted by rights groups, coalitions ofrightist Christians along with liberal feminist and homosexual groups.Questions of free speech, rights of record labels to profit off suchlyrics,the place of government, and whether work such as Eminem's will inciteviolence all arise.Quills handles these very issues in a provocative manner. AbbeCoulmierposes the same questions to De Sade that we pose to Eminem. Why can't hewrite more positive work? De Sade: I write of human fundamentals. Welive.We eat. We s**t. We f**k. We die.It's religion's obligation to illustrate virtues, not art, and a religionthat can't tolerate the opposition is a weak one. Coulmier says that DeSade writes wooden characters and flat dialogue, just as many accuseEminem's work of repeating the same self-aggrandizing themes over and overagain.There is the issue of profiting from such work- De Sade's wifeeventuallyuses the "tainted money" from Justine to fund the renovations of theasylum,just as Collard later uses profits from the "Opus Sadicum" to furtherexpandCharenton, and probably funnel a good deal to his mansion. The filmentersan ambiguous moral territory by showing De Sade's work used to further theoppressive potential of Charenton.Quills seems to see corruption as the first step to redemption, butnowhere does one get the sense that there is a light at the end of thetunnel. You leave the theater asking questions and having no answers.Thevirtuous dashing hero, Abbe Coulmier, turns into a madman. The Marquis isprogressively stripped, in every sense of the word, of any power orpotential. There is no one to root for. While inspired by the ingeniousmeasures De Sade takes to write, I turn against him when faced with hismonstrous insults to the Abbe, his lechery towards Madeleine, and violencetowards his wife.Indeed, the character you end up rooting for is the nun-turned-whorewife of the Doctor. She inspires De Sade's most volatile play, and DeSade's "Justine" in turn inspires her to escape her cage and run away intoalewd affair. The film seems to just barely hit upon the sexual rights ofwomen. Part of what inspires the furor about De Sade is the way he seemstoinspire women to sexual awareness- witness the first shot of the film, aravishing young woman stripped of her maiden "head" at the guillotinewhilethe crowd roars. In some strange way, the Marquis seems to wish theliberation of these women from piety and convention through eroticism.Indeed, the only moment when De Sade hits a genuine emotional note(SPOILER)is in discovering Madeleine died a virgin: he collapses insorrow.Quills sacrifices any possibility of a happy ending from the moment thegovernment decides to silence De Sade for the good of the nation.Napoleonseeks to end the scandal caused by the Marquis' words is to silence histongue. The words are sometimes brilliant, but often just childishperversity. The people enjoy De Sade though- why not just allow the openconsumption of his books? There are rumors that readers of his books areled to murder and infidelity. The response of the Abbe is simple: "If amantried to walk on water and drowned, you wouldn't blame the Bible."The only answer seems for the government to neither fear the Marquis'work, but equally discourage making it into an enterprise. De Sade shouldhave been allowed to write freely and to be published, but not for profit.You don't have to listen to Eminem (and you certainly shouldn't award himbefore a national TV audience), but you do have to stop trying to shutthemdown. You can try to counter his brand of rap with a more positiveactivistkind. Unfortunately, "political" rap gets little attention fromcommercialradio stations here, because the lyrics so often go against theircommercialends, sympathies, and hope to reach the largest possible audience bystripping the music of any genuine social or political positions. Sorryforthe thoughts, but like I said, Quills is a quite provocative allegory.It'salso one of the best films of the year.Quills should win best adapted screenplay. Kate Winslet, JoaquinPhoenix, Geoffrey Rush should be nominated for their work, along withcinematography, art direction, and director Philip Kaufman.

Fallen-Seraph 2012-05-19 15:48:50

A response to moral outrage

One of the other reviewers complains that this film, that is dedicated tothe causes of free speech and independence of thought, uses a person likethe Marquis de Sade as its hero.M. le Marquis, like Alistair Crowley, to whom he is compared delighted inshocking an offending the "morals" of society. However, like Crowley, theMarquis's sins were more of the imagination than of commission.As such the Marquis provides a perfect symbol for a fight againsthypocritical moralistic censorship of both Napoleon's France and themodernwest.

Neil Doyle 2012-05-19 05:06:19

Offbeat telling of fictionalized Marquis de Sade tale...excellent performances...

