Dangerous Liaisons (1988) User Reviews

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.

[TheJudge-2 · 9/10 · 24 July 2000]

You wouldn't necessarily think that an adaptation of an albeit famous 17th century French novel would make a relevant and fascinating piece of cinema... but it does.

The first thing that strikes you is how well the film is lit and shot. The period locations and costumes are visually sumptuous and perfect. Better yet, the acting entirely matches the skill of the direction that takes its method from the theatre - emotions are conveyed by expression and not dialogue. Glenn Close gives her best performance on celluloid as the scheming Madame de Merteuil, amorally hellbent on bending everyone to her will, no matter the method or the cost, and John Malkovitch is her perfect foil as the cynical hedonistic but world-weary Valmont. Michelle Pfeiffer engages our empathy as the tortured and manipulated target of Malkovitch's desire and Close's plotting.

The film is basically a morality tale, but one that fascinates in its exposure of ego, vanity, intrigue and the war between the genders, subjects that are timeless in their relevance, despite the period setting. The storyline, which sticks faithfully to the original novel, remains compelling throughout as we watch deceits within deceits take their tragic course. Whole-heartedly recommended - take your time over it, and enjoy.

It's like watching a gory car crash

[bregund · 9/10 · 13 December 2020]

Two horrible, deceitful aristocrats make a game of destroying other peoples' lives and then laugh about it behind their backs. At times it's hard to watch, since it seems to be a commentary about how the rich manipulate the lives of lesser people, a concept that is still relevant today. The levels of betrayal and backstabbing are pushed to cartoonish levels, until you get the idea that someone must have really hurt these people in the past. In the end they just wind up hurting each other, in the most abject way possible. Glenn Close was never better, you can see the wheels turning behind her marvelously expressive face, and Malkovich is positively reptilian. Michelle Pfeiffer nails her role as a gentle, quiet woman caught up in the machinery of the game, and as Valmont destroys her from the inside out you really just want to reach into the screen and strangle him. There are no winners in this dumpster fire, but maybe at the end you have some satisfaction knowing that your own life is much better in comparison. Isn't that why everyone rubbernecks at a car crash?

Deliciously corrupt

[SnoopyStyle · 9/10 · 1 December 2014]

In pre-Revolutionary France, the Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) plots revenge against Bastide who aims to wed young virgin Cécile de Volanges (Uma Thurman). Merteuil tries to convince the Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) to seduce Cécile but Valmont is busy seducing the married Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) famous for her virtue. Merteuil offers a night with her as reward for Cécile's seduction.

It is a period piece alive with sexual tension. It is deliciously seductive. It is not old and dusty. Rather it is energetic and modern. The sexual manipulations and deceptive games give a greater edge to any modern romantic melodrama. Close and Malkovich are terrifically corrupt. Pfeiffer is excellent in the less showy virtuous role. Thurman plays the innocent ingénue. The acting is all top notch. The production is first rate directed by Stephen Frears.

The #1 rule of seduction is don't fall in love!

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 10/10 · 6 August 2001]

"Dangerous Liaisons" is this incredible movie that is so under rated. It's the battle of the sexes and this book was written over 200 years ago! I love to know that there was this same problem that we still have to this day. That's why enjoyed "Dangerous Liaisons" so much because it proves that we have so many differences from the opposite sexes. Men are usually expected to have sex and with a few clever words destroy women's reputations in minutes, while women have to be careful of sleeping with whom, because it's considered shameful.

Glenn Close plays Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil, a proper lady with a secretive double life of sex and wishing to destroy a girl's reputation for revenge on her ex for dumping her for this young lady. She also makes a bet with her closest friend, Vicomte Sébastien de Valmont played by John Malkovich, that he could not bed a lady of such high stature and morals, in return if he succeeds, he will finally have the conquest he's been dreaming of, bedding Marquise Isabelle. I don't care what people say, this was Glenn's best performance and she was so brilliant. Her speech of "Dominate your sex and avenge my own" was perfect and as a woman I rooted for her in the story. She is a tragic figure that was over looked by many as just another slut. Glenn had my sympathy and I agreed with a lot of her dialog.

John as Valmont was absolutely perfect, he's not that sexy looking but has such charm and charisma on the screen you believe him as a lady's man. "It's beyond my control", he repeats this several times throughout the film and it becomes more darker each and every time he says it to Michelle's character. He does the Marquise a favor of bedding young Cecile to help the Marquise's plan of revenge and does such a good job. It was almost too easy for him, but he has a more difficult task of bedding Madame Marie de Tourvel who is married and has very high morals and standards of God and love. He falls in love with her in the process of getting to know her and is so believable, you can see how it breaks his heart to break her's. But he feels he must stand by his reputation and your own heart goes out to him despite his cruel manors as a "man".

