Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

 Dangerous Liaisons (1988)


I know I am in the minority, but Stephen Frears’s adaptation of Dangerous Liaisons did not sit well with me. It is well-acted, but that is the only good thing. Costume dramas are hit-or-miss for me. I can either love them (Amadeus is one of the best films of all time) or find them dull, pretentious, and a waste of time. Sadly, despite the fantastic cast, this film falls in the latter. I tried to watch the film multiple times, but each time was a snoozer for me. Maybe it is the story itself? Maybe the idea of these horrible, like-minded people using seduction to instill pain on innocent women is not my idea of a good time. Yes, I am aware the film is based off a scandalous 18th-century novel and was a huge hit on stage both in New York and London. Still, the film could not satisfy my cinematic taste.

I mentioned in the above paragraph the story is based off a French novel that was published several hundred years ago written by Choderlos de Laclos. Christopher Hampton, who also wrote the film’s screenplay, turned the story into a mega theater hit. Alan Rickman made a name for himself in the lead role. Ultimately, Rickman did not get the lead role because Warner Brothers wanted an actor who already made a name for himself. Stephen Frears, who is an accomplished director, signed on to direct. As you might have gathered from my opening statements, this is not Frears’s best work. He is usually good at making appealing period dramas, but sadly not here. I will give this work points for being technically competent. Phillippe Rousselot uses beautiful French scenery to great effect. British composer George Fenton delivered a solid, if unspectacular score. And finally, the costumes are stunning…as they usually are in these type of dramas.

The setting of the move is France sometimes during the 1700’s. The Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) has the habit of playing dangerous, seductive games with women chasing after love. For her latest scheme, she gets her former lover, the cad and rather irresponsible Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) involved. He measures success by the number of conquests he has taken. His latest conquest? To seduce the very young Cecile de Volanges (Uma Thurman). He has no problem doing so. But he really wants to seduce Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer). He falls in love with her…which angers the Marquise de Merteuil. Murder is just around the corner for someone.

So, the performances are mostly solid throughout. With the fantastic cast, I felt like the performances could have even been better. I blame the story for that. John Malkovich was a surprise casting. Who would have ever though he would garnish one of those wigs? Well, he did and did his role pretty well. Never been the biggest Glenn Close fan, but I will admit she had some good scenes and good lines. Uma Thurman held herself with poise and maturity for someone her age and role. Michelle Pfeiffer was decent. Yes, even young Keanu Reeves appears! That’s said, was not enamored with his performance.

Overall, Dangerous Liaisons is a technically competent film that is let down by its surprisingly dull story. I am not the one to enjoy every costume drama, but it was especially hard to enjoy something that lacked charm, wit, and just a good story. I know there have been future adaptations (one from the great Milos Forman too, apparently), so maybe they will succeed in telling the story from a better, different perspective. I was very surprised it was so well received especially during the awards season. But each for their own. I am glad people found this to be the witty and funny film I wished it could have been.

My Grade: D

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)

Image
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it.” Ah, wise words from our new young friend, Ferris Bueller. In John Hughes’s 1986 film, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off , all Ferris wants to do is take a day and have fun. That is the most simplistic theme the movie has. You can go deeper, but the main takeaway is that it is okay to have fun. That is a motto I have taken to heart. I really loved the film. People consider The Breakfast Club to be Hughes’s best and most important movie. That’s a fine statement to make, but I would personally rank the film number two behind this particular one. The teen characters are instantly relatable, it has a memorable antagonist for the children, and this is basically a thirty-year-old travel guide for Chicago. Just how Woody Allen creates his movies as love letters for New York, this is applicable for John Hughes. A Chicago love letter!   Like all of his films, Hughes wrote...
Read more

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Image
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) The James Bond franchise is one of those franchises that will never die. It has been going strong since the first movie rolled out in the early 1960’s, and new James Bond movies are still produced today. What makes this series unique is they use multiple actors to play the titular character over the years. They all bring their own gravitas to the role, and each Bond is a different man when compared to each other (although the martini, shaken not stirred and the beautiful women among other things remain a constant.) So my first James Bond review for this blog is 1977’s The Spy Who Loved Me. This wasn’t my first look at the series, but it was my first look at the older movies. I really liked what I saw. This is an old-fashioned story that combines a spy drama and an action-packed war movie into one package. Like many of the older Bond movies, the story can get borderline preposterous. The cheesiness of the plot did come to grow on me after awhile, even...
Read more

Table for Five (1983)

Image
Table for Five (1983) I can guarantee that ninety percent of my readers here have not seen this tear-jerking melodrama 1983’s Table for Five , yet alone heard of it. Hopefully after reading my kind words, you will be somewhat intrigued by this movie. When doing my research for the film, I was shocked to see how vastly underrated the movie is. There are only a few reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, hardly any information on Wikipedia or Google-hardly anything out there in this vast Internet landscape. Then, why on earth is this movie so good? Sure, maybe some folks will say the movie is just a predictable Lifetime TV movie, but honestly it is much more than that. There are some elements that makes this film seem destined for the television at times, but to me it is much more than that. I consider the movie to be an honest, emotional portrayal about fatherhood and family. Directed by Robert Lieberman, this film is about a man named J.P Tannen (Jon Voight) who fails at being fathe...
Read more