Quills(in Hollywood Movies) Quills (2000) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Quills on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: The infamous writer, the Marquis de Sade of 18th Century France, is imprisoned at Charenton Insane Asylum for unmentionable activities. He manages to befriend the young Abbé de Coulmier, who runs the asylum, along with a beautiful laundress named Madeline. Things go terribly wrong when the Abbe… Runtime: 124 min Release Date: 25 Dec 2000
The first rule of politics: The man who orders the execution NEVER DROPS THE BLADE. (by Anonymous_Maxine)
Quills is the modernized story of the Marquis de Sade, whose steamy writings whipped France into a sexual fury in the late 18th Century. And by modernized I mean that it has been told through the experiences of a lot of French people who speak English and with British accents. But no matter, I'm willing to accept that everyone in France in 1800 spoke perfect British even if only because of Geoffrey Rush's brilliant performance. With every movie that he comes out with I become more and more convinced that there is nothing he can't do.In order to know virtue, as the Marquis <more>
explains, one must first understand vice. In Philip Kaufman's Quills, the focus is on the Marquis de Sade after his writing has taken him beyond the artistic freedom generally accepted in the 18th and 19th centuries, even to elite aristocracy like himself. It is a detailed exploration of the events that led from him being a social elitist to living almost three decades in prison, writing things that caused his keepers to make it so difficult for him to write that he ultimately uses his own blood and excrement for ink, and his clothing, the walls of his cell, and his own skin as parchment.Luckily for the Marquis, at first anyway, is that there is something of an understanding priest in the Abbe du Coulmier, another wonderful performance from Joaquin Phoenix. An intensely religious man, Coulmier believes that the Marquis should be allowed to write, if only to purge himself of the sadism with which his head is filled and which would later be named after him.Kate Winslet plays Madeleine, a laundry maid who smuggles the Marquis' writing out of the asylum so that it can be published, for which many people are not happy, but many others are. The Marquis dips into the extensive world of the forbidden sexual taboos of the 18th and 19th centuries, writing extensively about them without a care in the world for propriety. One may wonder to what extent the Marquis' writings were such a hit because they were forbidden, or because of their lewd content, which may euphemistically be described as guilty pleasures for the masses. Indeed, Larry Flynt was not working, so graphic pornography was something of a rarity.There is a curious relationship between the Marquis and a physician named Royer-Collard, played by Michael Caine, who is assigned to law down the law with the Marquis and prevent him from writing anymore. The glee with which the Marquis mocks and taunts him are some of the best parts of this outstanding film. There is a great parallel between the two characters, as well. Royer-Collard pretends to be a moral role model, at the same time taking a wife who is young enough to be his daughter, possibly even his granddaughter, and treats the Marquis with exactly the same sadistic if I can again use the term for the behavior for which the Marquis would later be named behavior that he condemns that Marquis for writing about. Both men engage in many of the same practices, it's just that the Marquis makes no attempt and has no interest in hiding his interests in the pleasures of the flesh.I think that the most important thing to remember about this movie is that it is able to deal with a person who's beliefs are, I like to think, below the moral compasses of most of the people who will watch the movie, but it's not about what he was writing, it's about the fact that he was writing at all. It's about his defiance in the face of a corrupt moral authority, his insistence on maintaining an artistic expression that was not well received but that was certainly therapeutic to him. Sure, his sanity is in question, to say the least, but as they say, genius is often associated with madness.What a great coincidence, too, because so is Geoffrey Rush.
