Dangerous Liaisons (1988) (mini-review++)

dangerous-liaisons.jpeg(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

acting 8

directing 6

effects 9

editing 7

writing 8

SW SCORE: 38

3.5 out of 5 🐙

++

If you don’t like French 18th century aesthetics or sensibilities, this is NOT the movie for you. I’m fine with them. I’m glad I am not nobility living n those times because they all seem like assholes for the most part and it takes 7 dudes to dress you in the morning. Sure, you have lots of servants, but still. Back to this: the original book written in 1782 has been adapted into multiple movies. It’s about 2 evil aristocrats making a callous bet that involves sexually and emotionally manipulating and violating people did nothing to deserve it. The acting is excellent. The aesthetics are lovingly delivered. The dialogue is witty and the performances are excellent. All that aside, I’m not a fan. I realize that the main “bad guy” has a moment of redemption at the end but the vast majority is an exercise in arrogant cruelty. It’s not that I don’t like dark humor or twisted characters. But there’s something about an entire movie about playing with people’s lives for sport that just turned me off. I loved Joker so it’s not like I’m adverse to immoral protagonists. But here it seems like people who knew better chose to do their worst. And that’s not something I can get too excited about.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.