Michelle Pfeiffer as Marie de Tourvel is so beautiful and elegant and is the only one who knows of Valmont's true side. But she cannot help but fall for his charm and love for her, when she talks to his aunt, this is one of the most true speeches ever in cinema that all women can relate too "I'm sorry to say this but those who are most worthy of love are never made happy by it. Do you still think men love the way we do? No... men enjoy the happiness they feel. We can only enjoy the happiness we give. They are not capable of devoting themselves exclusively to one person. So to hope to be made happy by love is a certain cause of grief." That is so incredibly and painfully true that Marie knows better but can't help but give herself to Valmont.

Swoosie Kurtz, Uma Thurman, and Mildred Natwick are all so exceptional and amazing as well in the film. They truly bring the story to life and keep it going with their dialog and actions. Keanu? Shudder, his acting is like... how do I put this delicately? I think it's... wood. :) Otherwise, trust me this is one of the best movies of all time. This deserves higher than a 7.6 and should be in the top 250. But it's beyond my control. :D

10/10

Glenn close should have won an Oscar

[fullthundermoon-36564 · 10/10 · 1 December 2021]

Easily, the best adaptation of book to film. Witty, daring, opulent and compelling. Visually stunning; and shining performances. Read the book, for sure. But film-going doesn't get much better,

Brilliant and darkly cold

[Arkaan · 26 November 1999]

I believe this is the best of the four adaptations of the play/novel Dangerous Liaisons.

Glenn Close plays Mertuil, who, with Malkovich's Valmont, manipulate and seduce others for entertainment. In comes Michelle Pfieffer's beautiful Madame de Tourvel, whose husband is off at a trial (or something to that extent). Valmont realizes what a capture it would be if he were to succeed in seducing her, and making her forget all her vows of fidelity. Uma Thurman also has a smaller part, one of those who was seduced by Valmont.

Uma Thurman is great, Michelle Pfieffer is exquisite, but it's Close and Malkovich who dominate the screen. Close's mercilessly cunning character has most of the great lines. When asked if betrayal is her favourite word, she replies, "No. Cruelty is. It's much more nobler, don't you think". Malkovich plays a Machiavellian character you lies and cheats to get what he wants

The climax is thrilling, and the finale is incredible. Glenn Close's performance was certainly worthy of the Oscar nomination, and maybe the award. It is her best performance.

Unsatisfying adaptation of a great novel

[cathyyoung1 · 6/10 · 18 May 2000]

"Les Liaisons Dangereuses" (Dangerous Liaisons) has been one of my favorite books ever since I read it in a college French class a few years before the movie came out. It is a novel of dark wit and keen insight into human behavior and psychology. I was really looking forward to seeing the film. Well, to me, it was a major disappointment.

For one thing, I don't think this movie was well-cast. I like John Malkovich (I think he was excellent in "In the Line of Fire," "Places in the Heart," and even in a small part in "Jennifer Eight"), but he was the wrong person to play Valmont. Yes, he does a good job of conveying the character's perfidy and viciousness, but in my view, he was so lacking in charm that he just wasn't very credible as a master seducer; not did he come across as smooth and aristocratic, the way he should. It didn't help that at some points, the film had him acting more like a frat boy than an aristocrat -- like flick his tongue at one of his conquests, or sprint up the stairs yelling "Success!" after "scoring" with another.

Glenn Close was better as Madame de Merteuil, but while she captured the duplicity of the Marquise -- the surface sweetness concealing an essential ruthlessness -- she didn't exude sexual magnetism, either. The only good choices were Michelle Pfeiffer, lovely and touching as the beguiled Madame de Tourvel, and Swoosie Kurtz in the minor part of Madame de Volanges. Uma Thurman was mostly forgettable as Cecile, and the less said of Keanu Reeves as Danceny, the better.

****SPOILERS COMING****

The screenplay was mostly quite good, and the writers did a very successful job of adapting a novel that consisted of exchanges of letters. I certainly don't fault them for not being 100% faithful to the novel -- that often doesn't work on the screen. However, some of the departures from the book didn't work well at all and didn't make much sense. I cannot for the life of me understand why Cecile's young suitor Danceny was turned into a music teacher. (In the novel, he sings duets with Cecile, but doesn't teach her.) Danceny is an aristocrat and a social equal of the other characters; an 18th Century French aristocrat would never have been employed as a music teacher, or as anything else for that matter! (Had he been a commoner, he never could have challenged Valmont to a duel.)

Another problem: in the novel, when Valmont breaks up with Madame de Tourvel at the Marquise's instigation, he does so by sending her a casually cruel letter -- copying it word for word from the Marquise's letter. I know it wouldn't have been very dramatic. However, in the film, when he announces the breakup to de Tourvel in a face-to-face confrontation, it takes away some of that casual cruelty... especially since he shows far too much emotion. Madame de Tourvel would have figured out that something was going on and he didn't really want to dump her.

Finally, the ending was artificially sweetened. A dying Valmont asks Danceny to tell Madame de T. that he loved her and that the only true happiness he had ever experienced was with her; Danceny goes over to see the ailing Madame de T. and gives her Valmont's message before she dies. The ending of the novel is far more ambiguous. While Valmont does profess love for Madame de Tourvel and regret for what he has done to her, whether he is sincere or faking it in order to win her over one more time and feed his own ego is left deliberately unresolved. And while he does write her a letter of apology, she is delirious when she received it. There is no consolation for her before she dies.

