I saw this on DVD, with French sub-titles (I'm learning French).I'm absolutely amazed at the number of commentators on this site who disliked this production. I've seen four versions of the work, and in my opinion this is by far the best. It is ravishing to look at, the story is compelling and presented with great clarity and sophistication, and the acting is outstanding. Yes, Catherine Deneuve was too old for the part. But she didn't look it, or act it; regardless of the date of her birth, she retains an allure that I for one would find difficult to resist if I had the honour and good fortune to meet her. As for Rupert Everett, who cares about whether he's used botox or not? He's got exactly the right sort of snake-like ability to fascinate and attract. And both of them can actually act. I think it's one of Catherine Deneuve's very best performances, probably because of the quality of the screenplay with which she had to work.I found it compelling from the very first moment, and I'm about to buy the DVD.

*** It is strange that I could have gotten them mixed up.But perhaps not really.I don't think Deneuve laughs or cries in 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses.' But the laughter I mentioned before in'Indochine'.I don't think I remember any laughter in 'Indochine.' It now comes back.Those sounds of Lalique were Deneuve's acting of weeping.It is a most oddly inhuman sound when she "cries" on screen.I wonder if her emotional range is limited to "great-actressy" sounds, because it is undeniable that she is a great actress.Yes, those sounds are DIFFERENT. They are parallel to the voices one hears that are mechanically produced and you hear them on the telephone. Somehow robotic, but the sounds of Deneuve crying are moving. They sound like someone who can't quite cry. There hadn't been room for it before, so the ability was lost for her.Or maybe they are the cries and tears of a kind of nobility. Maybe all her real grief is mute and experienced without any sounds, so that when she must weep in a role--and that weeping has to bow to convention in that it has to be heard as some kind of tears that a general public can understand as such--it inevitably sounds artificial.Her most convincing emotions are anger and disgust. Expressions of dissembling are frequent, but an unadulterated joyousness does not seem to be in her repertoire. We hear "French National Treasure" and we hear the inner revolt against this form of high machinic enslavement, a Deleuzian concept that can be found at the higher social levels just as at the lower. (I should have pointed out in my long notes on 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses', for anyone not familiar with 'Wild Palms', that I saw the former film in some ways an "heir" to the latter. 'Wild palms' was of course the Oliver Stone/Bruce Wagner miniseries of 1993, in which the Church of Synthiotics is a mutation of the Church of Scientology. 'Wild Palms' was more obviously cyber-oriented than 'Liaisons', but the modernization of 'Liaisons', a thing I can rarely bear personally whether in theatre or opera, does here make the thing even more menacing, regardless of the fact, pointed out by other reviewers, that a few things just will not quite translate from the bewigged period.)

Catherine Deneuve has always been one of my favorite stars, she's been in more good films than most, is obviously a very intelligent woman, an iconic beauty who has worked with the world's best filmmakers, so I try to see her every movie that reaches Brazil (not so many anymore). But this unspeakably inept adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos' timeless classic seems to work only on two levels: as a jaw-dropper for lush costume design and as an involuntary cautious warning against plastic surgery!! Just see what lousy jobs those doctors have done with Deneuve and Rupert Everett! While Deneuve now goes into a kind of Joan Crawford territory, has difficulty in flexing her facial muscles and has mouth ticks, Everett has had so much Botox that his forehead shines like a surfing board, and he seems perfectly fit to play the creature in a Frankenstein movie. Incapable of moving any muscle from the tip of his hair to his chin, it was fun just to turn off the volume and wonder what "emotions" he was supposed to portray!! Lovely Nastassja Kinski is once again totally wasted (what's the problem? can't she get a better agent or isn't she interested at all in making decent films?) and likewise is wonderful Danielle Darrieux (who has aged so gracefully and is still beautiful in her 80s).Josée Dayan has worked a lot for French TV, and must be 1) a very good sport 2) a quick-shooting, budget-respecting, producer's dream kind of director. That's the only explanation I can think of to the fact that, whenever a French miniseries adaptation of a great writer (Cocteau, Hugo, Druon, Balzac, George Sand, Beaumarchais etc) with famous stars gets a green light, she gets to direct it. And she consistently gets to make them always blah. This is really bad, sorry to say, don't waste your time - especially if you're a fan of the stars. And God forbid those plastic surgeons!! My vote: 1 out of 10 (well, 3 out of 10 if you're in the mood for a mean laugh...)

As for how this production looks:This mini-series is absolutely gorgeous. The director captures the essence of 1960s French Riviera without over-glamorizing, which is a good thing, because it is not necessary. The outdoor scenes (especially the horseback ones) are stunning. Costumes are very accurate and well thought out, especially for the female leads. LeeLee Sobieski looks alternately frumpy and seductive, just as most 18 year olds do in real life; showing a girl still figuring out how to present herself to the world. Deneuve's high society duds are probably the most spectacular, as they should be. Her character is draped in vivid reds and evocative jewelry. Kinski's clothes are virginal and chunky for the most part, as befits the wife of an ambassador...and yet her passionate exoticism cannot be held in check, and wins over repression in the end.The storyline is the one we know well. I won't belabor telling it again. The mini-series was supposedly shot in both french and english language, but I did not find this to be true. I saw the english version. Some scenes were definitely shot in english, but others were simply dubbed...and it shows, which is too bad. If you rent or buy the DVD, I would advise watching it in french with english subtitles (if you can't speak french). Most, if not all, of Kinski and Everett's scenes in the english version were shot in english, while Deneuve and Everett's were mostly dubbed. In fact, there were only a few moments in the entire thing where Deneuve's lines were in english. For me, this created distance between her character and me as a viewer. Of course, her character is viciously evil and not one you would normally identify with, but villains CAN be empathetic. I did not find that here. Rupert Everett is slick and Machiavellian, with a slight vulnerability that is just right. LeeLee Sobieski is much more believable in this role than Uma Thurman was in the 1988 version. Nastassja Kinski, as Marie Tourvel, is the standout here. She does a marvelous job of representing the character arc (virginal wife to repentant adultress) that is required. Kinski wrote the book on portraying these kinds of heartbreaking roles (Tess, Magic of Marciano, American Rhapsody, The Claim...) and it is a shame she has been largely overlooked by Hollywood. I highly recommend this mini-series, but watch the DVD in french with english subtitles, in order to get a better grasp of Deneuve.