Valmont

Rating:
Summary: Few Bright Spots!
Review: With the exception of the performance by the actress who played Cecile and the wonderful first seduction of her character by Colin Firth this movie was a great disappointment. It captured very little of the excitment of the book and the ending is ridiculous! Madame de Tourvel lives, Cecile's pregnancy by Valmont is welcomed by Madame de Rosemonde!??? etc.-- and they accuse American movie endings of being pat and happy.Indeed, the many movements away from the original plot undermine the spirit of Choderlos De Laclos deliciously decadent offering. Dangerous Liasions is a superior movie by far!

Rating:
Summary: One of my favorites, but the ending could use a little work
Review: I have always been a fan of 18th century literature and movies. This is one of the finest 18th century films ever produced. The script is easy to follow even if it's easy enough for a seven-year-old to understand. Milos Forman's treatment of the De Laclos novel can bring the characters into the 20th century as claimed a critic for the "Dangerous Liansons" film produced the year before. I like Fairuza balk's potryal of Cecile. She brings charm to her character and rings out the passionate anguish of a young teenager. Colin Firth is fine in the role, but he doesn't quite make a convincing rake like John Malkovich. The scene where Valmont entered the tavern and brought three scraggly men, who looked lazy and too cowardly to play thugs, spoiled the last scenes. And Valmont appears to Dauceny badly dressed. That's a major dissappointment! The duel scene wasn't much and the thugs running away made it even worse! The thugs should have been good sturdy 18th century punks who would stand on Valmont's side. The mourning and the wedding scenes were beautiful, but they just didn't make sense. If Dauceny still loved Cecile enough to hold a sword to Meurteil's throat, why did Forman have him in her bed? And why did Forman have Meurtil looking glumly at Dauceny getting his cheek kissed by another young lady? Those scenes needed some work and improvement. A good 18th century play should have the charm and scheme it started out with carried to the very end, even if it's a short play. The final scene where the Tourvel places a white rose on Valmont's grave is beautiful and where her aged husband looking at her with a sad and probably forgiving face makes a perfect end though. A good film for those who are interested in 18th century webs of love and plots that involve some wild heart-gripping action.

Rating:
Summary: Best version of LIAISONS
Review: Milos Forman was scooped. Stephen Frear's DANGEROUS LIAISONS came out first and had a starrier cast. But it was Forman's film that captured the tragic irony of the original book. Frear's film is pure cornball. Glenn Close and Malkovich ham it up as rich, spoiled, and extremely mean people who go through great lenghts to use and hurt as many people as possible for no apparent reason, until the day that Malkovich falls for the nun-like Pfeiffer and then the plot develops with all of the misunderstandings and forced tears of the old, stage melodramas.
Milos Forman's film, however, is a masterpiece. He did not make the characters so black and white as they are in the other film, and he also gave his characters motivations, which justify all actions and turns of the plot. In fact, the film is a vast improvement on the novel, as Forman adds his great observations of human nature and his own unique brand of irony. In VALMONT, you never assume anything. I recommend seeing both films as a great tool to compare real art with crap.

Rating:
Summary: Decadent Fun!
Review: I don't own this movie yet, but I have to confess that I look every month in our cable guide to see if and when it's on. All I have to say about this movie is that I've never had so much fun sitting in front of a TV watching two rich snobs play underhanded games with so many other people. Dangerous Liasons nothing! John Malcovich is so stiff an actor you could probably snap him like a twig, and Michelle Pfeiffer is too overrated. I love this cast, particularly the sexy tension between Colin Firth and Annette Bening as they try to best each other in their bet. Meg Tilly is commendably vulnerable and Faruza Balk's character is one you root for as they're both ruthlessly victimized by Valmont. The ironic part of the entire film is that, rat or not, I ended up being turned on by Valmont myself!
Let's just say I haven't ignored Colin Firth since.

Rating:
Summary: Sexual decadence before the time of the guillotine
Review: I liked this better than Dangerous Liaisons which came out at about the same time. Of course Dangerous Liaisons was very good, and John Malkovich, who played Vicomte de Valmont, is an actor of power, and Glenn Close, who played the Marquise de Merteuil, is highly accomplished, but I preferred the charm of Colin Firth in this film to the brutality of Malkovich, and I thought Annette Bening was just delightful. She played Merteuil with exquisite timing and an ironic witchery and warmth that I shall not soon forget. I preferred her playful, sly wit to Close's cool cynicism.

The story comes from a novel by Choderlos de Laclos set in 18th century France that was made into a stage play by Christopher Hampton. It is a cynical satire on human sexuality as well as a very subtle examination of sexual hypocrisy and desire, a kind of oh so sophisticated laugh at bourgeois morality that would have delighted Voltaire and Moliere and greatly amused Shakespeare. It is a tale of elaborate lechery and revenge that backfires because it seems that anybody, even the most jagged rake can fall in love, and thereby become the victim. The central assumption here is the same as that of the Cavalier poets, namely that marriage kills love. As Merteuil says, "You don't marry your lover."