"Les Liaisons Dangereuses" is still awaiting a worthy screen adaptation. (The 1989 film "Valmont" by Milos Forman wasn't all that good and strayed way too far from the plot of the novel.) Personally, I'm inclined to think that the only way justice can be done to the book is in a miniseries of 6 hours or so, like the one they recently did of "Pride and Prejudice." It's the only way to capture the novel's psychological subtleties and the subplots that are quite crucial to character development.

The Perversions of the Ancient Regime

[nycritic · 10/10 · 25 January 2006]

The Age of Enlightment gave to the world some pretty controversial minds. At one end of the spectrum there was the Marquis de Sade who, no secret to anyone, created the concept that is now known as sadism. At the other end there is Choderlos de Laclos, who is widely known for creating this story which in essence is very close to Sade's dark heart even when it never reaches the extremes of his florid depictions of ritualistic, sexual perversion.

DANGEROUS LIAISONS, based on the novel "Les Liaisons Dangereuses", is this tale, Laclos' most known, adapted many times for television and screen, but never like this with such attention to detail to make it as French as possible, and bringing a classical sensibility to the front. Stephen Frears, in his American film debut, creates a lush visage of restrained yet swooning passions, icy stares, and hushed, measured speeches against the backdrop of the Ile-de-France and should have been the film of the year had it not been for the usual sentimentalism prevalent during the 1980's which gave the major awards to RAINMAN, a film centered around autism that, while delicate as a subject matter was hardly dramatic and today is barely memorable.

On the other hand, this story is. The dark comedy that pins two bored aristocrats against each other as they play God with other people's lives without realizing the devastating consequences that will result from this has been the stuff of legend and allure. Glenn Close, John Malkovich, and Michelle Pfeiffer all are beyond awards in their exacting and multidimensional portrayals of three very different people caught in a web of deceit. However the star of this adaptation has to be Christopher Hampton who immortalizes Laclos' vision in a subtle, yet powerful story filled with subtext and restrained cruelty. He's the one who suggests pages about his characters, most tellingly of the Marquis de Merteuil in three key scenes: in the first, opening sequence (which she also shares with the Vicomte de Valmont), she admires her reflection in a mirror with a smug expression akin to the Mona Lisa. She is in control and about to go through with her activities. She is dressed into an orgy of corsets and fabric, looking directly into the camera -- the Vicomte does the same as he is dressed -- which sets their characters' tones. They are mirror images of one another, each in their gender. Both are apparently, in full control.

The second telling revelation of the Marquise is when she arrives to the Volanges' to give advice to Cecile about virtue. You can see how she has her Mona Lisa smile on, which as soon as she gets off her carriage turns to a rictus of anguish. Cut to her later saying about shame: "You find the shame is like the pain. You only feel it once." As her head rests against a window you may see her eyes briefly moisten. Her expression is, however, blank, but very deep and expressive. It's the first time she cracks open the door to her inner face, but just a little and only for a second, but what a second! The last time Hampton describes Merteuil is in a scene which mirrors the first scene: watch how again, she looks at herself in her mirror. Her traps have been discovered and she faces her own self and uncertain future, having destroyed everyone around her and being left alone. It's the calm right before the taking of the Bastille, hence why the timing of the story has to be in the Eighteenth Century, right before the French Revolution. And in being so revealing while using expressions, Hampton creates the internal dialog that was the driving force behind the epistolary nature of the novel. His rendition of the Madame de Tourvel and Valmont are no less complex. Michelle Pfieffer, with minimal dialog and her wide, doe eyes, is given a rewarding role that explodes during her face-off with Malkovich when her character is betrayed. Their physicality skirts with sadism and sets the stage for Valmont's own internal pain as he faces his own mortality, since he has been led to destroy the one he loves, and for a promise and nothing else.

It's been no mystery that films that lose to other, "of the moment" films become timeless and the stuff that makes movie magic. DANGEROUS LIAISONS, nearly twenty years later, still bites, especially when from a light comedy it becomes this horrific monster staring at us from the abyss, more so because of the exquisite cruelty that we cause to others in the name of reputation and vanity. And in that, the Marquise is right: vanity and love are incompatible. Just look at Valmont and you will see why.

Cruel Intentions for Adults

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 23 May 2015]

Rich and bored aristocrats in Rococo France play high-stakes games of passion and betrayal.

I was born too late, and somehow "Cruel Intentions" was more familiar to my generation than this film. Somehow it went under my radar until now (2015), which seems like a real shame. Some great plot elements, full of devious deceit. And a solid cast, including the pre-fame Uma Thurman and a very young Keanu Reeves (who acts as strange as always).

There is added weight to this film when compared to "Cruel Intentions" because of the aristocratic atmosphere. As powerful as rich teenagers may be, the French nobility is even more so. This also adds an element of rape that is somewhat disturbing. Although there is no violence, John Malkovich's character uses trickery to force himself on various women (including one who may even be his own daughter). No good.

