In a nutshell, Quills is a fictionalized tale of the Marquis de Sade's (Geoffrey Rush) institutionalization in an insane asylum.
Perpetrator of crimes of perversity, de Sade belongs in a prison but his wife manages to wrangle him a spot in a progressive (at the time) institution where he is spoiled with personal luxuries and privileges. The well-intentioned Abbe Colmier (Joaquin Phoenix) encourages de Sade to purge his deviant thoughts by writing them down. This theraputic approach backfires when corrupt laundress Madeleine (Kate Winslet) smuggles de Sade's writings out of the institution where they are published and sold. In turn, an enfuriated Napolean sends cruel and acquisitive Dr. Collard (Michael Caine) in to cure or otherwise silence de Sade. The movie surrounds the repeatedly failed efforts of the doctor and Abbe to prohibit de Sade from writing his pornography.
I'm not exactly sure who the ideal target audience for Quills might be. Dialogue and physical behavior are too graphically sexual for your mom. Being a period piece, it's too high-brow for horny teenagers. I suppose it appeals to artsy Yuppie types who will want to interpret it as a deep and meaningful statement. But is it? Not really; the movie is as hypocritical at the characters it satires.
Quills intends to paint de Sade as some sort of free speech martyr. The first half of the movie sets the stage well. All of the acting is outstanding, bar none. You believe that de Sade is an intelligent and witty dirty-old-man who could author tales that would make one both gasp and giggle. Rush portrays him with a flair that is just plain fun to watch. Phoenix is believable as a stiff and naive do-gooder. Winslet, too, does her part well. The dialogue is entertaining and surprisingly funny.
But there are problems with the movie. First, the premise. I'm no prude, but is someone who writes extremely violent, sexually depraved prose a hero? Is this the kind of free speech that we should get all excited about rallying behind? I'm not even going to begin to address that myself. I'm thinking more of how the movie addresses it. It certainly appears that every person who is tainted by de Sade spirals into moral decadence and perishes one way or another. He appears to precipitate rapes, deaths, and general mayhem. And he's not presented as a character who is in the least bit likable. Should we really care that anybody wants to shut him up? At first he appears resourceful and clever, but his persistence quickly makes him appear as loosely-hinged as the rest of his asylum roomies.
de Sade disdains everyone and everything, and his writing appears to be a simple effort to act out his hostility and essentially spit on principles and morals and people who either have them or pretend to. As perverse as his writings may be, he's not alone. Every single character in the movie is presented as a totally unlikeable, morally bankrupt creep. Perhaps that's the point of the movie? There is no such thing as a moral man, so why be hypocritical and ban dirty books? Well, yes and no.
Although the characters are rotten, often that is directly linked to de Sade's pen. The doctor's young wife, for example, is shown as a victimized innocent... until she reads de Sade's book, learns how to give a proper blow job, and screws over her SOB of a husband by running off with the hired help. The other laundresses seem content enough, yet the one who reads de Sade is the one breaking rules, getting raped, trying to seduce a priest, and ultimately getting killed. Etc. Etc. Even if you are intrigued with the notion that all "moral" people are id-driven hypocrites, it isn't very entertaining to watch. Most of us like to have as least one character we can identify with, admire, or like when we watch a movie. This movie has none.
As the movie progresses, the gratuitous nature of the violence and sex becomes excessive. I could live without seeing Jeoffrey Rush in full frontal nudity, and it really adds nothing to the story. The priest has a necrophiliac wet dream. The priest goes so far as to mutilate de Sade in order to try to silence him. We get to see rapes, murders, arsons, etc. In all the chaos, the point - if there was one - gets lost. It simply gets tiring to watch the overkill.
Ironically, when the our martyr finally bites it - along with the laundress and the Abbe - everything plays out happily. The doctor takes over the facility and restores order. All the little crazy people seem like contented worker bees, and life goes on. If anything, the movie seems to reverse itself and demonstrate the beauty of iron-ruled fascism. Perhaps the irony is supposed to wow us with yet another level of hypocrisy. I found it wearying after 2 hours.
More subtly and more clearly and consistently presented, the movie might have had promise. The acting is unquestionably excellent, but the plot and point get muddied along the way. In the end, this becomes a loser of movie. We hate all the characters and hate the director for wasting our time with a movie that has a lot of decoration but no real substance. Quills is simply a pointless exercise.
A Catholic priest is drawn into the provocative and dangerous world of the Marquis de Sade, as he and the Marquis vie for the soul of a beautiful youn...More at HotMovieSale.com
Oscar winner Geoffrey Rush gives a tour-de-force performance as history s most infamous sexual adventurer, the Marquis de Sade, a nobleman with a lite...More at Buy.com
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.