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.

While watching this, I was reminded of CRUEL INTENTIONS, and, yes, CRUEL INTENTIONS was inspired by this movie. The difference to me, though, is that CRUEL INTENTIONS is highly palatable to me, while this 'French costume drama' is a long- winded bore. Sorry, I am not of refined tastes, I suppose. But I don't need a bodice ripper to be dressed up in such finery to make it acceptable to be brought home. Give me Sarah Michelle Gellar, please don't give me the Glenn Close version.I've often heard about this movie, especially when reading articles about Uma Thurman during her PULP FICTION time. I've only recently acquired it, after researching led me to a list of hot sexy movies compiled by an IMDb member, and the guy had a similar taste to mine, and mentioned a very young Uma Thurman as his main reason for including this title, so I thought, what the hell, check this one out, and downloaded the trailer, getting my first sight ever of this. Arrggh it looked awful, everything a commoner like me would expect high-brow entertainment to be, faced with this Glenn Close prospect... Anyway, the movie was available at a giveaway price, so I included it in an order, even though seeing Michelle Pfeiffer looking as dull as dishwater spells doom.Currently watching, and my honest opinion? Upper class Sirs and Madams might get their jolly rocks off with this, but they (almost all) look like powdered corpses to me. Any minute now one of those French fuddy- duddies are going to sprout fangs and return to their coffins. Anyway that would improve the story.Tedious tawdry drama dressed up for the sexually repressed. Like it's a sin to watch a blue movie, but deck them out as French aristocrats, and one could take it home to the missus. It would even get Academy Award nominations.Okay, so there's powerful acting, especially Glenn Close. But do I really wanna watch? No. Yes, there are three erotic scenes worth taking note of, the first with 'Julie' the betrayed maidservant, exposed in bed, then with 'Emilie' the rather inventive use of her nubile naked body as a desk, and then, wow, to beat it all, a bare-breasted (perfect tear-drops) Uma Thurman. I heartily recommend these three scenes for their sheer indulgent carnality. The rest though are so bloodless, so cold, such yarghhh powdered corpses...Forgive me, I am but a peasant, Your Lordships.

I have no idea what to think about Dangerous Liaisons. When I saw this film, I was multitasking so I wasn't paying complete attention. But from what I gathered, it's quite dark, cold, seductive, and a little boring. Perhaps it is due to being a romantic period piece which I generally despise. But I did admire the past half hour as we see these vile, cruel intentions of the main characters hit the fan. The ending is great though, so I will give the film that.Stephen Frear's adaptation of a 1787 French novel is a tale about seductive revenge. There is the Marquise de Merteuil who is livid at her breakup, so she hires a man named Vicomte de Valmont to seduce a soon-to-be-married bride named Cecil de Volange in order to get one night with her. As the seduction begins, Vicomte begins to develop feelings for her which will only make matters complicated.The film is well-acted. Glenn Close delivers a fine performance as the cruel and malice Merteuil. John Malkovich is excellent as always as the seductive Valmont. Michelle Pfeiffer does a decent job as Volange. We also get some decent supporting turns by Keanu Reeves and Uma Thurman.Overall, Dangerous Liaisons is a dark and cold tale about the dark side of seduction. In order to gain a greater appreciation of the film, I may have to take a second viewing. This is not the kind of story that appeals to me, but I could not resist the critical acclaim. I do admire the acting, but I especially admire the costume design and the production design. If romantic thrillers are your kind of thing, this is the perfect kind of film for you. Maybe I'll grow to love the film, but for now it's merely decent. I rate this film 7/10.

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.