the audience applauded

Absolutely the worst movie.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Geoffrey Rush plays the slightly insane Marquis de Sade, a sexually explicit writer during 18th century France. Banished to an asylum, he still writes his naughty stories, smuggling them out through Kate Winslet, the laundress. While the powers that be want him to stay silent, Kate and his other readers are riveted. Meanwhile, the priest Joaquin Phoenix tries to hide his growing feelings for Kate, and Doctor Michael Caine is sent to evaluate the patient.If you like extremely naughty period pieces, you'll probably like Quills. It feels a bit over the top, but that tone is probably on purpose to fit in with the setting. A low-key film in a lunatic asylum just wouldn't work! Geoffrey does a very good job, but since he's not exactly likable, it's hard to root for him. If he had a compulsion to write dirty stories, why did he have to smuggle them out for public consumption? If his were the only eyes to read his work, it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. It also would have made for a much shorter movie.I didn't end up liking this film, because besides Michael Caine, I'm not a big fan of the cast. And, while I'm not exactly a prudish film-goer, I like the vulgarity to serve a purpose in the film, rather than just to titillate the audience. This film has excessive sexual content, both consensual and nonconsensual, and I felt like I needed a good cleansing afterwards.Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to sex scenes, nudity, violence, and strong sexual content, I wouldn't let my kids watch it. Also, there may or may not be rape scenes.

"Quills" was a difficult movie for me to watch. I don't get enjoyment out of seeing people being hurt. I don't find it entertaining to watch someone manipulate others who do harm to others or themselves. I watched it though, to see what Hollywood would make of a story of the Marquis De Sade. I should have known from the promotional ballyhoo the direction the movie would take. The film seems to celebrate the deviant behavior of a madman – as some sort of genius or repressed artist. And, it intimates that he was unjustly oppressed at the hands of evil sources. The IMDb listing has a Hollywood tag line: "In a Napoleonic era insane asylum, an inmate, the irrepressible Marquis De Sade, fights a battle of wills against a tyrannically prudish doctor." The DVD cover quoted from a New York Times review of the film that said it was "wickedly funny and very sexy." And, on Amazon.com, an editorial review refers to De Sade as "history's most infamous sexual adventurer." Nowhere in the buildup of the film is there the slightest reference to De Sade as someone with a mental disorder, with deviant behavior or who is pathological. But those are all terms that psychology has applied to such a character. It even coined a new term, based on his behavior, that describes him and others like him – sadomasochist.So, the marquis is "irrepressible?" That's a term used as much positively as negatively, as in an example from Webster's online dictionary – "a great shout of irrepressible laughter." And the doctor at the asylum is "tyrannically prudish." Neither of those words alone is used in a favorable light. Together, they are outright condemning. And, the marquis as an "adventurer," implies that he is on an exciting journey of discovery. So, the film is about a battle of the wills between good and evil. Only here it implies that sadomasochism is "good," and that other, socially acceptable behavior must be "evil." Consider these definitions that have come down to us in psychology. We get sadism from the name of the marquis. It is intentional cruelty that finds pleasure by inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others. It is often associated with sexual gratification from such behavior. Masochism is the enjoyment of one's own pain or humiliation. Sadomasochism is both. This film clearly portrays all of this, especially in the character of the marquis. My three stars are for Geoffrey Rush and his performance as the marquis. He indeed seems to be a person who relishes and revels in the deviant, and enjoys the hurt to himself and others. He has a little shock at the end to find that his promiscuity and goading of other asylum inmates leads to the killing of a girl. From what is known about sadomasochism though, his shock is not to be believed. He would probably have laughed about it as well, or shrugged it off. The film is admittedly a big piece of fiction. We're to believe that so many others – the workers in the asylum, and the general public were spellbound by De Sade's lascivious behavior and writing. Well, all except the pompous clergy and prudes of civil authority. De Sade's time was during the French Revolution, when madness ruled for many years and society lost its bearing. Civilization regressed for a time in France. I don't see a study of sexuality here, that one reviewer saw. Nor do I see De Sade as a creative genius, as a few see him. The Marquis De Sade was of noble birth and a French aristocrat. He was highly educated, and a philosopher of sorts. He was a revolutionary politician. He was a writer who was known for his promiscuity and deviant behavior, which he put down on paper. He also was a madman.This film came out in 2000, and the start of a new century and millennium. If this film, indicated by the praise for it in some quarters, is a sign of the changing times, will we soon see a reversal of mores? Will rape, murder, pornography, sexual abuse, personal assault and pathological behavior become the norm and no longer be abhorred? Will we soon see the loss of all morality, with tyranny replacing civilization? Praise of such films as this tells me that civilization may have begun to regress. But then, this may reflect just a small portion of society. Society is made up of many minorities. But, it can also come to be ruled by a minority that is destructive. We should remember that from Nazi Germany. Let's hope that most of society won't want to shuck its mores for unbridled freedom that leads to tyranny. This was not an entertaining film for me. Of all my family and friends, I can't think of one who would enjoy this movie. The only reason I could see for watching it would be to get a glimpse of sadomasochism, from its namesake. And, or to see how Hollywood yet in the 21st century will glamorize, gloss over or greatly fictionalize a subject.

The movie is by no means historically accurate, but if you're willing to look past that and focus on the undergoing theme, philosophy and above all entertainment value then you'll have a laugh you won't soon forget. Without spoiling anything, the movie deals with our primate sexuality, and mixes it with the unique unleashed id of various personas and how it stands in contrast to social norms and society. It feels so liberating when it is done in such a witty and funny provocative way. To quote Rush from the movie, it's about "eternal truths". Sure, if you're a chaste, celibate or asexual you won't find much deeper value in this movie, though the circumstantial humour really does add some sort of icing on the cake.Now for the bad part. The movie ends unnecessarily gruesomely and over-dramatized and knowingly altering a real-life death of a person in such a way is a much different thing than making a lot of stuff up about the rest of the person's life. If we are to be libertines, who cares if it's rude, though. But I'm afraid it does still spoil the whole premise and legacy of the movie, leaving only behind the very enjoyable experience prior to this.

Inspired by the life and work of the Marquis de Sade, Quills re-imagines the last years of the Marquis' incarceration in the insane asylum at Charenton. 'Quills' is an efficient film, but at the same time, not great stuff.To begin with, 'Quills' has some terrific moments and performances, and even takes you back in time, but the problem clearly lies in it's writing, which loses pace in the final 40-minutes. The violence goes over-board, the characters are put up selfishly and the nudity touches a new high.Philip Kaufman's direction is excellent. He truly understands the subject, but the final 40-minutes play a spoilsport. Rogier Stoffers's Cinematography is satisfactory. Peter Boyle's editing is razor-sharp at times, and loose at times.In the acting department, Geoffrey Rush as Marquis de Sade, is marvelous. Proving once again that he is amongst the best actors of Modern-Era. Joaquin Phoenix plays a commanding role, with restrain. Kate Winslet is very good, as expected. Surprisingly, Sir Michael Caine is over-the-top this time around, which disappoints you after a point.On the whole, this ain't no path-breaking cinema, but surely, a good effort. Nearly, a Thumbs Up!