Liaison fatale

A white-knuckled "don't-let-this-happen-to-you" thriller that vividly demonstrates what can happen to a guy when he lets other parts of his anatomy do his thinking for him. Manhattan lawyer Dan Callagher (Mike Douglas) has it all: successful career, attractive wife, nice dog, an d a loving daughter. So why not have an extramarital fling with a woman he met at a party while the family is out of town? Sure. Just a one-night stand. No harm, no harm done. But there's something very nasty about Dan's partner in crime, because blonde Alex Forrest (Glenn Close) may have all the right moves in the sack, but she also has an elevator that doesn't go all the way to the top. So when Dan wants to shake hands and part company, Alex will have none of it, and the table is set for a one-way ticket to Looney Land...

The moral is very simple: human beings are fragile. Leading on a single female as Dan Gallagher does in this movie can result in drastic consequences. Human beings are controlled by emotions: laughter, sadness, etc... Therefore, someone in Dan Gallagher's position must realize that inviting a single young lady to a tête-à-tête in a restaurant harbors relief to her solitude and brings her into a fantasy-life. On the other hand, Alex Forrest is attractive, relatively young, cultured, and intelligent. She definitely will find someone, but I still understand her reluctance to let Dan go. Overall, this is an fantastic suspenseful edge of your seat thriller type of movie, which can also be seen as a pioneer of films of this sort. No film hit the subject of cheating quite like this.

Overall rating: 9 out of 10.

A married man (Michael Douglas)'s one night stand comes back to haunt him when that lover (Glenn Close) begins to stalk him and his family.

Apparently when this film came out it had some feminist backlash because it appears to show a career woman as psychotic, while the stay-at-home wife is good and subservient. That is one way to read it, but it would be putting meaning in there that probably was never intended.

This is quite simply someone with mental issues going after another person. It has a bit of a morality tale in there, scaring men off of cheating. But there is not much in it about gender. It simple works better as a psychotic woman rather than a man, because a psychotic man with a knife is pretty mundane.

Let me start by saying that this was a very decent movie. Michael Douglas at his best doing the roles he does best. And not only him but the rest of the crew as well.

To me, the best part of this movie is actually the very believable plot. This is a situation that could happen to anyone, and to a different extent has happened to people I know. Furthermore, both the script and all the actors make the movie all the more believable. It is true that the movie deflates itself towards the end, but overall it is a great movie, and even a warning movie for the ones attempting to do what is done there.

The movie gets 8 points on my list because of the less-believable ending, and also because Glenn Close, while doing a perfect part in the acting, should take the part of the wife, and the wife (Anne Archer) should take the part of Glenn Close. This said, even as it is the movie should not be unbelievable. I have seen worse, and you will know what I mean when you actually watch the movie yourself.

One thing that cracked me up were the negative comments on this website. It seems that they were mostly written by women with chip in their shoulders. They do not criticize the movie, but the "fatal attraction". They criticize the fact that men would do this or that, or that a man would prefer X over Y...basically making quite clear that something touched them at a personal level and they did not like it. I guess truth hurts.

If you haven't watch this movie, do it. It is well written, incredibly well acted, and as much as you will have to forgive the last 5 minutes, it is overall a great movie.

Given that I see about 150-200 movies a year (mostly in the theater, but also on demand), it is absolutely amazing that I had never seen "Fatal Attraction", originally released in 1987 (119 min.), yes 33 years ago! So the other night I was channel-surfing for something good to watch, and there it was about to start on SHO. I decided to tune in.

No point in introducing the film's plot, which everyone knows. So let me just add a couple of general observations. First, I was surprised how good the film actually was. I'm not sure where I had gotten the idea in my head that this probably wasn't going to be all that good, but it is an intense, very intense, stalker-drama. Second, the three lead performances are rock solid, led by a believable crazy-over-the-top Glenn Close. Her transformation from lover to stalker to hater is absolutely spine-tingling. Third, the movie of course feels a bit dated when you see not a single communication exchange on mobile devices. Instead, old landline phones actually ring out loud. No texting of course. Fourth, after watching this the other night, I read up a bit on the movie's history and legacy, and it was then that I learned that the movie's original ending was changed drastically into what we now know as the ending. The original ending sounds sounds more logical to me that what it eventually would become, although I can certainly see the shock value in the new ending.

Bottom line, this movie was a pleasant surprise all around, and these 2 hours just flew by. Glad that I finally joined the rest of the cinema-loving crowd and now have seen "Fatal Attraction", 33 years after the facts. If you are one of those who like me hadn't seen this yet. I'd readily suggest you check it out and draw your own conclusion.

The plot of Fatal Attraction is well known and supposedly, when the movie was released, it terrified married men to the extent that it reduced adultery rates, or so the story goes. I find that mildly amusing and hard to verify.

What is more interesting is the character of Alex, portrayed skillfully by Glenn Close. The fact that Close didn't have the typical physique to play a "femme fatale" makes her role even more compelling, demonstrating the unpredictability of attraction. Her Alex is only mildly attractive but exudes a wild, deranged sexuality. Her frizzy hair, lack of eyebrows, and pale mouth didn't enhance her appearance, but Alex compensated with aggressive outfits and a matching attitude.

Some have tried to frame her as a feminist icon, but Alex is just a deranged, damaged criminal. At the start of the movie, it's clear that she's leading Dan where she wants him. During their dinner, Dan says, "This will end the way you want it," indicating that the idea was a no-strings-attached one-night stand between consenting adults, especially since Alex knew Dan was married.

They spend another day together because Alex insists, but Dan never gives the impression that he is in love with her or anything more than temporarily interested.

What is bizarre is Alex's change of behavior when Dan shows no further interest. From an independent professional, Alex transforms into a clingy, begging mess of a woman, which is explained vaguely, if at all.

While Dan's infidelity is not justified, I think he receives a punishment far harsher than he deserves. It's not true that he "used" Alex, who was more than willing to be used (as seen in the elevator scene). Moreover, falling out of love-or in this case, out of lust-is not a crime.

Alex turns into a violently aggressive psycho, and if the genders were reversed, everyone would side with the married person. Imagine a man harassing a former female lover with nonstop phone calls, destroying her car, and kidnapping her child. Everyone would scream "Stalker!" So why is Alex seen as a "feminist" and not a criminal?

All the lead actors were excellent, including Douglas, Archer, and Latzen, who played one of the few genuinely cute kids I've seen on screen. It's a pity about the over-the-top ending.