It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

I saw this on DVD, with French sub-titles (I'm learning French).I'm absolutely amazed at the number of commentators on this site who disliked this production. I've seen four versions of the work, and in my opinion this is by far the best. It is ravishing to look at, the story is compelling and presented with great clarity and sophistication, and the acting is outstanding. Yes, Catherine Deneuve was too old for the part. But she didn't look it, or act it; regardless of the date of her birth, she retains an allure that I for one would find difficult to resist if I had the honour and good fortune to meet her. As for Rupert Everett, who cares about whether he's used botox or not? He's got exactly the right sort of snake-like ability to fascinate and attract. And both of them can actually act. I think it's one of Catherine Deneuve's very best performances, probably because of the quality of the screenplay with which she had to work.I found it compelling from the very first moment, and I'm about to buy the DVD.

I've watched films with Deneuve since her youth. Seeing this one last night gave me a peculiar, PHYSICALLY uncomfortable sensation, because of what plastic surgery has done to her face. She now has enhanced lips that have lost their elasticity,the top lip is thicker than her normal one was, and a strange, pained expression is permanently onto the whole face, which is strangely immovable.My discomfort was because my eyes "expected" her face and mouth to make the familiar movements as her natural ones did pre-surgery. They did not, and this was taking my focus away from the movie.Rupert Everett was not believable in his role of the beautiful rake. This role demands the likes of a young Warren Beatty, or a young Alain Delon, or Olivier Martinez, or Clive Owen, irresistibly handsome and also irresistibly sympathetic and attractive (all the more lethal). Rupert was very unlikeable with no charm, a harsh expression on his face most of the time, and what was supposed to he at his most seductive, was totally soulless. Anyone who saw the very young Warren Beatty seducing Vivien Leigh in"The Roman spring of Mrs. Stone" will know what I mean.

Catherine Deneuve has always been one of my favorite stars, she's been in more good films than most, is obviously a very intelligent woman, an iconic beauty who has worked with the world's best filmmakers, so I try to see her every movie that reaches Brazil (not so many anymore). But this unspeakably inept adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos' timeless classic seems to work only on two levels: as a jaw-dropper for lush costume design and as an involuntary cautious warning against plastic surgery!! Just see what lousy jobs those doctors have done with Deneuve and Rupert Everett! While Deneuve now goes into a kind of Joan Crawford territory, has difficulty in flexing her facial muscles and has mouth ticks, Everett has had so much Botox that his forehead shines like a surfing board, and he seems perfectly fit to play the creature in a Frankenstein movie. Incapable of moving any muscle from the tip of his hair to his chin, it was fun just to turn off the volume and wonder what "emotions" he was supposed to portray!! Lovely Nastassja Kinski is once again totally wasted (what's the problem? can't she get a better agent or isn't she interested at all in making decent films?) and likewise is wonderful Danielle Darrieux (who has aged so gracefully and is still beautiful in her 80s).Josée Dayan has worked a lot for French TV, and must be 1) a very good sport 2) a quick-shooting, budget-respecting, producer's dream kind of director. That's the only explanation I can think of to the fact that, whenever a French miniseries adaptation of a great writer (Cocteau, Hugo, Druon, Balzac, George Sand, Beaumarchais etc) with famous stars gets a green light, she gets to direct it. And she consistently gets to make them always blah. This is really bad, sorry to say, don't waste your time - especially if you're a fan of the stars. And God forbid those plastic surgeons!! My vote: 1 out of 10 (well, 3 out of 10 if you're in the mood for a mean laugh...)

Shot in French, director Josee Dayan's `Les Liaisons Dangereuses' (2003) is the fifth film adaptation of the classic Choderlos de Laclos tale of amorality, deceit, revenge, betrayal, lust and love. In its extended 252 minute mini-tv series version, the film presents a reworked, coherent story reset into the 1960's. Because of awesome cinematography, a highly complementary musical score, and a first rate cast with superb performances from Catherine Deneuve, Rupert Everett, Nastassja Kinski, Leelee Sobieski and the supporting cast, `Les Liaisons Dangereuses' (2003) is a stellar integrated work that is candy for both the eye and the mind. All of the major characters have depth that is allowed to develop because of the mini-tv series format of 252 minutes (a lot longer than most films). This film is a rarity because it is entirely dialog driven. The editing is very tight and the film never drags. For mature audiences only, there is a look and feel to it that is absolutely riveting. There are three dvd versions available: (1) in French with English subtitles, (2) English spoken by the actors, and (3) the definitive extended 3 dvd set in French with English subtitles and an interview with the director. (1) and (2) are truncated 200 minute versions with anamorphic transfers. I saw `Les Liaisons Dangereuses' (2003) on (3) and this is probably the dvd to watch because of its gorgeous anamorphic transfer in a European 2.35:1 aspect ratio, although it is listed as an anamorphic 1.78:1 aspect ratio. (3) is the extended version with a total run time of over 300 minutes, including a 50 minute director's interview.