Le relazioni pericolose

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.

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.

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.

The Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil is a harsh and cold woman who views other women as her rivals as clearly as she holds them publicly close as friends. Victomte Sebastien de Valmont is equally out for the destruction of women but does so by seducing and destroying them. Merteuil turns to Valmont to seduce the chaste Cecile de Volanges, thus destroying her marriage but Valmont cannot help and feel that it is all too easy and instead wagers sex with Merteuil against him being able to seduce the notoriously moral Marie de Tourvel.

While children flock to the infinitely inferior Cruel Intentions, the viewer of more discerning taste will always stick with this classy, rich and enjoyable version of Dangerous Liaisons. The plot can be summarised simply but has several strong threads running together to create an involving game of seduction and cruelty. The say the film is nasty and cruel is to perhaps not stress highly enough how enjoyable it is for being so; it is done with such a taste for it that it makes it engaging while also being repulsive in the depths the games go to. It develops very satisfyingly and I easily found myself drawn into it. It is to the credit of Hampton's script that I found the characters both horrible but yet also engaging – unlike Cruel Intentions where I just hated their vacuous selfishness and couldn't barely bring myself to care about them enough to even dislike them. No, with DL the characters are much stronger and much more appealing while simultaneously managing to be cruel and repulsive.

The cast rise to the material and I'm hard pressed to think of a similarly starry cast where all involved turn in such rich performances. Close is maybe not the most obvious of roles but she is all the better for it, turning in one of the most deliciously scheming and cruel characters I can recall seeing. With the excesses it is to her credit that she is so subtle and restrained for the majority. Malkovich has more fun with a showier character and makes it look easy where really it is challenging to play such an anti-hero and keep the audience onside while also pushing them away. Although these two make up the majority of the film, the smaller roles are also very well filled. Pfeiffer is brilliant; Thurman gets the mix of innocence and sexuality just right and Reeves is, well, not rubbish. I refrain from giving any credit to Kurtz simply because I think she lost whatever she was due by appearing in the same role in the MTV remake. Frears' direction is great and he makes good use of close-ups and other reoccurring techniques; he is well supported by his costume and set designers who combine to produce a tangible sense of time and place that is befitting the lavish feel of the whole film.

Overall this is a fine film that is driven by so many factors that it is hard to pin down just one. The script is well written and produces an engaging and tasty plot for adults to get into. The characters are both engaging and repulsive and are well delivered by a cast that give roundly strong performances. All this comes together to produce a fantastically cruel film that just shows how poor Cruel Intentions was and what an insult to the intelligence it is.

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?)