The grotesque sexual adventures of the Marquis de Sade are given a highlystylish film with some good performances making it all seem more than itreally is. Especially noteworthy is Joaquin Phoenix as the youthfullyhandsome cleric who plays a pivotal role in the ironic ending. Here he givesa performance quietly authoritative in a part that he plays with sensitiveunderstanding, using his eyes and a vast range of expressions to convey morethan dialogue implies. He's undoubtedly one of the finest young actors ofhis generation.Geoffrey Rush has a showy role as the crazed Marquis and plays itaccordingly--the sort of role that would have been played with even greaterrelish by a young Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton. Rush falls short ofdelivering what should have been an even more colorfulperformance.The sets, costumes, camerawork, settings and music are all in the hands oftalented people. Kate Winslet as an unfortunate waif who befriends theMarquis and Michael Caine as a cruel doctor in charge of the inmates dotheir usual competent jobs and the supporting players are uniformly reliableplayers.Not for the squeamish--scenes of torture or violence are graphic andchilling in effect. Based loosely on de Sade's actual case history, itlightens the mood occasionally with touches of humor but there is anunderlying element of cruelty and madness that makes this difficult to watchat times. Be aware that this is not for minors.

jhclues 2012-05-17 10:17:47

Rush Brings de Sade To Life

The infamous Marquis de Sade spent the final months of his life inCharenton Asylum for the insane, where within the confines of his cell, hewas free to put quill to paper to record the erotic musings of hisimagination, thereby (it was hoped) purging his bedeviled mind of them. Thewritings were not, however, to leave his cell; but-- as they say-- wherethere's a will, there's a way, and soon his anonymous manuscripts werecausing a stir among the good citizens of France, up to and including theEmperor himself, Napoleon. `Quills,' directed by Philip Kaufman and writtenby Doug Wright (adapted from his own play), is a fictionalized account ofthe Marquis during that period, and of the effect he (and his words) had onthose with whom he came into contact, either directly, or through hiswritings. It's a film that runs the gamut from the bawdy to the perverse,while maintaining an objectivity throughout that allows each individualmember of the audience to judge the ramifications of it all for themselves. It's an interesting film through which some insight into human nature may begleaned; or not-- depending upon your own perspective and point of view, aswell as the level of sensitivity and sensibility with which you receive theinformation afforded herein. Visually, the film is striking; Kaufman successfully captures the essenceof the era, and the performance by Geoffrey Rush (as the Marquis) alone isworth the price of admission. Rush accords himself a freedom of expressionentirely consistent with the character he portrays, holding nothing inreserve as he brings him so vividly to life. His Marquis is emotionallycomplex-- personable and repugnant at the same time-- and it's that depth ofcharacter with which Rush manages to imbue him that makes him believable. Rush was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor for it, and deservedly so. Kate Winslet gives a notable performance, as well, as Madeleine, thelaundress who smuggles the Marquis' writings from the asylum and turns themover to an agent of his publisher. There's a natural, earthy quality toWinslet that lends just the right touch to the character and makes hermemorable. And a nod must go to Winslet for making some bold careerdecisions after her mainstream success in `Titanic.' With her pick of anynumber of `safe' roles from which to choose, she had the daring to takeparts with substance and character-- like Madeleine-- as well as the rolesshe opted for in `Hideous Kinky' and `Holy Smoke,' rather than sit on herlaurels and let her talent stagnate. It's a rare quality in an actress ofher caliber, and it would be an injustice to let it pass withoutcomment.Michael Caine, on the other hand, though arguably one of the most talentedactors of our times, turns in a fairly anemic performance as Dr.Royer-Collard, who is personally dispatched by Napoleon to the asylum torein in the exploits of the Marquis. And the fault, perhaps, lies not withCaine, but with the character itself; for as a battle of wills ensuesbetween Royer-Collard and de Sade, the good Doctor must maintain a ratherstoic countenance, which contrasts unfavorably with the flare andsingle-minded zealousness of the Marquis. Joaquin Phoenix, too, asCoulmier, the Priest in charge of Charenton, gives a passable performance,but one that seems somewhat tentative, especially compared to his superiorturn in `Gladiator,' for which he was nominated for an Oscar for BestSupporting Actor.The supporting cast includes Billie Whitelaw (Madame LeClerc), PatrickMalahide (Delbene), Amelia Warner (Simone), Jane Menelaus (Renee), StephenMoyer (Prouix) and Stephen Marcus (Bouchon). A provocative film that makessomething of a statement about righteous hypocrisy, `Quills,' taken as thework of fiction that it is, will be a satisfying cinematic experience formost; but be forewarned-- this is not a film for everyone. The content andsubject matter may be a bit too strong for some, depending on personal tasteand sensibility. And, those who come to this film seeking historicalenlightenment may be disappointed. But taken with regard to artistic merit,this is filmmaking at it's best; work for which Kaufman and Co. are to beapplauded. I rate this one 8/10.