Elegant

[jamiko-1 · 10/10 · 12 January 2005]

This movie is elegant. The performances are magnificent. John Malkovich is totally believable as the sector that destroys the life of countless naive women. Glenn Close is amazing as one of the greatest "bitches" of the story of cinema. Michelle Pfeiffer and Keanu Reeves gave their best performances ever and Uma Thurman is amazing with a tremendous mix of innocence and sexuality. The script and the direction really made an amazing job giving an environment of sickness and degradation. The makeup and the beautiful costumes only aggregate the force that the story needed to be told. An amazing movie you really wish to enter in that snake's nest. Highly recommended.

Claustrophobic and Airless

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 23 March 2009]

"Dangerous Liaisons" is based upon "Les Liaisons dangereuses" by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, a novel which also served as the basis of the more recent high school black comedy "Cruel Intentions". It is a tale of sexual intrigue and jealousy set among the aristocracy of late eighteenth century France, in the years leading up to the Revolution. The protagonists are the Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont, and the plot revolves around their attempts to corrupt the morals of two young women, Cécile de Volanges and Madame de Tourvel. The Marquise's motive is to gain revenge on Cécile's fiancé, a former lover who has jilted her. Valmont, a notorious womaniser, is attracted to Madame de Tourvel not so much for her beauty, although she is exquisitely lovely (she is, after all, played by Michelle Pfeiffer), but rather because she has a reputation for piety and virtue and therefore represents a challenge to him. Valmont easily seduces Cécile, even though she is in love with her music teacher, the Chevalier Danceny, and eventually, through persistence and deceit, wins the affections of Madame de Tourvel. The film then details all the complications arising from this intrigue.

The film can be seen as one of Hollywood's periodic attempts to copy the "heritage cinema" style of historical drama which was very much in vogue in the European, particularly the British and the French, cinema during the eighties and nineties. (Martin Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence", which also starred Michelle Pfeiffer, is another example). It was shot entirely on location in genuine historical buildings in France, and great care was obviously taken with the elaborate costumes and with creating an authentic period atmosphere. There is also some fine acting. Keanu Reeves is rather wooden as Danceny and Uma Thurman's Cécile comes across as a simpering ninny, but all the other main characters are very good.

The critic Hal Hinson rightly described Michelle Pfeiffer's role as Mme de Tourvel as "the least obvious and the most difficult", because virtue is more difficult to portray than wickedness. Pfeiffer was one of the loveliest Hollywood stars of the eighties, but here in addition to her physical beauty she also radiates an inner beauty as well. John Malkovich's Valmont, by contrast, is a reptilian villain who drips with malice. Merteuil is icily calm on the surface, but Glenn Close makes it clear that beneath that surface her character is a woman prey not only to illicit sexual passions but also to irrational hatreds and jealousies.

Despite its period detail and the quality of some of the acting, however, "Dangerous Liaisons" has never been my favourite film. It has always seemed to me to be claustrophobic and airless, set in its own highly artificial world. The sense of claustrophobia was presumably deliberate- most of the scenes are set indoors in the very ornate interiors of the period, and there are a number of shots focusing on closed, or closing, doors. The sense of unreality may derive from the fact that Laclos' source novel is an epistolary novel. This can be a difficult literary genre to adapt for the screen, as the characters' motivations are depicted not directly through words and actions but indirectly through the medium of letters, which cannot always easily be translated into dialogue without losing a lot of the author's meaning. However talented the actors may be, the characters in this film never come alive as rounded human beings, and the atmosphere of world-weariness and heartless cruelty never seems real, except perhaps to those who take at face value all those History Made Simple textbooks that tell us that the eighteenth century French aristocracy were a bunch of creepily decadent sadists who thoroughly deserved their fate at the hands of Madame Guillotine. 6/10

on my top 10 list

[cartamaria · 10/10 · 2 June 2005]

This movie is so incredibly well done, and all three lead characters are at their peak career performances. It is clever, funny, and tragic all rolled together, and one that you will be thinking about long after the movie is over. Of the three main characters, Michelle Pfeiffer has the least stretching to do as an actor, but her character calls for a demure, soft-spoken individual. John Malkovitch and Glenn Close are both deliciously malicious and carry the film well. Keanu Reeves is better suited for an action film - he appears wooden - but does a decent job, anyway. Lastly, Uma is refreshing and captivating, and plays opposite John Malkovitch without losing her identity. All in all, masterful, and visually and intellectually stimulating to watch. Still to this day it holds its' own in a world where action is the name of the game.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 29 October 2011]

Glenn Close, John Malcovich, Uma Thurman, Keanu Reeves, and Michelle Pfeiffer engage in "Dangerous Liaisons," based on the 17th Century French novel. It's a pre-French Revolution look at the dalliances and mischief among the bored upper class.

