Reviews (66)

French Femmes Fatales Find the Funnybone in F Sharp
Go see this movie and don't wait until it is remade into a bad American version This is a delightful, go for broke, silly film, that allows its cast and the audience to have a great time at the movies. How often does French cinema treat its audience to a cast that includes some of France's most glamorous leading ladies (Deneuve, Huppert, Ardant, Beart)doing full on slapstick comedy and song? 8 women, trapped in a mansion during a snowstorm in the 1950's, find the master of the house dead. All 8 women are suspects, and are guilty of secrets, as well as digging up the dirt on one another, mud slinging, insult hurling and then singing their hearts out. One of the characters may be guilty of murder, and we learn that they all had motives....Production values are high and attention to detail in costumes and sets are noticeable with an effort to reproduce the images of Technicolor films of the 50's. Isabelle Huppert is a show stealer as the bitter spinster sister Augustine to Catherine Deneuve's Gaby. Director Francois Ozon inspires great performances and manages to pull off a pretty quirky idea. I loved this film but I suppose it is not for everyone. If you are up for a well made French comedy that is a little twisted with sharp witted writing, then sit back and enjoy this French bonbon. Don't worry about the subtitles. You will be laughing so hard you will forget you are reading them. Fun web site shows trailer and clips of songs and much more

If you see one French musical murder mystery this year.....
After the absorbing "Under The Sand", director Francois Ozon has completely changed tack with this delightful confection starring some of French cinema's most legendary and indeed most beautiful actresses. Taking his cue from the stereotypical murder mystery with suspects trapped in a secluded mansion, Ozon has transformed this into a colourful and sometimes even camp (in the best sense of the word) film with women at the centre.

It is difficult to single out individual performances - however the two youngest actresses, Virginie Ledoyen and Ludivine Sagnier suffer a little in the presence of the great firmament of acting. Catherine Deneuve, as always is luminous while Firmine Richard gets the best song, and her delivery gives it added pathos. Emmanuelle Beart is sultry, Fanny Ardant is vampy and the grande dame of the cinema, Danielle Darrieux ("Voluers! Assasins!") adds great comic touches. However, by a nose the most outstanding performace has to be Isabelle Huppert's spinster, Augustine. It would have been easy to go over the top with her character (and at times she veers dangerously close) but she is able to pull back and her "singing moment" challenges Richard's for being the most heart-breaking.

The film does betray its theatrical origins sometimes but this lends itself to the artifice that Ozon wishes to create. Once you have got over the unlikely scenario of suspects in a murder breaking into song, you will sit back and thoroughly enjoy this winning musical.

An interesting movie with legendary actresses
To start of, I am not a fan of Francois Ozon, his stories always seemed to be over sexed to sell more tickets. I only decided to watch this movie because of the 8 actresses (Deneuve and Bear especially). The story was shot and acted as a stage play. The colors, setting and the characters all looked perfect. However, this ideal picture is just an illusion for it hid beneath it rotten characters. The eight women are all selfish, murder, greedy and adulterous. Though the characters are not defined completely, the actresses do bring life and a sense of fun in portraying them. Off course, I can not review this movie without talking about the song. Its true none of the actresses is a real singer ( Darrieux and Deneuve did actually record music) nevertheless, the songs were preformed "well". Arden's song - a quoi sert de vivre liber was well preformed and actually better the original version (whish was sung by Nicoletta). The songs are actually hits from the 70's and 60's. Most of the songs are integrated perfectly into the movie to reviel character in their most "naked" moment. The song of the legendary singer Dalida "Pour ne pas vivre seul" was perfectly used - though badly preformed- to illustrate the loneliness of the housekeeper. Ozon again implemented his techniques in sexual tension by over using lesbianism in this movie. However, this is an entertaining movie to watch and to monitor the tension of those 8 "women" that are locked in a small space. Finally, people ask what is the point of the movie? well on the surface it is just a murder mystery however, underlying it is a pessimistic message that true love is hard to get and even harder to keep, or as Darrieux say it in her final number Il y a pas d'amour heureux!.

