Rating: 
Summary: A wonderful film
Review: Dangerous Liaisons is a lush and lavish glimpse into the lives of the 18th century French aristocracy. The Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont used to be lovers and are now close friends, a powerful but restrained attraction still simmering between them. They are both twisted people who enjoy manipulating everyone around them, but the foundation of their demise is laid when they make a bet - if Valmont can seduce the virtuous Madame de Tourvel, a married woman of unimpeachable morals, the Marquise will give herself to him for one whole night of romance. What neither anticipates is that Valmont will fall in love with Tourvel, and that the Marquise will become victim to a destructive jealousy.Glenn Close is marvelous as the depraved Marquise, and ever so subtly reveals to us the insecurities behind the noblewoman's coldly smiling facade. Malkovich proves that a man does not need to be conventionally handsome in order to be seductive; he exudes serpentine charm and masterfully acts out the Vicomte's slow and astonishing change of heart. The dialogue is witty and stirring, and the costumes are candy for the eyes. This was a thoroughly enjoyable film.
Rating:
Summary: A very sharp and invigorating film
Review: Dangerous Liasons is one of those rare rare films you would watch again and again, only one property of a film makes re-watchability possible...brilliant acting.
This film brought together two of the very best actors Hollywood has used in the last 30 years, Malkovitch as the lecherous scheming aristocrat Visconte De Valmont and Close as the ruthless Machiavellian Marquis De Merteuil. Both of these actors turn in first class performances, from Malkovich every facial nuance is exquisitely measured every speech exacted with a deadpan actuality that threatens sincerity which perfectly suits the role of the one who is pretending virtue yet masking deceit. Close plays a very demure yet fiery Marquis with great fluidity and grace. A notable word of mention here for the supporting actors, Pfeiffer is very convincing as the fragile, gullible Madame De Tourvel while Keanu Reeves does a good job with the anemic Danceny.
A tale of revenge, hypocrisy, pride, corruption and tragedy Dangerous Liasons will leave you with lots to think about. The hypocrisy of Danceny who has an affair with the Marquis while betrothed to De Tourvelle, yet takes violent revenge as one wronged when he learns of De Tourvells' infidelity. The Marquis herself is in a way a victim of injustice, the games she plays are only played by men, and she plays them from behind her own sexes' considerable disadvantages with great skill, the ostracism she is sentenced to at the end is a result of this disadvantage, a male would have had his reputation enhanced by the scandal. The transformation of the central character of Valmont from an ego-driven villain of the heart into a heartbroken victim of his own villainous machinations is very touching, only by wounding himself was he able to realise (and tragically too late) what really should have mattered all along, in the film this is somewhat ambiguous though, was his dying confession of love sincere, or was he simply check-mating the Marquis in a continuation of the game?
Throughout the film we are spoiled with lavish set pieces and costumes and along with the splendid vocal acting of the cast and the appropriately convoluted and ostentatious use of speech create a fascinating atmosphere and allow us to place ourselves easily in those times. It is very believable to imagine that French Aristocrats truly behaved in this way, the endless boredom of being well cared for and useless surely turned many of them to pointless mind games, given the endless hedonism and snakelike infighting described in this film it is very understable why the French people cut their heads off.
Rating:
Summary: One of Close's finest performances
Review: OK, so Dangerous Liaisons is a little dated. The story is over 200 years old, and the film is over 15 years old. So, you might be weary of buying it for its age. Don't be!
The story, which everyone knows by now, centers around two bored aristocrats, the Marquise de Merteuil (Close) and the Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) who take pleasure in meddling in people's love lives and corrupting them. The point of the story is that the Vicomte finally falls in love with one of his conquests, Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer), and Close, who is in love with him, struggles to keep him from being with Madame de Tourvel.
An overdone love story? Not at all. The complexity of the plot, the power of the acting, and the beauty of the set and costumes provide for a rich, captivating film. Originally I thought Malkovich was a miscast -- I thought he contrived his role too much -- but eventually I changed my mind, and appreciate his dynamic more now. Close plays a fantastic Marquise. Her talent shines throughout the entire film. She truly makes the film excellent. The fact that she did not win the Oscar does not matter -- this role was made for her, and she for the role. There should have been two Oscars awarded for Best Actress that year. Michelle Pfeiffer and Uma Thurman interpret their roles well, and Swoosie Kurtz plays a fitting Madame de Volanges. I was amused by the fact that Kurtz also did 'Cruel Intentions,' 10 years later.
