Dangerous Liaisons (200-Minute Version in English)

Rating:
Summary: An excellent adaptation...
Review: An excellent adaptation of Laclos' LES LIASONS DANGEREUSES. Most screen adaptations of this novel are several degrees of horrible. The charm of the book, which is absolutely brilliant, is that it is structured by correspondence; it consists of letters between the characters. The literary thrusts in the book, therefore, are often far more delectable than the more literal thrusts between the characters. Thus, adaptation is extremely difficult.

In this film all of the plot points are followed, but with some noticeable changes. First, Gercourt is actually a character, where in the novel he is always significantly absent. Gercourt, however, was miscast. The fellow is just too old to make a credible fiance to a 19-year old girl in 1960s France. Second, obviously, the context is not eighteenth-century France, but an elegant Paris in the Sixties. The cars used in this production are absolutely stunning; they almost glow. Third, Deneuve is a wonderful actress, and her portrayal of Merteuil is far superior to Glenn Close, however she is too old. In the book she was in her late twenties, and a woman in her mid-thirties would have been more credible here.

Also, the writers fleshed out the ending quite a bit in very interesting and humanizing ways, where Laclos sort of just sort of killed everyone off with gusto. The inclusion of all of the characters, and the development of all of their interrelationships makes this a very long movie (270 minutes!). The movie is often visually stunning. Many of the sets absorb light in beautiful ways, radiating their darkness.

This film is infinitely superior to Close and Malkovich's botched DANGEROUS LIAISONS, which was just overblown, overacted ham, in my opinion. Valmont's descent into his crisis of indistinguishable sincerity/insincerity is wonderfully portrayed by Rupert Everett.

An interesting adaptation of the book, which will interest its fans. Those who are interested in the story, yet don't like to read, will find all of the entirety of the book represented, though adapted and interpreted quite differently.

Rating:
Summary: C'est Craptaculaire!
Review: First, Catherine Deneuve is too old for this role -- she's about 60! She looks great for her age, but it's hard to believe any of the men would be drawn to her or find her sexy. In fact, I couldn't see sparks between any of the characters. With such a noteworthy cast and scandalous plot, the lackluster acting was disappointing, as well as the missing sensuality and excitement. I saw this broadcast on cable and it was dubbed in English, but the film stock went back and forth so you could read the actors' lips to see when they were speaking English or French -- and the change in audio quality was noticeable. I admittedly could stomach only half the movie and would've rated it zero stars. Watch the adaptation starring John Malkovitch and Glenn Close instead, or another great version, "Valmont," which stars Colin Firth.
The basic plot line for these movies, for those who don't know, is: Marquise de Merteuil is a respected member of high society but very promiscuous, and Vicomte de Valmont is equally promiscuous and enjoys ruining the reputations of his lovers. They're good friends, of like mind, and scheme against others in France together. The pair plans Valmont's next conquests to be a virtuous married woman and a young girl. Watch the films to find out the rest.

Rating:
Summary: Obsolete Traditions
Review: Two predators join forces with evil: Madame de Merteuil (Catherine Deneuve) sponsors attractive young artists who find suitable ways to pay off their debt of gratitude, while Valmont (Rupert Everett) chooses his victims among ladies of rank and fashion. Madame meditates revenge agains her ex: Gercourt (Andzej Zulawski), a famous conductor, left her for the highly gifted and well-bred Cecile (Leelee Sobieski), who idealizes him. Not only does Cecile come from a good stable, but she has preserved her maidenhood into the bargain. Now Madame instructs Valmont to rob this watched-over boarder of her most valuable treasure. But Valmont considers Marie Tourvel (Nastassja Kinski), chaste wife of a diplomat, the bigger challenge. While Madame sets one of her proteges on Cecile Valmont besieges the "fortress" Marie. When Madame promises a higher prize - herself - Valmont comes round to seduce Cecile, a mere child's play to him. Poor Cecile feels so ashamed that she attempts suicide. She becomes pregnant, loses her baby, her marriage busts, and her honorable conductor (at least thirty years her senior) and her honorable student (Madame's lover) call her "floozie". The fortress falls likewise, but this time Valmont is under the delusion that he really loves Marie. Madame turns his feelings to ridicule and incites him to "let her suffer, deceive her!" - and he caves in again. But when Madame refuses to perform her part of the contract he declares war on her: He knows her Achilles heel: respectability. And he knows that she embezzled money from her foundation. He informs the bureau of investigation of tax offenses...

Catherine Deneuve's first tv-film is a sumptous spectacle with beautiful scenery and wardrobes by Gaultier that can compare with the most expensive Hollywood productions. Any scriptwriter who tries to update the Choderlos de Laclos novel undertakes the risk of making it look like a soap opera. This did not happen here - Deneuve is no Joan Collins imitator, thank God - but the reason is sobering: the wardrobes are modern, but the dialogue is "Ancien Regime" - nobody talks like that! - and so is the morality. "In our family girls are not brought up to work" says Cecile's grandmother. Why not? This is not some oriental country but France, 2003. The daughters of the upper ten go to university, like Victoria of Sweden and Chelsea Clinton, or work as models. And an unmarried mother is no longer socially disgraced: she can marry a future king (Norway) or a chancellor (Germany). Cecile's grandmother - altough guilty of a repressed education is sympathetic, does not threaten her with disinheritance or so. And if the loss of her virginity means that Cecile cannot marry this old fossil (Famous conductors are notorious husbands!) or this priggish student - well, then she should hail Valmont as her savior! Besides: Sobieski is much too clear-sighted to fall for a rake. Kinski is a more likely victim: educated, well-read, but endangered by her diffidence. (She acts as if she believes she is Ingrid Bergman, ca 1940, and her dressmaker supports this self-deceit). Catherine Deneuve is completely miscast - and I mean this as a compliment. Such a beautiful woman does not need to patronize young "artists" to get something in return - I bet she has to strain every nerve to keep her admirers at arm's length. She has a well-poised personality and lots of work to do - probably the last woman on earth to plot and scheme for fun. Those who film famous classics should be either in accordance with the original or ruthless enough to cut off antiquated customs. They cannot have it both ways! This version is visually impressive but cold.