A dark farce
that can't decide whether it's a murder mystery or a parody of one. Each character has a < gasp! > song, each worst than the last. Its message is the women in any man's life will drive him crazy. Sure, the eight women here are the best that French cinema has to offer, though Catherine Deneuve is a bit of a dumpling despite being typecast as a closet "Sapphist." But the movie's unit setting is more typical of stage than cinema. And it drags, horribly. You might find its compendium of French insults interesting. But if you don't, it's just a director stringing cliches together to abuse both art & audience. Probably not worth your time, and certainly not worth your trouble.

As bad as Moulin Rouge
As a non-traditional student (having taught French for over 20 years before returning to graduate work)pursuing a doctorate in French, I`ve seen a lot of fine French films. 8 Femmes isn`t one of them. For a charming musical, for example, see Sous les toits de Paris directed by Rene Clair in the early 1930`s. The forgettable songs in 8 Femmes are stiffly rendered by actresses who can`t sing and can`t dance. The drama of the murder plot is oddly juxtaposed against giddy females singing about, well, who knows what? The songs are not organic to the movie, just added on at odd intervals so each of the eight ladies gets a chance to demonstrate her non-talent. Where is Ginger Rogers when you need her? And you need a score card to keep track of all the ladies who are in reality lesbians. The scene with Fanny Ardant on top of Catherine Deneuve was, well, beyond words. Kindly run, do not walk, to the nearest exit. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Highly Recommended On All Levels
Great entertainment and historically correct, for the most part. Richard Burton plays a convincing Alexander. From the start, with the background on Alexander's youth and his relationship with his father Philip and mother Olympias, the movie awesomely captures history. The battle scenes are recreated very well. I especially liked the post-battle scene at Chaeronea with the drunken Philip's singing echoing through the valley. Only minor errors, such as Darius's daughter being called Roxanne (a Bactrian princess) instead of Statira, can easily be overlooked. Alexander in fact, married both women anyway. The Persians are also shown historically correct for the most part, especially Darius' murder and the scene at Persepolis. For an under two-hour movie, what you get is quite spectacular. Of course, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reduce to film everything in Alexander's life.

Disappointing
Robert Rossen 1950's attempt at writing and directing a film on a character as intriguing and dynamic as Alexander The Great falls flat. The subject itself calls for only the most devoted and skilled masters of film which Rossen was not for purposes of this genre.

Because Alexander The Great accomplished so much within only 13 years of his 33 years of life, it is virtually impossible to make a good movie on that part alone in less than 3 hours. Richard Burton delivers a strong performance as Alexander but also seems too constrained; Butrton fails to deliver the youthful vigor of which Alexander had so much of. Not only was Alexander a king and conqueror, he was a military genius; a philosopher; a bold explorer; and, in his own mind anyway, a god among mortal men. Burton's performance often seems too grave and reserved and fails to reflect Alexander's dynamic personality.

I did like the movie for its focus on Alexander's childhood but that also came short. It seems that, other than for biblical movies, the 1950s and early 1960s was a really bad period for making films dealing with the classical pagan world. All such movies were inevitably constrained by prudish christian values that restricted what subjects such a movie could touch upon and limited the characters depicted. Although a military genius in his own right, Phillip was a debauche and drunkard whose bizzare sexual preferences shocked even his Greek neighbors. For example, after the battle of Charonea, Phillip II swaggered drunk around the corpses of the enemy and, lifting their heads as if seeking an audience, would yell for Demonsthenes (Athenian orator and staunch enemy of Phillip.) Olympias was a conspiring queen and pagan priestess whose incessant scheming were directed at both Alexander and/or Phillip at one point or another. Such characters were poorly presented due to a squeemish 50s audience: unfortunate.

The movie doesn't really cover the campaign or its battles very well either. Looking at the movie, one barely gets any view as to how Alexander refined his father's tactics of the Macedonian phalanx to its peak; a military tactic unmatched until it came against the more fluid ones of the Roman legions almost 200 years later. The same is true as to Alexander's great siege of Tyre in which he built a mile-long jetti into the sea to connect with the City's gates; his hard fought geurilla campaign against Darius' renegade satraps; or his victories against Porus' elephants in India. There are also gross inaccuracies in the film in that Roxanne wasn't Darius III's daughter.

