Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

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

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

sarizonana i finally got the chance to watch this flick and it was OK. the story is fine and some interesting moments.but the performances were so weak and Boring. they all looked like they were asleep, especially the actor actor who played the marquise.he didn't show emotion and he doesn't have the charisma and personality to play Sade.Geoffreys performance in Quills may have been a little inaccurate but it still was much better and entertaining.not only Geoffrey was better also Kate Winslet as The Marquie's muse.another problem in this movie well there is not a memorable villain like Michael Caine

freedomFrog In France, in 1794, during the apex of the Reign of Terror, the scandalous marquis de Sade (Daniel Auteuil) finds himself, like many other nobles, waiting for the guillotine in one of the prison of the Republic. There, the young daughter of one of his inmate becomes fascinated by him and he becomes her tutor in the mysteries of love and libertine life."Sade" almost play like the anti-thesis of "Quills", another movie on the divine Marquis released the same year. The plot of "Quills" bears no relation to the historical reality while, on the contrary, the one of "Sade" put a great emphasis on historical accuracy. Contrary to the screenwriter of "Quills" who seemed to know next to nothing about the life and work of the real Marquis de Sade, the one of "Sade" obviously did his homework. Although taking some liberty with the facts (Sade was indeed imprisoned at the Picpus prison during the Terror but none of the events depicted in the movie actually happened; Sade's mistress did not sleep with one of Robespierre's henchmen in order to save the marquis from the guillotine), this movie is overall an accurate portrayal of the author of "Justine": a libertine, yes but also a philosopher and a critic of the society he was living in with a sarcastic sense of humor. Auteuil's performance is mesmerizing even though its choice to play the Marquis is a little bit surprising since, by the time, after years of imprisonment in the prison of the King, the divine Marquis was obese.The immorality of the Marquis which leaded to crimes only on paper is contrasted with the morality of Robespierre and his followers which leaded to real crimes in reality. Here again, the movie displays the same attention to details and historical accuracy that it did in the portrayal of the marquis: the history buff will notice Robespierre's tinted glasses, the fact that he is brought to the guillotine with a broken jaw or the depute jumping out of a window of the Paris town hall during the incorruptible's arrest.But the movie is brought down by its unimaginative direction, more typical of a made-for-TV movie than a feature film and a limited budget leading to low production values: the costumes are superb but the historical realism is kind of ruined by the generic set that fails to convey the atmosphere of revolutionary France the movie try so hard to convey.Yet, for someone intrigued by the Marquis de Sade or the French Revolution, "Sade" is a nice portrayal of an extreme man who lived in some extreme times.

alberich68 While there is much to admire in the performances, writing, and photography (especially the way the Marquis' sometimes greenish-black hue contrasts to Emilie's fair skin), the central thesis of the film is a little hard to swallow. Setting the story right at the nadir of revolutionary excess, where the nobility are being decapitated in the hundreds, the film-makers advance the notion that all the raping, maiming, and torturing in Sade's books are merely a joyous upwelling of the Life Forces amidst so much horror, like William Blake writing in a refugee camp. Yet this can only be made by transforming Sade from the bloodthirsty, all-screwing libertine that he was into a supercilious chattering class of one, a Cassandra who sees life even in the maggots swarming in his prison cell. Glimpses of his work are few and almost coy, while the sexual adventures of the other detainees get the full scan as neurotic and hypocritical. However they did recapture the dark wit that suffused Justine, and it that respect the Marquis is almost sympathetic.