Glenn Close is the amoral Madame de Merteuil who likes to play games that will mess up other people's lives, and she thinks nothing of doing so. Her accomplice is the pleasure-seeking Valmont (John Malcovich). de Merteuil wants to wreck the wedding night of the man betrothed to the beautiful Cecile (17-year-old Uma Thurman). Since her fiancé is expecting a virgin, de Merteuil sets Valmont to seduce her. Malkovitch also goes after the challenging Madame de Tourvel (Pfeiffer), a married, faithful, religious woman. What no one takes into account is that someone during these dalliances might actually fall in love.

The production values are sumptuous and the costumes amazing, as are the performances of all involved, particularly Close and Malcovich. It's a fascinating, sexy, beautifully done film that will keep you fascinated all the way through.

A big disappointment

[Purplelorikeet · 2/10 · 14 April 2002]

After hearing for years how wonderful this movie is, I finally sat down and watched it, and was thoroughly disappointed. I especially found Malkovich a bit too whiny to be believable as the Vicomte de Valmont. He is supposed to be a lover of many women but I find it hard to believe many would be drawn to him in this film. Glenn Close does perform well except that I don't believe her character could be believed to be anything but a hardened woman, disappointed in love and badly used in marriage. I do credit Michelle Pfeiffer as giving a good performance as Madame de Tourvel. It is believable although not quite as I had pictured it when reading the book.

I have not seen the more recent film, "Cruel Intentions" based on the book, but I have seen "Valmont". Of the two versions, I much prefer "Valmont". Although it does not follow the book's plot, it is definitely believable and Annette Bening is exactly how I would picture Madame de Mertueil: absolutely an angel in public, but cunning and deceitful behind the scenes. Colin Firth seems a far more likely Valmont, very likeable and difficult for a woman to resist. My only complaint with that film was the lack of consistency in the accents of the characters.

Wonderful mixture of deception, betrayal, and wickedness

[Adriane · 15 March 1999]

I loved this movie. Glenn Close was wonderful as usual, John Malkovich (wonderful as the bad guy we all love to hate in every movie) and Michelle were great, and the ending was great although sad. Glenn Close should have won the Oscar, as well as Michelle. Costumes and sets are beautiful. Watch this one if you are in the mood for betrayal, deception and characters that you want to slap.

It was Beyond My Control on how much I love this film.

[mark.waltz · 10/10 · 14 March 2013]

With one look she can break your heart. With one look she plays every part. She can make your sad heart sing. With one look you'll know all you need to know. Those paraphrased lyrics from "Sunset Boulevard" describe the performance of one of the greatest actresses of the past 30 years.

Glenn Close probably never got closer to the Oscar than with this delicious costume drama with massive comic overtones as a widowed French noblewoman who, several decades before the French Revolution, utilizes her social position to destroy lives amongst the nobles around her. There are two key scenes to this devilish woman's love for the game, here destroying the innocence of two young virginal noblewomen (Michelle Pfeiffer and Uma Thurman) by having them both seduced by the most vile nobleman since the Marquis de Sade. John Malkovich, already Close's ex-lover and ultimate libertine, is given the challenge to be the first not only to deflower Pfeiffer but to make her fall in love with him then break her heart in the process. The first scene is when Close reads a letter from Thurman, at first so serious, then smiling like the Grinch as she realizes how her evil plot is succeeding, later grinning like the Chesire Cat from "Alice in Wonderland" as she gets out of her carriage then rushes to comfort the heart-broken young lady.

Pretty much a perfect film, this is human manipulation at its most sinister. The heart can't be cured for an innocent young lady, and what ends up happening destroys many lives. Close is pretty much the whole film, her bosom wrapped tightly in those corsets, and looking absolutely ravishing. If there was ever a Norma Desmond to be, Close assured herself that role with this movie which ironically followed her other "bad lady" role, Alex Forrest of "Fatal Attraction". As for Malkovich, he is an odd choice to play a man of such sexual desire, but he really does pull it off, and Pfeiffer is heartbreaking as the woman who tries so hard to keep herself pure but is doomed to her own growing womanhood.

The one mistake in the cast is Keanu Reeves, laughable here (as he was in the otherwise wonderful "Bram Stoker's Dracula") as he recites the lines as if he was taking elocution lessons on the set. Fortunately, his role is rather minor, the most of the time being the game of cat and mouse (or mouse and cat) for Close and Malkovich where you know that the winner will also loose. Deserving mention in smaller roles are Swoosie Kurtz as Thurman's mother and veteran actress Mildred Natwick as the grande dame of the countryside French social scene. The peace de resistance is the end, one which seems to take forever to unfold, but leaves a satisfying sense of irony in the viewer's head. It took more than 20 years for the magnetic Close to return to the Oscar race, but when she did, it was one worth the wait, her cross-dressing butler from "Albert Nobbs".

You can see why France had its revolution.

