A or B? Ying or Yang?....

Yes, its the inaugural post series for stories that have been filmed twice...and in some cases nearly at the same time! Which one crushed the other? Which one bit the dust? Or a draw??

First matchup: Dangerous Liaisons (1988) vs. Valmont (1989). The original source material is a scandalous 18th century French novel, from which Valmont was directly adapted. Dangerous Liaisons was adapated from the hit 1980's stage play "Les Liaisons Dangereuses," itself adapted from the novel.

Valmont - uh, boring, expensive miss. OK, I'll back up. Very interesting cast: Annette Bening in one of her first films as the scheming Marquise de Merteuil and boyishly handsome Colin Firth as the predator Vicomte de Valmont, with Meg Tilly as pious Madame de Tourvel. Directed by Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest, Amadeus) with about double the budget as Dangerous Liaisons, on paper this film appeared to have the advantage. Oddly, it was all over the place. Starts out as ambiguous chamber drama, then seems to go for broader humor (Valmont meeting Tourvel - ugh!), then just seems to settle in for a soft landing - or nearly a nice nap in my case. There was little delicious bite in the film, as Merteuil and Valmont do not engage fully in ruthless, random manipulation - and that was the point (I think) of their characters - doing so to fill or replace something missing. Bening and Firth look like they're just having fun playing games. Nevertheless, each has moments, especially the appealing Bening, like when she's asked by virginal Cecil Volanges if 'saintly' widows like Merteuil ever take lovers again (needless to say, she has several), "No..." she says with sly grin, "No, dear...they don't," barely able to hold in her laughter while amusingly building confidences with this porcelain toy. That Bening and Firth were both about age 30 at the time adds to the aura of surface, libidinous game-playing rather than risking all. And speaking of risking all...

Dangerous Liaisons - now that's entertainment! An early film by talented director Stephen Frears (The Grifters, High Fidelity, The Queen), DL gets it right. First off, very well cast, with Glenn Close in one of her career-high performances as Marquise de Merteuil, creepy John Malkovich as Vicomte de Valmont, and goody-goody Michelle Pfeiffer as goody-goody Madame de Tourvel. The big difference in this film is the way Frears starts off with these interesting characters and then heads inward. We sense that there is a very ugle past between Merteuil and Valmont, with perhaps the type of unforgivable, regretable acts that change people (whereas the film Valmont presents it simply as an affair that ended). And in probably their mid-40's, the stakes are higher now. From there it digs deeper, cleverly using dark humor and sharp moments of satisfying drama. Why does Merteuil challenge Valmont as she does? Why does he accept the challenge? And - in the words of Tina Turner! - what's love got to do with it? Nothing? Everything? Maybe even the characters vascillate on this point as much as the viewer. And Pfeiffer does a fantastic job (also at a career peak) of playing a woman perilously at the edge of her deeply-held morals and her own betraying desires, drawn out - duplicitously or not - by Valmont. As the film's tension builds, the viewer knows debts will be repaid, as they must, and Frears does not let down. By the time the viewer witnesses fallen souls and truths redeemed, we feel spent, thrilled and satisfied - ironically what the Marquise de Merteuil sought but never fully attained.

WINNER: Dangerous Liaisons