PersianPlaya408 2012-05-17 00:33:50

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

vostf 2012-05-10 01:46:48

Top-class acting and a great story

It's a pity Quills has been poorly distributed, as was Wonder boys butunlike Finding Forrester. Three recent movies about life and writing. Quillsis the more emotionally achieved in its way to speak of writing as an artand the expression of humanity.Emotion thanks to the excellent actors increases as the movie goes. GeoffreyRush is some kind of a genius in the body of Le Divin Marquis. Kate Winslettplays in the right tune. Sir Michael Caine is impressive as always even ifhis character is not very well written. For Joaquin Phoenix, we are used togreat performances but Emperor Comodus is still the best of hisparts.The full flavor of Quills appears as Sade is compelled to show us his needfor writing. No matter how weak or wooden the other characters may appear incomparison. The main weaknesses of the movie are concentrated in thebeginning especially with a useless and ridiculous characterization ofNapoleon as a childish Emperor leaving his counselor decide. The mysterioushorse rider waiting to take Sade's papers is a bit ridiculous too as herides away, his hair floating.Those scattered weaknesses are eventually nothing compared to the qualityQuills offers us.Touching, really.

2012-05-09 07:27:40

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.

mercury-26 2012-05-08 18:09:02

Torture

Why is everyone falling over themselves over this film? Just because it's aperiod film starring Geoffery Rush doesn't automatically mean it's good.Truth is, "Quills" is not good, and I don't mean that it just needs aspanking. Its mission is to rise to the level of its subject matter bycreating scene after scene of people being naughty. That the Marquis De Sade's imprisonment, torture, and silencing symbolizesthe right-wing censorship of the entertainment industry today is a bit tooobvious. No one deserves to be tortured for their personal beliefs or art,but the Marquis is almost made out to be a heroic figure, a saint. In truth,he was a very sick man, and not even a very talented one, judging from thelittle of his writings the film exposes us to. There is still much controversy over the degree the entertainment industryis to be held accountable for acts of violence it inspires. "Quills" wantsyou to cherish the freedom of expression we have in a free society. Whatleft me cold throughout the experience of watching "Quills" was that thegarbage that the Marquis was dumping on his society. I had to ask what madethis drivel so worthy of the struggle. If only the Marquis had actually beena good writer and not just a pervert with an overly active imagination. Isuppose the point is that freedom of expression is freedom of expression, nomatter what that expression happens to be.The Marquis' captors made the mistake of trying to silence him. The morethey tried, the louder his voice got. They made a martyr out of a man whodidn't deserve to be.Grade: C-

2012-05-08 08:02:02

Kaufman should have studied history first

Not only this movie is absolutely inaccurate about historical facts, Sade's real life and date of death, life in asylums in Napoleon's time, but also the plot vanishes, it seems quite lost, almost unbelievable. In brief, it's the second movie of this year (Quills and Unbreakable), where the chance to tell an excellent story is lost due to this kinf of problems.

polldav 2012-04-30 13:32:13

what the heck were they thinking

I forced myself to sit all the way through this movie (since i paid my 7bucks already), but it was difficult. The characters were completelyexaggerated and unrealistic, and it seemed like the movie had been writtenby about 4 different people and then just thrown together randomly. Theonlydecent part was the acting job by geoffrey rush, who was a good choice forthe marquis, and played the part very well.

Kayla 2012-04-29 20:46:19

What I thought

I loved this movie. I thought the characters were great and the plotwas fast-paced and very sexy. This is one of my favorite movies. Myfavorite character was the priest. His character started out as properand clean-cut. He ended up corrupted and mentally unstable. Plus, Ithought the man who played his character was very hot. I only wish thathe and the maid had hooked up. It was what I was waiting for the entiremovie, but they never did. I almost cried when the maid died. It wasvery sad and tragic. I loved that this movie was as sexy as it was. Inever expected it to be that way. I also love how it was based off ofactual people in history. I find it fascinating that a man like De Sadeactually existed! I think that everybody can learn something from thismovie. The lesson is that we all have that secret perversion in us, butwe don't really let it out. That perversion can destroy us or make us.It all depends on how we use it. I'm all for bringing out the sexinessin ourselves, but that's just me.

Paul Creeden 2012-04-25 09:11:35

Dark, dark, dark.

