Critics’ reviews

Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 82: 8 positive, 0 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Dangerous Liaisons

82
Positive
8
Mixed
0
Negative
0

Every review is positive, and the praise gathers around the same three actors. Glenn Close and John Malkovich are named by nearly every critic as the reason the film works, with Michelle Pfeiffer’s virtuous target close behind. Most critics also credit Stephen Frears for keeping a drawing-room play moving and for staying indoors with the intrigue rather than opening it out, and several single out the costumes, photography and production design. The tone is agreed on too: a witty comedy of manners with something cruel underneath, and an ending more than one critic finds shocking.

The spread is narrow, from 75 to 90, and the reservations are small. RogerEbert.com finds it short on gusto, Eye for Film thinks the direction tentative and the stage origins visible, and the Los Angeles Times is less sold on the leads than everyone else. The warmest notice is the most recent, from Collider in 2022, which calls it the best adaptation of the novel.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Lloyd Bradley
85*

The film is a devilishly seductive comedy with a heart of black pulsing beneath the blushing surface. The magnificently subtle playing of the lead roles by Close, Malkovich and Pfeiffer involves the viewer so completely that the business of sexual and social point-scoring becomes not only possible but probable.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
2 January 1989 · Pauline Kael
85*

The film succeeds in conveying the carnal roots of the characters' power games and ends with forceful, shocking impact. Kael highlights the strong casting, especially Glenn Close and John Malkovich, and Stephen Frears' brisk, unsentimental direction that makes it one of the least static costume films.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
21 December 1988 · Vincent Canby
85*

The critic finds the film a handsome, intelligent adaptation that succeeds as witty, entertaining drawing-room comedy laced with decadence. He praises its restraint in not opening up the play and its focus on stylized indoor intrigue among the aristocracy.

Read the full review →
Time Out
18 January 2012 · SGr
80*

The film is a sombre, manipulative affair that succeeds by returning to the source novel for its script and casting strong American leads. It singles out Michelle Pfeiffer's splendid performance as the virtuous woman targeted in the plot.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
21 December 1988 · Sheila Benson
75*

The critic calls the film a glittering, cinematic version of the play that retains the novel's shocking power through deliberate seductions and betrayals. She singles out the ravishing photography, costumes, production design and flowing flashbacks for particular praise while noting mixed results from the lead performances.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
13 January 1989 · Roger Ebert
75*

The film is an absorbing and seductive tragicomedy of manners about two cynical aristocrats who destroy others' loves while denying their own. Ebert praises the performances of Glenn Close, John Malkovich, and Michelle Pfeiffer but notes it lacks some gusto and punch.

Read the full review →
Collider
17 August 2022 · Rhianna Malas
90*

The critic calls the 1988 film the best adaptation of the novel, praising its opulent visuals and period detail along with strong performances, particularly Glenn Close in one of her best roles. They highlight the complex, intimate relationship between the central characters Merteuil and Valmont as the story's most compelling element.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
10 August 2009 · James Benefield
80*

The critic praises the film as a compelling depiction of decadence and ennui in 18th-century France, highlighting the masterful performances by Glenn Close and John Malkovich as the central strength while noting some tentative direction and its stage origins.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate