NOTE IMDb
5,8/10
1,1 k
MA NOTE
Un couple d'ex-amants intrigants tente d'exploiter les autres en utilisant le pouvoir de la séduction. Adaptation télévisée du roman classique du 18e siècle de Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, "L... Tout lireUn couple d'ex-amants intrigants tente d'exploiter les autres en utilisant le pouvoir de la séduction. Adaptation télévisée du roman classique du 18e siècle de Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, "Les Liaisons Dangereuses".Un couple d'ex-amants intrigants tente d'exploiter les autres en utilisant le pouvoir de la séduction. Adaptation télévisée du roman classique du 18e siècle de Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, "Les Liaisons Dangereuses".
- Nomination aux 1 BAFTA Award
- 3 nominations au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis à la une
This production is another example of today's media trend of dumbing down great past works of art that appealed to mind, body and heart and instead writing sophomoric scripts full of insultingly expository dialogue, gratuitous sex, and non-existent character development. Oh...and somehow it's ok to anachronistically race flip historical characters, but not gender flip any. Instead, this adaptation reinforces cliche false sex stereotypes about men and women and turns the delightful cat and mouse game of the original tale between a female and her male equal into a cringeworthy catfight between two women spewing the comically insulting female tropes we (unfortunately) see everywhere else these days. Skip it. I had to go back and watch the Glenn Close/John Malkovich (1988) and Annette Bening/Colin Firth (1989) versions just to cleanse my palette. Oh, what Leslie Manville could have done with scripts of that caliber! But...now we'll never know...
It isn't the epistolary novel put to digital media - that wouldn't be possible would it, as it would still require a screenwriter/adaption - so complaints that it isn't that are a bit weird - also part of the joy of the epistolary form is that the authors aren't an objective narrator so as you read you fill in the gaps, guess at the truth, compare and contrast. That is what this take does, it is an expanded universe imagined from those letters and using more modern critiques of the excesses and hypocrisy of the historical period. Its fun, fruity and with enough faithfulness to the time (with the added glamour and gorgeousness and grime and stench in other settings, that you want from entertainment) to give new insights and considerations into this time in France. The acting is largely good, the script and dialogue trot along nicely and are funny and intriguing without being too earnest or 'olde worlde' clunky, and the cast, costumes and sets are presented brilliantly, producing a well realised world. Ongoing and boring complaints from reviewers who are obsessed with how much melanin some actors have proves again that they need to read more books (I mean Jean-Baptiste Belley was elected to the French Parliament 10yrs after the first book so the idea that people of colour weren't in respected/high positions at this time is pure nonsense)
Worth a watch.
This just seems like the scriptwriter has read the premise of Dangerous Liaisons on the back of the book and created a series based purely from their own ideas of what the novel should be about, the period is the same as the novel and some of the characters are but others have been added for some reason. I also want accuracy for anything set historically and while servants and lower classes may be EM in the 18th century a Chevalier would definitely not be. If you want to watch an adaption of DL then watch the 1988 film. Even the Colin Firth film Valmont is a closer adaption and at least they changed the name so as not to confuse people. Unfortunately modern adaptions of classics are getting so bad they should just use the premise and set them in the modern day as modern writers and producers are unable to take themselves out of today's society. I am dreading the next adaption of a Jane Austen novel.
First of all, it's not really an adaptation. If you read carefully even here on IMDB, you will find out that Harriet Warner, who have written the first episode, was merely inspired by the original story. So it's more like a story based on the characters rather than adaptation of the classics, which could be enough for some people to skip it. The story in the series is so different that it actually puzzled me at first: what am I even watching? Character names are known, there seems to be the same period as in the novel, but that's where resemblance ends and it is in a bad way.
Don't be fooled, that's just another attempt to make money on the story with fancy name with the hope that viewer had never read it. Because if you did, there's no other answer to the omnipresent question: why diverting so much from the original novel while keeping character names and the name of the story?
Picture is good and there seems to be an intrigue, but once again, this is not original de Laclos writing and competing with him while keeping the name of his novel seems insulting.
I have only seen the first episode of the show and will not continue with it. If you have never read the story, better read it or watch one of the many successful films: Dangerous Liaisons (1988), Cruel Intentions (1999) or more dated French version from 1960.
Don't be fooled, that's just another attempt to make money on the story with fancy name with the hope that viewer had never read it. Because if you did, there's no other answer to the omnipresent question: why diverting so much from the original novel while keeping character names and the name of the story?
Picture is good and there seems to be an intrigue, but once again, this is not original de Laclos writing and competing with him while keeping the name of his novel seems insulting.
I have only seen the first episode of the show and will not continue with it. If you have never read the story, better read it or watch one of the many successful films: Dangerous Liaisons (1988), Cruel Intentions (1999) or more dated French version from 1960.
I don't agree with the reviews that were discontent over the series departing from the original source material. I do not mind if a film strays from an original story as long as it's well written and directed. Sadly this series not only changed the story but replaced it with something much worse.
The dialogue was dull and boring, the story uninspired and convoluted, and the pace was painfully slow. It's a mystery as to how these shows get green lit. I really like the Starz network's historical dramas but this one was a major disappointment. I suppose the actors did the best they could with terrible dialogue but not even good actors could save this.
The dialogue was dull and boring, the story uninspired and convoluted, and the pace was painfully slow. It's a mystery as to how these shows get green lit. I really like the Starz network's historical dramas but this one was a major disappointment. I suppose the actors did the best they could with terrible dialogue but not even good actors could save this.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesLesley Manville originated the role of Cécile de Volanges in the 1985 Royal Shakespeare Company stage version.
- ConnexionsVersion of Les liaisons dangereuses (1959)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How many seasons does Dangerous Liaisons have?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
What is the Brazilian Portuguese language plot outline for Les Liaisons Dangereuses (2022)?
Répondre