WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Misteraser Critics,are you kidding us

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

calpuuurnia I love the book and I've seen almost all the filmed versions, from the Upper East Side setting of Cruel Intentions to the 2nd Korean version, Untold Scandal, but I have to say I was a little disappointed with this one.Firstly, I love Catherine Deneuve but I just couldn't take her in this role! The Marquise de Merteuil is only supposed to give the impression of coldness. Ms. Deneuve is a solid block of ice all the way through this film which makes it difficult to believe anyone would want to bed her much less enjoy it and even less be willing to give their lives for her! Contrast that to Glenn Close's portrayal in the Stephen Frears film and you'll know what I mean.And secondly there is poor Rupert Everett. If I could imagine the Vicomte de Valmont I would certainly have him look like Rupert but again his acting has just too cold! Going back to Frears, what made John Malkovich so perfect in the role was that he was so imperfect! John isn't classically handsome but he's charming and that is what he brings to the role. Even though we know the guy isn't hot we have no problem believing he can score with the ladies, even against their better judgment and numerous protestations, because he's just smooth like that! And what is more we feel badly for him when when he loses Madame de Tourvel and is betrayed by the Marquise.I never once believed Rupert's character felt any real pain. He just seemed like a big, handsome evil Robot! It would have made more sense and been less surprising had he just gone on a rampage and killed everyone in the movie! On a positive note, Rupert's French is beautiful, the soundtrack is marvelous and the costume design is fabulous!

Felix-28 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.

sumrrain 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.

genshman Oh Lord, this was really bad! You think with all those marvellous actresses and actors and this brilliant story, nothing can go wrong, but - they marred it completely.Starting with hilarious miscasting (Catherine Deneuve is far too old and not sensuous enough), over boring, wooden dialogue to incompetent camera work - there is one scene which has two of the leading characters talking to another, and you don't even get to see the face of one of them!Shifting the story into the present may be an interesting idea, but the script does not take the simplest care in adapting to this.See another version of this, the Stephen-Frears-film if you can. But do miss this one!