Reseñas de usuarios

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.

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.

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,

"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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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."

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

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.

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.