De Sade

Keir Dullea may be many things as an actor, but lewd and kinky don't immediately come to mind. Dullea is capable if oddly cast as the sadomasochistic Marquis de Sade, his storied life retold to him by his uncle, who presents our protagonist's journey as a play that he moves in and out of. "De Sade" shows some bold directorial touches for a film that had such a checkered history (Michael Reeves signed on to direct but died; Cy Endfield was brought on but suffered a breakdown, leading to uncredited fill-ins directed by original co-screenwriter Roger Corman to pad the running time). Originally X-rated, the movie has scenes of erotica (lots of naked breasts and bums--though not Dullea's), and yet the orgies are perhaps the film's weakest link. American-International Pictures suffered a financial loss when the results of "De Sade" failed to meet anyone's expectations. For his part, screenwriter Richard Matheson claimed his original script was just fine, it was Endfield's direction that loused everything up. *1/2 from ****

Looking at it today, this film is a pretty tame story of the infamous DeSade, but at least it is the most highest budget version of th story, with a much better cast for this sort of material. What was once deemed X is pretty tame R by todays standards. Keir Dullea makes a very convincing DeSade without overacting, and John Huston brings integrity to the film with his powering presence. And the soundtrack is very good, the only thing odd is the beginning credit animation sequence, which looks like it came out of a psychedelic film, as you see a shadow painting of a bird man juggling a ball, then turning into a guy and a chick and a horse!!! Looks like it belongs in an animation short or something. Still check it out if you want to see a "Hollywood" version of the infamous character, told way too many times in cheapo Euro versions!

At the tender age of 17 I was dying to see this flick but blinked and it disappeared. Around that time i was interested in Sade (or "De Sade'), whose writings were being pushed by Grove Press. I read bits and pieces of his work which thrives on irony and paradox, staples of French lit. Those looking for cheap thrills in Sade will be disappointed as even the freakiest activities depicted are written in ironically refined language./ Anyhow, the person who wrote, "We see God the way a blind man sees colors," is depicted here as a lavender-clad fop w/ a crazy priest uncle (john Huston chews up the lavender here). Sade's real first name was Donatien Alphonse; here, God knows why, he's "Louis."/ The scattered plot, the period psychedelic colors, cheapo effects, and fleeting t and a typify early '70s "sexploitation" flicks. Most hilarious (and frustrating to some) is a silly, frantic "orgy" scene obscured by a lava-lampish red tint. Directed by Hollywood vet Wm. Wyler who tried liked hell to avoid that X rating via quick cutaways and a lot of running around, ripping up pillowcases, smashing champagne glasses, etc---but no screwing! So why'd the code bunch lump in "de Sade" w/ "Curious Yellow" which went all the way? Well, the name had a rep preceding it./ It is a fun movie to watch, the sumptuous sets and garish clothes shot in a fuzzy wash that shoots for "art". / In an ironic, nostalgic way, i appreciate "de Sade." It looks CHEAP, trashy, while EVERYTHING in film today is so high def as to be dull. "de Sade" sucks, but i love it. It's stupid, pretentious, smarmy FUN, an unintentional comedy. Those were the good old days!

An ambitious disaster that could only have come out of the sixties (just like "Doctor Faustus", "Casino Royale" and probably several others I have not seen). The filmmakers must have thought that "De Sade" failed because it was too "avant-garde" for its time. Wrong! It is too avant-garde for ANY time. It doesn't make any sense, you never learn anything about De Sade that you didn't already know before viewing it, and despite the bundles of nudity, there's barely a sexy moment to be found. (**)

American International Pictures rarely made dull movies. Their movies may have been junk food but they were very tasty. This was AIP's attempt at a thinking man's exploitation film. Lavish sets, Masterpiece Theater dialogue and an overall air of pretentiousness makes this film a real snooze. The fact that the film uses a fractured non-narrative structure makes the film even more pointless and boring. Only during the last 15 minutes does the film come to life as De Sade and his cohorts embark on an orgy of destruction and sex (rendered in hilariously psychedelic 60s fashion).