Dangerous Liaisons
Dangerous Liaisons
NR | 05 January 2003 (USA)
SEASON & EPISODES
  • 1
  • Reviews
    Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.
    Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.
    Keira Brennan The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.
    Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
    calpuuurnia I love the book and I've seen almost all the filmed versions, from the Upper East Side setting of Cruel Intentions to the 2nd Korean version, Untold Scandal, but I have to say I was a little disappointed with this one.Firstly, I love Catherine Deneuve but I just couldn't take her in this role! The Marquise de Merteuil is only supposed to give the impression of coldness. Ms. Deneuve is a solid block of ice all the way through this film which makes it difficult to believe anyone would want to bed her much less enjoy it and even less be willing to give their lives for her! Contrast that to Glenn Close's portrayal in the Stephen Frears film and you'll know what I mean.And secondly there is poor Rupert Everett. If I could imagine the Vicomte de Valmont I would certainly have him look like Rupert but again his acting has just too cold! Going back to Frears, what made John Malkovich so perfect in the role was that he was so imperfect! John isn't classically handsome but he's charming and that is what he brings to the role. Even though we know the guy isn't hot we have no problem believing he can score with the ladies, even against their better judgment and numerous protestations, because he's just smooth like that! And what is more we feel badly for him when when he loses Madame de Tourvel and is betrayed by the Marquise.I never once believed Rupert's character felt any real pain. He just seemed like a big, handsome evil Robot! It would have made more sense and been less surprising had he just gone on a rampage and killed everyone in the movie! On a positive note, Rupert's French is beautiful, the soundtrack is marvelous and the costume design is fabulous!
    pmullinsj *** It is strange that I could have gotten them mixed up.But perhaps not really.I don't think Deneuve laughs or cries in 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses.' But the laughter I mentioned before in'Indochine'.I don't think I remember any laughter in 'Indochine.' It now comes back.Those sounds of Lalique were Deneuve's acting of weeping.It is a most oddly inhuman sound when she "cries" on screen.I wonder if her emotional range is limited to "great-actressy" sounds, because it is undeniable that she is a great actress.Yes, those sounds are DIFFERENT. They are parallel to the voices one hears that are mechanically produced and you hear them on the telephone. Somehow robotic, but the sounds of Deneuve crying are moving. They sound like someone who can't quite cry. There hadn't been room for it before, so the ability was lost for her.Or maybe they are the cries and tears of a kind of nobility. Maybe all her real grief is mute and experienced without any sounds, so that when she must weep in a role--and that weeping has to bow to convention in that it has to be heard as some kind of tears that a general public can understand as such--it inevitably sounds artificial.Her most convincing emotions are anger and disgust. Expressions of dissembling are frequent, but an unadulterated joyousness does not seem to be in her repertoire. We hear "French National Treasure" and we hear the inner revolt against this form of high machinic enslavement, a Deleuzian concept that can be found at the higher social levels just as at the lower. (I should have pointed out in my long notes on 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses', for anyone not familiar with 'Wild Palms', that I saw the former film in some ways an "heir" to the latter. 'Wild palms' was of course the Oliver Stone/Bruce Wagner miniseries of 1993, in which the Church of Synthiotics is a mutation of the Church of Scientology. 'Wild Palms' was more obviously cyber-oriented than 'Liaisons', but the modernization of 'Liaisons', a thing I can rarely bear personally whether in theatre or opera, does here make the thing even more menacing, regardless of the fact, pointed out by other reviewers, that a few things just will not quite translate from the bewigged period.)
    info-2225 This version of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" is, in my opinion, a very good 'modern' adaptation/expansion of one of my favourite stories. I liked the 1988 version very much. As an expanded version, this one was delicious.I didn't find the duel/contest to be very convincing. Having said that, I think this is my only negative criticism of the picture. I didn't bother to see the English version. The French version with English subtitles worked very well.
    jandewitt How could a big splashy TV-event starring the combined beauty of Miss Deneuve, Miss Kinski and Miss Sobieski and the reptilian charm of Mister Everett miss?By being rather dull and boring. Somewhat based on that stalwart tale of love, revenge, lust and hate 'Liaisons Dangereuse' the story takes place in a kind Swinging Paris and casts French Idol Deneuve as the Real Wicked Witch of the West. And that's the major fault of the otherwise adequate show: Miss Deneuve, looking alarmingly like Ivana Trump in decay, is much, much too old (and, I'm sorry to admit, old looking) to be credible as the most amoral woman this side of the Channel. Mister Everett fares a little better, but not much. Poor Nastasja Kinski! Once a glamorous and talented star she is relegated to a mere piece of furniture. And Miss Sobieski (said to be the great-great-great niece or something like that of Jan Sobieski, who defeated the Turks in the battle of Kahlenberg and so saved Vienna in 1683) appears rather frumpy and plumpy. No sings of her remarkable talent she demonstrated in the much underrated damsel-in-distress shocker 'The Class House' not so long ago.All in all: a monumental waste of time and money. Even Roger Vadim fared better with his less-than-adequate modern version of de Laclos' glum tale.
    You May Also Like