User reviews

This hyper-cool French updating of the Laclos classic is a blast from start to (amazing) finish; its immorality can be a drag in the middle section, but there's too much fun to be had in it to abandon it for that reason. Jeanne Moreau does the full range of bad girl, and her performance alone would merit a viewing, but you can also enjoy the film for its sleek, French attitudes, its Thelonius Monk score, a handsome young Jean-Louis Tritignant, his suits, her wardrobe, and so on, forever. It's a nasty little film is some ways, but I enjoyed it immensely just the same.

Can you think of a time when you went out "on the pull"? Where is that emotional fine line - between the little graces of life that make it so much fun – and getting deep in over your head? For Juliette and Valmont, seduction is salesmanship. Each new amour carefully planned. They have the emotional detachment of swingers. Throwing themselves into every passionate encounter with finesse. Only to return to the deeper affection they have for each other. "Love", as the English poet once said, "should be a strictly physiological matter, with just that amount of natural emotion that goes with it." Think of a jazz musician - and Director Roger Vadim obviously does – this film is scored by Thelonius Monk. There are fixed parameters in jazz, but opportunities for wide variation in between. Juliette and Valmont enjoy those variations. Then report back to the other affectionately. Or even help each other plan the improvisations.

A book that has been filmed many times, this early Vadim version is not only one of his best movies. He manages to reduce the bitching to a grand dramatic flourish, not a raison d'etre. Unsurprisingly. He was known off-screen for his sensual and avant-garde lifestyle. On-screen he can portray sensuality with realism and accuracy. (Even if the nudity is tame by today's standards.) Unlike most leads, Valmont doesn't just make girls swoon by appearing in frame. He tells them what they want to hear. If it weren't for the moralistic ending deemed necessary by popular culture, the movie could be a handbook of seduction. For the script has a feeling of authenticity.

Vadim has been described as the "classiest exploitation filmmaker who ever lived." Bardot, one of his five wives, called him, 'seduction itself.' (Of the men she married after him, she said dismissively, "They were only husbands.") The skill with which Valmont and Juliette entrance even gorgeous young ingénues is masterful. If all lovers possessed such consummate ability, might the world be a happier and less frustrating place? But, inevitably, our pair not only misuse their technique, failing to put the good of their conquests uppermost, but fall into the one trap they thought they could always avoid . . .

Cinematography in Dangerous Liaisons is straightforward cinema at its finest. The vicarious pleasure of boldly careering down the Alps almost made me want to take up skiing too. Simple use of black and white photography is mirrored in the appealing, clear-cut personas that Valmont projects. He lies in the snow, confidently dressed in black, with the virtuous Marianne all in white nest to him. Simple shots. Valmont on a train station - silhouetted against the steam. Figures on an empty beach – plus a few horses. Such composition is breathtaking. Especially with the high-keyed psychological tension that runs through. And when someone gets a sock to the jaw, it sounds real, not like it usually does 'in the movies'.

Temptation to go beyond the bounds of their seducers' art has a number of dramatic purposes. It provides a great theatrical crescendo. It gives a nod to the original book. And it 'keeps the peace' with the morality of monogamy. As Valmont's hedonism leaves its own well-defined limits, he shouts over the jazz, like a soloist insisting on ill-timed attention.

The didactic attitudes to pleasure of the day are one of the reasons that Vadim's original Dangerous Liaisons works better than in more modern interpretations. Today's woman (and man) likes to make independent choices, as well as be wooed intelligently. The careful plotting of Vadim's philanderers is more evil in a time when 'goodness' is equated with sexual ignorance Juliette and Valmont are 'clear-headed' rather than 'jealous' of each other's affairs. They have been together eleven years. Does no-one observe that this is a longer innings (by their own admission) than any of their more conservative friends? Instead of the Machiavellian rendering of the protagonists in other versions, Juliette and Valmont are ultra-chic. And, until they come off the rails, ultra-desirable.

Dangerous Liaisons is the movie that brought Jeanne Moreau (Juliette) to an international audience. Her full-on pout projects an aura of sexuality (compare her here with her performance in films such as Lumiere and L'Adolescent to see what a consummate act it is). She conquers us by identifying her 'amoral' lifestyle with a moral high ground (and one which indeed persists longer and more convincingly than that of her husband). When she refuses to sleep with him early on in the movie, she explains that she is never 'unfaithful' to her lovers. She shares the details of her current suitor with him intellectually rather than physically. And she is the first to be appalled at the human wreckage that Valmont's unconscious search for emotional truth is leaving in its wake.

