UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Sanjeev Waters A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Kirpianuscus more than beautiful. or seductive adaptation. its basic virtue - to explore the bitter taste of cruelty. and this is one of aspects who defines the impressive performance of John Malkovich as a Valmond looking to save him like an early Dorian Gray. the entire game becomes a form of survive against yourself. and this is the detail who does the film different by other adaptations. the show of struggles, secrets, plans, victims, illusion of power and expected fall. Glenn Close is fascinating as Marquise de Merteuil. the great virtue of Stephen Frears - to impose a story with fine precision to the viewer in a total show. the costumes, Keanu Reeves, the music, Uma Thurman, the sparkles of dialogues, the end who seems illustration of final of Tosca. a film who remains more a trace and not exactly a simple adaptation.

brchthethird I'm actually not the biggest fan of the story in DANGEROUS LIAISONS, and I think that the other famous adaptation, CRUEL INTENTIONS, actually does a better job bringing out the juvenility by making the principals teenagers. Still, for what the story lacks in likability, DANGEROUS LIAISONS makes up in spades with class. Although the satire is still there, I much preferred the biting wit and dialogue in this version. Glenn Close has rarely been better and gets most of the choice lines/moments, but most of the rest of the cast doesn't slouch either. John Malkovich was one of the issues I had with the film. He has played a lot of devious characters before and since, but I didn't care for the way he underplayed his character's malicious intent. To be honest, his performance could have used a little more "spice." Still, he did a passable job. The only member of the cast I didn't like at all, although he has a small role, was Keanu Reeves as an effete music teacher and paramour of Uma Thurman. His line readings were awful and showed that he really isn't up to the task (at least not at this point in his career) of performances requiring some degree of dramatic heft. Aside from the sexual politics which, although betraying the period it was written in, were still well-played and explicated, my favorite aspects of the film were the production design and score. For a period piece, this ranks very high in terms of quality and attention to detail. I also liked the harpsichord-heavy score which accentuated the stylization and formality of the time (among aristocrats). The score also had moments of darkness in appropriate scenes, particularly towards the end. Ultimately, I find the idea of the story, with bored aristocrats playing sexual games with each other, to be somewhat banal and passé (not to mention, sexist), but the way it is executed in DANGEROUS LIAISONS makes it a great deal more palatable.

Amy Adler In pre-Revolution France, two extremely wealthy people play games with others' lives. The Marquise (Glenn Close) picks up and discards men one after the other. This may be because she has long been in love with a notorious rake, the Viconte (John Malkovich). He, too, refuses to fall in love and plays with the hearts of many women. This horrible twosome also likes to egg each other on. Thus, when the Marquise learns that a gentleman of her acquaintance is insisting on marrying a beautiful virgin, Cecile (Uma Thurman), she asks the Viconte to seduce this young gal first. There will be a reward. Cecile is soon the victim of this scheme. However, the Marquise proposes a more difficult challenge to the count. There is a lovely young bride, Madame de T (Michelle Pfeiffer) whose husband is often away. This lady is beautiful and has a spotless reputation for resisting the advances of any other men. Ah, here is a challenge indeed. Thus, while the Marquise begins a romance with a much younger man (Keanu Reeves), the Vic begins his subtle assault on Madame. What will be the consequences of these terrible games with others hearts? This lovely to look at film, with sumptuous sets and costumes, is truly sad and depressing at its core. Yes, the actors are all very fine and it is at times amusing to witness the evil plotting of the two main characters. However, as the movie is based on a long ago play, it truly shows that there is never anything "new" under the sun as wickedness is indeed present at every age, every century. No, don't see this one if you are feeling blue already, as it will not restore your good spirits. But, most film fans will want to view this one at least once, as it is an exploration of "hearts of darkness" as few others do quite as well.

Fluke_Skywalker Continuing my recent powdered wig kick started by 'Amadeus' and 'Marie Antoinette'.I remember this generating some heat when it was first released, but despite featuring several lovely women who I was certain were featured in various stages of undress (*sigh* Uma), and that I likely could've slipped this one past my Mom (because, artsy-fartsy), I had never seen 'Dangerous Liaisons'. Big mistake. I loved it. Why I should find the scheming and sexual politics of the Libertine idle rich of the pre-revolution so fascinating I don't know, but I loved every soapy minute of it. Glenn Close is particularly brilliant. Now the completest in me feels it necessary to seek out 'Valmont' (1989) and 'Cruel Intentions' (1999).