Dangerous Liaisons (2022) User Reviews

Painfully Dull

[bef1991 · 5/10 · 25 December 2022]

I don't agree with the reviews that were discontent over the series departing from the original source material. I do not mind if a film strays from an original story as long as it's well written and directed. Sadly this series not only changed the story but replaced it with something much worse.

The dialogue was dull and boring, the story uninspired and convoluted, and the pace was painfully slow. It's a mystery as to how these shows get green lit. I really like the Starz network's historical dramas but this one was a major disappointment. I suppose the actors did the best they could with terrible dialogue but not even good actors could save this.

We will see

[racy1285 · 5/10 · 8 November 2022]

Ok a lot people reviewing this obviously didn't bother to read the synopsis or watch the trailer. This is a television show so they are expanding on the novel. The show starts by giving origin stories to Merteuil and Valmont. The direction for their origin stories is kind of weird to me. Merteuil and Valmont being snobbish aristocratics is part of their appeal and says a lot about who they are personally. The show instead tries to give them a Dickensian type of humble beginnings origin. I'm guessing they are trying to make them more relatable but I find it kind of boring. Merteuil and Valmont are rich jerks who look down on people. Aside from that the show obviously is shot well. The female lead is descent. Not sold on the male lead though. The supporting actors are good. I'll keep watching but I'm going to manage my expectations.

No Chemistry

[coco12345 · 6/10 · 30 December 2022]

There is some excellent casting in this show but unfortunately the lead isn't one of them. Valmont isn't sexy or charming or attractive. He's smarmy and unappealing and not too bright. And he looks like a 16-year-old boy; not someone wealthy Parisian women would want in their beds.

Character development is seriously flawed. Personalities go from angelic to evil to meh back to angelic in the course of one episode. So much flip-flopping.

And why add the murder story line? Completely unnecessary and didn't really develop into anything plot wise. A bug dud. Same w/the kid being alive. Why? It went nowhere.

Six stars b/c I'm still entertained by just about any period piece. Shame on me.

Call it something else

[geoff-98443 · 2/10 · 7 November 2022]

This just seems like the scriptwriter has read the premise of Dangerous Liaisons on the back of the book and created a series based purely from their own ideas of what the novel should be about, the period is the same as the novel and some of the characters are but others have been added for some reason. I also want accuracy for anything set historically and while servants and lower classes may be EM in the 18th century a Chevalier would definitely not be. If you want to watch an adaption of DL then watch the 1988 film. Even the Colin Firth film Valmont is a closer adaption and at least they changed the name so as not to confuse people. Unfortunately modern adaptions of classics are getting so bad they should just use the premise and set them in the modern day as modern writers and producers are unable to take themselves out of today's society. I am dreading the next adaption of a Jane Austen novel.

Subpar Bait and Switch

[AmorLucis · 2/10 · 6 November 2022]

This production is another example of today's media trend of dumbing down great past works of art that appealed to mind, body and heart and instead writing sophomoric scripts full of insultingly expository dialogue, gratuitous sex, and non-existent character development. Oh...and somehow it's ok to anachronistically race flip historical characters, but not gender flip any. Instead, this adaptation reinforces cliche false sex stereotypes about men and women and turns the delightful cat and mouse game of the original tale between a female and her male equal into a cringeworthy catfight between two women spewing the comically insulting female tropes we (unfortunately) see everywhere else these days. Skip it. I had to go back and watch the Glenn Close/John Malkovich (1988) and Annette Bening/Colin Firth (1989) versions just to cleanse my palette. Oh, what Leslie Manville could have done with scripts of that caliber! But...now we'll never know...

Enjoyable romp (oo-er) extrapolating from the Laclos epistolary novel

[RastaVari · 8/10 · 20 November 2022]

It isn't the epistolary novel put to digital media - that wouldn't be possible would it, as it would still require a screenwriter/adaption - so complaints that it isn't that are a bit weird - also part of the joy of the epistolary form is that the authors aren't an objective narrator so as you read you fill in the gaps, guess at the truth, compare and contrast. That is what this take does, it is an expanded universe imagined from those letters and using more modern critiques of the excesses and hypocrisy of the historical period. Its fun, fruity and with enough faithfulness to the time (with the added glamour and gorgeousness and grime and stench in other settings, that you want from entertainment) to give new insights and considerations into this time in France. The acting is largely good, the script and dialogue trot along nicely and are funny and intriguing without being too earnest or 'olde worlde' clunky, and the cast, costumes and sets are presented brilliantly, producing a well realised world. Ongoing and boring complaints from reviewers who are obsessed with how much melanin some actors have proves again that they need to read more books (I mean Jean-Baptiste Belley was elected to the French Parliament 10yrs after the first book so the idea that people of colour weren't in respected/high positions at this time is pure nonsense) Worth a watch.