The plot of the film was well done, well interpreted. I was mildly disappointed that the film skips over the Marquise's experience with Prévan, a corrupting mirror of Valmont whom she conquers and then brags about quite explicitly in a letter. That could have been included. The costumes and set are flawless -- the three Oscars that the film won for these categories were well deserved.
All in all, a deserving film. Worth buying and watching twice, at least.
Rating: 
Summary: an insult to the novel
Review: Considering that 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses' by Choderlos de Laclos is perhaps my favorite novel (or tied, at least, with 'The Island of the Day Before' by Umberto Eco), I would probably be expected to rate Dangerous Liaisons with a nine, at least, yet I could not do so in good conscience. Frankly, I find this film to be something of an insult.
Anybody who has read the novel understands that its brilliant rests in the sublte nuances of dialogue between the vicomte and the marquise and of de Laclos's familiarity and analysis with the unspoken aspects of falling in love, not to mention the eloquence of the writing itself. Unfortunately, very little of the novel's charm shines through in Dangerous Liaisons. The film's attempts to recreate the wit of the novel often seem stale or childish and, worse yet, the the film fails to build up to its rising action and climax, almost assuming that the viewer already knows the story. Before the film properly introduces the characters, already they're making wagers, and how could the beautiful young presidente de tourvel possibly fall in love with such a clumsy snob.
How, in fact, could anybody fall in love with a Vicomte de Valmont as played by John Malkovich. Although a spectacular actor, Malkovich would come across more natural in a suit or a tank top, something a bit more masculine; the character of Valmont requires somebody more charming, not only to make the costumes work, but to correctly portray the persona. Watching Malkovich in the role of Valmont is not unlike watching Alan Greenspan dance the Macaraina in short-shorts and a Wham shirt. For that matter, how is the the viewer expected to believe that Uma Thurman is a fifteen year-old ingenue just out of a convent, and that Valmont is really so desparate to go to bed with Glenn Close after having Thurman? The film's saving grace in this regard would certainly be Michelle Pfeiffer who was not only the proper age for her role, but as also able to adapt to her character. Also, Kiannu Reeves as the Chevalier Danceny has probably been his best role to date, although that's not saying a whole lot.
Although Dangerous Liaisons fails to live up to the novel of its origin in most respects, the scenery and costumes were beautifully designed. Since Les Liaisons Dangereuses was an epistolary novel, giving de Laclos no reason to go into detail about clothing and furniture, the artists had a fair amount of liberty, and they did spectacular work with it.
Anybody interested in the French Baroque period or interior design should find at least some pleasure in watching this film, and even the average viewer should be mildly entertained. Fans of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, however, may be disappointed. Basing a film on a book is a bit like matching black clothing: if you can't do it perfectly, don't do it at all.
-derrick
P.S. If you happen to purchase the film on DVD, beware: it's the 1997 release is really not of the highest quality. Mine was already skipping just out of the box, and the DVD forces you to sit through the FCC warnings in three different languages.
Rating: 
Summary: A MUST-SEE!
Review: 'Dangerous Liaisons' is an adaptation of a scandolous 18th century French book. Glenn Close is the scheming, vicious Marquise De Merteuil, who would like nothing more than to see the man that left her punished. What better way to do this than to have her friend (and ex-lover) the Vicomte De Valmont (John Malkovich) seduce her ex-husband's soon-to-be wife Cecile De Volanges (Uma Thurman).
Whilst we're at it, throw in the virginal Madame De Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) whom the Vicomte is extremely desirous of seducing, Keanu Reeves as a musician who lusts after Cecile and the Marquise, and the fact that the Vicomte lusts after the Marquise but she will not allow him to have her. All in all, somewhat confusing and dense as regards to whom is sleeping with whom and why, but still nasty vicious fun.
Glenn Close and John Malkovich are excellent in their respective roles, and the supporting cast help them along nicely, but you will need to concentrate to understand this period piece.
Rating:
Summary: Dangerous Liaisons vs. Valmont
Review: About two years ago I found Dangerous Liaisons for sale at Walmart for five dollars, so I went for it. Keep in mind that this was AFTER I had seen Valmont on TV.
