Yar, you be here: Dangerous Liaisons > Customer Reviews

Dangerous Liaisons Customer Reviews (25 - 27 of 28 Reviews)

The Game as You have never seen it....
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.

REALLY GOOD
Keeping it simple... if you've ever seen the recent Cruel Intentions, its almost exactly like that. Only this is the REAL version. It's a whole lot better since it's sent back in the 1800's... i think. But it is REALLY good and I recommed it to anyone above the age of thirteen cause it'd be a bit inappropriate, but it is REALLY REALLY good and i can't seem to stress that enough.

Great Potential Ruined By Mediocre Actors
Stephen Frears adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuse draws the audience into the amorous intrigues of 18th century France. Although Glenn Close as Marquise De Merteuil and John Malkovich the Vicomte De Valmont deliver impeccable performances as the principal characters, the whole setting is ruined by the simply atrocious performances by Keeanu Reeves and Michelle Pfeiffer.

Reeves and Pfeiffer actually have a lot in common in that their mediocre acting skills undermine the historical setting of the film. As is typical with most method actors, Reeves and Pfeiffer are best at playing their own bland personalities without much creativity: this type of training rarely works in period films as the actor tries to incorporate the character's moods and actions into their own personality as opposed to the other way around. The typical result is that the actor fails to follow the proper idioms, mannerisms, and language of such characters. In short, neither Pfeiffer or Reeves have the tact or skill to play a historical character (This is perfectly demonstrated in Reeve's horrible performance in Coppolla's Dracula.) Typically, successful period films tend to be those who have theatrical actors (i.e. Richard Burton, Alec Guinness, Anthony Hopkins, John Lithgow, James Earl Jones, etc.)

Although I did somewhat enjoy this rendition, I preferred Milos Foreman's "Valmont" with Collin Firth and Annette Benning. The film was more faithful to the cultural sensibilities of 18th century France than Dangerous Liaisons.

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Next Page