Misleading

[geister_faust · 4/10 · 6 November 2022]

First of all, it's not really an adaptation. If you read carefully even here on IMDB, you will find out that Harriet Warner, who have written the first episode, was merely inspired by the original story. So it's more like a story based on the characters rather than adaptation of the classics, which could be enough for some people to skip it. The story in the series is so different that it actually puzzled me at first: what am I even watching? Character names are known, there seems to be the same period as in the novel, but that's where resemblance ends and it is in a bad way.

Don't be fooled, that's just another attempt to make money on the story with fancy name with the hope that viewer had never read it. Because if you did, there's no other answer to the omnipresent question: why diverting so much from the original novel while keeping character names and the name of the story?

Picture is good and there seems to be an intrigue, but once again, this is not original de Laclos writing and competing with him while keeping the name of his novel seems insulting.

I have only seen the first episode of the show and will not continue with it. If you have never read the story, better read it or watch one of the many successful films: Dangerous Liaisons (1988), Cruel Intentions (1999) or more dated French version from 1960.

... much better than much else w/o question

[bjarias · 8/10 · 4 December 2022]

... so calling it 'Dangerous Liaisons,' not keeping to the strict storyline with... Marquise de Merteuil - Vicomte de Valmont - Cecile de Volanges - Madame de Tourvel - Danceny as they were in previous versions, seems to be the bane of numerous reviewers

... this being a very well-produced-acted-version, really should be able to stand on its own merits... to stop watching completely having seen only one or two episodes, then posting reviews belittling the entire series comes off being hastily-inadequate

... there's remains still half the number of episodes left to air... even were it to continue-as-is-right-now, it would still be better than a majority of all programming being viewed each-every-day... with this latest fifth episode, the show just continues getting better - this is fun... read Alice Burton's review of E5 at Vulture.

What a Disaster!

[eezgoode · 2/10 · 19 November 2022]

The only reason to watch this mindless tripe is for Lesley Manville. So disappointing. It pays no respect to the source material, turning a story about rich, bored, wicked people destroying others for sport into romantic fluff. Do yourself a favor - read the book or the play, watch the 1988 film or 1989's Valmont. Even Cruel Intentions is a more worthy update of the story.

It looks beautiful. The costumes are gorgeous, the cinematography is first rate. Too bad it's all wasted on a silly, adolescent screenplay. Call it something else, because this show has nothing to do with Dangerous Liaisons.

other reviewers have nailed it

[lakeshore-98711 · 1/10 · 20 November 2022]

When these second rate writers and directors who should really stick to their day jobs have the temerity to take a wonderful, witty, biting, satiric book and turn it into this drivel is beyond comprehension. Call it something else, it bears no resemblence to the book. I like many others had the expectation that this crud would have at least a basic similarity to the book, but no, these no talent people have done their own thing again. The storyline they have come up with is appallingly bad, I watched one episode and gave up halfway through the second one. Calling it Dangerous Liaisons is a scam, and it is not worth watching.

"Inspired by..." Doesn't Cut It

[DuchessOfRoxton · 3/10 · 8 November 2022]

I'm a big fan of the book, the play and some of the film adaptations. Every story seems to get the prequel treatment now even when it's unnecessary. In the "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" book and in most of the adaptations, Merteuil and Valmont are bored aristocrats who get their kicks from sexually manipulating innocent people and the harmful consequences of their actions. It was de Laclos's commentary on the apathetic French aristocracy that eventually led to the French revolution (it's said Marie Antoinette had her own copy of the book carefully hidden among her effects).

Here their origin is supposedly two young people living in poverty and forced into prostitution. Totally made up for this tv series. For me, it doesn't work at all. And Camille's reaction to Valmont doing almost the exact same thing and blackmailing his older broken-hearted paramour is reaching in terms of motivation and explaining how Camille will eventually become de Laclos's Marquis de Merteuil. Another thing that I noticed in this first episode is the actors have no chemistry. When the series starts we're told that they're in love, not shown how they fell in love. The audience is supposed to believe that Camille and Valmont are in love because they have sex a few times. Alright then. And Camille's maid servant doesn't like Valmont for a reason we aren't privy to, so she sets about to break them up because the script calls for it.