The 1966 Peter brook film, "Marat Sade", was a dark rendering of theinnards of the same Napoleonic asylum seen in "Quills". However, "MaratSade" is a sunny walk in the park compared to "Quills". Mr. Rush is absolutely brilliant as the infamous Marquis de Sade. Heholds the screen in every one of his scenes. Joaquin Phoenix is alsoextremely impressive in his role as a tormented abbot. Ms. Winslet plays avery complex character well, but I have to say that she could have gone alittle deeper. In fact, her performance is uneven, in my opinion. She comesoff as a silly airhead by the end of the film. This has much to do with thefilm's climax. (No spoiler here.) Now, about the dark thing. The film had me laughing constantly at first,but the viewer is drawn into a descent into the horror and madness. By theend of the film, I was almost depressed. Now, I am no happy ending freak.And I did rate the film highly. It is a technical success all the way, withthat one Winslet exception. I am just reeling from its darkness, that's all.Michael Caine, of course, is the film's amazing Prince of Darkness. Forthose of you who, like I, usually like Caine, even when he is a villain, beprepared for a surprise. Great film. A must see, but do yourself a favor and go to a matinee on asunny afternoon.

2012-04-24 23:20:22

Disappointing movie neither erotic nor entertaining

I was completely ready to enjoy "Quills" based on what I had read about it beforehand, but I was sorely disappointed in the movie. Geoffrey Rush plays a feisty and perpetually aroused Marquis de Sade, locked away in an asylum but still producing flowery erotic stories to pass the time. Kate Winslet plays a sympathetic maid who smuggles his stories to publishers who turn them into best-selling bootleg books. That's the first thing that bothered me about the movie -- was there really no one else in Napoleonic France who could produce absurdly overwritten ...P>The characters are mostly devoid of nuance. Rush's de Sade is a one-note leering horndog. Winslet's virginal chambermaid appeals to both de Sade and Joaquin Phoenix's character, the repressed cleric who runs the asylum. I did like Phoenix's turn as the priest who is tolerant enough to become friends with de Sade; I thought his work in this movie was more subtle and interesting than in "Gladiator". Michael Caine is a humorless scientist (with torturous medical techniques) appointed as an "advisor" to the asylum to suppress de Sade's writing. Even the random assortment of asylum inmates seem like stock characters: the pyromaniac; the giant; the guy who thinks he's a bird."Quills" reminds me strongly of two other movies. "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is, to me, a far better look at a free spirit trapped in an asylum that is trying to repress him. The other is "The People vs. Larry Flynt", another movie which takes the side of the pornographer as the system tries to censor him. ...; in this movie de Sade is portrayed as a wickedly sexual but mostly harmless producer of satirical smut that appeals to everyone but the repressed elite. In real life, de Sade was famous for torturing women and is the inspiration for the term "sadism".I wanted to like "Quills" but the snippets of de Sade's writing we are given are absurd and sometimes funny but not really erotic, and while I agree with the anti-censorship theme of the movie, it is not presented in an interesting or thoughtful manner. It's more like a Rodney Dangerfield snobs-vs.-slobs movie where the lower classes are all titillated by de Sade's stories and the upper classes can only shudder and try to squash him. I think "Quills" would fit better as a theater production, where the interactions between de Sade and his captors might be more interesting, but the story just doesn't seem "big" enough to merit a whole movie. The vast majority of the movie takes place in the asylum, a lot of it in de Sade's cell, and as it played out to its inevitable resolution there just wasn't anything in the way of scenery, character development or originality to keep me interested. I'd instead recommend "Cuckoo's Nest" or "Larry Flynt", or "Elizabeth" if you want to see Geoffrey Rush in period garb.

david south 2012-04-23 06:17:49

Performances can't quite make brilliance.

Quills tells the 'tarted up' story of the last few years of FrenchAristocrat the Marquis De Sade. As the film begins, the Marquis isimprisoned in a mental asylum. This is, however, not stopping him frompublishing stories of a pornographic nature with the aid of a buxomchambermaid Madeleine (Winslet). Emperor Napoleon, unhappy that thisliterature is reaching the masses orders the Marquis silenced and as aresult evil Dr Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) is sent to theasylum.The performances in 'Quills' are universally excellent; Rush received anOscar nomination for his performance. Indeed, Rush carries large portions ofthe film, pitching the marquis somewhere between careless arrogant rogue and'carry on' character. But for me the performance of the film was fromJoaquin Phoenix, outstanding as the priest running the asylum before Caine'sinvolvement. 'Quills' is a good film but could so easily have been a great film. Scriptand acting are both fine, as is the feel of 19th century France. The problemcomes from the story-line, it drags in parts and the climax is given awayseveral minutes before it happens. The only other problem is Caine, whosecostume and performance kept reminding me of when he played Scrooge in ' AMuppet's Christmas Carol '.