I have heard that Oliver Stone with perhaps the help of Copola is completing a new film on Alexander the Great with Leonardo Di Caprio as Alexander: I look forward to seeing that. In the meantime, we can only look at where others have failed. Roughly paraphrasing Phillip II, I would tell viewers, "Seek a greater movie, for that which Rossen leaves you is too small for thee."

A less than stellar 1956 epic film about Alexander the Great
With films about Alexander the Great directed by Oliver Stone and Baz Luhrmann supposedly being released in 2004 and 2005 respectively, the 1956 film "Alexander the Great" from director Robert Rossen with Richard Burton in the title role is probably going to see renewed interest. However, despite providing a realistic portrayal of a historical legend and being one of the most historically faithful films about the ancient world ever to be made, there is something missing from this would be epic.

"Alexander the Great" was written, produced and directed by Rossen, who had won the Academy Award for "All the King's Men" (1949) and would be nominated gain for "The Hustler" (1961). All three films have in common the realistic portrait of a complex psychological figure. Burton plays Alexander as being both energetic and a visionary, with quicksilver changes in mood. Alexander is both idealistic and practical, intelligent but hot-tempered, courageous but shrewd. Although he conquers the Persian Empire while still basically a boy, this is a conqueror who suffers defeats and almost falls prey to becoming an Oriental potentate just like Darius (Harry Andrews), the Persian king he just conquered. This is a man who can kill a friend in a moment of anger while drunk and weep over the body.

The more you know about the historical Alexander the more impressed you are by the film's fidelity to what appears in Plutarch. Here is the Alexander who worshiped Achilles and loved Homer's "Iliad," who was taught by Aristotle, cut the Gordian knot, destroyed Persepolis, and died a young man at Babylon. The battles sequences, such as the battle at the river Granicus, run rather short, but are not all that bad. The problem is that for all the complexity of Alexander's character and the intensity of Burton's performance, there is no real sense of mission or accomplishment to his conquering the known world. We see what happened, but are curiously unaffected by the film's implicitly explanation for why he did it.

The rationale suggested by the film is found in Alexander's father, King Philip of Macedonia. Played by Fredric March, Philip has a memorable scene after the battle of Chaeronea against the united city-states of Greece when he gets drunk and mocks the Athenian orator Demosthenes for having called him a barbarian. When Philip is assassinated Alexander chases after the assassin and kills him, and even the most basic understanding of Freudian psychology tells us that the son will spend the rest of his life trying to impress his dead father.

In the end the explanation for conquering the world becomes the same as Sir Edmund Hillary's famous quote for why he climbed Mt. Everest. To wit, "Because it was there." When you are on top of the world, there is a certain logic to such a quip. But when the subject is conquering the known world starting with a relatively small kingdom north of Greece, the same idea seems rather hollow. Hopefully Stone and/or Luhrmann can come up with not only better explanations, but much better films.

An Epic That Never Was
Someday, someone is going to make a great film about Alexander. Writer/director Robert Rossen took a crack at it in the mid-1950's, an era of epic films. The result was interesting but ultimately disappointing. Perhaps Rossen tried to squeeze too much into a standard running time. Some scenes, usually the historic ones, seem rushed and truncated while others, the fictionalised ones, seem superfluous. Visually, the film is quite good. In fact, it is one of those films where the stills are more impressive than the actual scenes.

But Rossen obviously wanted to make an "intelligent" epic. Some of the script and casting reflect that. The supporting cast has a number of respected British thesps -Claire Bloom, Harry Andrews, Peter Cushing, Michael Hordern, Stanley Baker. But there are also a lot of Italians whose dialogue is dubbed by those same two guys who did all the film dubbing in the 1950's. One can only wonder who chose Fredric March (hammy as ever) as Philip of Macedon or Danielle Darrieux (who apparently had only one facial expression) as his mischievous queen.

But the critical casting was Richard Burton as Alexander. He certainly looks the part, despite the blonde hair. But he frequently suffers from his career-long inability to adapt his stage-acting technique to the more intimate demands of cinema. Or maybe that's how he thought a wannabe god should behave. You sit there praying for him to lighten up - just a little.

For the rest, the many battle scenes tend to be confusing rather than spectacular, the uncertain pace suggests a lot of pre-release cuts were made, and the music not only sounds primitive but seems to have been recorded in somebody's basement. Still, the film is an interesting failure. But you end up admiring its ambitions more than its results.