Meg Tilly played Madame de Tourvel with subtlety and a riveting passion. One of the great sequences in the movie occurs after she has fallen madly in love with Valmont against her will. She stands outside his doorway in the rain for hours looking adoringly and forlornly up at his window. And then she is allowed to enter and receive a cool reception. Valmont says, "Do you want me to lie to you?" and she replies desperately, "Yes," and then it is her passion that overwhelms him, leading to a beautifully ironic twist. Shortly afterward he sees Merteuil, who has become more like a sister than an ex-lover, and says, "I feel awful." She replies, "Are you surprised? [Pause] You are an awful man." Hanging his head he continues, "Do you think a man can change?" "Yes. [Pause] For the worse."

This theme, that it is the beloved who has the power and that once you fall in love you lose all power, is repeated several times in the movie. Valmont pursues women, the harder to get the better, with a relentless and maniacal passion, but once he has them, he immediately loses interest. His making love absentmindedly to Cecile de Volanges (played with wide-eyed innocence and girlish charm by Fairuza Balk) was an incredible irony when we consider what she would cost Gercourt, played with his rather substantial nose in the air by Jeffrey Jones, whom you may recall as the pratfalling principal in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986).

There is some insidious philosophy here, some sardonic observations on human nature worth mentioning. One is that the man beloved of women gets most of the reproductive tries, and regardless of his rakishness, is still beloved. Another is that duplicity is the accepted, even required, standard of behavior in society, and that when it comes to sex, one must, perforce, always lie.

Milos Forman's direction was invisible and therefore a work of art. The incidental scenes and backdrops depicting the color, squalor and decadence of pre-revolutionary France added just the right amount of atmosphere. The costumes were stunning and much cleaner than they would have been in reality. The elegance and beauty of all the titled people merrily contrasted with the crude ugliness of the common people, rightly reflecting the effete snobbery of the aristocracy before the time of the guillotine.

Rating:
Summary: It's Indeed One of the Most Magnificent Movies
Review: I've seen. I love the lush surroundings, the beautiful costumes, and the freshness of the actors/actresses in the movie. It's much less rigid and mean-spirited than its sister movie, "Dangerous Liaisons", which came out the same year as this movie.

I love how the movie began with Cecile and the cloistered girls sang in a choir led by a nun and ended with Cecile getting married in a spectacularly lavish ceremony at the Royal Chapel in Versailles, then having M. de Tourvel place a cream-colored rose upon Valmont's grave as a token of her love for him before reconciliating with her husband.

The real star of the movie was Cecile, played by actress Fairuza Balk. She gave a very fresh and novel approach to her character unlike Uma Thuman's, which, in my opinion, whiny and dumb.

I recommend everyone to either rent or buy the video/dvd. It's so divine!

Rating:
Summary: Same old story line
Review: The story line to this movie and DL is the same as in the movie "Cruel Intentions", the teen flick version. Of course, what else is new. People are evil and we need never repent of it. That's just the way we humans are. There are only varying degrees of the evil we inflict on each other. We feel safe because we are not as evil these main characters who entertain us, and psychology gives us all the excuses we need to justify ourselves. Sorry to sound preachy, but I've lived too long to see anything called an original story line.

Rating:
Summary: Far Better Than "Dangerous Liaisons"!!!
Review: I first saw "Valmont" on television some years ago and instantly fell in love with it. I had decided to purchase the dvd from Amazon.com when I came across reviews comparing this film to "Dangerous Liaisons". One review in particular gave a quite detailed comparison between the two films that concluded with a better rating for "Dangerous Liaisons". Curious, I decided to purchase the film "Dangerous Liaisons" before purchasing "Valmont". Needless to say, I was highly disappointed. Though both movies are based on the same novel and play, the storyline is better portrayed in "Valmont". Not to mention the acting was much better and far more believable. Coling Firth played a wonderful "Valmont". His character portrayal as a charming, playful and likable "rake" was far more believable as opposed to John Malkovich's character who came across as mechanical and unfeeling. More detail is given allowing the viewer to understand why the characters act as they do towards another in "Valmont" whereas while watching "Dangerous Liaisons", I felt like I was being rushed towards the ending. If someone is unfamiliar with the storyline, it would only be halfway through the film that they would be able to comprehend what the plot was. I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in purchasing the dvd rent both versions and make the decision for yourself. I did and after receiving my copy of "Valmont" in the mail today - I'm selling "Dangerous Liaisons" on Amazon.com.....anyone interested? :P

Rating:
Summary: Closer to the Story Than Dangerous Liaisons
Review: I found this adaptation by Milos Forman closer to the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses, than the earlier release of Dangerous Liasons. Colin Firth as Valmont seemed more to be the type of Don Giovanni aristocrat of that period than John Malkovich's sinister rendition. Michell Pfeiffer simply failed to deliver a credible performance as an 18th century demoiselle; like many other method actors, she can only play herself. In that respect, Meg Tilly was more convincing as the innocent victim of Valmont's scheme. I did like Glenn Close more than Annette Bening as the wicked vixen but, overall, Valmont more closely represented the mannerisms and culture of 18th century France than Dangerous Liaisons.

Rating:
Summary: Valmont
Review: One of the best movies I have ever seen. Colin Firth is brilliant as Valmont, and I believe his performance was very underated by the American audience--who much prefer X-Men or some such. Some compare this film to the American film Dangerous Liasisons, which as usual American films are not delicate but must hit one over the head with their point. And Malcavich (sp)in the lead as the suave, handsome, captivating Valmont is miscasting beyond belief. I first saw Valmont when it was released in 1989, it only gets better as it ages. Milos Forman is a genius.