WELL ... Dangerous Liaisons is considered the definitive version of this story, which has been filmed at least five times in the past century, the most recent being the Cruel Intentions version of 1999, and I'm sure it will be filmed again and again in decades to come. Cruel Intentions pales in comparison to Dangerous Liaisons, BUT ... Dangerous Liaisons pales in comparison to Valmont! At least, to me it does.
Valmont was released in 1989, less than one year after Dangerous Liaisons, and was not a hit, but does feature GREAT performances by Annette Bening, Colin Firth and Fairuza Balk. It's possible I like it better because I was already familiar with these actors, more so than I was with Glenn Close and John Malkovich. Fairuza Balk's character in Valmont seems a LOT younger than Uma Thurman in DL (even though they're both supposed to be the same age in both movies), and that's because Uma Thurman is five years older. Also, Glenn Close is not NEARLY as plucky and as daffy as Annette Bening is, and John Malkvoich is not as goofy as Colin Firth. This Valmont version was made to appeal to a wider audience, but unfortunately that can also be considered contrivance.
EITHER way, both movies are EXCELLENT ... and I'm one of those rare cases because I do enjoy both, and I do own both. But ... if you want the more "adult" of the two--the darker, more serious--Dangerous Liaisons is the one you want (in contrast, Valmont is a picnic in the countryside with sinuous, yet sunny, cartoon characters).
Glenn Close was nominated for Best Actress--you can't go wrong.
Rating:
Summary: Sexual decadence before the fall of the guillotine
Review: This is a tale about the ancien régime in18th century France before the revolution in which the moral decadence of the privileged classes rivaled that of Sodom and Gomorrah and the ancient Romans. The story comes from a novel by Choderlos de Laclos that was made into a stage play by Christopher Hampton. It is a cynical satire on human sexuality as well as a very subtle examination of sexual hypocrisy and desire, a kind of oh so sophisticated laugh at bourgeois morality that would have delighted Voltaire and Moliere and greatly amused Shakespeare. It is a tale of elaborate lechery and revenge that backfires because it seems that anybody, even the most jagged rake can fall in love, and thereby become the victim.
John Malkovich plays the rake, Vicomte de Valmont, whose sole purpose in life is to seduce women, rob them of their virtue and then move on. Glenn Close plays his back-stabbing confidante and one-time lover, the Marquise de Merteuil. Michelle Pfeiffer plays the coy and virtuous Madame de Tourvel, who is to be Valmont's latest conquest. Uma Thurman is cast as a teenaged ingenue who is betrothed to Merteuil's lover while Keanu Reeves plays her naive music teacher and would-be lover, Chevalier Danceny. Stephen Frears, who has directed such diverse films as The Grifters (1990) and My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), after a somewhat cryptic start, does an excellent job of bringing the biting cynicism of Laclos and Hampton to the screen.
I know of two other versions of this film, Milos Forman's Valmont (1989), starring Colin Firth and Annette Bening, and Roger Vadim's Dangerous Liaisons (1960). Regrettably, I haven't seen Vadim's film, but Forman's Valmont is excellent. In polite society comparisons are said to be odious. I shall proceed anyway:
John Malkovich vs. Colin Firth. Malkovich is widely recognized as a great actor, but he is clearly miscast in this role, yet he brings a predatory dimension to the part that is in keeping with the overall psychology of the movie. Firth, while not as celebrated for his acting skills as Malkovich, is nonetheless a fine actor, and his charm and playful inventiveness are more in keeping with the character of Valmont, whom women love. Call it even.
Glenn Close vs. Annette Bening. Again Close is considered the more accomplished actor, but Bening is sexier, prettier and considerably more charming. Whether that is a plus as far as the reality of the novel and play are concerned is debatable. For my part I found Bening a lot more fun to watch. Edge to Bening.
Michelle Pfeiffer vs. Meg Tilly. Pfeiffer is a much bigger star and has more experience as an actress. She is beautiful, but Tilly is more passionate. Pfeiffer was nominated for an academy award for best supporting actress for her work here, but did not win. Personally I thought Tilly was more believable and was especially effective in projecting first the repressed passion and then the complete abandonment as she gives herself to Valmont. Pfeiffer's portrayal of Tourvel's coy awakening, with just a hint of duplicity, and then her utter dissolution when he leaves her, was star quality. Edge to Pfeiffer.