Alexander the Great
Richard Burton, hair dyed blond, wandering around in a miniskirt. A movie only Liz Taylor could love. Drags ... Read more

Reviews (18)

Don't Miss This
The DVD returns The Young Girls of Rochefort to its widescreen format, and for anyone who cares about musicals, this is a must-see. The music score is one of Michel Legrand's best, and the movie pays homage to An American in Paris and other musicals with the presence of Gene Kelly. Here's a film that also uses color creatively. The cast is wonderful--Catherine Deneuve, Francoise Dorleac, Danielle Darrieux, George Chakiris, Grover Dale, Michel Piccoli, Jacques Parrin, and of course, Kelly. The script gets somewhat silly--but there's so much to enjoy. Maybe Donkey Skin will get restored next--another Demy-Legrand gem starring Deneuve and Perrin.

One of the best musicals ever made
The Young Girls Of Rochefort was made against all odds. It is a musical, and musicals were all wrong back in 66' Musicals is a very american moviegenre, but this one is french. All dialogue is in french, so that could make anyone feel uneasy at first.

However all that is no problem in this film. Most musicals are romantic, and since french is a very romantic language, this movie gets even more romantic. Even the clothes on the actors has a romantic touch (they very terribly out of date when the movie was made)

The songs are written by Michel Legrand, and they are very catchy and joyful. This sure is a important movie in Michel Legrands long career. The colors are brilliant, everything has a soft touch.

Gene Kelly has only a small part in this movie, but he makes it bigger. His dancing skills are as good as ever.

The major characters (Deneuve,Dorleac,Chakiris,Dale) does a good job. Deneuve and Dorleac were sisters in real life, you cant see it, but you might "feel" it. None of them do their own singing,they are all dubbed.

All together, a nice little movie that gave me a lot of fun. An extra plus for the music.

Catherine Deneuve at her most beautiful
If only life could be eternally sunny and everyone going around singing of Love!This film is GREAT! Catherine Deneuve is radiant in this.I once saw this on TV many years ago dubbed into english but I cannot find any reference to a dubbed version anywhere now? The translation was great though the original version is still excellent.I recall the scene in the cafe in the square where they're discussing the cut up body in the basket.In english it was hilarious & quite droll!
The actress who played the mother was also very good.
I found Gene Kelly a bit over the top which, in this film, is saying something!For anyone who wants some fun escapism I highly recommend this film. The musical score is beautiful, especially the "composition" by Catherine Deneuve's "sister"

DEFECTIVE DVD
The other reviews are accurate in describing the film and helping in your descision to buy it. I just wanted to mention that my DVD skipped and jerked during the last few scenes of the film and made it nearly unwatchable. I tried a couple different players with no luck and then sent for a replacement copy which exhibited the exact same behavior. Apparently some defects in this pressing. I wonder if many others have had this problem.

Great!
I thought this was a very wonderful movie. It was directed and acted very well. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

An excellent adaptation...
An excellent adaptation of Laclos' LES LIASONS DANGEREUSES. Most screen adaptations of this novel are several degrees of horrible. The charm of the book, which is absolutely brilliant, is that it is structured by correspondence; it consists of letters between the characters. The literary thrusts in the book, therefore, are often far more delectable than the more literal thrusts between the characters. Thus, adaptation is extremely difficult.

In this film all of the plot points are followed, but with some noticeable changes. First, Gercourt is actually a character, where in the novel he is always significantly absent. Gercourt, however, was miscast. The fellow is just too old to make a credible fiance to a 19-year old girl in 1960s France. Second, obviously, the context is not eighteenth-century France, but an elegant Paris in the Sixties. The cars used in this production are absolutely stunning; they almost glow. Third, Deneuve is a wonderful actress, and her portrayal of Merteuil is far superior to Glenn Close, however she is too old. In the book she was in her late twenties, and a woman in her mid-thirties would have been more credible here.

Also, the writers fleshed out the ending quite a bit in very interesting and humanizing ways, where Laclos sort of just sort of killed everyone off with gusto. The inclusion of all of the characters, and the development of all of their interrelationships makes this a very long movie (270 minutes!). The movie is often visually stunning. Many of the sets absorb light in beautiful ways, radiating their darkness.