I originally went to see this one in a movie theater on a whim - I was feeling spontaneous, so I bought a ticket for a movie I knew nothing about, and went in free of preconceptions or expectations.The cleverness of the very first scenes brought a smile to my face, and I knew I was in for a rare treat; off the top of my head, I can't think of a movie with a better conceived, audience grabbing opening sequence.And the impression lasted throughout this great film. Quills is a passionate and entertaining! cry in defense of artistic freedom, and the fundamental freedoms of speech and <more>
religion; and it is a deliciously clever movie, both in dialog and in plot. It is actually a movie that has something to say, and does it in an entertaining, engaging way that doesn't leave the audience feeling that they are being lectured to or talked down to. A few scenes are gruesome and unpleasant, but they, I think, are a necessary evil for the telling of the story, not a gratuitous shock-tactic.The performances are excellent throughout, and the storyline is will firmly claim and keep your attention. Quills is the sort of movie that you don't forget, and that'll linger on in your mind long after you've seen it.I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone - even if it doesn't sound like the type of movie you'd normally go for. I for one am very glad that I happened to be feeling spontaneous the day I went to see it, because otherwise I would most likely have missed it. So give your spontaneity a chance if you happen upon Quills in your local movie rental place.
Philip Kaufmann has produced yet another amazing piece of work (by zetes)
Quills is one of the best films of 2000, in my reckoning, second best only to You Can Count on Me. It is one of the most brilliantly directed, acted, produced, and written films I've seen in a very long time. There is not a major character in this film that is not very complex, and the issues at stake are utterly important.Perhaps the greatest success of the film is how well it works on commenting both on its own time and situations and our own world today. The issues of free speech, creativity, dementia, corporal punishment, religion, sexuality and especially politics are woven into <more>
the film in amazing ways. Yes, politics, for it works as an allegory to the recent presidential scandals. There are two flaws, one major, one semi-major. The semi-major one involves the epilogue. It is not bad, but it is unnecessary. Perhaps the best way to describe it is superfluous and predictable. The major flaw would destroy any lesser film. Here, it is hardly noticable. Still, if one contemplates it, there is no getting around it. There is never a believable reason why Madeleine should be so helpful to the Marquis de Sade. They present a tiny one, but it is not good enough.Still, with its successes elsewhere, these flaws do not weaken this film. Without them, it would have been perfect. With them, well, just because it is flawed, doesn't mean it isn't a masterpiece. 10/10
This was a good movie, but I thought it had somewhat of an unsatisfsying ending well, to me anyway . Sad too. It moves nicely, though and you don't want to be interrupted. It can get rather graphic at times, but that's mainly because of the subject material, I guess. Geoffrey Rush is brilliant.He has a real knack for bringing strange and twisted characters to life. Michael Caine is doing his usual job of being superb as well. Every new role Kate Winslet performs is different from the previous and she excels every time. She expresses emotion very well. And my goodness, Joaquin <more>
Phoenix. I wouldn't say that I was ever a *fan* of his, but damn, now I am. If there was ever a performance that just made me melt, this was it. The restrained emotions and frustration of unfulfilled desires of his character were just performed brilliantly. This guy's an amazing actor.
Geoffrey Rush in a brave, Oscar-worthy performance, and a story an interesting as most anything this year; one of the year's best. ***1/2 out of four (by Movie-12)
QUILLS / 2000 ***1/2 out of four By Blake French: "To know virtue we must aquatint ourselves with vice." Marquis de Sade Philip Kaufman's "Quills" will leave some audiences cheering and others disappointed and disgusted; there are good logical arguments from both sides. One of the most controversial movie of the year, "Quills, " based on the play by Douglas Wright, doesn't entirely examine the torpid mind of the disreputable 18th century French author, the Marquis de Sade, but instead indicates the impact his sexually and sadistically explicit <more>
literary work influenced the public. The biggest argument could be made with the sanity of Marquis de Sade himself, as whether he was a perverted, sex-obsessed psychopath or simply a spirited aristocrat who only stood for artistic expression and freedom of speech. The movie's characters take their own sides; after becoming aware of the authors material, Napoleon wants de Sade Geoffrey Rush shot dead at the insane asylum he is being held at, but instead a sadistic torturer named Dr. Royer-Collard Michael Caine is assigned to take charge of the patient; the virginal laundress Madeleine Kate Winslet , thinks de Sade is a writer, not a madman, and helps to smuggle his erotic stories out of the institution for public publication; the asylum priest, Adde Coulmier Joaquin Phoenix , first befriends de Sade and grants him special privileges, but once he discovers the extremity of his subversive ideas, he reluctantly changes opinions. De Sade inarguably had some fanatical fantasies, but the film leaves it up to us to realize his lustful imagination captured on paper are transpired due to his inability to experience them in the real world outside of his chambers. The subject is carnal and a bit unsettling, and the movie exploits the eroticism clearly on screen; the film is strictly intended for mature audiences. But director Philip Kaufman "The Right Stuff" does not portray the likes of de Sade in a disturbing manner, but keeps the story