Dan Grant 2012-04-22 18:35:48

The message is over shadowed by the film's mediocrity

I admire people that come out and tell it like it is. I may not alwaysagree with them, but at least some people just come right out and tell youwhat you already know but seem to either forget or just conveniently overlook. Take for example retired basketball star Charles Barkley who hasalways maintained that he is not a role model. That he is not responsiblefor raising your kids. Some people were outraged by this. He is an icon,he is a celebrity, he is a sports star that kids look up to and he has toact accordingly. He responded by saying, yes I am an athlete, yes I am inthe public eye, but education and manners and morality starts at home.Notwith a man that is being paid millions of dollars to put a ball through ahoop. No one ever annointed guys like Barkley or Jordan or Britney Spearsor the President of the United States to raise your kids. That is up totheindividual parent(s). Jim Carrey also made a similar point about Eminematone of the award shows.I start with this opening prelude to the review about Quills becausealthough I thought the movie to be somewhat of a let down, I didappreciateit and respect it for what it was saying and trying to convey to us.Timeshaven't changed from the 1500's to the 1800's to the 2000's. Sure thereisa greater thresh hold from the public about what will be tolerated andwhatwon't but there is still that insistent fear that if a twelve year oldhearsthe F-word or if an adult watches too much porn that they will act outsomeasinine, fatuous scenario based on what they have seen and or heard.Marquis de Sade, the man may have been a murdering, heinous man, but notbecause he wrote about it but because he had acted upon it. Words cannotkill you, that can only be accomplished by one person's hand."They're only words," he says at one point in the film.Quills follows de Sade's final days in an insane asylum where he is atfirstallowed to write because the asylum's priest, Abe Coulmier, (played wellbyJoaquin Phoenix) has actually befriended him in some way. He believesthatby letting Marquis continue his writings this will provide a cleansing ofsorts from his noxious fantasies ( I guess his fantasies were so barbaricthat they actually made a word after him, sadism--quite the achievement ).Once his privileges are taken away from his ( because they have developedacult following outside the prison walls ) he uses any means possible andperseveres by using his clothes, melted wax, his own blood and excretementto get his message out. This ultimately spells imminent doom as Napoleansends in a hard nosed, sadist of a doctor named Royer Collard ( MichaelCaine ). It is up to him to get Marquis to curve his insatiable desire towrite such filth. Kate Winslet plays the maid who smuggles out hismanuscripts.Phillip Kaufman is the man at the helm of Quills and I have to admit thatIam not a huge fan of his work. I found Rising Sun to be a boring thrillerand The Unbearable Lightness of Being to be quite slow as well. I didhowever admire 1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers but there was noinnovativeness with Quills the way there was in Body Snatchers. PerhapsKaufman's strength lies with great character development and action is notreally his forte. And if that sounds acceptable to you, then Quills workswell. I however, wanted to know more. I wanted to know how it is that hebecame so driven, so sadistic, so thirsty for his indelible taste forviolent and perverse sexual practices. I didn't get any of that here.Andseeing as this is a film that has such an interesting message about thedangers of sensored sex, sensored writing and sensored living, I amsurprised that it didn't offer more.The acting by Phoenix and Winslet and especially Michael Caine iswonderful.I was however a little surprised with Rush's performance. To me, he wasgood but he didn't seem any different than he was in The House On HauntedHill. The two characters could have been reincarnations of one another.Toagree with Roger Ebert, Christopher Walken and Willem Dafoe or an aged andmakeup enhanced Steve Buschemi would have been quite interesting in thefilmin the lead role.Quills is interesting if not a little slow. I admire it for all that itsays about us as human beings. Life is deranged enough as it is with realinstances of violence and rape and sodomy. To blame that all on what weread and watch is taking the easy way out. We have to lay the blame on usas parents in some way or another. I grew up listening to NWA telling metof*** the police and to country and western songs ( my parents listened toWCXI, all country, when I was 7 )about cheating spouses and that doesn'tmean that I am going to gun down an officer of the law or have sex withsomeone other than my wife. I understand right and wrong, so do mostotherpeople. If they do these things it is because they wanted to not becausethey were influenced or compelled to because of a song or a movie or abook.On that level Quills is excellent. It just falters in other avenues.Still, it is a good effort.6.5 out of 10

2012-04-15 22:07:02

Provoking

This review is from: Quills (DVD) I had a hard time deciding if I liked this movie or not. It's a very provocative and disturbing movie, and yet I had to ask myself how the times made the man (de Sade) and vice versa. When you add in what the Inquisition was, and did, to perfectly innocent people..the big question ended up being..what was more "evil" or "perverse"? de Sade or the Inquisition? In the end, I have to recommend the movie, but certainly not to the faint of heart. It's a strong move with strong themes, and a strong message.

gutterflower20 2012-04-15 11:13:38

Phoenix and Rush were ROBBED!

