A Masterpiece!

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

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.

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!

Continuing my recent powdered wig kick started by 'Amadeus' and 'Marie Antoinette'.I remember this generating some heat when it was first released, but despite featuring several lovely women who I was certain were featured in various stages of undress (*sigh* Uma), and that I likely could've slipped this one past my Mom (because, artsy-fartsy), I had never seen 'Dangerous Liaisons'. Big mistake. I loved it. Why I should find the scheming and sexual politics of the Libertine idle rich of the pre-revolution so fascinating I don't know, but I loved every soapy minute of it. Glenn Close is particularly brilliant. Now the completest in me feels it necessary to seek out 'Valmont' (1989) and 'Cruel Intentions' (1999).

In pre-Revolutionary France, the Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) plots revenge against Bastide who aims to wed young virgin Cécile de Volanges (Uma Thurman). Merteuil tries to convince the Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) to seduce Cécile but Valmont is busy seducing the married Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) famous for her virtue. Merteuil offers a night with her as reward for Cécile's seduction.It is a period piece alive with sexual tension. It is deliciously seductive. It is not old and dusty. Rather it is energetic and modern. The sexual manipulations and deceptive games give a greater edge to any modern romantic melodrama. Close and Malkovich are terrifically corrupt. Pfeiffer is excellent in the less showy virtuous role. Thurman plays the innocent ingénue. The acting is all top notch. The production is first rate directed by Stephen Frears.