XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

lazarillo This semi-biographical/semi-fictional account of the Marquis of de Sade (the great Daniel Autiel) is set during the "reign of terror" period of the French Revolution. The Jacobin revolutionaries had no idea what to do with Sade, who had been freed from the Bastile in 1789, but was also a symbol of the decadence of the noble class with his undisguised atheism, his sex crimes that had scandalized even the other decadent nobles, and above all his scandalous, decadent, and blasphemous plays and novels. So they put him into a "asylum"/prison on the estate of a hypocritical/opportunistic nobleman-doctor, along with a lot of other noble families hiding out from the terror (and paying financially for the privilege). There they reassert the old order, for instance, with wealthier noblemen taking liberty with the pretty young wives of poorer nobleman. Sade meanwhile tries to put on his scandalous plays under the aegis of the new regime and supposedly to preach AGAINST atheism. This movie covers roughly the same territory as "Marat/Sade" and "Quills", but drops any idea of Sade actually being insane. Here he is portrayed as quite sane--and even heroic--in comparison to the hypocrites surrounding him.This particular movie focuses less on his work though and more on two fictionalized (if not entirely fictional) subplots. One involves Sade's manipulation of the mother of his child, who is now the mistress of a high-ranking Jacobin, "Fournier", who she in turn manipulates to save Sade from the guillotine. "Fournier" is a sympathetic character, a child of the revolution who is doomed to be eaten by it, and Sade indirectly but skillfully manipulates him like a character in his one of his plays.The perhaps more interesting and certainly more sexy story involves Sade befriending the young daughter of a rich nobleman (Isild LeBesco), who he seems to simultaneously be sexually debauching for his own amusement while also saving her from the guillotine by getting her pregnant by other men (of lowlier social stations, of course). 17-year-old LeBesco is absolutely incredibly here. First off, is her truly unique looks--she is pale and blue-eyed, but actually part Asian, and is capable of looking both "ugly" and very beautiful. Second, is her voluptuous body which is just unambiguously beautiful (and not surprisingly, she shows it off a lot in her movies). Most significantly though is her ACTING. She goes toe-toe with Auteil as a precocious young girl who is intellectually Sade's equal, but still a virgin naïf in sexual matters. Her "deflowering" scene is absolutely incredible as once again Sade conducts a near-orgy like it's one of his plays.This probably isn't the most historically accurate account of the Marquis De Sade (having read of the truly appalling "120 Days of Sodom", I have trouble believing the real guy was this moral and NOT in some sense insane). But it's a very enjoyable movie.

dragokin I remember there has been another movie about de Sade in 2000. French Sade was more philosophically inclined, whereas international production Quills went for a theatrical experiment.The problems with Sade arise if you're informed about the main protagonist beyond the image of grumpy adventurer delivered in the movie. But this is also where we might ask ourselves whether movies about historical events should be based on facts or author's vision.Either way, Marquis de Sade is past his heyday and seemingly with some regrets. He needs some convincing in order to expose the youngsters to the pleasures of the flesh, eventually revealing just a fraction of his experience. I guess the historical figure wouldn't have hesitated from using and abusing everyone in sight, especially if there had been a possibility to get away with it.The movie paints de Sade's portrait as a disillusioned eccentric rather than a homicidal pervert he actually had been. Therefore only two stars.

MartinHafer This is an extremely competent movie technically. The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis. I really thought there were no problems at all with these aspects of the film. Instead, I was a bit annoyed by the way the Marquis was portrayed, as it didn't seem all that honest and seems to be a very revisionistic view of history. In fact, in recent years, the Marquis has undergone a bit of a transformation to a defender of freedom with great insight, not the fat sado-masochist rapist he really was. In a way, this is highly reminiscent of the whitewash given in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLINT--where these men are elevated to hero status. Even if you don't think that the Marquis' perversions weren't all that bad (they included rapes and extreme violence), his portrayal in this film as a "sexual social worker" in this prison seems pretty silly. Instead of the violent and selfish Sade, he spends a lot of time carefully grooming a young virgin and slowly helps her to explore her own sensuality. What a nice and kind man. In fact, now that I think about it, this performance reminds me of the man Maurice Chavalier played in GIGI (but without the singing)--a cute older man who loves the ladies. I strongly doubt the real-life Marquis de Sade would have recognized this character at all!The film, surprisingly, doesn't have a lot of nudity, though what it does show is extremely explicit. Only a maniac would let their kids see this as this is a very adult drama. It's very well-made and pretty entertaining--just not all that truthful. The director admits that the film is largely fictional in the interview among the special features on the DVD I watched. So go ahead and see the film if you'd like--understanding it just isn't very good historically. During the 18th century, sexual libertines were quite accepted in France as they were pretty broad-minded, so despite what the movie implies it wasn't SEX that was the issue, it was the violence and rape that was (and still is) the problem.

Ralph Michael Stein Not too long ago we had an excellent portrayal of the Marquis de Sade by Geoffrey Rush in "Quills," a well acted, fast-paced, tense distortion of Sade's stay at the notorious Charenton insane asylum. Plucking at our compassion demanding decent treatment of the mentally ill and our general revulsion against extreme physical "cures" for madness, "Quills" reminded us of the bad old days when the insane were brutalized by the inhumane.Now we have a very different marquis in "Sade," a film that has received some extravagant and, in my view, not fully deserved praise. It is a very interesting film, worth seeing (the full-scale guillotine in action is worth the price of admission). But it's not great.Daniel Auteuil (Sade) is a very fine actor, one of the most interesting and versatile in both English and French language roles. His Sade is remarkably laid back given the Terror, the uncertainty of survival in a rest home cum upper class jail. For a man whose writings are permeated with lurid descriptions of sexual acts of every kind and who describes his own participation on most pages of many books, Auteuil's Sade comes across as a man on holiday from his perversions. Geoffrey Rush was closer to the soul of Sade (he had one, you know).Sade befriends a very able actress, Isild Le Besco, "Emilie," an awakening teenage noblewoman at first repelled by and then saturninely attracted to her new mentor. Sade informs her that he is indeed a "libertine" who has done it all but, unfortunately, he expresses himself with the same passion that a first time-invited dinner guest to my home will mention that he is a vegetarian.The real marquis was a fiery character and not just on paper. Imprisoned (as he was most of his life), he rallied angry protestors outside the walls of his jail with such effect that he was immediately whisked off the premises to another facility. Thus he missed the storming of the Bastille the next day (which would have resulted in at least his temporary liberation), an event that has given France a great holiday and made it easier for many to remember my birthday.The machinations of Robespierre (and one of his lieutenants who shares a bed with Sade's still involved mistress, by whom he has a cute kid,) are almost tepid given the fervor of that madman's mode of governance. So tame is this Robespierre that I almost felt badly for him when he went for the Big Haircut.Auteuil is much too detached for his character and for the times. When he expounds on his libertine philosophy to Emilie and anyone who will listen he sounds like a present day alternative-press sex columnist on a time warp trip. Sade stirred things up wherever he was confined. In this film even the one scene of intense sexual passion appears to almost bore him.The cinematography is impressive. Perhaps to avoid being described as a period piece, instead of music associated with the French Revolution (not a bar of the Marsellaise) the music of Poulenc provides some of the background. Poulenc and the French Revolution?An interesting but overpraised film.