Also, the historically inaccurate casting decisions are silly. Yes, I understand wanting more "diverse" casting. But here it's very out of place and seems shoe-horned in. Setting it in modern times would've made sense in this respect but period dramas on Starz seem to be hot now so they want to have their cake and eat it too.

It is nice to see Lesley Manville in a prominent role, as she played the original Cecile de Volanges in the RSC production in 1985 with Alan Rickman (RIP) and Lindsay Duncan. And the great Clare Higgins is the brothel madam who is owed a debt by Camille. Christopher Hampton, who adapted the book to the Royal Shakespeare Company production in the 1980s and also wrote the Oscar-winning screenplay for the film has an Executive Producer credit. I really wonder how much creative input he has on this series.

Now I'm basing this on the first episode of the series. Could it get better? Of course. Will it get better? We shall see. I do hope it will influence more people to read the novel, read the Hampton play or watch any of the other adaptations.

POSTSCRIPT 12/27/22

Well, turns out it got even worse. Reviewer MaryRock90 and several others have nailed all the problems with the series and not surprised Starz went back on their decision to renew for a 2nd season and just outright cancelled it instead. There are entertaining and clever ways to do a prequel series about Valmont and Merteuil but the team behind this one had no idea how to do any of that. If this idea had been proposed 30 or 40 years ago in the heyday of Masterpiece Theatre and A&E period dramas it could've been something really interesting and special with competent professionals behind it. Alas, it wasn't to be.

New and refreshing

[saskia_23 · 10/10 · 17 November 2022]

I've been so bored of brigerton vibes and glossy soap drama period nonsense this is a total breath of fresh air. Pacey, fun, brilliant performances, the perfect bit of escapism to watch on a Sunday night! I think the other reviews are quite unfair - it's definitely a reimagining, not an adaptation - don't get so caught up in the original and you'll be swept away by this one instead.

The cinematography is quite striking , the sex scenes feel intimidate and not gratuitous, and the scenery and sets are truly stunning. I can't wait for more episodes and to see where the story line goes, there have already been shocking surprises and twists after just two episodes so I think we have lots more in store.

Rushed and boring

[billcronin · 4/10 · 21 November 2022]

There is very little character development throughout the first few episodes, the plot feels very rushed, and the premise is not very interesting. I feel like this adaptation does do the original story any justice. I want to like the characters and the plot, but the hurried way of telling the story spoils the narrative. The scenery and costume design are amazing, but little else of this show is. There are moments of intertwining story telling mixed with long periods of irrelevant dialog. I wanted to like this show because I like the era and the premise. I really liked Outlander and similar shows, but this is nothing like those shows.

Masterful

[vadersgirl38 · 9/10 · 13 December 2022]

As one of the other reviewers here has noted, part of the function of the epistolary style is that the characters do not make objective narrators, so you have to continually bear that in mind - not everyone is who they seem to be on the surface, and this is the note for YOU, the viewer, not just a plot device for the characters interacting with each other. This also serves in watching the relationships as they develop and the nature of the person you thought you knew is gradually revealed as their past pain is revealed, which in turn shapes their continually developing and changing nature and purpose. The story masterfully takes us on this journey for each of the main characters, and if one of the central themes is secrets - the having, the guarding of, the hunt to discover - we are continually swept along with new - yet hinted at - revelations of secrets of their pasts which shape their present motivations. The dialogue and mental sparring between master manipulators is excellent and faithfully echoes l'esprit du salon. I write this after watching the first six episodes, which I had thought was the total number of the season, and came here to be pleasantly surprised to discover there are three more to go. An excellent, excellent show. The young main actors are very good, and I'm thrilled to see Michael McElhatton in this role. He is an incredible actor that should be known to everyone (while I'm on that, same for Jim Broadbent - I digress).

I adore the 1988 adaptation and I have read Choderlos de Laclos' book, and I think the characters and their inner struggles - to survive, to want to live rightly and yet feel their souls chip away bit by bit deep down inside as they betray their better natures in order to survive - are complex and faithfully drawn. The danger in all these liaisons is not scandal or ruin and being shunned by society, but the danger to one's soul. Beautifully presented. And don't even get me started on the wigs - they are perfection. Finally, some decent wigs on an 18th century adaptation.