Uma Thurman vs. Fairuza Balk. I loved them both. Thurman, of course, is a more statuesque beauty with a polished and controlled acting style, but Balk's wide-eyed innocence was a delight. Call it even.
Keanu Reeves vs. Henry Thomas. Thomas was cute, but almost too juvenile to be believed. Reeves seemed just right for the part. Clear edge to Reeves.
Frears vs. Forman. Frears's direction was more cynical, especially in the duel between Valmont and Merteuil in which their mutual and complementary debauchery is in sharp focus. And his resolution was more clearly defined. Forman's strength was in the delight and playfulness of many of the scenes, especially those relating to the seduction of Tourvel. His direction was more comedic and he allowed a greater development of secondary characters, while Frears concentrated more on the two leads. I give a very small edge to Forman, but would not argue with those preferring Frears.
Bottom line: I liked Forman's movie better, but the voters at the IMDb preferred Frears's Dangerous Liaisons, giving it an average of 7.7 stars out of ten to 6.7 for Valmont.
Some bon mots:
Valmont tells Madame de Tourvel as he dumps her, "My love had great difficulty outlasting your virtue. It's beyond my control."
Valmont demands that the Marquise de Merteuil reply to his proposal of a night together, will it be love or war? He says, "A single word is all that is required." Long pause, and then she gives him three, "All right. [Pause.] War."
When Valmont returns from making love to Madame de Tourvel he reveals to Merteuil that for the first time he may be in love. He relates his feelings to her, "I love her. I hate her..." The camera turns to Close, who yawns.
Valmont's aunt while consoling Madame de Tourvel, who has confessed that she is in love with Valmont and can't help herself, says, reflecting the wisdom of all who have been there, "In such matters all advice is useless."
Toward the end, Valmont says, "I have no illusions. I lost them on my travels."
Rating:
Summary: Splendid Cinematic Adaption of Hampton's Play
Review: Director Stephen Frears and screenwriter Christopher Hampton join forces here in this lavish, extremely entertaining look at the sexually promiscus, morally bankrupt lives of Ancien Regime French nobility in "Dangerous Liaisons" (based on Christopher Hampton's play Les Liaisons Dangereuses). The infamous protagonists are the Marquise De Merteuil (Glenn Close) and the Vicomte De Valmont (John Malkovich), with Michelle Pfeiffer, Uma Thurman, Swoosie Kurtz, Mildred Natwick, and Keanu Reeves, rounding out this spectacular cast (The only notable disappointment is Keanu Reeves, playing a role which should have been meant for someone like Kenneth Branagh.). Both Close and Malkovich offer two of their finest performances, portraying former lovers who seek to outdo each other with sordid feats of sexual treachery. When the Marquise De Merteuil learns that Vicomte De Valmont falls in love with one of his latest sexual prey - Michelle Pfeiffer in one of her most captivating roles - she launches a fiendish plot against her friend and former lover. This is two hours of deliciously wicked fun which should be regarded as essential viewing for those who greatly admire the work of director Stephen Frears and actors Glenn Close, John Malkovich, Michelle Pfeiffer, Keanu Reeves, Swoosie Kurtz and Uma Thurman.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful film
Review: Dangerous Liaisons is a lush and lavish glimpse into the lives of the 18th century French aristocracy. The Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont used to be lovers and are now close friends, a powerful but restrained attraction still simmering between them. They are both twisted people who enjoy manipulating everyone around them, but the foundation of their demise is laid when they make a bet - if Valmont can seduce the virtuous Madame de Tourvel, a married woman of unimpeachable morals, the Marquise will give herself to him for one whole night of romance. What neither anticipates is that Valmont will fall in love with Tourvel, and that the Marquise will become victim to a destructive jealousy. Glenn Close is marvelous as the depraved Marquise, and ever so subtly reveals to us the insecurities behind the noblewoman's coldly smiling facade. Malkovich proves that a man does not need to be conventionally handsome in order to be seductive; he exudes serpentine charm and masterfully acts out the Vicomte's slow and astonishing change of heart. The dialogue is witty and stirring, and the costumes are candy for the eyes. This was a thoroughly enjoyable film.
|
