Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Poseidon-3 It's pretty unlikely that in 1968 a heavily explicit depiction of the life of the infamous Marquis De Sade would hit cinema screens, but even taking that into consideration, this is a mostly pallid and ludicrous film. Dullea (horribly miscast) portrays the sexually depraved figure, a man who wrote works which shock people even today. The film opens with the Marquis taking refuge in a dilapidated castle where his life is reflected upon in a series of flashbacks and surreal theatrical performances, presided over by Dullea's uncle, an Abbe (played by Huston.) Time and place are distorted and conjoined erratically as the viewer is shown key moments in Dullea's childhood and young adulthood. He witnesses Huston whipping a young lady's bottom and is in turn whipped by her at the insistence of Huston. He marries Palmer's homely daughter Massey, though it is Massey's voluptuous sister Berger he really wants. Despite his marriage (and children), he continues a lifestyle of whoring and playing, which confounds Palmer. He spends a significant amount of time in prison for his immoral offenses until he is shown as an old man being seen to by a nun. Dullea (who is undeniably handsome and has sensational blue eyes, which are highlighted lovingly) is all wrong for this part. He isn't dynamic enough to shed any light on the man he's portraying and plays his orgy scenes like a fraternity brother, with a broad grin on his face and his tongue sticking out. He's clearly wearing bikini briefs under his period pants, something that was doubtfully part of De Sade's wardrobe! (In fact, most of the "sex" scenes involve a lot of frolicking about with the men mostly dressed and pouring wine all over. Not exactly most peoples' idea of a good time!) Huston tries to inject a lascivious touch into his role and succeeds somewhat, but it's all too choppy and sketchy to add up to much. Palmer looks sensational in the period clothes and wigs and probably comes off best since she is allowed to register indignation and despair regarding Dullea. Massey is appropriately resigned and unhappy, though the script gives her precious little to do. The biggest asset to the film is the positively stunning presence of Berger, who likely never looked better in a movie. Unfortunately, her role is limited mostly to tiny moments of appearing and disappearing and the camera doesn't linger on her as much as one might like. When she's there, though, there's a whole new life to the otherwise downbeat proceedings. There were debates about whether to present the story in a straightforward, linear fashion or to tell it in piecemeal flashbacks. The result is a disjointed, sometimes confusing mishmash, which is not saved by the allegedly titillating sequences that most often come off as foolish. There are indeed healthy servings of bare breasts and bottoms from a bevy of females, but it certainly doesn't add up to anything very provocative or even interesting. The costumes are elegant and the sets are sometimes very arresting, but the project was doomed from the start thanks to the script and the misguided casting of Dullea. Touches which mark the film as a 60s project make it a little bit more visually entertaining, but not, perhaps, for the reasons intended. Ditto the animated opening credits and the score. And for a film about one of the most notorious authors ever, why are there so few, if any, scenes of the man writing anything?!

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.

Judexdot1 I wish they had saved the German version of this one, but alas, only the AIP version seems to turn up, though most versions are barely longer than the one USA network ran in their infancy. What was once given an "X" rating, barely rises above PG-13 standards for this new millennium. Dullea, fresh from "2001", is out of place amidst the tame exploitation, but gives it a good try. John Huston, in the midst of a long string of aging weirdo roles, steals the show easily. The script by Richard Matheson, is well done, but manhandled by the multiple directors different approaches, and the different exploitation requirements of the various producers. It easily extends the normal AIP formula, but falls short of it's goal to cross into more "Adult" film-making. Not worthless, but not all that thrilling, with much "dead Air"

sf_iceburg My friends and I should have known we were in trouble when the opening credits had that late-60s GoGo/orchestrated music and a James Bond-ish red dot with morphing black figures dancing around it. To give it some modicum of credit, it was so absurd and had such awful acting in the first 20 minutes that it showed some so-bad-it's-good promise. Sadly, the same scene replayed itself another 8 times through the movie, putting me, at least, to sleep. And the movie had nothing whatsoever to do with the Marquis de Sade. As my friend said after the movie, "It didn't work on so many levels."2001 will never be the same.