engaging. The atmosphere feels accurate and convincing, and the movie is not without humor and the expected material found within the mental institution, like the patient who thinks he is a bird, a pyromaniac, and the hulking horny guy who has his mind set out on raping any human with two legs with no external organs between them. There are a few scenes that could have captured the audience a bit more exclusively. However the entirely convincing, intense, brave, Oscar worthy performances by Michael Caine and Geoffrey Rush make up for that. The Marquis was an extremely complex individual, and Rush captures that through a character without heart or compassion, but with spirit and zest; even though de Sade went through each day with suffering, he still approached life with insight, ambition and curiosity. He is so determined to fulfill his need to write his perverse ideas, after forbidden and when his quills are taken away he still prevails by using blood, wine, and feces in the place of ink, and his clothes, sheets, and walls as paper. De Sade stands as an example that society is most successfully established when people understand that we are all simply expressions of our own nature, that it is most healthy to declare our motives and passions to ourselves. He is also a prime example of self-control, and that freedom of speech only carries us so far. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Marquis de Sade was to live in present times and if he was to exploit his ideas on screen or in novels. I think he would push the envelope to yet another level and have quite an influence on today's society. I hope people who see the artful "Quills" share their opinions with one another, after all, that is the reason why filmmakers make movies like these.
A dark film that is a bit long but pays off (by PersianPlaya408)
This is the first Philip Kaufman film I have seen, and I was impressed. Although it isn't the most pleasant to watch, its great. A dark look at an insane erotic storywriter named Marquis De Sade Rush and his stay an asylum run by religious priest Abbe Du Coulmier Phoenix . While there he befriends a laundrette named Madeleine Winslet . The film has great performances, a brilliantly written script and great direction, although running a little over an hour the story is so rich and characters developed well enough for one to really enjoy it. Like I said it wasn't the most pleasant, <more>
however it is a bit exaggerated and satirical account. My favorite performance came from Joaquin Phoenix, who was great, however Geoffrey Rush was better than I have ever seen him, fully worthy of his Oscar nod. Michael Caine was decent in his role although i didn't feel his performance as much as i usually like him hes a fine actor . Kate Winslet was great in her role, this is my favorite acting from her besides Eternal Sunshine. The script is very good in this film, which is what makes it work, because a lot of these films about medieval, napoleonic, etc.. times in europe are a bit boring, but this one is quite entertaining. Although I didn't think the ending was perfect a bit flawed , i still enjoyed this film a lot. 9/10 #123 on my list of all time favorite films
In Life All You Need Is A Quill And A Paper (by alexkolokotronis)
Quills is a movie about the man The Marquis De Sade. If you are not familiar with him watching the movie would be advisable even though your own research might be better. The film follows him played amazingly by Geoffrey Rush in a insane asylum. Michael Caine who is an expert at "curing" people of their madness wishes to take a new approach at solving the mental in-capacities of the inmates of the Charenton. This of course it that of more brutal methods than that of the Abbe played by Joaquin Phoenix. What does seem of the least cruel of the punishments in this movie turns out to be <more>
the most costly, Sade is no longer allowed to write. This had dramatic affects on him and his state of mind.In the movie Geoffrey Rush simply shines. Here he proves once again how he has undoubtedly one of the most under appreciated actors around today. His performance is unique in that he plays a man considered perverse yet brilliant, a man of many self contradictions. As the film wears on Geoffrey Rush does not take the easy way out in making his performance extraordinary flashy, in fact it remains quite subtle. His subtly is what truly makes his performance great with the many underlying tones he carries. Michael Caine whenever in a film carries this great presence with him and continues to do so here. He is obviously a man of many secrets and I had wished he was given more screen time to study his more of his character motivations and actions. Kate Winslet and Joaquin Phoenix play well in this movie but have had better performances which is a true testament to their abilities.The writing of the movie is very good in that the movie remains interesting throughout. What fails though is the directing. It was solid but refused took unnecessary turns in the film. The romantic tension between Winslet and Phoenix was pushed upon the story a bit too hard and at times dragged away from what was a compelling enough of a theme: freedom of expression.Freedom of expression is something that we all have to have in our lives. If we do not have it we will go crazy like many of the inmates of the Charenton. Our ideas is what keeps us going and when that right is taken away from us our problem do not disappear they erupt. For example some people express their ideas through writing such as the Sade in this film. If that is taken away not only do we lose our sanity but along with it our very humanity. We can no longer differentiate between fantasy and reality as Geoffrey Rush so perfectly illustrates. That is what this film showed but unfortunately did not show enough of. If it had stayed more consistent with this theme and picked it apart in other aspects it would have reached at the height of greatness. Yet it did not and is very good recommendable film but not what it could have been.
