On D List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
Rate:
10
Viewed:
12/02, 6/03, 2/06, 1/09, 6/15, 2/18
2/06:
Although Dangerous Liaisons is hurt by weak chemistry among the cast, I'm won over by the marvelous screenplay
and elegant display of 18th century European fashion.
John Malkovich is incredible because of the way he speaks, moves, and behaves as Vicomte de Valmont. His co-star Glenn Close
is excellent as Marquise de Merteuil.
However, I'm not altogether convinced by the rest of the cast which includes Michelle
Pfeiffer, Keanu Reeves, Peter Capaldi, Uma Thurman, and Swoosie Kurtz because they don't blend in well with the environs,
leading me to conclude that I need to read the book to grasp the characters more.
All in all, John Malkovich steals the show in Dangerous Liaisons.
1/09:
Making good on my promise to read Les Liaisons dangereuses, I decided to watch Dangerous Liaisons again to
see how well it holds up against the book.
A winning aspect is the cast which seems to be perfect since they all fit the characters so well that when I read the book,
they were whom I imagined to be. However, the longer the film goes on, the more I realize it isn't a masterpiece.
First, director Stephen Frears places a lot of focus on the wanton affairs although they aren't the point of the book because
author Choderlos de Laclos was trying to convey the feeling of how silly the whole deal was. In the film, I didn't sense it.
Second, the dialogue sounds weak and silly as compared to what was spoken in France during the 18th century. However, I like
Valmont's mantra "It's beyond my control" instead of "It's not my fault."
Third, although John Malkovich meets the requirement of his character and is the main show, I'm disappointed he's limited by
what he could do with Valmont. It's too bad Stephen Frears was myopic about it which is perhaps beyond his control, hee hee.
Fourth, the costumes and the interior sets look great, but there isn't much of variation for the exteriors. It's only the
front of some houses and in the back where the gardens are. Well, that's not good enough, and I want to see more. Spend the
money, dammit.
Fifth, all I saw is a chain of ideas but no development of subplots or characters' conflicts. Frears presumes I should
know them already before the scenes will be played out. It's the chief reason why the film fails as a whole because some parts
can be confusing by going off the track. When I read the book, what was happening made sense because there was a slow,
deliberate buildup to the conflicts that would have impact.
Sixth, the relationship between Cecile Volanges and Chevalier Danceny is weak because I'm supposed to believe
they're infatuated with each other. The same goes with Valmont and Tourvel, but in the book (which is, I admit, the hardest
to capture in terms of feelings and emotions because it happened slowly given how apprehensive Tourvel was), it wasn't supposed
to be convincing in an obvious way.
At the end of the movie, Valmont is shown, at the hour of his death, passing on a set of letters to Danceny, so he can finally
win over Merteuil; what could possibly be in them if she had already said the words? Now, I'm becoming like Valmont by
saying, "I know...you told me already. My, my. You are so positively boring."
By the way, Glenn Close is great just like John Malkovich. Michelle Pfeiffer gives one of the better performances of her
career although I've always regarded her as a poor actress which is probably beyond her control.
All in all, I wish Dangerous Liaisons was three hours long to allow more time for proper development of the
subplots, conflicts, and characters.
6/15:
I've now decided to give Dangerous Liaisons a '10' and think I was harsh by comparing it to the book.
The screenplay is probably one of the top ten ever. Listening to the dialogue has been a satisfying experience, so that's why
Christopher Hampton won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. Also, the costume design and the in/exterior sets are
outstanding, scoring Oscar wins in both categories.
John Malkovich, the star of the show, is perfect as Vicomte de Valmont. He's whom I pictured while reading the book.
His performance as the notorious rake is the sole reason why I continue to revisit the movie many times.
All in all, John Malkovich has never been any better as he was in Dangerous Liaisons.
2/18:
John Malkovich gives the best performance of his career in Dangerous Liaisons.
He's never been this deliciously bad. What a surprise John Malkovich wasn't given an Oscar nomination. Instead, it went to
Glenn Close and Michelle Pfeiffer. But let's be real: who made Dangerous Liaisons the film it is? That's right: John
Malkovich. Also, the screenplay is among the top ten ever written.
All in all, it's impossible to deny the power of John Malkovich's performance in Dangerous Liaisons.