This film is infinitely superior to Close and Malkovich's botched DANGEROUS LIAISONS, which was just overblown, overacted ham, in my opinion. Valmont's descent into his crisis of indistinguishable sincerity/insincerity is wonderfully portrayed by Rupert Everett.

An interesting adaptation of the book, which will interest its fans. Those who are interested in the story, yet don't like to read, will find all of the entirety of the book represented, though adapted and interpreted quite differently.

Obsolete Traditions
Two predators join forces with evil: Madame de Merteuil (Catherine Deneuve) sponsors attractive young artists who find suitable ways to pay off their debt of gratitude, while Valmont (Rupert Everett) chooses his victims among ladies of rank and fashion. Madame meditates revenge agains her ex: Gercourt (Andzej Zulawski), a famous conductor, left her for the highly gifted and well-bred Cecile (Leelee Sobieski), who idealizes him. Not only does Cecile come from a good stable, but she has preserved her maidenhood into the bargain. Now Madame instructs Valmont to rob this watched-over boarder of her most valuable treasure. But Valmont considers Marie Tourvel (Nastassja Kinski), chaste wife of a diplomat, the bigger challenge. While Madame sets one of her proteges on Cecile Valmont besieges the "fortress" Marie. When Madame promises a higher prize - herself - Valmont comes round to seduce Cecile, a mere child's play to him. Poor Cecile feels so ashamed that she attempts suicide. She becomes pregnant, loses her baby, her marriage busts, and her honorable conductor (at least thirty years her senior) and her honorable student (Madame's lover) call her "floozie". The fortress falls likewise, but this time Valmont is under the delusion that he really loves Marie. Madame turns his feelings to ridicule and incites him to "let her suffer, deceive her!" - and he caves in again. But when Madame refuses to perform her part of the contract he declares war on her: He knows her Achilles heel: respectability. And he knows that she embezzled money from her foundation. He informs the bureau of investigation of tax offenses...

Catherine Deneuve's first tv-film is a sumptous spectacle with beautiful scenery and wardrobes by Gaultier that can compare with the most expensive Hollywood productions. Any scriptwriter who tries to update the Choderlos de Laclos novel undertakes the risk of making it look like a soap opera. This did not happen here - Deneuve is no Joan Collins imitator, thank God - but the reason is sobering: the wardrobes are modern, but the dialogue is "Ancien Regime" - nobody talks like that! - and so is the morality. "In our family girls are not brought up to work" says Cecile's grandmother. Why not? This is not some oriental country but France, 2003. The daughters of the upper ten go to university, like Victoria of Sweden and Chelsea Clinton, or work as models. And an unmarried mother is no longer socially disgraced: she can marry a future king (Norway) or a chancellor (Germany). Cecile's grandmother - altough guilty of a repressed education is sympathetic, does not threaten her with disinheritance or so. And if the loss of her virginity means that Cecile cannot marry this old fossil (Famous conductors are notorious husbands!) or this priggish student - well, then she should hail Valmont as her savior! Besides: Sobieski is much too clear-sighted to fall for a rake. Kinski is a more likely victim: educated, well-read, but endangered by her diffidence. (She acts as if she believes she is Ingrid Bergman, ca 1940, and her dressmaker supports this self-deceit). Catherine Deneuve is completely miscast - and I mean this as a compliment. Such a beautiful woman does not need to patronize young "artists" to get something in return - I bet she has to strain every nerve to keep her admirers at arm's length. She has a well-poised personality and lots of work to do - probably the last woman on earth to plot and scheme for fun. Those who film famous classics should be either in accordance with the original or ruthless enough to cut off antiquated customs. They cannot have it both ways! This version is visually impressive but cold.

