Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

the story of Marquis de Sade is known. as ball of myths and suppositions and rumors. as result of lecture, in the late childhood, of his writings. the film do not propose a portrait of him. but the web who defines and support his eccentricity. Quills remains always a surprise for the viewer. for its status of mechanism of a clock. because the performances of each actor becomes part of fascinating game of a delicate work of clock. each scene becomes key for discover the truth behind appearances. the idealism against the right public image. the love and the manipulation. the fear and its use for build the cage. the mistakes. the duel between Marquis and Royer-Collard represents the axis of a story about values and risks to assume the words. and, as each great film, Quills has the precious gift to say a story of today. as a parable, maybe. as demonstration, surely. this is the detail who does it not a good film but almost an experience.

The Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) is locked up in the Charenton Insane Asylum run by Abbé du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix). Laundress Madeline LeClerc (Kate Winslet) falls for the lascivious Marquis de Sade and helps him smuggle out his writings. Emperor Napoléon Bonaparte wants him stopped and sends Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) with his tortuous treatments. Royer-Collard marries the young Simone (Amelia Warner) who lived in a convent.Geoffrey Rush is absolutely brilliant as the Marquis de Sade. The acting in this is first rate. I wish Rush get more screen time as the lead character. He's nominated for the Oscar as lead actor but he's more as one of the cast. Royer-Collard's hypocrisy is interesting but the movie spends a little too much time on him. I would rather the movie stay with Geoffrey Rush from start to finish and more Kate Winslet.

A pretty well made film with some excellent performances, particularly from Geoffrey Rush and Kate Winslet. It did, however, seem incomplete; there were a couple of threads that didn't seem to tie up. I was interested in the story of the doctor's wife and also the wife of the Marquis. Both of these characters came and went without any reference to them again; I found that a little odd. I have never read any of the works of the Marquis de Sade, but having seen this I'm tempted to take a look and see if it's really as depraved as they say. As for the film, definitely worth a look although I did find it a tad drawn out and a tad too long.SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDEDMy score: 7.1/10You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

It is an immoral story, a semi-fictional biography film about the notorious pornography writer Marquis De Sade in Napoleonic era, which is doomed to be controversial. As for me, I have never read his works and I don't feel any impulsion to read them after watching the film. Strangely, when I took out the DVD out of my mac, I generally felt nothing, my head was empty. I must say that the film doesn't impress me much even it is full of erotic remarks and scenes, tortures, even death. One side it proves my resistance towards explicit porn and violence has been exalted to a new level (maybe I am a little bit exaggerated, anyway it is not a creepy horror film); on the other hand it states that the film is in lack of an universal empathy, especially towards non-Catholics like me (as if there is no God, sex is not quite a speechless sin at all). In my mind's eye, the story is erotic in an unsexy way, even with Kate Winslet and Joaquin Phoenix in their primes (as for Geoffrey, his portrayal of Sade is brave and pathetic at the same time, but I will not call it sexy).So if I just take out the erotic coat wore by the film, what remains is a banal story of fighting against the national superstructure, attached with the struggle with one's belief, which suddenly makes the film not so glamorous as before. Then I realize that it is not the film's fault, I think still millions of people will be interested in the film itself. On the premise that I don't give too much credit to sex, the film obviously is not my cup of tea. Also too many unnecessary close-ups make the film look more like an acting-competition play than a decent film. However the settings and costumes of the film is exquisite and precise, plus a strong performances from a memorable cast (Geoffrey got an Oscar nomination as a leading actor, both art-direction and costume were also got nominated as well, surprisingly to see a young and fangless Stephen Moyer), which merits some accomplishment. Finally I must express my sympathy to Michael Caine, who offered a heartless and villainous performance, but was shamefully overlooked during the award season in 2000.