Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.
Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.
mark.waltz The audience for this curious tale of the man whose name created the term sadomasochism gets to see his personal life through two angles. First, there is the reality of what is happening, and then there is how he apparently views it, in red filter tones that look like something out of your worst nightmare. A ton of bare busted women all get physically and sexually abused by this aristocrat who demands pain with pleasure simply because it amuses him. If he isn't whipping some female, he is reminding them of his power over them. Taking his story back to his childhood and the abuse is from his wicked uncle, John Huston, this still doesn't get any sympathy into his story. Basically however, there really is no story and while artistically impressive it does not make for a good tale of debauchery. What could have been a psychological look into the life of a man who didn't even warrant a listing in my biographical dictionary which lists many people who probably never even get looked up.Told through an apparent stage performance of him looking back at his life with the ghostly presence of uncle Huston, this suffers not only from the lack of a real story but many dry patches that create a dull flow. A better version of the de Sade story wasn't actually a biography, but a 4 film where on alleged descendants of the marquis begins to believe that he is him. So for entertainment value at least, check out Mickey Hargitay in Bloody Pit of Horror and skip this one unless witnessing somebody's acid trip is truly your thing.
Jonathon Dabell Considering that it is penned by the late, great Richard Matheson and directed by Cy Endfield (of Zulu fame), with additional scenes helmed by Roger Corman, the credentials seem to be in place for De Sade to be a rather fascinating movie. The talent behind the camera is more than matched in front of it too, with a cast of some distinction including Keir Dullea, John Huston, Lilli Palmer and Senta Berger. Despite the promising elements, alas, the film is an absolute damp squib. It fails as art, it fails as exploitation; and as entertainment it offers virtually nothing. The film doesn't so much miss an opportunity as collapse with scarcely a whimper.Fugitive the Marquis De Sade (Keir Dullea) seeks refuge at his ancestral home, where he is persuaded to watch a bizarre play arranged for his entertainment by his uncle, the Abbe (John Huston). The play depicts a distorted recount of the Marquis's own life, and is intercut with his own fragmentary flashbacks to his earlier life and debaucheries. Much is made of the De Sade's uneasy link to Madame De Montreuil (Lilli Palmer), mother of two daughters, both of whom have relationships with the young Marquis. He reluctantly marries the eldest sister, Renee (Anna Massey), even though he finds her dull and plain and lusts much more openly after her younger sister Anne (Senta Berger). De Sade mistreats Renee horribly, and is involved in debauchery after debauchery, orgy after orgy, scandal after scandal; bringing great shame upon the family and earning himself a reputation as a debased and depraved individual.So, where does a film about such a potentially intriguing subject go so horribly wrong? The blame can be apportioned quite evenly – first comes Matheson's script: a dreadful mess which attempts, unsuccessfully, to evoke a nightmarish dream, fragmented memories of a dying man. Second is the lacklustre performance of Dullea as the title character, a crashing bore as interpreted by the actor (he is totally upstaged by everyone around him, particularly Palmer). And thirdly, the attempts to inject permissive, orgiastic and titillating excesses – sex and depravity chief amongst them – are woefully unconvincing. Dullea romps beneath the bedsheets with several women at once, pouring wine into their mouths while gorging on grapes, but the overwhelming impression one gets is of something utterly unerotic and unstimulating. The character looks more like a 'Jack the Lad' - a 'swinger' for want of a better word – than a dangerous and perverted corrupter of young souls. The film is at least richly photographed, with lavish sets and costumes, but these touches do not save it. They merely nudge it a notch or two above the dreaded one- star rating that it would otherwise deserve. Whichever way you look at it De Sade is a notable failure, a film as forgotten and obscure as it deserves to be,
artisticengineer Though I did not see this movie until recently I remember it's theatrical release in 1969. This was the film that Keir Dullea made immediately after his performance in "2001: A Space Odyssey", and by sheer irony the two films seem to be connected. As David Bowman his last scenes in "2001" took place in a French room that was decorated in French style. He left that room, in a very mysterious way, in that movie and seems, in "De Sade", to have continued with the French decor. However, his performance in this movie is very disappointing- particularly compared to his performance in "2001". In fact, the entire movie is a big disappointment.I am of the opinion that if you have naked women and sex in a movie then it cannot be a total flop. And, in fact, the naked women in this film were the only thing that made this movie bearable to watch. As this movie was made in 1969 there were some aspects of female nudity they still could not show on the screen- they had to concentrate on breasts and butts back then. Nothing wrong with womens breasts and butts, but the total nudity that could be shown in movies by the late 1970s was still off limits in 1969. If you examine this film you will see that though there is a lot of female nudity in it; there is still a lot of "suggestion"-they could not show everything back then. And, that includes the sadistic scenes. Some sadism is shown but not enough to show how De Sade earned his reputation.One very good thing about the DVD release of this movie is the recent (in the year 2001) interview with the writer Richard Mathison concerning the historical Marquis De Sade. He gives a bit of history about De Sade, and how he was actually something of a nice guy in real life. The movie could have taken an interesting turn (it almost did but not quite) on examining whether or not we are all sadists at heart. Sometimes the best thriller or mystery story is the one that ends with the perpetrator being discovered and finding that the bad guy is the one whose face is seen in the mirror (i.e. the observer). But, as disorganized as this movie is that aspect was not shown.I remember this movie been considered disappointing in 1969. Thirty Eight years later it still is.
nunculus I haven't seen Clark Gable in the now-mythic PARNELL, but KeirDullea, surely recruited for his hotness in 2001, takes the cake inthis 1969 A.I.P. telling of the life of the great whippersnapper. Theidea of translating the agonies and ecstasies of Sade into drive-interms is mouth-watering, but, aside from a few Jess Francozooms into undulating backsides (shot through whorehouse-redfilters), you're stuck in snoozeville with an empty tank of gas.Worse (or perhaps better?), Dullea manages to make everyeighteenth-century line sound like a college basketball player'sattempt not to cry in front of Coach.