Just pretend it is a one-off show...

[constancebryce · 4/10 · 20 December 2022]

Not based on any book or movie. I only watched this due to my obsession with costume drama and 18th century in particular. But there is a reason I prefer to rewatch BBC series from the seventies to most of the newer films and series claiming to be "period drama". Those at least followed the basic mores and customs of the time portrayed for the most part and worked hard to get the shapes of costumes and hair accurate. Now in these newer ones you see long flying curls on grown women (which you would not see even on little girls in most eras) modern eye makeup and "shrugs" to act as Spencer jackets etc...to name just a few. I love period drama and history and am sure that most people can manage to watch and enjoy these shows showing how people looked, acted and dressed during the time that they lived...but producers seem to think a modern audience can't handle that, that we must have modern dialogue that clangs on the ear like a metal trash bin lid, pop music and beachy waves, in order to engage. It would be nice if some of these series were made for adults who go into it wanting to see how life was lived "back then" and not some young producer's idea of what would be cool and watchable. I know I am in an age bracket (old) that it not catered to in any way, shape or form ...okay I get it. But most teens are not looking for period drama anyway unless it has time travel, dinosaurs or vampires so they are not the audience for these period dramas anyway. I just watched "Mr Malcolm's List" which is a perfectly enjoyable, benign romance/comedy but the idea of Mr. Malcolm taking a young lady to the opera on a "date" early on made me laugh out loud and kind of ruined it for me. There is no way in hell any young woman was going on a date with a man or that he would even ask. Unmarried young women often could not even be alone in a room with a brother or cousin, so strict was the division of sexes, without a chaperone. That may be a small point but it tilts the whole of the era being shown. Why bother make it "period" at all if you intend to modernize it beyond all recognition? Just make a romantic comedy or drama and be done with it. So many disappointments recently. But this show, and also the latest "Persusian" have to be clunkers for sure.

20th century or 2022??

[NullUnit · 2/10 · 11 December 2022]

Cancelled after one season.. I called it.

This is yet another 2022 "period piece" which is written through the lens of 2022.

Characters blindly accept what was knowingly not acceptable for the time period. This show is just another in a long string of "period pieces" which relies on the mindsets of 2022 when writing for the "period" in question.

The most obvious, glaring, inaccurate aspect... a "step-mother". Really? As if divorce and "step"-anything existed in the 19th century. I'd hazard a guess that "step" is a term unique to the late 20th century. Am I expected to believe there were divorce lawyers and divorce/family courts in the 19th century as well???

At best this was a blatant attempt to not offend ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. At worst, it's an attempt to rewrite history. Overall, it's a disservice the the viewers to pretend some period in time was NOT actual what it was - with all its misguided thinking, poor treatment of others, bigotry, and outright abuse. It pushes this into the realm of "fabricated reality for propaganda purposes", produced and written by weak-willed group thinkers, rather than being "entertainment".

More of the same

[ddaqqvas · 1/10 · 9 December 2022]

Must we accept that the film and television industries have run dry on ideas? Worse yet, they seem to have taken a page out of Disney's book and insist on putting their own twist on things.

The 1988 film was one of the first times I ever encountered a number of actors and actresses whom I would see frequently throughout my life; John Malkovich, Glenn Close, Michelle Pfeiffer, Uma Thurman and Keanu Reeves. I loved it. It was deliciously fiendish, stylishly rendered, superbly performed and delightfully unpredictable. Of course, the book was even better, as in most cases, and in this case (as in several others like "Hannibal") I was glad I'd seen the film first, but in this instance less disappointed in the film after reading the book.

That said, this is another example of using character names for a plot that could be another story entirely - or in other words, they could completely rename the characters in this series, and you'd be hard pressed to figure out from what story this was derived, much like Amazon's recent "Without Remorse" travesty.

Teen-centric though it was, "Cruel Intentions" was a better adaptation than this.

Enjoyed every second!

[aliciadeakin · 10/10 · 17 November 2022]

Absolutely loved this series! Haven't seen something like it in a long time. I loved the book and 1988 film, so was intrigued to watch this modern series and it exceeded my expectations. It was a Really enjoyable watch and take on the famous story with a modern twist - it can be hard to find the balance but it was captured perfectly with this take on the old novel, and it was very entertaining. I would highly recommend to anyone!!

