AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

gahnsuksah This movie allows the French to give their own version of Sade and is historically accurate to the extent that it contains references to Sade's actual beliefs, as they appeared in print, and events in his life that have been corroborated. Sade turns out to be a thoughtful, philosophical man who looks at life head-on without illusions about the supernatural; moreover, the Sade of this movie is remarkably free from malice, cruelty and resentment.The script is well thought out, offering every point of view, and depicts some wonderful tender moments when he bids farewell to his protégé who similarly returns his affections with substance and sincerity, for she has undergone 'a learning experience'. No sign of wanton cruelty or mindless prurience there.Splendid acting, thoroughly believable characters, each individual a depiction of concord or dissent, the film shows every opinion circulating during the Revolution. The story does not portray 'the seduction of a young girl' for she is totally willing to accede to Sade's predilections and simply wants to experience life - that which her class and religion has denied her - before joining her ex-nobles at the guillotine.There are very few pictures of Sade that remain and it is difficult to assess how his physiognomy was representative of his disposition. Was he a besotted blockhead or just an unusual philosopher? Anyone who looks into the history of Sade's life is surprised by just how un-monstrous he turns out to be. Generous, tolerant and life-affirming, Sade was more simply a libertine - one who regards freedom of sexual expression a desirable thing and encourages people to get acquainted with their animal passions. His matter-of-fact atheism and his love of nature make him a very likable man - far preferable to the unhealthy vengeful Christianity that loves sending unbelievers to hell and eternal torment - for there be another version of sadism, indeed.And concerning sado-masochism, who amongst us has not enjoyed a massage that was a bit too strong, or a little spanky-panky in their sex life? Sade does not advocate thoughtless cruelty and his sex acts are strictly consensual among those with eclectic tastes. Hm-mm.

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.

dromasca 'Sade' is based on the same thesis as 'Quills' (which was better) - in a period of revolution, leading from the decadent monarchy of Louis XVI through the bloody Revolution to the imperial demagogy of the Napoleon era, the legendary marquis de Sade was not a problematic libertine author, but rather an early symbol of freedom of speech. An 18th century Flint, if you want! Well, if you accept this angle, the two films can be judged as worth watching.The French version is rather conventional, but well made and acted, in the style of the French historical cinema (the good one). You certainly can get confused, as you may not understand all the political nuances, which are certainly familiar to any French collegian, but you cannot be indifferent to the well played theme of expecting death, counting back the days and hours before the guilotine falls. Art ('Art'?) and Love ('Love'?) are victors over fear and death - this is the central message. Mass graves and fear are unfortunately still true in the 21th century as well. So is the permanent fight between freedom of expression and dictatorial puritanism.The rithm of the film is rather slow, but acting is solid. 'Quills' was better, because it went even further with its central theme. However, 'Sade' is also worth watching. 7/10 on my personal scale.

chichi-3 This movie deals more with Sade as a philosopher than with the sex-addict whose writings later gave birth to a new disciplin : sexology. The Sade depicted here begins to age and is the prey of anxiety for his life (his life is threatened by Robsespierre' s hatred in the revolutionary turmoil) and about getting old and still having some books and plays to write. In 1794, he sits in a "luxury" prison, thanks to the help of his mistress who "sees" a friend of Robespierre, and undertakes to complete the "education" of a young Emilie de Lancry. He first faces the hostility of his environment, who is too aware of his reputation, but then, since they are all there eventually to be waiting for their death, they respond in various degrees to his claims for spiritual freedom and to take advantage of the joys of the moment that could be the last. Auteuil has always been a good actor but he is truly magnificent here and is by himself enough of a good reason to see the film...