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 24 December 2005]

Stephen Frears directs a top-notch movie adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos' novel about several manipulative Rococo-era French aristocrats. Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil (Glenn Close) is a seductively evil character who will stop at nothing to get what she wants. Vicomte Sebastien de Valmont (John Malkovich) knows how to trick the peasants into thinking that he's a good guy, despite his vampiric intentions. Madame Marie de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) and Le Chevalier Raphael Danceny (Keanu Reeves) may be only products of this vile society, but they are practically helpless to do anything about it. Maybe it's a little strange to see Keanu Reeves in a movie like this, but he makes the best of his role. All in all, "Dangerous Liaisons" is a movie that you can't afford to miss. Perfect.

enjoyable psychological fantasy

[mukava991 · 7/10 · 14 February 2010]

Dangerous Liaisons, based on an oft-adapted epistolary novel from the waning days of the French ancien regime, is given as straightforward a treatment by director Stephen Frears as one could give a story with so many twists and turns that it taxes the brain after a while.

Like many other European works, this one is about well-to-do schemers (The Marquise de Merteuil, played by Glenn Close and the Vicomte de Valmont, played by John Malkovich) who have learned from years of social interaction how to micro-manipulate people – whether to protect themselves or to get what they want - with the skill of world-class chess players or scientists with lab rats. After about an hour of these intricate moves it gets a bit difficult to tell who is doing what to whom and why, and since all of the plot developments hinge on the outcome of various seamlessly clever deceptions, the overall effect is somewhat tedious. This sense is reinforced by the style of the film: extreme close-ups for the mostly conversational interactions, alternating with long-shots to establish the grandiose backdrops against which these interactions are occurring, and then back to extreme close-ups. I eventually stopped trying to figure out exactly where each sequence fit into the whole and concentrated on the nuanced performances, splendid period costumes and décor, assuming that all of the details would work themselves out clearly by the end; fortunately, they do – not convincingly, but at least satisfactorily as a kind of psychological fantasy.

The relationship between Valmont and Mme. Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) is problematic. We know that Valmont wants to maneuver the devout Mme. Tourvel into seduction with her complete cooperation, all the better to humiliate her to the core, but I never believed that she could fall in love with – and even be driven to near madness by - Valmont as incarnated by Malkovich. He has a sinister magnetism, largely due to the catlike curl of his lips, but he is also more in the mold of Bela Lugosi-as-Dracula, rather than a virile rake with a well-known string of conquests to his name, and not the type of guy who would attract the likes of Pfeiffer. He projects eroticism from his face and through his voice, which is the result of his actorly skill and also fortunate for this film because his body is unsexy, and wisely camouflaged by long jackets. But back to his character, it is not only hard to believe that Pfeiffer has fallen in love with him, but also that he has fallen in love with her, as he claims. Nothing in his treatment of her suggests anything other than psychological brutality. His performance is characterized by deliberately wooden line readings so strange that it's like Al Franken doing a Saturday Night Live spoof of the film. Uma Thurman, as Malkovich's secondary victim, is perfect as the naïve teenager ripe for the taking. But the real glory is Glenn Close, a fascinating actress who has the Streep-like ability to fully inhabit any character she plays. With her hawklike features, beady eyes and pale skin, she is particularly good at projecting highly intelligent, cold cruelty.

Christopher Hampton's script is dappled with dry, literate wit and cynical wisdom reminiscent of Oscar Wilde. A sword fight (the context of which I will not reveal) is particularly well staged and realistically acted.

The tragedy of Valmont and Merteuil, hinted at in one of Merteuil's own monologues about how she learned to survive in a cutthroat social environment, is perhaps that they have built up such powerful defenses against hurt and humiliation that they have suffocated their ability to love and be loved. And in the end, as a result, all that remains is pain.

Brilliantly plunging the depths of corruption

[jthain · 9/10 · 4 March 2004]

!!!Spoilers aplenty!!!

Since Frears' "Dangerous Liaisons" is set in the time of de Laclos' Text, unlike e.g. "Cruel Intentions," it is important to note that the novel as a thinly disguised attack on the Ancien Regime - hence no redemption is possible, the end in death a necessity.

The narrative relying far more on dialogue than action, I think Stephen Frears made the right choice in not "speeding up" the piece by frequent cutting. The pace at which the cabal develops is leisurely going towards slow, but I think that is advantageous. This is because its very slowness allows us to appreciate the atmosphere in which Merteuil and Valmont plan the ruination of innocents: boredom, really. They have nothing better to do, so destroying others is a pastime to them.

The settings, costumes, and makeup reinforce this atmosphere - they are splendidly done, and one may well talk of oppressive opulence. The opening of the film actually puts costume and make-up to symbolic use; it is inspired: we follow Merteuil and Valmont through their morning toilette, getting dressed and made up, foreshadowing the masquerade they put on and in which they both are actors, but Merteuil is eventually revealed to be the director.

