Rush gives a tour-de-force performance as history's most infamous sexual adventurer, the Marquis de Sade. A nobleman with a literary flair, the Marquis lives in a madhouse where a beautiful laundry maid (Winslet) smuggles his erotic stories to a printer, defying orders from the asylum's resident priest (Phoenix). The titillating passages whip all of France into a sexual frenzy, until a fiercely conservative doctor (Caine) tries to put an end to the fun, inadvertently stoking the excitement to a fever pitch.

Average Customer Review: ( 188 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

I should perhaps first point out, what others have also mentioned, that you will learn NOTHING about the life of the Marquis de Sade from watching this movie. Ezra Pound once wrote of a book that it was so filled with errors that an errata slip should have been published as a companion volume. It would take either a full length book or a documentary film to start untangling the historical errors. The movie is, therefore, not a biopic, but a complete fiction whose central character is very loosely based on the Marquis de Sade. The main historical point worth mentioning is that de Sade lived a long life and died in bed of natural causes, with full use of his oratorical faculties.

The virtues of the film are many. One must begin with the look of the film. The film garnered an Oscar nomination for art direction, and it was a nomination that was richly deserved. There are a lot of "period" films, but few that will feel as realistic as this one.

Then one must proceed to the acting. Geoffrey Rush was simply Geoffrey Rush. I have often wondered if Rush has any limitations as an actor. Every role I have seen him in he has played an apparent ease and familiarity that few of his contemporaries can achieve. I wonder, in fact, if he might not deserve crowning as perhaps the best movie actor active today. And all the rest of the cast was quite superb, from Kate Winslet to Joaquin Phoenix to the least of the asylums inmates.

My primary quibble with the film was that it was unnecessarily unpleasant. I understand the irony involved in the completely sadistic treatment of the man whose name gave us the word, but it doesn't automatically translate into a likable plot. Michael Caine's character was so simple and vicious and self-serving that he was almost a cartoon. And his refusal to intervene in Kate Winslet's rather brutal murder was too nasty to be believable.

This movie is most definitely not for the squeamish. There is much maiming, blood, and explicit sexuality. I will add that the movie doesn't try to make de Sade out as a great artist. Virtually anyone who has attempted to read him will sound the same criticism of his work that most others have: he is boring, his sex scenes (of which there are thousands) are decidedly unsexy and unerotic, that he describes act after act of the worst kinds of mutilation and violence, and that his characters are cardboardish and unbelievable. Susan Sontag pointed out that Justine in the novel bearing her name is inexplicably just as shocked the 300th time that she was raped as the first time. The movie certainly doesn't want to argue with this depiction of Sade as a poor though popular writer. Geoffrey Rush's de Sade has a compulsion to write, but this does not mean that he writes well.

I think how much one likes this movie depends on how well they can deal with the unpleasant elements. I did not deal with them well, and as I result I did not enjoy the movie very much, despite being extremely impressed by many things within it.

14 of 14 found the following review helpful:

Delicious dramatic period piece from Philip Kaufmann.May 09, 2001
By David Grant
While I can't help but laugh at the fact they made the Marquis de Sade the central character in a story about artistic expression and sexual repression, I can understand why. Here is a man who wallowed in excess, seeming unconcerned with the weight of his decisions, his only escape and expression the very thing that caused his downfall. The Marquis de Sade was not a martyr for freedom of speech. He was a seriously disturbed individual whose callous disregard for mankind (he thought murder should be a privilage for the rich) was reflected in his writing. But here he is a curious old coot, with a marvelous sense of humor and a deeply hidden soft side. But Geoffrey Rush's performance makes it all easier to swallow. He is a brave actor (appearing completely nude in several scenes) who loves to portray wounded characters and he simply shines. Kate Winslet (likewise great and brave) plays the innocent laudry maid Madeleine who secretly sneaks the Marquis' writing out of the asylum where he is kept and into the arms of a publisher. When these writings reach the hands of Napoleon, the emperor sends an accomplished doctor, Royer Collard (the great Michael Caine), to silence him, undermining the authority of the asylum's resident priest (Joaquin Phoenix), who sees Sade as a creature who must be saved and who NEEDS to write in order to clean his soul. The film is filled with sexual energy, reaching certain points of eroticism that recall director Philip Kaufman's earlier masterpiece 'The Unbearable Lightness Of Being'. This is a beautiful film, nicely detailed and extremely playful. It is also dark and grisly, nothing too graphic yet certainly unsettling at times. I suppose, if nothing else, 'Quills' does stand as a 'freedom of speech' movie. I look at it as a film which simultaneously acknowledges our fasination with sex and spanks us for our dirty thoughts. But it ultimately reminds us that we all have a right to be heard and that everything has an audience. And if you've just finished watching this movie, well then thank you for helping me prove that point.

8 of 8 found the following review helpful:

RECIPE FOR A FIERCE BUT INTOXICATING COMIC ROMPJul 19, 2004
By Shashank Tripathi
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.

11 of 12 found the following review helpful:

A perverse historical drama for strong stomachs onlyAug 28, 2001
By Linda Linguvic
One thing I can say about Kate Winslet is that she not afraid to take on controversial and demanding roles. In "Quills" she plays a laundress in the mental hospital where the Marquis de Sade is imprisoned. Geoffrey Rush is cast as the demented and perverse Marquis who has an obsession with writing down his violent and sado-masochistic stories. He therefore needs quills to write with and, when they are forcibly taken away, he must discover other ways to tell his stories. Joaquin Phoenix gives a fine performance as a priest who tries understand the Marquis and who is himself pulled into the insanity around him. And Michael Caine is cast as a pompous doctor whose methods of cure are as sick and perverse as the insane Marquis.

Set in 18th century France, and costumed well, the scene is set for a weird historical drama which is in itself perverse and sick... so perverse in fact that I found myself retching in disgust. Although some of the sex scenes are bawdy and humorous, it's the scenes of pain and torture that linger in my mind. But, after all, what can you expect from a film about the Marquis de Sade? Frankly, I'm not one to turn away from violence, but this film is a bit much, even for me. I therefore recommend it only to the very few who might be intrigued by the concept. But if it leaves you nauseous and depressed, don't say I didn't warn you.

See all 188 customer reviews on Amazon.com