Dangerous Liaisons (2003)

Crappy film

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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.

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.

Oh Lord, this was really bad! You think with all those marvellous actresses and actors and this brilliant story, nothing can go wrong, but - they marred it completely.Starting with hilarious miscasting (Catherine Deneuve is far too old and not sensuous enough), over boring, wooden dialogue to incompetent camera work - there is one scene which has two of the leading characters talking to another, and you don't even get to see the face of one of them!Shifting the story into the present may be an interesting idea, but the script does not take the simplest care in adapting to this.See another version of this, the Stephen-Frears-film if you can. But do miss this one!