VividSimon Simply Perfect

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

jawi-916-6704 Read the Peter Weiss play, and you'll find it to be a brilliant, multilayered, and meaningful work of art. The Peter Brook movie of it is anything but, and it helps to explain the downturn in highbrow British film c. 1967-1974. Peter Brook's baleful influence had to have encouraged the nihilistic pretentiousness of "A Clockwork Orange," "The Ruling Class," and all of Ken Russell.1. Grotesque ugliness for its own sake. Brook and his makeup artists have a field day with drooling "crazies" and perfectly elocuting clown-face choruses. If you've ever wanted to see Brad Pitt's performance in "Twelve Monkeys" multiplied by 20, by all means watch this movie.2. Allegedly good actors horrendously overacting: Glenda Jackson, Patrick Magee, Freddie Jones, and Ian Richardson (he of the unblinking stare) are all terrible.3. Maddening, gimmicky cinematography: fish-eye lens, blaring overexposed white light, blurriness.4. The worst nightmare sequence ever, added by Brook.5. A stupidly violent conclusion that also departs from Weiss.Basically the movie is for pseudo-intellectuals who are looking for a way to slum it whilst still claiming highbrow credentials. Read the play instead.

preppy-3 This takes place in 1808 in an insane asylum. The Marquis de Sade (Patrick Magee) puts on a play of an assassination for an audience. He uses the other inmates as actors. Things slowly get out of hand leading to a truly horrifying ending.I first caught this way back in 1980 at a center for adult education. It was a video of the movie shown for free. The picture was murky and the sound was terrible. Still I sat through it. I just caught it again (over 20 years later) on cable. This time I could see and hear it clearly. I'm not going to pretend that I understand what this is about, aside from the basic premise about a bunch of inmates putting on a play, and I do know it was based on a stage play. Still, I watched all 2 hours. The acting is great across the board but Magee, Ian Richardson and Glenda Jackson (in her major film debut) are exceptional. The movie is disturbing--I realize these are all actors playing roles but they're so good that you believe everything you're seeing. The direction also is masterful--it opens up the play cinematically. It has an R rating but that's mostly for subject matter and a brief nude scene with Richardson. This isn't for everybody--some people will be bored silly by it--but for those who like challenging movies this fits the bill. The ending is very disturbing. I give it a 7.

Armel Patanian It has been a while since I have seen this film so I can't remember everything, but I'm going write a blurb based on how I remember feeling after viewing it. One aspect of the movie was brilliant and another was poor.The movie was generally boring to me and I fault the director for that. It felt like a filmed play, which may have been the intention, as it was originally a play. But I don't think it worked. The most engaging performance was that of Patrick Magee, who was already a seasoned film actor at the time, and I truly believe he helped bring much of the cinematic qualities. The rest of the performances felt amateurish, relatively, since portraying those who are mentally disturbed allows for more suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. The pacing needed to be more dynamic but it wasn't. And I would have liked it to be more pleasant to the eye with better photography and set design -- some eye candy to keep the interest. I say that because what ends up happening is that words become the main focus. Focusing entirely on words takes away the essence of a film. You have the opportunity to include so much subtlety and such a unique perspective and to not have it seems a shame.But now there is the other side. The screenplay, the story and the concepts are nothing short of phenomenal. It is highly academic but not arrogant and is very rewarding if the investment in understanding the history relied on is made. So interesting was the commentary and the philosophy it asserted and so clever was the manipulation and method by which it was illustrated. I give great credit to all of the writing involved.Although, I was not impressed with this film either cinematically nor in the sense of a significant number of the performances, the rest was enough for me to award it a seven out of ten. I feel it was enough to make it worth viewing and I would love to see the play if directed as cleverly as the words deserve. It was smart and different... two commendable qualities that are in short supply.

LCShackley This film and play were especially popular in the 60s, because at that time you could get an audience by promising lots of violence and sex on stage (although this movie is mild compared to the current crop). Marat/Sade became one of those things that the "in crowd" had to claim to have seen. The actors in the original production (look for Glenda Jackson's comments) hated the play because it was so harrowing and demanding; it grates upon the audience, too. If you enjoy lots of pretentious posing, shouting, and gratuitous rudeness, then submit yourself to this agonizing bit of cinema.One good thing: watching this film finally clarified for me where the Bonzo Dog Band got the song line: "We are normal and we want our freedom!" Which is what I began to shout about 20 minutes in...