First and foremost, this movie is beautifully filmed. The art director obviously had a ball with the sets, clothing, and other period details. He or She put a lot more care and detail into every scene than I would have expected, and it's a delight to watch. I find myself peeking into every nook and corner-. And the cars! Even if this movie was terrible in every way, it would be worth watching (or skimming) just to see the 1960's Rolls Royce, Maserati, Bentley and other gorgeous vintage European cars. Divine music: Motown, blues and a bit of rock and roll. This movie intentionally moves at a slow, even pace, and the richness of the period details help keep the mind and eye occupied. I'm not exaggerating by much when I say that this movie could be viewed with the sound off. It's like looking at a high-end fashion catalog from the early and mid-1960's - if you like that sort of thing (which I do).Secondly, I think it's important to keep in mind that that this book was not originally written as either a morality tale or critique of ancien regime aristocrats. The fact that it's interpreted that way speaks only of our contemporary sensibilities. Valmont's death is pointless, and Merteuil loses nothing except her position within the demi-monde. Like Versailles the characters in this movie exist in an amoral plane. Common notions of morality simply do not apply to these aristocrats. The very rich (like the very poor), have nothing to lose.Third, this is a very funny movie if viewed with a certain amount of irony. I'm glad this version doesn't psychoanalyze the characters - Everyone is exactly what they seem to be. If the characters were complex and 3 dimensional, watching the slow sadistic manipulation, seduction and disposal of other lifelike characters would be unendurably painful. As it is, it's comical. I can only smile and laugh at their breathtaking cruelty. One of my favorite scene is when Valmont's aunt Rosamonde tells him that Tourvel has left because he is making her suffer so. Biting his thumb and with a look of sheer demonic glee he asks "Is she really suffering?" Very very funny. But only because he is, existentially, a predator and nothing else. The director studiously avoids delving beneath the surface of these characters. True to the source material, (and life at Versailles) appearance is the only reality.This movie is beautiful to look at, and it's a lot of fun to watch the audacity with which these cold, emotionally bleached aristocrats ruin others and themselves for no good reason (other than sheer boredom).

After I watch a film, I tend to go online to see what other people had to say about it, merely out of a sense of curiosity. Most of the time other people's opinions are kind of odd to me, but they're interesting anyways. What I don't understand, though, is the negative reviews of Les Liasons Dangereuses.This movie (or miniseries, as it actually were) was sitting on the shelf of my local library, and I had confused it with "Dangerous Liaisons", the 1988 film with Glenn Close that I had been told I "need to see." (I get told that often... one of the drawbacks to being a cinephile, as it were). My mother and I were confused when we looked at the tape and learned that it was so long... but we sat down to watch the entire thing anyways.Soon we were awash in intrigue. Merely by accident, I had found myself immersed in a very dark albeit colorful world of deceit, with characters who's unexplained passion for destruction buried us deeper and deeper into a story neither of us actually knew anything about. I'm the type of person to pay a lot of attention to cinematography, directing, editing, and the like, but I forgot all of it as the acting and dialog took charge... especially dialog so well-spoken and clear that despite the fact I only have a couple years of French under my belt, I think I could have understood the film without the English subtitles.However, even though I didn't focus on the cinematography and directing and editing the way I usually do, in retrospect, it was simply amazing. It's one of those works where every single frame is not only a beautiful still image, but every single shot has purpose and a point. Also, the movement of the camera is such that there's always this feeling of shifting... where, though, you never can tell, and it leads up to the next shot in the most amazing of ways. Sometimes, a character's face is hidden, and from reviews I've read of both this work and Punch Drunk Love, I can see that such a technique is not very popular with viewers... I don't understand why, if the face is hidden, it's for a reason, and this film definitely had it's reasons. Thus my surprise when, after rewinding the tape and coming online, I see that this film only has a 6 star rating... and very many angry reviews about wasted talent. Well, I don't know what to say about that. My only explanation would be that the way the film sort of throws the viewer into the midst of the story without bothering with much build-up and character introduction kept people from really getting into it, and thus they didn't like it. Or a few mentioned that "Catherine Deneuve is too old for that role." Well, the thing about adaptations is that they aren't necessarily the original work, and in this version, Isabelle's maturity and aged elegance adds to the feeling of cold, pure evil that radiates from the two main characters. I think the fact that I didn't know what to expect is why I got more than I expected, so if you're wondering if you'd like this film, I'd say probably... unless of course you are familiar with the other works of Dangerous Liaisons. Then maybe you might not like it. I don't know.All I know is that I'm having a very hard time imagining Glenn Close come even... close...(wow that's bad)... to the character that Catherine Deneuve created.--PolarisDiB

i've seen this mini series and thought i reminded me of 'cruel intention', and was surprised that this is actually a later adaptation (2003), the storyline of both these films are as i later discovered a 18th century tale. nevertheless, i found this adaptation quite disappointing when compared to 'cruel intention', especially as it is a later adaptation. the setting and general appearance of dangerous liaison looked more sophisticated (less Hollywood) and serious, but to the contrary, it lack the central idea of teaching a morality lesson, and definitely lacked cohesion. the counter part role of everett in 'cruel intentions' was by far more convincing and was able to gain sympathy from the audience. for the most part it showed that he really did care for the maria character and has shown genuine sincerity. However, in dangerous liaison, not only did he cheat right in front of her, even when he told her to forget about him, the maria character is still clinging onto him. it completely lacked dignity and made her look extremely stupid. the major aspect especially as death of the maria character. as in cruel intention, she does not die, but carrys the legacy of the Everett character. i personally thought that was a much better ending than seeing the maria character in a bloodbath and the everett character just falling into the cliff for no reason.

How could a big splashy TV-event starring the combined beauty of Miss Deneuve, Miss Kinski and Miss Sobieski and the reptilian charm of Mister Everett miss?By being rather dull and boring. Somewhat based on that stalwart tale of love, revenge, lust and hate 'Liaisons Dangereuse' the story takes place in a kind Swinging Paris and casts French Idol Deneuve as the Real Wicked Witch of the West. And that's the major fault of the otherwise adequate show: Miss Deneuve, looking alarmingly like Ivana Trump in decay, is much, much too old (and, I'm sorry to admit, old looking) to be credible as the most amoral woman this side of the Channel. Mister Everett fares a little better, but not much. Poor Nastasja Kinski! Once a glamorous and talented star she is relegated to a mere piece of furniture. And Miss Sobieski (said to be the great-great-great niece or something like that of Jan Sobieski, who defeated the Turks in the battle of Kahlenberg and so saved Vienna in 1683) appears rather frumpy and plumpy. No sings of her remarkable talent she demonstrated in the much underrated damsel-in-distress shocker 'The Class House' not so long ago.All in all: a monumental waste of time and money. Even Roger Vadim fared better with his less-than-adequate modern version of de Laclos' glum tale.