The casting I thought superb. Malkovich is in my opinion perfectly suited to play Valmont precisely because he is not conventionally attractive. The character relies on his powers of manipulation and the occasional subterfuge for his `conquests,' and Malkovich achieves an accomplished embodiment of both - impossible to say no to, with just that necessary element of ruthlessness. There have been complaints that Glenn Close is not attractive enough to be the Marquise, but I disagree. Her character is motivated by a will to control and dominate. As she says herself: `I was born to dominate your sex and to avenge my own' or words to that effect. Her sexuality similarly is not driven purely by pleasure, hence her refusal to give Valmont his reward. She sees him not conforming to the part she has `written' for him and re-establishes herself as unattainable unless he brings the ultimate sacrifice. And Glenn Close delivers this calculating woman so convincingly that it is easy for me at least to understand why Valmont would go to any length to bed her. Just as he wants Tourvel to betray everything she ever believed in, he wants the controlling Merteuil to submit to him - hence the repeated reminders of their past love. Merteuil at one point says that he was the only one she (almost? I'm not entirely sure) lost control with.

The supporting actors I also find well chosen. Reeves may seem a strange choice, but the character is a bit of a wet blanket to start with, and he gives the docile creature easily manipulated by Valmont and Merteuil quite well. But better are Pfeiffer and Thurman, who both undergo convincing changes from innocents abroad to someone well on the way to a willing pupil of the Marquise and Vicomte (in Thurman's case) and to someone genuinely suffering from the opposing demands of morals and love (Pfeiffer).

If you only watch one dialogue-driven costume drama set in the eighteenth century this year, make it this one (though if you can take more, give `The Madness of King George' a look-in, too).

Dangerous Liaisons

[lasttimeisaw · 6/10 · 25 November 2012]

First of all, no offense, but calling John Malkovich "conspicuously charming" and watching him French-kissing both Michelle Pfeiffer and Uma Thurman (an underage ingenue), have smeared the film for me, at least it is my case, maybe many will rebuke my subjective opinion (I am not a girl so what the hack do I know?), but owing to the fact that he had been almost exclusively snubbed by the award season, while the film has clutched 7 Oscar nominations (including BEST PICTURE, BEST ACTRESS for Close and BEST S. ACTRESS for Pfeiffer) and 3 wins (Adapted Screenplay, Art Direction and Costume Design), which has a clear-cut spin from the mass and the critics at that time, I am not saying it is an awful performance (on the contrary, Malkovich is conspicuously in his top-form to indulge himself into the libidinous libertine alter ago), but a miscast sometimes does besmirch the film, it happens (let's not mention the callow couple Reeves and Thurman here).

Although the opulent costumes and Rococo interior decor will never be tainted by time since they are meticulously reinstated that period, the film itself has bit by bit lost its relish which may be the characteristic eminence from the source novel and play: an intricate scrutiny of the sex-and-love tangles dominated by jealousy, vanity, revenge, lust and possession, and it's well-off echelon's game, so the detachment is not only from time, but also from some moral apathy towards the rotten class.

Director Stephen Frears is a polymorphous journeyman, but falls shy of distinctiveness (usually his works are more actor-driven vehicles, to wit, THE QUEEN 2006, 8/10; MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS 2005, 8/10; DIRTY PRETTY THINGS 2002, 8/10; THE GRIFTERS 1990, 7/10), in this periodic sex drama, mostly indoor tableaux, Frears relies on his Oscar-caliber cast to enrich the sentimental spectacle.

Close and Pfeiffer are pitch-perfect as the antithesis of women, a feline matriarch vs. an innocent victim (a similar situation in Iain Softley's UK-based period melodrama THE WINGS OF THE DOVE 1997, 8/10), both have their Oscar-worthy meaty baits up their sleeves, Close has honed up to a magnificent breakdown scene, a theater-exiting drama and a make-up removing curtain call all near the end; while Pfeiffer's role has an inherent affinity resonating with the audience merely by the wretched prey default.

So, put the film into the context of 21 century, the film and its story might sounds mawkish and theatrical, but still we have a Chinese version this year by South Korean director Jin-ho Hur, starring a stellar Chinese-Korean cast, Ziyi Zhang, Dong-gun Jang and Cecilia Cheung, but after watching this Hollywood version, I think I should skip the new version in case of a worse exploitation may make me sick to the hilt.

Sexual decadence before the fall of the guillotine

[DennisLittrell · 9/10 · 15 September 2001]

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

This is a tale about the ancien régime in 18th 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, 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 IMDb.com 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 of war? He says, "A single word is all that is required." Long pause, and then she gives him three, "All right. (Pause.

Cut to satisfied smile on Valmont's face.) 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."

Stylish and fascinating adaptation with all-star-cast giving terrific acting

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 11 December 2021]

France before 1789 , the story deals with two aristocratic libertines who embark on a twisted and cruel intrigue to spread dismay and corruption wherever they can . When a scheming widow (Glenn Close) hears that her lover is to marry her cousin's daughter , she asks the corrupt playboy Valmont (John Malkovich) to take the girl's virginity and they then make a thorny bet . But first she bets him , with her body as prize , to seduce a virtuous young , married woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) . The lover , Valmont , bets that he can seduce her , even though she is an honorable , devout woman . If he wins , he can have his lover to do as he will . Along the way , the Marquise of Merteuil and the Vizcomte spend their time testing and manipulating the loves of others . Based on the same novel as "Dangerous Liaisons", a scandalous success when it first appeared in 1782 . Lust . Seduction . Revenge . The Game As You've Never Seen It Played Before . As unpredictable as love itself.