I thought the casting was spot on and portrayed the characters perfectly. Pierre Choderlos de Laclos would be very proud and I'm sure would enjoy it immensely himself.

Another non historical historical woke attempt at being historical

[MikeWright75 · 2/10 · 4 January 2023]

I'm not sure why a decent historically accurate for its times movie or series can't be made where 21st century mindsets, morals and language are put aside in favour of reality. It actually just looks ridiculous. I guess you may enjoy it if you're OK with a mish mash of Home and Away meets Jane Austin meets writers who haven't a clue how the people of pre-revolution gay Paree behaved. Judging from the rest of the reviews on here I'm not alone in thinking there's a big fat void for a really accurate and gritty historical drama in the making to come forwards.

Don't bother with this one it stinks.

Frun background story with elements of the original

[alishaisla · 8/10 · 4 December 2022]

I am a huge fan of the book and the original film so when I saw ads for this I was excited to get a little more of a story I loved. This isn't really the tale of Dangerous Liaisons though. It's set before the events of the book but uses a lot of the book's material/basic plot and main intrigue. So, I get where a lot of reviewers are coming from that it is a bait and switch. But, I find I am really liking it (aside from episode 1, and Valmont's sad boi vibes w Montrachet). If you're looking for something on par with the Close/Malkovich film it ain't it. But if you want a costume drama with high stakes sex and a good dose of cynicism then maybe give this a try. Recommended pairing: glass slippers, bondage gear, and chablis.

Shallow and emotionless

[maryrock90 · 4/10 · 25 December 2022]

Look what we have here.

A historical drama that looks historical but everything else is borrowed from the 21st century. It's like any other teen show but they wear wigs and stays in this one. Stays, not corsets as they were erroneously refered to by Camille because someone in the writing team couldn't do their proper homework on historical undergarments and skipped a few decades in time.

This is the biggest pet peeve of any period drama fan who goes into a new show only to realize the producers have modernized the storyline to avoid alienating a younger demographic who might get too frightened by 18th century customs and mannerisms and switch off the tv.

According to tv producers, viewers just can't handle the fact that 300 years ago people talked and acted in a completely different way than today. It's a struggle for all of us out there who hope to get swept away and essentially to get a glimpse into a past time period without being thrown out of it violently by an array of hideous anachronisms.

It's better to include out of place dialogue and ridiculous situations to appease anyone but the standard period fan that chooses to spend their time and money to watch a new historical drama series. At least, they made some effort in the costume department and in general the show looks aesthetically pleasing.

What's the point of using the book title if nothing bears a resemblance to the source material, not even the protagonists themselves? Two originally pompous, self absorbed, privileged and vain aristocrats are given a homely origin story to make them more sympathetic, despite both of them being abominable human beings who use and manipulate anyone around them to their advantage.

They do not need to be presented as a poor servant girl that gets forced into prostitution after being thrown out on the streets and some rich heir who loses his noble title by his evil stepmom and makes money of off sleeping with wealthy women. They do not need to appear sympathetic by being scorned or faced with injustice in their youth nor do they need justification for their actions later in life. It feels disingenuous to present them as victims. They were aristocrats that looked down on other people and thought highly of themselves, period.

It doesn't require a tragic past or an explanation. Audiences do not need to feel for 'bad' characters; they only need to be intrigued by them which this show fails terribly at.

Besides that, i'm having a hard time believing these two would grow up to be like the two calculated and ruthless characters Glenn Close and John Malkovich played in the film adaptation. Camille and Pascal here feel like silly caricatures that yell and stomp their feet whenever something doesn't go their way. I find their actions ludicrous and nonsensical, like Camille's amazing ability to find dirt on everyone in Paris and blackmail with ease high rank nobles like the Marquis de Merteuil.

Everybody has gossip on everyone yet Camille is the one who can terrorize these dumb, reckless nobles with secret letters that happen to lie around out in the open whenever she visits a chateau.

The big scandal involving an affair between Marie Antoinette and a noble lady made me cringe; seeing the Queen crying to Camille about it made me physically ill. Writers just can't help themselves from including such garbage in the script for shock value.

The love story is as paper thin as their motives. There's no chemistry here. We do not understand why these two are drawn to each other or why they have the need to be together. They either scream at each other due to some obscene misunderstanding or plot against their sworn enemies.

