Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Raymond Crown Dangerous Liaisons is a period drama starring Glenn Close, John Malkovich, and Michelle Pfeiffer, based on the novel and play Les liaisons dangereuses (the former by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos and the latter by Christopher Hampton). Set in 18th century France, it follows the Marquise de Merteuil (Close) and the Vicomte de Valmont (Malkovich) as they engage in detrimental games of decadence and private pastimes replete with repulsive pleasure and perversity. With any medium of entertainment, it is always the outré characters that intrigue and even captivate us into wholly engaging in that medium. Dangerous Liaisons is no different but the characters take a more detestable mien. But Christopher Hampton and Stephen Frears (the scriptwriter and director respectively) take on a subtler approach to the film's primary subjects: sex and seduction. Although, in the end, we find that the key themes revolve around ardour and more evidently, betrayal. Close is nearly great as Merteuil but the bona fide performances came from Malkovich and Pfeiffer. Malkovich has a certain perverse charm to him that, although appears slightly unfitting to the majority of the roles he has played in his career, fits well with the character of the Vicomte. The naturality of Pfeiffer's performance is what sets her apart from the rest of the cast. The film won three Academy Awards (Oscars), for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction, all well deserved wins.The film however lacks a certain punch. Frears is a good director on his own right and the film is languorous but the deficiency of gusto and if I may say so, a level of confidence points out to how it is not as compelling as it may seem. There arises a slightly incidental feeling in us as we indirectly notice the director hesitate to take risks that could have great payoffs (if done right) and instead dismiss himself from anything that may break the seeming perfection of his film. There's something odd about that.All in all, Dangerous Liaisons is an interesting film but not as irresistible as Valmont was to many of his past preys...

Kirpianuscus more than beautiful. or seductive adaptation. its basic virtue - to explore the bitter taste of cruelty. and this is one of aspects who defines the impressive performance of John Malkovich as a Valmond looking to save him like an early Dorian Gray. the entire game becomes a form of survive against yourself. and this is the detail who does the film different by other adaptations. the show of struggles, secrets, plans, victims, illusion of power and expected fall. Glenn Close is fascinating as Marquise de Merteuil. the great virtue of Stephen Frears - to impose a story with fine precision to the viewer in a total show. the costumes, Keanu Reeves, the music, Uma Thurman, the sparkles of dialogues, the end who seems illustration of final of Tosca. a film who remains more a trace and not exactly a simple adaptation.

Fluke_Skywalker 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).

Sergeant_Tibbs I've wanted to see Dangerous Liaisons for a while as I like Stephen Frears a lot, even if just for my sentimental favourite High Fidelity. Even though he hasn't made a top film (Fidelity is close, I'm not a fan of how Rob gets back with Laura for the third act and it holds it back), I've always admired his versatility. Based on some pretty acclaimed material, Liaisons also boasts acclaimed production design and performances from Glenn Close and John Malkovich. While the dialogue is very lyrical, I did find it quite difficult to follow and character connections particularly confused me (it's easy to follow that Malkovich was sleeping with lots of ladies but the objectives were hazy), but once clear exposition unfolded, it was a very interesting look on gender power struggles. The acting deserves every ounce of acclaim, John Malkovich is great but Glenn Close is truly amazing. It's easy to imagine her character on stage and she brings that theatrical acting into it, but there's lots of subtle complexity in her expressions. I'm not sure if it's just my admittedly cheap DVD, but it wasn't the visual splendour I was hoping for, especially considering its Oscars. it felt more like a period drama from the BBC. Perhaps it deserves Blu-Ray. As interesting as it was, my inability to follow it does hold it back a notch, maybe I'll like it more on rewatches. High definition rewatches.7/10