Review: This popular, alleged classic is a bad movie that a lot of people liked, now I say this because I just sat through 2 hours of attempted rape, arguing and unbelievable romance. The one and only thing that deserves respect here outside the look of the picture are the performances, Malkovich, Close and Pfeiffer especially, they know there character's and do try their very best to try and make the picture seem better, but it's all smoke and mirrors, the horrible script sucker's any chance of the film being watchable. Now I know it won three Oscars but this means nothing, Titanic won about ten, and that was a standard, baited romance, beating superb films like Good will Hunting and L.A Confidential, which proves how pathetic the academy really are. Malkovich play's a sex offender, Close play's an evil whore, Pfeiffer play's an innocent sex target, I don't know who wrote these characters but they are either repulsive, unlikeable or tragic.The film starts off well with an open setup, but as soon as the attempted rape kicks in, the film is an absolute catastrophe, one scene involves good old fashioned dishonesty, where Malkovich's character comes up with a ploy to read these terrible letters about himself, that drag his name through the mud, his plan is too bust in on his assistant while he's with a woman, and tell her he won't tell on her, along as she does something for him. Her reaction, she lies on her back naked ready to be mounted, are you kidding me, so she was ready to be raped in other words, which is disgusting, he never actually has sex with her, but for a moment the film instantly implies women will keep their secrets by sleeping with men, now I don't mind a bit of humour towards women or men, sexism in the right context, can be mildly amusing, but rape has never been funny and never will, Dangerous Liaisons is like a commercial for rapists, they have a step by step guide to commit there heinous act.Other despicable moments include an innocent Uma Thurman, who plays a young, confused girl with a wicked mother who constantly tries to marry her off to men she has no interest in, half way through the picture it shows she has a secret lover played by Keanu Reeves, now she is forbidden to be with him as he is not rich, and does not come from a privileged family, so Malkovich decides to help her for his own sick gain, he gives her the key to her bedroom that allows her to be with Reeves without anyone busting in, whilst keeping the key in a safe place. One night Malkovich decides he's going to open her door with that key only he has access to and feel her up while she's asleep, she wakes, confused, and Malkovich tells her that she must do something for him, so in basic terms, he rapes her, and what I saw didn't look consensual, she tried to fight him off, and he later tries to do it again, only she has barricaded the door, so director Stephen Frears has made a film about rape, and it's not the same as romance, this film is utterly repulsive and even tries to make jokes about it's horrible subject, and not once did I laugh, it was disgusting and fairly offensive.The only positives aside from the actual acting, are the appropriate costume designs and the right setting, which shows the exact setting of the 17th century, but despite the correct look, the film's story and writing are dreadful, with plenty of awful, meaningless dialogue, unnecessary situations and a story that is nothing more than one of debauchery and rape. Keanu Reeves cannot do an English accent, which I had already learned from Coppola's Dracula, which I saw long before this and Uma Thurman and Reeves may have some good scenes together but there romance isn't very strong, and there performances are only passable. As for the alleged romance between Malkovich's character and Pfeiffer, it's a trainwreck, the writers may have saw love, but I saw a woman trying to fight off a stalker and an attacker, not for one minute did it seem or feel that she loved him, and that is another reason why I detested this film. It has dreadful romance, detestable characters and a wretched story. Overall Dangerous Liaisons is a disgusting piece of tripe that uses an A-star cast to showcase rape, sexual harassment and unwilling romance.

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...

I really didn't think this movie was that interesting because clearly, I hadn't a clue what they were talking about. They used such bad speaking skills that you just clearly want to fall asleep and pretend you didn't bother wasting your time in watching a movie like that. I don't understand why they had to cast Glenn Close, John Malkovich and the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer as the principal characters because, I just didn't think they really fit the role to act in a 19th century era movie. In my opinion, they just didn't seem to fit the roles. They are brilliant actors let me tell you, but not in movies like this. Its so heavily boring and just a pretty bad film. I wish I enjoyed it but I just can't understand why this movie won 3 Oscars, in my opinion I just think it doesn't deserve to be awarded with such big prizes. Worst film I've ever seen!

While watching this, I was reminded of CRUEL INTENTIONS, and, yes, CRUEL INTENTIONS was inspired by this movie. The difference to me, though, is that CRUEL INTENTIONS is highly palatable to me, while this 'French costume drama' is a long- winded bore. Sorry, I am not of refined tastes, I suppose. But I don't need a bodice ripper to be dressed up in such finery to make it acceptable to be brought home. Give me Sarah Michelle Gellar, please don't give me the Glenn Close version.I've often heard about this movie, especially when reading articles about Uma Thurman during her PULP FICTION time. I've only recently acquired it, after researching led me to a list of hot sexy movies compiled by an IMDb member, and the guy had a similar taste to mine, and mentioned a very young Uma Thurman as his main reason for including this title, so I thought, what the hell, check this one out, and downloaded the trailer, getting my first sight ever of this. Arrggh it looked awful, everything a commoner like me would expect high-brow entertainment to be, faced with this Glenn Close prospect... Anyway, the movie was available at a giveaway price, so I included it in an order, even though seeing Michelle Pfeiffer looking as dull as dishwater spells doom.Currently watching, and my honest opinion? Upper class Sirs and Madams might get their jolly rocks off with this, but they (almost all) look like powdered corpses to me. Any minute now one of those French fuddy- duddies are going to sprout fangs and return to their coffins. Anyway that would improve the story.Tedious tawdry drama dressed up for the sexually repressed. Like it's a sin to watch a blue movie, but deck them out as French aristocrats, and one could take it home to the missus. It would even get Academy Award nominations.Okay, so there's powerful acting, especially Glenn Close. But do I really wanna watch? No. Yes, there are three erotic scenes worth taking note of, the first with 'Julie' the betrayed maidservant, exposed in bed, then with 'Emilie' the rather inventive use of her nubile naked body as a desk, and then, wow, to beat it all, a bare-breasted (perfect tear-drops) Uma Thurman. I heartily recommend these three scenes for their sheer indulgent carnality. The rest though are so bloodless, so cold, such yarghhh powdered corpses...Forgive me, I am but a peasant, Your Lordships.