Camille's predictable dramatic backstory is as contrived as Pascal's demand to get his precious title back from his stepbrother. If the characters were given more attention and more development instead of building momentum to create suspense we would have been more invested in the story. Essentially, we know nothing about the characters other than their quest for revenge and therefore when the pace starts to pick up somehow the pay off is unsatisfying.

For 8 episodes the plot moves sluggishly slow and when the big revelations happen it just feels anticlimactic. They managed to make a side plot about the sex work industry incredibly dull and stupid, now that speaks volumes about the quality of the script and how little effort was put into creating something decent. Normally this would be explored in the next season but the show got cancelled and it's no surprise it came to this.

With two faceless characters, clunky dialogue, contrived storylines and cringy plot devices , this show was doomed to fail. Perhaps Starz needs to invest in better stories without using click bait titles from much more successful adaptations.

Ripped off a title of a great story and movie and sold us crap!

[andrearelli · 3/10 · 30 December 2022]

The writing was very poor! They ripped off the title of an amazing story and movie and sold us crap! It is not authentic and does not abide by the rules of society! The writers took too long to explain why Camille was out for revenge! It was ridiculous that Greek Mythology was cited as the reason that the serial killer was killing women and shoving thread or yarn down their throats! It was a wise decision for Starz to cancel it! If another network purchases this and makes a season 2 I will not watch as this was a complete waste of my time! Whoever wrote this should be barred from writing anything for movies or Television ever again! They need to find a new line of work! The writing stunk and ruined what could have been an amazing TV series! A fifth grader could have done better than this! Starz should be ashamed for choosing to air this crap!

Not quite as raunchy as expected

[chrissy-01843 · 9/10 · 9 November 2022]

Okay so I sat down to watch this as a straight man and being a outlander fan I surely knew what I could possibly be in for and from the preview this looked like another sex infested love story just like what statz is known for well judging by the first episode alone the only sex is flashbacks and they semi add to the plot I must say the rest of the show absolutely impressed me I smiled and just felt happy during this show I can assure you it's one of the better shows too so much happening so little time I really can't wait for the next episode I'll have more judgement then but by what I saw two thumbs up.

Don't listen to the negative nitpickers, just see for yourself how good it is!

[johannes2000-1 · 9/10 · 10 January 2023]

OMG, all these nitpicking know-it-all reviewers that criticise this show just because they expected a one-on-one rendition of the 18th century novel, or because the makers dared to choose their actors for their quality and their aptitude for the part instead for their colour, or because the dialogues were not 18th-century'ish enough!

Well, in my humble opinion this series is absolutely riveting! The title is evidently used to recall the essence of the novel, that is the machiavellistic playing of people with other peoples lives, for the benefit of revenge and personal gain, by using sex and seduction as weapons. The makers captured this in a very convincing and involving way, thanks to a rather intricate, but well-crafted story and excellent acting by all the main characters. As many have stated: the costumes are luscious, photography and settings beautiful and the CGI to give the impression of Paris in the 18th century is totally convincing. So what if maybe some of the details were not flawlessly authentic for the period, who cares, when it's all done so tastefully and with such obvious care!

Alice Englert does a great job as Camille, especially in the relentless way in which she clings to her revenge-scheme; as supposed dazzling temptress she convinced me a bit less. Nicholas Denton on the other hand was in my eyes spot-on in the multilayered part of Valmont: the self-assured charming charlatan, boyishly handsome, dashing and heroic when needed, but also with an obvious soft and caring heart. There are so many others worth mentioning: ravishing (and spicy!) Colette Dalal Tchantcho, or Hakeem Kae-Kazim as the dignified majordomo, and of course Carice van Houten who excels as the tragic, guilt ridden woman who craves for a chance on love.

Prequel, not an adaptation

[priscillateo · 9/10 · 10 August 2023]

First of all this is a prequel so people who expect this to be accurate to the movie or book need to manage their expectations and edit their poor reviews based on that mistaken premise. I thought the 2 leads were extremely likable. Denton for one portrays a multifaceted Valmont- charismatic, confident, vulnerable, compassionate and ruthless.

An unpopular opinion but I actually prefer these 2 main leads to the movie's Glenn and John.

Sure the storyline has some flaws but it tries to fill in on the events before and how they come to be lovers and yet at war.

Costumes and sets (whether cgi or not) were well done.