We maybe tend to think of French New Wave films as being terribly provocative. Yet they could only be provocative within the bounds of the strong French censorship of the time. Films about Indochina and Algeria were halted. Dangerous Liaisons was briefly suppressed for painting an unflattering portrait of French diplomats. The Centre National de la Cinématographie strengthened its power over controversial scripts after its release. But the New Wave 'rebelliousness' – associated with the influential Cahiers du Cinema group of directors like Godard and Truffaut – was initially that of that of the 'youth class'. It was in relation to Vadim's work that the term was first coined.

Even sophistication has its limits. And this film dashes the intellectualism of high art on its head before bringing us to its gratuitously high moral conclusion.

Interesting adaptation of the infamous Laclos classic, this movie was banned in England on it's original release. Difficult to understand why by today's standards. The movie is introduced by director Roger Vadim who basically warns that everyone is going to be bad, bad, bad. He then appears to head off to the nearest cafe for a nasty cigarette and a vile cup of coffee. Given that the movie was made a decade before the sexual revolution of the 1970's it must have had an aura of scandal about it at the time but is strictly tied to the 1950's and suffers from the inhibitions of the period. Very French, very stylish and well acted by the principals the storyline holds up but the cynicism and callousness of the original book are missing. Still, it's never boring and worth seeing for the performances and the direction that later, more explicit movies would take.

Les liaisons dangereuses (1959) is a French movie co-written and directed by Roger Vadim. The film is a contemporary version of the 1782 novel by Pierre de Laclos.

Jeanne Moreau stars as Juliette de Merteuil, a beautiful but amoral woman. She lives by her own rules, which include serial infidelities and initiating seductions by one of her lovers, Valmont. (Portrayed well by Gérard Philipe.)

The target of their Valmont's seduction is Madame Tourvel, played by Annette Stroyberg. She became Annette Vadim when she married director Vadim after they met while making this movie. She was his post-Bardot sex kitten. (Unlike Moreau, she wasn't born to play the part of a virtuous young wife. She doesn't look pious or modest in the least.)

This movie has some merits--Moreau is perfect, and it's a pleasure to watch her act. Thelonius Monk composed the score, and Art Blakely and the Jazz Messengers have a long set when they are playing at a wild party. There's also the famous telegraph scene, which is powerful in a horrible sort of way.

The movie takes liberties with the plot of the novel, of course, but I think it captures the essence. However, a film about decadence and deceit isn't going to cheer you up. Ultimately, I think the blame lies with the novel, not the movie. It's a story about people that we don't like, and for whom we don't care much. That pretty much sums up my thoughts of the film.

The movie has a lackluster rating of 6.9, which which I agree. I rated it 7.

Roger Vadim's reputation as a director of erotica and his own affairs with numerous leading ladies has denied him serious attention by movie critics. Nevertheless, he did make a few prestigious efforts – mainly adaptations of famous, sometimes infamous, material: the film under review (based on the novel by Choderlos de Laclos), BLOOD AND ROSES (1960; Sheridan LeFanu's "Carmilla"), VICE AND VIRTUE (1963; inspired by the works of the Marquis de Sade), CIRCLE OF LOVE (1964; Arthur Schnitzler's "La Ronde"), THE GAME IS OVER (1966; Emile Zola's "La Curee'") and the "Metzengerstein" segment from SPIRITS OF THE DEAD (1968; based on an Edgar Allan Poe short story). I own all six of these but have watched only four so far, including LIAISONS; actually, I liked all of them – but, excluding SPIRITS, this first rendition of a scandalous classic emerges as not just the most satisfactory of the lot but perhaps the most significant in his entire oeuvre.

