Richard-211

I gave this a ten in a futile attempt to up the average.

It would be a shame if a 6.5 score put people off watching this film, I would rate it 7-8 quite happily. It is one of the few films released over the last few years that gives me belly laughs throughout, and after repeat viewings.

Nathan Lane is especially good, and after this film I became a big fan.

Perhaps the homosexual themes put people off. Yes, the characters are stereotypes, and it doesn't try to make many serious points, but I'd like to think that the open minded are in for an undervalued treat.

How do I feel about the rating? I don't know, betrayed, bewildered...

I am writing this as I am astonished by some of the vitriolic comments submitted by other members. I have just watched this film, with a hang-over, and laughed out loud for the first time in many months. I liked it a lot.

I can only imagine that you have to be able to relate to this film or else it will fly right over your head. So that limits the audience to those who have recent experiences of a relationship with someone who you seriously considered might be the "one". I related to Seth - remembering perhaps how I felt when my girlfriend referred to herself as my fiance before I had even proposed!! Actually if I don't do it soon I'll be in big trouble...

So don't be put off, give this film a try and there is a good chance that this suprisingly intelligent comedy will strike a chord. If it does you'll be glad you watched it - I am.

The film, as a stand-alone piece is quite good, I'd give it 7/10. As I watched it however, I became uncomfortable with the messages it appeared to send out. I have no doubt the writer is intimately familiar with the Marquis' work and life, but he chose to focus only on the end of that life. As a result I feel there is a danger that many people will walk away from this film thinking the Marquis was no more than a latter-day Larry Flint, persecuted by a hypocritical establishment for liberal attitudes we regard as fairly acceptable today.

I am not as intimately familiar with the Marquis' early life as the writer must be (and perhaps this is a fair representation, in which case I stand corrected), but from what I do know he appears to have been an extremely unpleasant and vicious character who only remained at large for so long because of his aristocratic connections. Had he been alive today I suspect he may well have become a dangerous sexual predator.

I do not expect Hollywood to become an extension of the Discovery channel, but I do believe they have some duty not to mislead. As such I do not criticise the film for failing to tell the whole story of this man's life, but I do criticise it for filling the film with such simplistic ideas. Michael Caines impossibly evil character, to name but one, was ridiculous. Also, I felt the writer wanted to say, "hey, the guy was not so bad in the context of the times - look at the violence, cruelty and sex that was going on around him" (the guillotine, the menage a trois, the doctors medical 'equipment').

But for me that is the point - this man managed to stand out as a nasty piece of work at a time when violence and cruelty were perhaps more commonplace than today. He was not some poor, misunderstood, latter-day pornographic screenwriter.