Rating: 
Summary: The Lack of Suspence is Made Up for by the Cast & the Look
Review: Neither Jean-Claude Carrière's screenplay, nor Milos Forman's direction could capture the suspense felt in the stage play by Choderlos de Laclos ("Les Liaisons Dangereuses"), or Stephen Frears' film "Dangerous Liaisons" with Glenn Close and John Malkovich in the two leading roles. Notwithstanding, "Valmont" is a lush and beautifully filmed adaptation of this piece with a cast well worth watching the film for. Visually, I think I prefer Forman's film to Frears', and certain performances are more layered in "Valmont". Annette Bening's smile is so winning that you can truly believe how people are duped by it, which makes it all the more shocking when she shows her ugly side. This is not to say that she's better in the role than Glenn Close was - just different. Both performances are brilliant. Colin Firth's Valmont is a killer: his charm and sex appeal are like a Venus flytrap...you know they're dangerous, but you can't help being sucked in by them. He ultimately plays this very difficult role with more subtle layers than the brutally devastating performance that Malkovich gave. His Valmont is ultimately more likable as a person, despite his dastardly doings. This makes it easier to forgive him in the end. No offense to Ulma Thurman, but I really did like the young lovers in Valmont better than in Dangerous Liaisons: Fairuza Balk as Cecile is perfect. Thurman (who is a wonderful actress) looked a tad too old to play a 15 year old and therefore her naivety comes across a being slightly dumb. Balk looks the right age and just comes off as one would imagine a teenage girl of that time and stature would be. Henry Thomas as Dancey is just heads over Keanu Reeves. One does sorely miss Michelle Pfeiffer as Madame de Tourvel, since Meg Tilly is just so unfortunately miscast in the role. Whereby you can certainly understand why she throws all precaution to the wind and starts an affair with Colin Firth's Valmont, you simply can't understand what he possibly could see in her bland approach to this complex character. Dangerous Liaisons just has a better script with much more tension and suspense than Valmont, but give this one a look - you wont be wasting your time.
Rating: 
Summary: In agreement with Dennis from SoCal
Review: *applause* I am in total agreement with you regarding this movie as opposed to Dangerous Liasons (DL). Valmont was SO much better. I feel that DL was incredibly "Hollywoodized" and the actors played up the roles beyond what they should have been. I am not sure Glenn Close's character in DL SHOULD have been so cold and sly. The point was that she was NOT a cold-hearted sociopath, but that there were many complex emotions between her and Vamont that she did not care to deal with. There is a much better sense of that in Valmont than in DL. Also, the character played by Tilly in Valmont wasn't supposed to be "tragically beautiful" as a critic put it. I felt the role was much more suited to Tilly's naive innocence...in a desperate attempt to NOT fall in love with Valmont, she was incredibly vulnerable. I am glad to know I'm not the only one who thought Valmont was a much better rendition than DL.
Rating:
Summary: A very intriguing revision of Laclos's classic novel
Review: While the movie "Dangerous Liaisons" (a literal translation of Choderlos Laclos's novel "Les Liaisons Dangereuses") was also much more literal in following the plot of the book, I found it disappointing. It had a good script, a good cast, but no soul. John Malkovich was not Valmont, Glenn Close was not Madame de Merteuil, and I couldn't remotely envision either of them generating sparks either off each other or anyone else. But Milos Forman's reworking of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" as the movie "Valmont" is a success all around, and a much better film than its predecessor. There are two areas in which the movie departs radically from the book. I always thought the ending of the book was too slanted toward the need to show that crime does not pay, and hence Madame de Merteuil gets her comeuppance in a disastrous lawsuit which reduces her to penury and a confluent smallpox which makes a transfigures her beauty into ugliness ("her soul is visible on her face"). In "Valmont", however, Forman realizes that evil often wins out, after a fashion, and so we have Madame de Merteuil, if not flaunting it over her rivals, still able to be herself and continue her life of malicious intrigue. The story opens when Madame de Merteuil, to revenge herself on being dumped by her lover the Count de Gercourt, who is going to marry Cecile de Volanges, a young girl right out of the convent whom he prizes for her innocence and virginity (a polar opposite from Madame de Merteuil who is amorality itself), maneuvers Valmont, her old friend and former lover, to seduce Cecile before her marriage, so that Gercourt will realize on his wedding night that he is getting damaged goods after all. Annette Bening was devastating in this role. She brought out all of the Madame de Merteuil's superficial charm which captivated so many people, and her underlying deviousness and soullessness. Colin Firth, who was hopelessly miscast as Darcy in the A&E production of "Pride and Prejudice", was just right as Valmont; unlike Malkovich, whose portrayal of Valmont was purely one-dimensional, Firth also showed