...You feel like you're watching a Bridget Jones movie set in the 18th century. This film feels like a comedy. It's not, and that's the problem. Milos Forman is not going to make a bad film, because he's a damn good director. "Amadeus" is one of my favourite films ever, the period is the same (1780s), and formally is marvellous too, but the material is completely different. This story is wicked and this film just does not capture how wicked, twisted, cruel and depraved the characters really are. They are all lovable and nice, even though they still do wicked things. But the Coyote and Roadrunner do really wicked things to each other and they're funny... Watching this movie and "Dangerous Liaisons" back to back is a textbook example of how the very same material can be explored in very different ways. This is lighter. "Dangerous Liaisons" IMO does more justice to the material and although Uma Thurman is totally unbelievable as a 15 year old virgin, the rest of the cast runs circles around Colin Firth as Valmont (too British), Annete Benning and Meg Tilly. John Malkovich and Glenn Close are just unbeatable in those roles. Henry Thomas is better than Keanu Reeves (period never suited Keanu, did it?). Very watchable film, develops certain aspects better, but overall the story's treatment does not need Jane Austen overtones, but "Silence of the Lambs" ones.
