Well Deserved Praise

Perfectly adorable

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Acres of silk, a top-notch cast, and glimpses of nudity couldn't even begin to disguise the plain fact that Dangerous Liaisons (from 1988) was nothing but a fuggin' tedious bore. There was absolutely no question about it.Here's a brief list of some of the more fitting adjectives that I think best describes the ugly, distastefulness of Dangerous Liaisons' story, in a nutshell - Vicious, Humiliating, Misogynistic, Malicious, Treacherous, Hateful, Scandalous, Cynical, Sadistic.Set in 18th Century France - Dangerous Liaisons' story concerned the utterly horrid, backstabbing antics of rich and bored aristocrats. (Like, didn't these frickin' wealthy bastards have anything better to do?)In this slimy, little "real-life" game of villainous betrayal - Glenn Close played a detestable, butch-dyke Marquise and her despicable, little, two-faced conspirator-friend was played by the effeminate, mealy-mouthed John Malkovich (who was very badly miscast for his part).As an added disappointment - Keanu Reeves' performance as an oafish, little rich-boy was so wooden, in fact, that it made that little puppet-boy named Pinocchio look as if he were really all flesh and blood.

Christopher Hampton writes the screenplay of his award-winning play in this Stephen Frears film about a debt between two wealthy French aristocrats that one of them cannot seduce the daughter of the other's cousin and also a beautiful yet married courtesan; in return there is the promise of a tryst if the results are successful.The film is quite well cast with its three leading players: 1. Glenn Close plays the manipulative Marquise Merteuil, a married yet bored countess who proposes the film's bet. Close is equal parts intelligent and dangerous as she holds a strange power over everyone in her inner circle particularly in co-star John Malkovich's Vicomte Valmont and Uma Thurman's Cecile who blindly trust her to keep her word, but are only two players who pay a price due to Close's manipulation and betrayal. Setting the wheel in motion, the actress floats between musings that outline her character's views and motives for her actions and also callous cruelty with her lack of emotion and absence of feeling in her double crossing until the final act where the Marquise becomes the victim of her own actions when her true colors are exposed. 2. While an unusual choice despite a theatrical background, John Malkovich proves his metal as the serial womanizer, Vicomte Valmont. While original stage actor Alan Rickman was offered the role, he turned it down to star in the smash hit "Die Hard" released the same year as this film, Malkovich's years of theatre do pay off as he makes the role his own portraying the Vicomte as a conscienceless man who is unashamed of his escapades. When he accepts the task of seducing the naïve Cecile and Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer), it is nothing more than a job to him which Malkovich plays with cockiness and a brazen attitude as he works his bizarre charm on Pfeiffer while trying to impress Glenn Close's Marquise with his skills as well. However when the Vicomte actually falls for Pfeiffer's Madame, the Vicomte's crafted image begins to slowly crumble as he tries to better himself but his path can only lead to destruction. While at times Malkovich goes over the top in his antics and line delivery, his heart is on his sleeve at the right moments and does his best to stay grounded. 3. The beautiful and talented Michelle Pfeiffer completes the complicated love triangle (quadrangle if one counts Uma Thurman's Cecile) as the devout Madame de Tourvel. Coming off as righteous and strictly faithful to her marriage, Pfeiffer banters well with co-star Malkovich as he works to break down her wall by staying serious yet sometimes breaking into a smile as she refuses to yield. When she finally concedes, Pfeiffer's romantic blindness makes her ultimate fate even more tragic as she is so innocent despite the fact she is being unfaithful to her absent husband. Watching the final heartbreaking scene between the actress and Malkovich becomes a showcase for Pfeiffer's emotional range as she veers from initial anger to sobbing hysterics as the Madame begs for the Vicomte to recant his rejection of her as she has hopelessly fallen for him.The film does have a notable supporting cast from Uma Thurman as Cecile des Volanges, future 'Doctor Who' star Peter Capaldi as Valmont's servant Azolan and Keanu Reeves as the Chevalier Darceny.The stage play translates well to the screen for the most part despite its slightly stilted look as the actors move around like they would on a stage in some scenes. The dialogue remains sharp and insightful for its time period and is a biting look at the dangers of its plot and the characters' motivations. The costuming and set design is exquisitely fetching and atmospheric while the musical score swings from light and playful to dark and haunting.

I really didn't think this movie was that interesting because clearly, I hadn't a clue what they were talking about. They used such bad speaking skills that you just clearly want to fall asleep and pretend you didn't bother wasting your time in watching a movie like that. I don't understand why they had to cast Glenn Close, John Malkovich and the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer as the principal characters because, I just didn't think they really fit the role to act in a 19th century era movie. In my opinion, they just didn't seem to fit the roles. They are brilliant actors let me tell you, but not in movies like this. Its so heavily boring and just a pretty bad film. I wish I enjoyed it but I just can't understand why this movie won 3 Oscars, in my opinion I just think it doesn't deserve to be awarded with such big prizes. Worst film I've ever seen!

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!