That's right! Joaquin Phoenix and Geoffrey Rush were definitely robbed oftheir Oscars for their performance in Quills.Historically accurate, this movie really shows the inner workings of thedemons during the French Revolution and the eternally twisted mind of theMarquis de Sade. Phoenix's portrayal of the Abbe is simply excellent. While his nomination for Gladiator that year was well earned, i think thathis performance in Quills would have been a more competitive candidate forthe best supporting actor category. While Rush was nominated for the bestactor category, he definitely did not get the recognition that he shouldhave gotten even if it was just a nomination. Russell Crowe's Oscar washard earned but i think that his performance compared to Rush's was enhancedonly by the hype. Rush's portrayal of the Marquis was uncannily awesome. By no means do i think that Crowe was not deserving of his award but i feelthat Rush was more deserving of it.

phantomwolf665 2012-04-14 06:05:34

"Writing at all costs...." WARNING: small spoilers

Quills is a movie much beyond, or perhaps, behind it's time. In thetwenty first century, rarely do you find movies that can truly disturbyou with the madness portrayed and have that movie be a hit with thegeneral public; this, Quills is not; from my understanding ( forgive meif I am incorrect), this film was not entirely popular. But my-oh-my tothose that don't write, or do not understand the writer, it is a smackin the skull with bricks that if a writer is thought to be mad, theyhave not seen anything until they have seen the movie Quills.With side subjects, the basis of the story is writing at all costs orgo mad and attempting to relieve that madness through anything youpossibly can. As a writer myself, I understand the plight of Rush'scharacter, but would not perhaps, go so far as he does within thisfilm. He writes first with wine and bone of poultry upon his bedsheetswhen denied a quill; this is not something I would put past myself,however, when even his bedsheets upon which he wrote are taken, hewrites in his own blood upon his clothes; when stripped of his veryclothes, he writes with his own filth. While I cannot say that I wouldgo quite that far, it is understandable that Rush's character wouldreact in such a way.Geoffery Rush is phenomenal in this role, and while all his roles areabsolutely amazingly performed, this one took the rose. His performanceis the stuff that is not classic, but creates classics. Rarely, Ithink, shall I ever find another role in which he is cast where hecould portray a more perfectly cased persona.As Rush's rival, is Michale Cain, who's job and seemingly personalagenda, is to stop Rush from writing his essentially poronographicliterature . Rush takes up this challenges, and I am hard put todecided whether he goes to such extents to write to cure his ownmadness if only temporarily, or if he proceeds to such dramatics toinfuriate Cain.Michael Cain, as always, is absolutely terrific and deserves a 10 forthis role. While I did not like him playing the evil person of thefilm, I appreciate his acting very much. His character, I suppose is nodifferent, really, then Rushs's and I am fond of the protrayle of thefact that all of us have that evil within; it is whether we choose tohide such sins in our hearts or not. Cain's performance is absolutelybeautiful. Two thumbs up, as with most of his roles.Kate Winselt's character is the heart of two men: Rush's character, andthe priest. Although Rush's love for the young woman is somewhat moresubtle and confused with friendship, by mid-movie it is quite obvious.The priest's is focused upon as his fight for purity when he so plainlyloves Winslet. Winslets character meets an end I despised, but itbrought about everyone's life full circle, even if those circles didnot end happily. HSe is, perhaps the only character of the movie thatis kind-hearted for Rush's character, and finds his writing that ofgenius material, which it is, of coarse.Winslet, as always, amazes with charm and grace and strong portrayal ofa tough character with a strong heart and will for life. Two thumbs upa movie-cookie for her performance. Beauitufl and soul tugging.All in all, this movie is a rarity that one would be hard-strained tofind an equal to in heart, emotion, or disturbance. There is littlemore that I can think of to say for this movie but that it deservesevery praise that a critic can give and more.

2012-04-14 02:33:59

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.