--- title: "Dangerous Liaisons" year: 1988 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/dangerous-liaisons" fi1m_id: "dangerous-liaisons" imdb_id: "tt0094947" tmdb_id: 859 wikidata_id: "Q830553" fi1m_score: 84 critics_score: 82 critics_reviews: 8 published: "2026-09-15" updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:36.541148+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Dangerous Liaisons (1988) Directed by Stephen Frears · 1h 59m · MPA R · Drama, Romance ## Identity Dangerous Liaisons - **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/dangerous-liaisons - **Type:** Film - **Fi1m ID:** dangerous-liaisons - **IMDb ID:** tt0094947 - **TMDB ID:** 859 - **Wikidata ID:** Q830553 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094947/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/859, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q830553 **Fi1m score: 84** · Critics 82 from 8 reviews *In a sentence:* We would not leave Glenn Close alone with a guest list > We warmly recommend Stephen Frears’s drama of calculated seduction, led by a merciless Glenn Close and a deeply affecting Michelle Pfeiffer. A few exchanges are stiff enough to make the characters seem over-rehearsed. ## Synopsis Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil (Glenn Close) and Vicomte Sébastien de Valmont (John Malkovich) occupy a society in which seduction is a means of gaining power. Madame Marie de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) becomes a target, her virtue an attraction to people accustomed to treating desire as a contest. Private desires have public consequences, and manners offer little protection against people who know how to exploit them. Stephen Frears directs this drama of sexual rivalry and social manipulation, with a screenplay by Christopher Hampton drawn from the novel by Choderlos de Laclos. ## Review *Dangerous Liaisons* is an excellent film about people who regard another person’s happiness as something available for their use. Stephen Frears keeps us close to the aristocratic scheming, making the pleasure of watching these people increasingly uncomfortable. Christopher Hampton’s screenplay, drawn from Choderlos de Laclos’s novel, gives them the language to make almost any appetite sound reasonable. The seductions matter because sexual attraction is tangled up with the wish to control how other people behave, and the conversations seldom let us forget it. Glenn Close’s Merteuil is the chief reason to stay alert. Close makes calculation look effortless: there is no need to underline a threat when simple attention can make another person feel so thoroughly inspected. We watch the composure, the precision with which she seems to choose what can be allowed into her expression, and the enjoyment of having understood someone else’s weakness. The control in her face keeps the longer exchanges alive. John Malkovich is less consistently persuasive as Valmont. His knowing delivery sometimes advertises the manipulation so plainly that we begin wondering why anybody listens to him, though the confidence with which he expects a hearing is part of the character’s unpleasantness. He is absorbing beside Close, where their mutual understanding makes the conversation feel especially unsafe for anyone else involved. But there are stretches when his performance needs more charm to make the seductions convincing, and self-satisfaction has to do the work instead. Michelle Pfeiffer makes Tourvel’s virtue believable by giving it thought and effort. We were more upset than we expected by her vulnerability. The effort in Pfeiffer’s face, as Tourvel tries to preserve her composure under that calculating attention, makes the seductions feel cruel even while the dialogue remains entertaining. She gives us someone whose feelings matter without asking us to congratulate ourselves for noticing, and the film needs her whenever its cleverness threatens to become too agreeable. Philippe Rousselot’s photography gives the indoor intrigue a richness that makes the company look worth joining. The attractiveness of the rooms matters, because we can understand the temptation to remain among people who behave this badly. James Acheson’s costumes reinforce that concern with appearances; dressing properly seems part of the effort to stay in control. The production design is persuasive for the same reason, although Frears occasionally arranges the actors so carefully that the rooms begin to feel like sets. Mick Audsley’s editing gives the flashbacks an ease of movement that some of the dialogue scenes lack. The cutting helps keep the film from settling into a succession of carefully presented verbal contests, each awaiting its decisive remark. George Fenton’s score adds to the polish, its elegance pleasingly uncomfortable beside the spite of the conversations. Frears’s restraint usually serves the actors, but a few exchanges need less reverence for the wording and a little more freedom in the staging. Within costume drama, this is a particularly good account of how much damage can be done under cover of polite conversation. We understand the attraction of the company without needing to share its appetites. The patches of stiffness matter less when Pfeiffer makes clear how much an apparently civil exchange can demand of someone trying to behave well. Choose it for Close and Pfeiffer, and do not expect the romance to provide much comfort. *Fi1m score 84, published 15 September 2026.* ## What the critics say 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. ## Straight answers **Is Dangerous Liaisons worth watching?** *Dangerous Liaisons* is worth watching for anyone who enjoys a costume drama with cruelty behind the manners, and we scored it 84. Glenn Close is merciless as Merteuil and Michelle Pfeiffer is deeply affecting as her target, though John Malkovich needs more charm and a few exchanges are stiff enough to make the characters seem over-rehearsed. **How long is Dangerous Liaisons, and what is it rated?** *Dangerous Liaisons* runs 1h 59m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a drama and romance film. **Where can I watch Dangerous Liaisons in the US?** *Dangerous Liaisons* is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from $3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service. **How violent or frightening is Dangerous Liaisons, and is it suitable for children?