Dangerous Liaisons

I saw both "Dangerous Liaisons" and "Valmont" long before I read the original French novel, and now I understand why both movies left me feeling that something was missing, that the stories were lame, even though they were both good movies if one likes period pieces. It is necessary to read the chilling conclusion of the novel, in which both the lead characters are much more wicked than in the films, to appreciate Laclos' criticism of the prevailing morality, or lack of it, among the privileged aristocracy of his day. The other defect of the movie versions was the casting; granted that all the actors in both films were good actors, except of course Reeves, but they simply were not believable in their roles. Close and Malkovich were not beautiful enough, and Firth and Bening were not wicked enough, to make the plot believable. I wish someone, maybe a French director as has been suggested, would make the definitive version. (I did think Henry Thomas was perfect in the role of Danceny in Valmont, his sweet innocence combined with budding bravado was excellent--why haven't we seen more of him lately?)

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.

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,

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.

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.