This excellent movie is perfectly performed by a magnificent plethora of actors playing aristocratic roles based on the characters created by Choderlos de Laclos from the play "Les liaisons dangereuses" and interesting script by Christopher Hampton , in which a playboy count called Valmont loves beautiful women and in the process of seducing a married woman , he falls in love . The studded-cast impersonating correctly the peculiar personages , they work out the look of the characters , the voices , gestures and styles . Absorbing and riveting rendition set in Baroque France , centering around the two egoistic decadent members of the18th-century French nobility . Regarding the corruption , ambition , ruthlessnes and badness of a thunderous epoch , XVIII Century , pre-French revolution . Fabulous and stunning protagonists , such as : Glenn Close as the nasty Marquise de Merteuil , John Malkovich as Vicomte de Valmont , the rakish and amoral seducer as you might expect and Michelle Pfeiffer as failthful , devout Madame de Tourvel who becomes one of their victims , all of them bring depth , modernity and immediacy to their characters that reveals the intensity of feeling that exists beneath the powdered wigs, and brilliant language . Along with a magnificent and elegant support cast , such as : Swoosie Kurtz , Keanu Reeves , Peter Capaldi , Mildred Natwick who's tremendous in her last film role and a young gorgeous Uma Thurman . Interesting to comparison-view with ¨Valmont¨ 1989 by Milos Forman with Colin Firth as Valmont , Annette Bening as Merteuil , Meg Tilly as Madame de Tourvel , Fairuza Balk , Jeffrey Jones , Henry Thomas , though this retelling had already pinched all the kudos and doesn't have the same impact as the Stephen Frears version .

Insightful production design and luxurious sets describing the glamorous scenarios these people live in , as well as lush costumes , gowns and atrezzo . Colorful and appropriate cinematography by Philippe Rousselot with exceptional images and showing splendorous settings and evocative palaces . This riveting picture was well directed by Stephen Frears , providing an elegant portrayal of the jaded decadence of the 18th century French aristocracy on the eve of the French Revolution . Stephen has directed a large number of films of great quality and big hit . He has directed seven Oscar nominated performances : Glenn Close, Michelle Pfeiffer, Anjelica Huston, Annette Bening, Helen Mirren, Judi Dench and Meryl Streep and Mirren won for The Queen (2006). He directed three Oscar Best Picture nominees: Dangerous Liaisons (1988), The Queen (2006) and Philomena (2013). Stephen's specialized on portrayals about diverse social stratum , such as he proved in : ¨Liam¨, ¨The Van¨, ¨The snapper¨ , ¨My beautiful laundrette¨, ¨Sammy and Rosie get laid¨, among others . Rating: 7/10. Better than average, well worth watching.

Great fun to be a playa like Malkovich

[bsinc · 8/10 · 11 April 2003]

This movie had an extraordinary cast (the incomprehensibly bad Keanu Reeves definitely excluded) which created a movie that still looks great 15 years later. I watched "Cruel Intentions" before "Dangerous Liaisons" and I like both of them, but in a different way. "Cruel Intentions" is a very cool movie mostly intended for the younger generations, simplifying the plot but still maintaining the very essence while "Dangerous Liaisons" puts more importance to the actors performance. Malkovich is amazing, so is Glenn Close and I especially liked the 17 year old Uma Thurman! 8/10

Devious fun.

[karen-128 · 6/10 · 25 June 2001]

Based on a play, this 'morality tale'- although I'm unsure of the morality involved- is fascinating. Malkovitch and Close tear up the screen as brutal ugly rivals, and Michelle Pfieffer gives one of her strongest performances as the beauty at the center of it all. Featuring a young and gorgeous Uma Thurman (terrific) and a young and inarticulate Keanu Reeves (miscast) this little gem is very well made, and worth seeing.

a modern soap opera in fancy period dress

[mjneu59 · 5/10 · 12 November 2010]

This playfully cynical costume drama exposes the difference between the polite manners and bloodthirsty morals of mid 18th century nobility, as the Maquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont (Glen Close and John Malkovich, respectively) exercise their wiles in competitive games of sex and corruption. The film highlights some of Stephen Frears' most self-assured direction to date, but screenwriter Christopher Hampton's adaptation of his own successful stage play lacks teeth: the supposedly razor-sharp dialogue all too often sounds wooden and anachronistic (try to recall a single line afterward), and the dramatic payoff is unaccountably soft. The scenario demands to be read as a microcosm of the eternal battle between the sexes, with women using sex to gain power and men using power to get sex, but the message is mixed: in the end Malkovich is redeemed by true love, while Close is ruined by it. Deep down it's simply a modern soap opera in fancy period dress, enjoyable but wildly overpraised.