Incidentally, in view of the updating of the narrative from the 18th to the 20th century, the full original title is LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSES 1960; tragically, co-star Gerard Philipe would not live to see that year through, as he succumbed to cancer two months after the film's September release…though he had, by then, finished work on another, namely Luis Bunuel's REPUBLIC OF SIN (1959). The source novel has been regularly adapted for both the big and small screens, especially in the last 25 years: I had earlier watched the 1988 DANGEROUS LIAISONS and the 1999 modernization CRUEL INTENTIONS, and also own the 1989 VALMONT and the 2003 DANGEROUS LIAISONS TV mini-series (coincidentally, featuring one of Vadim's former flames and VICE AND VIRTUE co-star Catherine Deneuve); speaking of Philipe, Vadim and remakes, it is interesting to note that Philipe had appeared in the original versions of two films Vadim would eventually rework, i.e. LA RONDE (1950) and THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS (1952; Vadim's would be made 10 years later where, again, he was just one of several directors involved in an anthology).

Anyway, this adaptation of French sexual intrigues makes a rather uneasy stab at equating what can be described as the perversions of the nobility (taking pleasure in corrupting the inexperienced, consequently quashing their idealized notion of love) with the amoral attitudes of the late 1950s; I say uneasy because, even if Federico Fellini's contemporaneous LA DOLCE VITA depicted a similarly decaying aristocracy, the 1960s would soon reveal that hedonism was pervasive and not tied to a certain class! That said, the plot retains its essential fascination – aided by the spot-on casting of Philippe, Jeanne Moreau (who would break out internationally soon after), Annette Stroyberg (then Vadim's wife and billed under his surname), Jeanne Valerie and Jean-Louis Trintignant; in keeping with the director's penchant for nudity, all three females mentioned shed their clothes throughout – but these scenes are extremely tame by the standards of even a decade down the line!

There are other good and not-so-good points: on the one hand, the ironic come-uppance of the central conniving pair (Philippe is killed in a fall while struggling with the otherwise mild-mannered Trintignant, after the latter finds out that the former has impregnated his girlfriend – and Philipe's own cousin! – Valerie; Moreau – Philipe's wife, who had also callously tried to break up the young couple's affair by seducing Trintignant – is facially-scarred after being engulfed in flames while trying to dispose of incriminating letters prior to the impending inquest over her husband's death); and the jazz soundtrack by Thelonious Monk (a trend popularized by Miles Davis' score for Louis Malle's LIFT TO THE SCAFFOLD {1958}, also featuring Moreau). On the other hand, some of the dancing at the climactic party is 'wildly' dated but, more importantly, Stroyberg's descent into madness at Philipe's deception simply does not ring true in a modern context! For what it is worth, the film is also included in the "Wonders In The Dark" poll and I watched it appositely to mark the birthdays of its director and main female star.

Many of the reviews here included are as good as anyone needs. Therefore, I will not waste your time, nor mine, writing a subjective take on what is a 6 to 8 point movie. What compels me to write, however, is a correction: the music was not written by Thelonious Monk, as is stated in at least two reviews. The credit goes to pianist Duke Jordan (1922-2006), contemporary and friend of Charlie Parker, except of course, that Jordan lived a much longer life, the last 25+ years (since 1978) in Denmark. For those who are interested, the full line up in the soundtrack includes: Sonny Cohn trumpet, Charlie Rouse tenor sax, Eddie Kahn bass, and Art Taylor drums. And, if you excuse a bit of trivia: Duke was married with jazz singer Sheila Jordan from 1952 to 1962 (at this writing, Ms Jordan is 89 years old and still performing!). Concluding, this movie has arguably one of the best jazz soundtracks of the time, not an uncommon event in French film during the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., Miles Davis, Art Blakey). This cool, post-bop, hard bop era was a great creative time for jazz, no doubt. Memorable and rewarded by time till this day.

Les Liasions Dangeureses is one of the best books ever written - very rococo, very stylish, and very evil but a kind of evil that you have to love. It is surprising even for me to say that the American version of this film beats this horrible French version. The film starts with the director obnoxiously explaining the plot and the characters are continuously explaining themselves. This story is all about secrecy, style and good manners. The film replaces all the good stuff with characters that say out loud all the facts the viewer should be obliged to ponder on. I saw this film with two other fans of Viscont de Valmont and Marqueis de Merteuil (I don't know if that's how you write it) and by the time the film had hit the first half an hour our faces were all alike - disillusioned and disgusted.

