mark.waltz The audience for this curious tale of the man whose name created the term sadomasochism gets to see his personal life through two angles. First, there is the reality of what is happening, and then there is how he apparently views it, in red filter tones that look like something out of your worst nightmare. A ton of bare busted women all get physically and sexually abused by this aristocrat who demands pain with pleasure simply because it amuses him. If he isn't whipping some female, he is reminding them of his power over them. Taking his story back to his childhood and the abuse is from his wicked uncle, John Huston, this still doesn't get any sympathy into his story. Basically however, there really is no story and while artistically impressive it does not make for a good tale of debauchery. What could have been a psychological look into the life of a man who didn't even warrant a listing in my biographical dictionary which lists many people who probably never even get looked up.Told through an apparent stage performance of him looking back at his life with the ghostly presence of uncle Huston, this suffers not only from the lack of a real story but many dry patches that create a dull flow. A better version of the de Sade story wasn't actually a biography, but a 4 film where on alleged descendants of the marquis begins to believe that he is him. So for entertainment value at least, check out Mickey Hargitay in Bloody Pit of Horror and skip this one unless witnessing somebody's acid trip is truly your thing.

artisticengineer Though I did not see this movie until recently I remember it's theatrical release in 1969. This was the film that Keir Dullea made immediately after his performance in "2001: A Space Odyssey", and by sheer irony the two films seem to be connected. As David Bowman his last scenes in "2001" took place in a French room that was decorated in French style. He left that room, in a very mysterious way, in that movie and seems, in "De Sade", to have continued with the French decor. However, his performance in this movie is very disappointing- particularly compared to his performance in "2001". In fact, the entire movie is a big disappointment.I am of the opinion that if you have naked women and sex in a movie then it cannot be a total flop. And, in fact, the naked women in this film were the only thing that made this movie bearable to watch. As this movie was made in 1969 there were some aspects of female nudity they still could not show on the screen- they had to concentrate on breasts and butts back then. Nothing wrong with womens breasts and butts, but the total nudity that could be shown in movies by the late 1970s was still off limits in 1969. If you examine this film you will see that though there is a lot of female nudity in it; there is still a lot of "suggestion"-they could not show everything back then. And, that includes the sadistic scenes. Some sadism is shown but not enough to show how De Sade earned his reputation.One very good thing about the DVD release of this movie is the recent (in the year 2001) interview with the writer Richard Mathison concerning the historical Marquis De Sade. He gives a bit of history about De Sade, and how he was actually something of a nice guy in real life. The movie could have taken an interesting turn (it almost did but not quite) on examining whether or not we are all sadists at heart. Sometimes the best thriller or mystery story is the one that ends with the perpetrator being discovered and finding that the bad guy is the one whose face is seen in the mirror (i.e. the observer). But, as disorganized as this movie is that aspect was not shown.I remember this movie been considered disappointing in 1969. Thirty Eight years later it still is.

Judexdot1 I wish they had saved the German version of this one, but alas, only the AIP version seems to turn up, though most versions are barely longer than the one USA network ran in their infancy. What was once given an "X" rating, barely rises above PG-13 standards for this new millennium. Dullea, fresh from "2001", is out of place amidst the tame exploitation, but gives it a good try. John Huston, in the midst of a long string of aging weirdo roles, steals the show easily. The script by Richard Matheson, is well done, but manhandled by the multiple directors different approaches, and the different exploitation requirements of the various producers. It easily extends the normal AIP formula, but falls short of it's goal to cross into more "Adult" film-making. Not worthless, but not all that thrilling, with much "dead Air"

gridoon An ambitious disaster that could only have come out of the sixties (just like "Doctor Faustus", "Casino Royale" and probably several others I have not seen). The filmmakers must have thought that "De Sade" failed because it was too "avant-garde" for its time. Wrong! It is too avant-garde for ANY time. It doesn't make any sense, you never learn anything about De Sade that you didn't already know before viewing it, and despite the bundles of nudity, there's barely a sexy moment to be found. (**)