Irishchatter
I found this film to have been really horrible because of the way it gave us a feel of an instituted asylum. It just show you how those poor people were put into a box and isolated. The most shocking scene in this film was when the patients were putting on a show for the high class people and it was just awful to look at! Also leaving a seriously mentally ill man to kill a laundrette, how dare the nurses or any health care professional weren't looking after their patients! That made me mad!I had to skip some scenes because some of them weren't appealing and upsetting.The only scene I loved but nearly cried was when the priest and the laundrette made love in the church. Although sadly,it didn't last too long as it was only a dream. I really felt sorry for him especially that he was put into the Nuthouse for trying to commit suicide because of his grief over Madeleine. I just wish it didn't have to happen for him but it did.
dragokin
Quills was not the only film about Marquis de Sade in 2000. It was more of a theatrical experiment, though, whereas French movie Sade offered an almost philosophical discourse.The premise here was that Marquis de Sade had been a whimsical old man. Not sure why this was the case, since the historical figure was a mere pervert with homicidal tendencies.The premise, in turn, follows a trend in contemporary art and culture, where Marquis de Sade becomes almost a free speech activist in today's terms.We might argue whether the film should follow historical facts or author's vision, but for me Quills deserves two stars.
sarizonana
I saw this movie a few weeks ago and I finally decided to write my review.What a great movie it makes you have mixed feelings in almost every scene and like others said it gets darker and more dramatic as the films advances.All the performances were fantastic and the chemistry between Kate and Geoffrey its great. Their relationship in this film reminded me too much the relationship between Haniball Lecter and Clarice starling in the silence of the lambs So why do I understand the people who didn't like it. It's obvious this film and Geoffrey Rush with his fantastic performance make the Marquise look like a a very charming sexy(in a different way) smart and heroic character when the truth is the real marquise wasn't exactly that way.(especially not heroic or sexy)!In short is the right word is Guilt What It makes us feel so guilty for liking a bad guy like him? The answer is easy Marquise truly existed meanwhile when we like Antiheroes like Haniball or let's say John Milton( Al Pacino in The devils advocate) we don't care because we liking a fictional character, but in this case it's real person portrayed in a fictional and Romanticized way.
minamurray
Place is early 19th century France, a handsome but cold place of elegance, squalor and violence, and "witty" porn writer Marquis De Sade (Geoffrey Rush) has sent to Charenton asylum, albeit for political reasons rather than insanity (at least in real life). Asylum is led by kind Catholic priest (Joaquin Phoenix as rather sympathetic character who was apparently very short and hunchbacked in real life) and he has scandalous notion that mentally ill do not need torture. Gasp! Where is this world going to, if filthy perverts cannot torture insane? Soon, De Sade's writings - which later inspired such celluloid filth than Salo - are somehow "liberating" whole France to orgy and enraging Napoleon, when laundry maid is carrying the smut out, turning Marquis as trashy bestsellerist in the vein of Stephen King. Michael Caine has chilling role of outwardly respectable but sleazy pervert, who gets his kick by torturing insane and raping his young porn-reading wife, and Rush does not physically resemble De Sade, albeit complaints seems not come from only desire to historical accuracy but mucky morality worthy of De Sade: being filthy scatological perv and sadist, totally sane but locked in asylum, is somehow better if the perpetrator is not short and fat. Why his character openly courts danger and torture when he gets possibility to keep his cushy lifestyle, if he just does not publish his stories and endanger anyone, is something I cannot fathom. More entertaining than horribly wooden Sade (2000), but screenwriter Doug Wright who has adapted his own play lets historical inaccuracies gallop horribly wild, especially in the tragic - and frankly heavyhanded - ending.
AD