C'est Craptaculaire!
First, Catherine Deneuve is too old for this role -- she's about 60! She looks great for her age, but it's hard to believe any of the men would be drawn to her or find her sexy. In fact, I couldn't see sparks between any of the characters. With such a noteworthy cast and scandalous plot, the lackluster acting was disappointing, as well as the missing sensuality and excitement. I saw this broadcast on cable and it was dubbed in English, but the film stock went back and forth so you could read the actors' lips to see when they were speaking English or French -- and the change in audio quality was noticeable. I admittedly could stomach only half the movie and would've rated it zero stars. Watch the adaptation starring John Malkovitch and Glenn Close instead, or another great version, "Valmont," which stars Colin Firth.
The basic plot line for these movies, for those who don't know, is: Marquise de Merteuil is a respected member of high society but very promiscuous, and Vicomte de Valmont is equally promiscuous and enjoys ruining the reputations of his lovers. They're good friends, of like mind, and scheme against others in France together. The pair plans Valmont's next conquests to be a virtuous married woman and a young girl. Watch the films to find out the rest. ... Read more

Description

Internationally acclaimed filmmaker Agnès Varda's (Vagabond, One Hundred and One Nights) third tribute to her late husband, Jacques Demy, is a loving look at his brilliant vision and techniques.Included are clips from Demy's films featuring Lola, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and Bay of Angels along with interviews of those who worked with him and knew him best including Catherine Deneuve, Anouk Aimée, Michel Piccoli, Harrison Ford, composer Michel Legrand, Demy's children and fans.The film also includes rare home video footage of the director with François Truffaut and Jim Morrison. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

For Jacques Demy devotees
If you love the films of Jacques Demy as I do, then this is a must-see film, one of three documentaries about him by his wife Agnes Varda. All of his work is touched upon in this docuementary. Interviews with the director, his relatives, and the stars of his films are all worthwhile, and there's even a bit with Harrison Ford who was originally supposed to star in Demy's Model Shop, his sequel to Lola. I haven't been able to see all of Demy's movies because they weren't shown in the US and this film provides clips from those films. After watching this, I can only hope that a restored print of Donkey Skin is shown in the US soon and that we get a DVD of that film released in the US. That film is pure enchantment. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Great French car flick...
The great German-born director, Billy Vilder, on his vay from Deutschland to Hollywood, stopped off in Paris to make this early car chase classic. A young French dandy, suddenly down on his luck, falls in with a slick gang of car thieves who run a phony auto shop, and who take him in and teach him the ropes in their cynical racket. He also falls in love, and attempts to break away from his criminal pals in order to live a clean life with his gal. Pretty cool presentation of French life in the interwar era, and of the growing fascination with the newly blooming car culture. Great crosscountry chase sequence at the end; fun stuff throughout. Recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (3)

An excellent adaptation...
An excellent adaptation of Laclos' LES LIASONS DANGEREUSES. Most screen adaptations of this novel are several degrees of horrible. The charm of the book, which is absolutely brilliant, is that it is structured by correspondence; it consists of letters between the characters. The literary thrusts in the book, therefore, are often far more delectable than the more literal thrusts between the characters. Thus, adaptation is extremely difficult.

In this film all of the plot points are followed, but with some noticeable changes. First, Gercourt is actually a character, where in the novel he is always significantly absent. Gercourt, however, was miscast. The fellow is just too old to make a credible fiance to a 19-year old girl in 1960s France. Second, obviously, the context is not eighteenth-century France, but an elegant Paris in the Sixties. The cars used in this production are absolutely stunning; they almost glow. Third, Deneuve is a wonderful actress, and her portrayal of Merteuil is far superior to Glenn Close, however she is too old. In the book she was in her late twenties, and a woman in her mid-thirties would have been more credible here.

Also, the writers fleshed out the ending quite a bit in very interesting and humanizing ways, where Laclos sort of just sort of killed everyone off with gusto. The inclusion of all of the characters, and the development of all of their interrelationships makes this a very long movie (270 minutes!). The movie is often visually stunning. Many of the sets absorb light in beautiful ways, radiating their darkness.

This film is infinitely superior to Close and Malkovich's botched DANGEROUS LIAISONS, which was just overblown, overacted ham, in my opinion. Valmont's descent into his crisis of indistinguishable sincerity/insincerity is wonderfully portrayed by Rupert Everett.

An interesting adaptation of the book, which will interest its fans. Those who are interested in the story, yet don't like to read, will find all of the entirety of the book represented, though adapted and interpreted quite differently.