The magnificent eighteenth century novel of Choderlos de Laclos has proved irresistible to film-makers and has also inspired an opera and a ballet. I would be surprised were Roger Vadim to feature on anyones list of 'great directors' but he has surpassed himself in this first adaptation which has been updated to the 1950's. Vadim has the services of two of the finest French actors in Gerard Philippe and Jeanne Moreau and has also accommodated his partner at the time, Annette Stroyberg, as the seduced and abandoned Marianne. The main difference in this version is that the two unashamed libertines Marquise de Merteuil and Vicomte de Valmont are not former lovers but plain old Mr. and Mrs. Valmont which serves to give their intrigues and evil machinations even greater piquancy and no doubt accounted for the films problems with the censors. The casting of Gerard Philippe as Valmont is inspired as he is able to utilise his natural charm to devastating effect whilst Jeanne Moreau's mesmerising performance has only been matched by that of Glenn Close in Stephen Frear's film. Annette Stroyberg was inevitably labelled Bardot#2 which is a little unfair. Although her Marianne does not come across as being particularly virtuous she certainly engages our sympathy and we cannot but feel for her fate. To say that Vadim caresses her with the camera would be an understatement! This was still early days of course for Jean-Louis Trintignant as Danceney but he has enjoyed a spectacular career and is still with us at ninety. Mention must also be made of Simone Renant as the cynical, worldly-wise Mme Volanges. Although pointless to speculate one wonders how Philippe's film career would have panned out had he not been so cruelly taken at the age of thirty-six. He was already under threat, as were many of his colleagues, from the New Ripple brigade and would most likely have concentrated more on theatre work. As it turned out his final role in Bunuel's 'Fever mounts in El Pao' proved unworthy of his talents but his Valmont definitely ranks as one of his best. Vadim's direction is taut and the production values excellent, not forgetting the contribution of his preferred editor Victoria Mercanton. A critical failure but a commercial success this fascinating piece bears revisiting despite its stark reminder that all is less than fair in love and war.

This is one of the movies (not many) where the remake "Dangerous Liaisons" of Stephen Frears wins by a large margin.

First of all those movie had one Great Actress in Jeanne Moreau. Bur ir as an incompetent Director in Roger VAdim and some miscasts like Gérard Philippe as Valmont. Perhaps the main culprit is "Roger Vailland". I'm am very fond of "Vailland",love is novels (namely "Drôle de Jeu", but I've read them when I was too young. Nowadays I believe that is is the wrong kind of scriptwriter. Also Roger Vadim did not care for literature. Ask Brigite Bardot. This is a semi-failure. See it only id you are a fan of Jeanne Moreau. There is more eroticism in "Journal d'une Femme de Chambre" by Luis Buñuel than here, about "boudain". "morcilla" or just plain English "sausage". The Anglo-Saxons cannot make sausages and the current laws forbid to to it properly..

Among all Vadim's duds,"les liaisons dangereuses " seems to have stood the test of time better than the other "works" of the director.The reason is to be found in the cast.Gérard Philipe -though largely overshadowed by John Malkovich in Frears's version -and mainly Jeanne Moreau are earnest thespians and you cannot be wrong with them.And Roger Vailland and Claude Brulé had a good idea for the conclusion:fire instead of smallpox allows us to hear Laclos's immortal line "She's wearing her soul on her face!"

Objections to this early version -to be followed by half a dozen of them- remain:that the story should have been transferred to the sixties is eminently questionable:La Merteuil was a definitely modern original character in Choderlos de Laclos's times ;in 1960,such a woman's behavior had become banal.Vadim would do worse when he would transfer Zola's "la curée" to his era.

Proof positive that all that glittered in the nouvelle vague was not gold.

...for many reasons. few - the mark of Roger Vadim on a story almost classic, the presence of Boris Vian in a role reflecting his work, the cold chemistry between Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Philipe and for the most inspired soundtrack. because it is a jazz film. with improvisation and tension, seduction and precise picture of near reality. more than an adaptation, it is a confesion. Valmont by Philipe, one of his last roles, is more than an example of good job but a testimony about the force and nuances and beauty of the great game of nuances for a special actor. because it is not an ordinary film. it reflects its time more than the source of inspiration novel and the contemporary lost of emotion, form of profound insensitivity/cruelty/egocentric circles in brilliant way. and this is the motif to see it. maybe twice. for admire an authentic masterpiece. and an useful warning.