the character's vulnerability and sensitivity which he tried to mask behind his cynicism. And Fairuza Balk was a delight as Cecile de Volanges; one wants to ask how anyone over the age of seven could be so hopelessly naive. But the biggest treat in this movie is Fabia Drake as Madame de Rosemonde, Valmont's old aunt. In the book, Madame de Rosemonde is a saintly contrast to Valmont's predatory selfishness; in this movie, she is wickedly funny and much more in sync with her nephew than she is in the book. (There is a delicious bit near the movie's end where Madame de Rosemond and Cecile share a joke at Gercourt's expense, right in the middle of Cecile's wedding.) The second area where the movie and the book part company is the fate of Madame de Tourvel. Madame de Tourvel is the faithful wife who finally surrenders, against her better judgement, to the man she loves; only to discover that she has been used and abandoned. In the book, this so devastates her that she retires to a convent and dies of a broken heart. In the movie, however, she follows Valmont out of desperation, gets him to take her back into his bed for one more night, and coming to her senses in the morning, abandons him as he had previously left her, returning to her husband. Valmont is a truly pitiable figure at this point, especially when he realizes that Madame de Merteuil has played him far more effectively than he thought he was playing Madame de Tourvel; Firth's acting in this movie makes us sympathize with Valmont, whereas Malkovich just made us glad he got what was coming to him. In the end, "Valmont" is not "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" and it doesn't try to be. It's a reworking of the book on its own merit, and it stands up brilliantly.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting,but from what I've hear Valmont
Review: besides Colin Firth can't hold a candle to Dangerous Liaisons. I now would like to see this adaption of the book Les liaisons dangereuses. The movie is allright ummm Annette Bennings performance was pretty convincing and Colin Firths performance was pretty sexy...lol But nothing amazing. This movie is okay if you have'nt seen Dangerous Liaisons first and since I haven't I liked this movie quite a bit. The girl that played Cecile was done well she did it very convincingly. Probrably the best performance in the film. Alltough I as well found the ending about Annette Benning glaring at Cecile's ex-lover confusing. Lol I'm not good at remembering characters names so excuse that. But I love historical films and the clothing was beautiful. One thing that... me off is when Valmonts witnesses those bum butts from the bar ran away. And there should have been a MUCH MUCH better sword fight I mean come on a 10second fight? I love swords and anyways. I suggest this movie to people who like historical films,and if you catch it on TV watch it,but if you plan on buying a film based on the book Les Dangereuses Liaisons from what I've heard you're better off purchasing Dangerous Liaisons,but if you want to rent Valmonth go ahead it'll be cheap hehe!!!Anyways enjoy either way you go!!! God Bless ~Amy
Rating:
Summary: Bawdy Fun
Review: It almost seems unfair comparing "Valmont" with "Dangerous Liasons." Both films have their merits, and while they may tell the same story, they are vastly different - both with their strengths and weaknesses. If one prefers high psychological drama, then the Stephen Frears version with Glenn Close and an John Malcovich is the one to see. The problem for me is that I don't see this story as high drama or one in which the main characters should be so devoid of whimsy. This is a bawdy 18th century romp, and Milos Forman comes much closer to telling the tale in a way that makes the point still come across, but is passionate and fun to watch at the same time. Much has been said of the casting differences. It comes down to this for me: Colin Firth's Valmont is sexy. He is charming and alluring. He is not the consummate villain as is Malcovich's Valmont. I had a problem in the Frears version of finding anything particularly seductive about Malcovich's Valmont. All I got from him was the vileness of the character. Firth's Valmont is at times petulant, passionate, spoiled, sweet, bitter, cruel, and kind, but always seductive. He plays all the colors of Valmont's rainbow. In Malcovich's I felt only the darkness of the character. The same can be said of Annette Bening's Madame Merteuil. She is flirty and holds her malevolence in check, letting it out in small, well thought out doses. She is passionate and sexy. You can understand why Firth's Valmont wants so badly to possess her. There was nothing sexy or alluring about Glenn Close's Merteuil. I also found the casting of Fairuza Balk and Henry Thomas to be improvements on Uma Thurman and Keanu Reeves. Both were wide-eyed innocents, something I didn't get from their predecessors. Meg Tilly was perhaps the weakest link in the cast, but she was fine for the role. She and Firth had chemistry and she portrayed Madame de Tourval's growing passion for Valmont with a naivte that was charming. Passion is the key element for me that "Valmont" has but "Dangerous Liasons" lacks. Both are fine films, but I ended watching "Valmont" feeling I had had great, bawdy fun and completely understanding the allure each character had for each other!
Rating: 
Summary: This is a joke!
