Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

Film Review: "Dangerous Liaisons" (1988)Director Stephen Frears handles an "Academy-Award-Winning" adaptive script by Christopher Hampton based on a novel of 1782 by author Pierre Choderlos de Laclos (1741-1803) to utmost of excellence, directing all-up-front actress Glenn Close as Marquise de Merteuil teaming up with actor John Malkovich, given face to scene-stealing Vicomte de Valmont, who together rule a French court of the 18th century "Renaissance"; winning affections of the innocent as they were fruits to be picked from a sacred tree, when supporting cast members surrounding Uma Thurman, Michelle Pfeiffer as unfortunate Madame de Tourvel and Keanu Reeves as all-too inexperienced knight in an climaxing egee-swinging duel, when Merteuil & Valmont keep the upper hand to win high society favours only to confront themselves nevertheless in the end after all that there can only be one to survive for a future at the court.The Warner Bros. distributed picture has nothing lost of his seductive beat-work throughout every scene as director Stephen Frears well-researched conditioning of his ensemble cast, when just getting blocked out at the Oscars in their 61st edition for a "Best Director" nomination over British comedy "A Fish Called Wanda" directing Charles Crichton (1910-1999) as the adaptive script and costume designs win nevertheless for eternalized recognition of a remaining motion picture classic.

Watched this Oscar winning movie right after finishing the book. It was waste of time! The screenplay, which strangely won an Oscar, was totally different from the book. Author of the script just spoiled everything, didn't include very important moments of the story and just used cliché sentences. The end of the movie doesn't say anything. Or actually one might think she's seeking revenge, which is not exactly correct. The only reason to watch this movie, is the fabulous acting of Glenn Close. She is fantastic and i wish the script was as good as her play. And of course - costumes are amazing! So if you have no time to read the novel, just remember, movie will say nothing to you!

I'm actually not the biggest fan of the story in DANGEROUS LIAISONS, and I think that the other famous adaptation, CRUEL INTENTIONS, actually does a better job bringing out the juvenility by making the principals teenagers. Still, for what the story lacks in likability, DANGEROUS LIAISONS makes up in spades with class. Although the satire is still there, I much preferred the biting wit and dialogue in this version. Glenn Close has rarely been better and gets most of the choice lines/moments, but most of the rest of the cast doesn't slouch either. John Malkovich was one of the issues I had with the film. He has played a lot of devious characters before and since, but I didn't care for the way he underplayed his character's malicious intent. To be honest, his performance could have used a little more "spice." Still, he did a passable job. The only member of the cast I didn't like at all, although he has a small role, was Keanu Reeves as an effete music teacher and paramour of Uma Thurman. His line readings were awful and showed that he really isn't up to the task (at least not at this point in his career) of performances requiring some degree of dramatic heft. Aside from the sexual politics which, although betraying the period it was written in, were still well-played and explicated, my favorite aspects of the film were the production design and score. For a period piece, this ranks very high in terms of quality and attention to detail. I also liked the harpsichord-heavy score which accentuated the stylization and formality of the time (among aristocrats). The score also had moments of darkness in appropriate scenes, particularly towards the end. Ultimately, I find the idea of the story, with bored aristocrats playing sexual games with each other, to be somewhat banal and passé (not to mention, sexist), but the way it is executed in DANGEROUS LIAISONS makes it a great deal more palatable.

Dangerous Liaisons (1988)A cunning, beautifully written, and rather enchanting period movie (set in late 1700s in France—the same time as the American Revolution). Glenn Close is subtle and changeable and wicked, as well as funny, luckily, in her complex role. Really great. John Malkovich is good, though I agree with a common comment that he doesn't have the dastardly charm a rake like his character would have needed to succeed. Competing young beauties in the form of Michelle Pfeiffer and Uma Thurman make an interesting backdrop. And the games begin.The terrific basis of the whole interwoven intrigues is the simple fact that the upper classes were bored and amoral. They were willing to do mean things to good people for amusement. That they end up conflicting with each other is just part of the grand bargain. Why not? Otherwise their pampered lives would be oh such a bore!The script is the star here, even more than the leading actors who do so well reading it, and inhabiting it. Close is actually phenomenal, from the opening scene to the last sad end. Watch all her changes in expression, clear and emphatic but not theatrical. Malkovich is both terrific and poorly cast (an odd glitch from the masterful Juliet Taylor, casting director). There is something chilling and cunning about his role, toying with young women's hearts and generally being an indifferent cad, and we know the actor is good at that. But he's also supposed to be dangerously charming, and he doesn't come close. He wins women by insisting rather than beguiling. It seemed off pitch.But never mind a quibble. It's an amazing movie, rather like a William Wyler version of a 1940s drama—in color of course, but with a feeling of making it perfect on the screen. It never flags, it's sometimes deliberately maddening, and it even has a kind of Shakespearean ending that works. And works well. High praise. And watchable more than once for the sheer smartness of the writing.