Spoilers herein.When writers are in charge, the film is about writing. The device here is to weave and overlap three tried and true conventions:-The play within the play. Here, most everything deSade writes comes true, underscored by his actually producing a play in the film. As the writing deteriorates, so does the stability of the world.-The question of whether the inmates or their keepers are insane, here amplified by the cruel and ignorant techniques of the doctor.-The issue of whether writing is a compulsion on both parts writer and reader , and whether it is intrinsically noble.Two <more>
layers are created. The Battle Royale is fought between two method actors Caine and Rush wound so tight their acting is obvious. But this just underscores their roles in the play-within-the-play. Caine plays the smarmy, hypocritical, sanctimonious Republican senator a role that might not work as the film ages ; and Rush an equally uncomplicated compulsive. Between them on a different more `real' level are the continually tempted and confused Winslett and Phoenix. Their acting is more `natural,' as their world requires. Nothing about sex really IS, you know; rather always something deeper is involved. And so with this, the point to be made is that convention always stifles art, and art will always harness our natural energies and flourish. Despite lots of talk, the sex, and particularly the depravity are only window dressing here, and are actually less present than in your average film. The one exception is a necrophiliac encounter at the end, but whoops, it's only a dream folks so forget it. Even `Romeo and Juliet' is riskier in this regard than `Quills.' So unless you have problems with male nudity, this is pretty pale stuff. A much more interesting point is made, with more complexity and with much more disturbing obsession and depravity in the remarkable `The Pillow Book" with Ewan McGregor after he spotted trains and before he walked skies . See that first.I'm a fan of Winslett's. Her character is written as the center of this film, but she handily captures it anyway. She is very internal, perhaps too intelligent in projection for today's mass audience. Where Phoenix has the job of playing someone not in control, she has the relatively more difficult job of actually being in control, which makes her undoing more mysterious. Her role is worth seeing - the others are first class actors too, but she really charms. I will see anything with her in it and look forward to her maturity.Notable are two minor female roles, whose identity I cannot tease out from the credits. A woman is beheaded in the beginning. Later the doctor's young wife awakens sexually. These are simple but amazingly effective moments of passion and alone provide the patina of sex. There's some groping among servants, but it has little projection.
A baroque and quite entertaining film about the Marquis de Sade Geoffrey Rush and the conflicting reactions disgust, titillation, excitement, abhorrence his ideas and writings fostered in those exposed to them.Rush jumps into the character of de Sade with mad glee, and hardly any scenery is left after he's done chewing it all. He's a marvelous actor and one whose work goes slightly underrated. Also doing a fine job in this film is the ever-reliable Kate Winslet, and providing the ick factor he brings to every movie he's in is Joaquin Phoenix as a religious man who's <more>
disturbed by the naughty thoughts de Sade makes him realize he has.The costumes and production design are a delight and earned Oscar nominations, as did Rush for his performance.Grade: A