** *Dangerous Liaisons* carries a UK 15 certificate, and its adult content is sexual and psychological rather than violent or frightening. The film is about seduction used as a means of power, and its cruelty lies in the conversations and their consequences. It is not for children, and younger teenagers are unlikely to find much in it. **How does Dangerous Liaisons compare to The Age of Innocence?** *Dangerous Liaisons* is the crueller and sharper of the two, while [*The Age of Innocence*](https://film.one/film/the-age-of-innocence) is the more painful romance. Both put private desire in a society where impeccable manners offer little protection, but Frears's film watches its schemers with growing discomfort, whereas Scorsese's explains its manners more patiently, sometimes too patiently. Choose Frears for spite, Scorsese for longing. **Is Dangerous Liaisons based on a true story or a book?** *Dangerous Liaisons* is based on a book, not a true story: the novel by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, adapted for the screen by Christopher Hampton. The screenplay keeps the novel's aristocratic setting and gives the characters language that makes almost any appetite sound reasonable. No knowledge of the book is needed to follow the film. **What should I watch after Dangerous Liaisons?** After *Dangerous Liaisons*, try [*The Age of Innocence*](https://film.one/film/the-age-of-innocence) (1993, Fi1m 86): Another society where impeccable manners make private desire harder to survive. Then [*The Servant*](https://film.one/film/the-servant) (1963, Fi1m 89): Class, control and calculated intimacy, with fewer people and tighter rooms; and [*The Handmaiden*](https://film.one/film/the-handmaiden) (2016, Fi1m 85): Seduction and deception given more room for desire, humour and resistance. ### Reviews we read (8) - **Empire**, Lloyd Bradley (85/100, inferred): 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](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/dangerous-liasons-review/) - **The New Yorker**, Pauline Kael (85/100, inferred): 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](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1989/01/09/the-comedy-of-evil) - **The New York Times**, Vincent Canby (85/100, inferred): 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](https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/21/movies/review-film-passion-in-the-ancien-regime-dangerous-liaisons-on-screen.html) - **Time Out**, SGr (80/100, inferred): 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](https://www.timeout.com/movies/dangerous-liaisons) - **Los Angeles Times**, Sheila Benson (75/100, inferred): 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](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-12-21-ca-394-story.html) - **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (75/100, inferred): 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](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dangerous-liaisons-1989) - **Collider**, Rhianna Malas (90/100, inferred): 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](https://collider.com/dangerous-liaisons-1988-best-adaptation/) - **Eye for Film**, James Benefield (80/100, inferred): 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](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/dangerous-liaisons-film-review-by-james-benefield) ## Details - **Director:** Stephen Frears - **Director:** Stephen Frears - **Screenplay:** Christopher Hampton - **Novel:** Pierre Choderlos de Laclos - **Cinematography:** Philippe Rousselot - **Editor:** Mick Audsley - **Music:** George Fenton - **Costume design:** James Acheson - **Producer:** Norma Heyman, Hank Moonjean - **Cast:** Glenn Close as Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil; John Malkovich as Vicomte Sébastien de Valmont; Michelle Pfeiffer as Madame Marie de Tourvel; Uma Thurman as Cécile de Volanges; Swoosie Kurtz as Madame de Volanges; Keanu Reeves as Le Chevalier Raphael Danceny; Mildred Natwick as Madame de Rosemonde; Peter Capaldi as Azolan - **Runtime:** 1h 59m - **Certificate (MPA):** R - **Release (the US):** 24 February 1989 - **Genres:** Drama, Romance - **Also in:** [Best Picture winners](https://film.one/collections/oscar-best-picture.md) (Nominee, 1988) - **Budget:** $14 million - **Box office:** $35 million ## Where to watch in the US - Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, hd - Apple TV: rent $3.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $9.99, hd - Apple TV: buy $9.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-15.* Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU, IE, IN, IT, JP, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PL, PT, RO, SE, UA, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - BAFTA Film Awards 1990: Best Actress in a Supporting Role (won); Best Screenplay (won) - Academy Awards 1989: Best Actress (nominated); Best Original Score (nominated); Best Picture (nominated); Best Supporting Actress (nominated); Best Costume Design (won); Best Production Design (won); Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay (won) - Writers Guild of America Award for Best Adapted Screenplay 1989: Writers Guild of America Award for Best Adapted Screenplay (won) ## If you liked this - *The Age of Innocence* (1993), Fi1m 86: Another society where impeccable manners make private desire harder to survive. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-age-of-innocence.md) - *The Servant* (1963), Fi1m 89: Class, control and calculated intimacy, with fewer people and tighter rooms. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-servant.md) - *The Handmaiden* (2016), Fi1m 85: Seduction and deception given more room for desire, humour and resistance. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-handmaiden.md) - *The Earrings of Madame de…* (1953), Fi1m 87: For the jewellery, the social rituals and the feelings nobody manages tidily. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-earrings-of-madame-de.md) - *The Favourite* (2018), Fi1m 87: Courtly influence pursued through private appetites, with a less decorous sense of humour. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-favourite.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/dangerous-liaisons