Obsolete Traditions
Two predators join forces with evil: Madame de Merteuil (Catherine Deneuve) sponsors attractive young artists who find suitable ways to pay off their debt of gratitude, while Valmont (Rupert Everett) chooses his victims among ladies of rank and fashion. Madame meditates revenge agains her ex: Gercourt (Andzej Zulawski), a famous conductor, left her for the highly gifted and well-bred Cecile (Leelee Sobieski), who idealizes him. Not only does Cecile come from a good stable, but she has preserved her maidenhood into the bargain. Now Madame instructs Valmont to rob this watched-over boarder of her most valuable treasure. But Valmont considers Marie Tourvel (Nastassja Kinski), chaste wife of a diplomat, the bigger challenge. While Madame sets one of her proteges on Cecile Valmont besieges the "fortress" Marie. When Madame promises a higher prize - herself - Valmont comes round to seduce Cecile, a mere child's play to him. Poor Cecile feels so ashamed that she attempts suicide. She becomes pregnant, loses her baby, her marriage busts, and her honorable conductor (at least thirty years her senior) and her honorable student (Madame's lover) call her "floozie". The fortress falls likewise, but this time Valmont is under the delusion that he really loves Marie. Madame turns his feelings to ridicule and incites him to "let her suffer, deceive her!" - and he caves in again. But when Madame refuses to perform her part of the contract he declares war on her: He knows her Achilles heel: respectability. And he knows that she embezzled money from her foundation. He informs the bureau of investigation of tax offenses...

Catherine Deneuve's first tv-film is a sumptous spectacle with beautiful scenery and wardrobes by Gaultier that can compare with the most expensive Hollywood productions. Any scriptwriter who tries to update the Choderlos de Laclos novel undertakes the risk of making it look like a soap opera. This did not happen here - Deneuve is no Joan Collins imitator, thank God - but the reason is sobering: the wardrobes are modern, but the dialogue is "Ancien Regime" - nobody talks like that! - and so is the morality. "In our family girls are not brought up to work" says Cecile's grandmother. Why not? This is not some oriental country but France, 2003. The daughters of the upper ten go to university, like Victoria of Sweden and Chelsea Clinton, or work as models. And an unmarried mother is no longer socially disgraced: she can marry a future king (Norway) or a chancellor (Germany). Cecile's grandmother - altough guilty of a repressed education is sympathetic, does not threaten her with disinheritance or so. And if the loss of her virginity means that Cecile cannot marry this old fossil (Famous conductors are notorious husbands!) or this priggish student - well, then she should hail Valmont as her savior! Besides: Sobieski is much too clear-sighted to fall for a rake. Kinski is a more likely victim: educated, well-read, but endangered by her diffidence. (She acts as if she believes she is Ingrid Bergman, ca 1940, and her dressmaker supports this self-deceit). Catherine Deneuve is completely miscast - and I mean this as a compliment. Such a beautiful woman does not need to patronize young "artists" to get something in return - I bet she has to strain every nerve to keep her admirers at arm's length. She has a well-poised personality and lots of work to do - probably the last woman on earth to plot and scheme for fun. Those who film famous classics should be either in accordance with the original or ruthless enough to cut off antiquated customs. They cannot have it both ways! This version is visually impressive but cold.

C'est Craptaculaire!
First, Catherine Deneuve is too old for this role -- she's about 60! She looks great for her age, but it's hard to believe any of the men would be drawn to her or find her sexy. In fact, I couldn't see sparks between any of the characters. With such a noteworthy cast and scandalous plot, the lackluster acting was disappointing, as well as the missing sensuality and excitement. I saw this broadcast on cable and it was dubbed in English, but the film stock went back and forth so you could read the actors' lips to see when they were speaking English or French -- and the change in audio quality was noticeable. I admittedly could stomach only half the movie and would've rated it zero stars. Watch the adaptation starring John Malkovitch and Glenn Close instead, or another great version, "Valmont," which stars Colin Firth.
The basic plot line for these movies, for those who don't know, is: Marquise de Merteuil is a respected member of high society but very promiscuous, and Vicomte de Valmont is equally promiscuous and enjoys ruining the reputations of his lovers. They're good friends, of like mind, and scheme against others in France together. The pair plans Valmont's next conquests to be a virtuous married woman and a young girl. Watch the films to find out the rest. ... Read more