Review: Honestly...the only reason that this movie deserves even one star is the fact the Colin Firth plays Valmont, but not for his acting skills of course, simply for the fact that he is more attractive than his predecessor. I hate to do it, but there is no way anyone can watch this movie without comparing it to the 1988 version with Malkovich and Glenn Close. The older version is without a doubt more sophisticated and far superior. John Malkovich IS Valmont. He and only he may be able to combine deadly charm with tragic repentence in a way that blends seemlessly into a character. Colin Firth lacked this ability. He played Valmont for face value where there was the potential for so much more. But given what he had to worth with (cast, script) who could blame him. The rest of the cast is dull and crass to the point where it makes you want to burst out laughing at even the most "intense" scenes. Annette Benning was particularily weak in comparsion to Glenn Close's superbe portrayal of the Valmont's confidant. But the worst of the bunch is Meg Tilly. I wonder where Milos Forman dug her up from - the corner deli in the Bronx? Not only did she deliver her lines with the same effect as reading them from cue cards held in front of her face, but her appearence and demeanor did not hold true to the character -Madame de Tourvel. Everytime anything came out of her mouth I wondered where I kept my duct tape. Her performance and beauty does not hold a candle to that of Michelle Pfeiffer. All in all, you're much better off investing in the older version.
Rating: 
Summary: lackluster.......
Review: This movie disappointed and unsettled me in the sense that it managed to shaken my devotion and admiration for Colin Firth. (Yes, I admit I watched this movie primarily because of him). Playing the title role, Firth is supposed to be an unrepentant, cunning and charming womanizer capable of ruining any woman's virtue. Oh, he is handsome, all right--no one can deny that--but he flashes his teeth far too often and far too boyishly. Not as calculating and virile as John Malkovich's version, Firth's Valmont comes across as a rather clumsy, half-witted dandy who creates a series of laughing-out-loud scenes: we get to witness him tripping himself all over the place, getting stuck at the door by his dangling sword, pretending to faint right into a lake in an attempt to woo his subject of pursuit, and the list goes on. And this made me wonder if the movie VALMONT is actually a farce which happens to bear a very similar story line to Choderlos de Laclos's "Les Liaisons Dangereuses"...... In addition to Colin Firth's unconvincing Valmont, Annette Bening's version of the scheming, evil countess strikes me as one-dimensional and too sweet. VALMONT also suffers a lack of a sense of suspense and tension that had kept me riveted when I watched DANGEROUS LIASONS. The pace of the movie is slow and the characterization a bit off. I cannot say that I enjoyed VALMONT half as much as I did DANGEROUS LIASONS.
Rating:
Summary: Better casting than Dangerous Liaisons
Review: I bought this tape because I liked the movie Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close, John Malkovich et al. Dangerous liaisons had more punch to it, especially the ending. However, the casting in Valmont is far superior (with the exception of Meg Tilly). I found John Malkovich repulsive and reptilian--he didn't convince me that he was a rake who could charm a virtuous woman. Colin Firth, however, was very sexy and suprisingly vulnerable as Valmont. Annette Benning was great--playful, conniving, and beautiful. Glenn Close looks dried up and past her prime in comparison. I was actually most suprised by Fairuza Balk. Her role was meatier than Uma Thurman's. While Uma was stiff and (imo she can't act), Fairuza was fresh, young, and talented. I heard she was only 14 when she filmed this! The only casting I didn't like was Meg Tilly. She was weak and very stilted. It almost seemed like she had a hard time just saying her lines. No chemistry with Colin Firth whatsoever. Michelle Pfieffer was infinitely more tragic and tortured. I wish I could combine Dangerous Liasons' script with the cast of Valmont--that would be my ideal version of this movie.
Rating:
Summary: A less dangerous adaptation of "Dangerous Liaisons"
Review: Valmont, far better than Dangerous Liaisons. With a younger cast, more lush photography, sexy surroundings, and the sinister Annette Benning. The cheesy Malkovich act is not here, thank God for that. Replaced by Colin Firth, though I really did not care for him, he did a much better act than Malkovich. But the big, brightest change in this film is Annette Benning. Playing the "Catherine Tramell" act on Glenn Closes' idiotic and ugly performance in Dangerous Liaisons, Benning shines above all and is superb! Buy it!
Rating:
Summary: THE BEST BY FAR!!
Review: It is completely beyond me as to how anyone can find "Dangerous Liasons" the better of the two films. While I found it an excellent film when I first saw it upon it's release, and still hold it in high regard, "Valmont" outshines this "earlier' version in every respect.The cast is superb. Bening and Firth are breathtaking. They are far more hideous because they are far more real, and therefore more dimensional. They are more vulnerable and therefore more tragic.I was so fascinated by this film that when I bought my own copy, I watched it over and over again. A rare occurence for me. Visually it is beautiful. Costume, set and setting. I found myself satisfied on levels that "Dangerous Liasons" did not even begin to touch. And as much as I love Malkovich, he did not do it for me in this film.I would, if I could, change history on this one, and release them in reverse order. I would bet that after seeing "Valmont", nothing else would come close.(no pun intended) Alas, we'll never know. Give "Valmont" an opportunity to work it's magic for you. It is under- appreciated, and it's brilliance should not be underestimated or wasted. Even now as I write about it, remembering how much pleasure it gave me, I get the urge to watch it again...and perhaps again...and even again.
| 
