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.

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.

"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

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 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?)