Valmont

Rating:
Summary: Ewww! He's so evil!
Review: Hmm, the film is beautifully done, but beware, Colin does not play a likeable character. However, he looks nice and smarmy and despite your better judgement, you will begin to like him.

Rating:
Summary: A better cast choice than "Dangerous Liasons"
Review: Even though Milos Forman's version of this movie was criticized for being an exact copy of the Stephen Frears version, I like "Valmont" because it had a better cast than "Dangerous Liasons".

First of all, Glenn Close looks too old for her role as Mdme. de Merteuil. I did like her in her role "In the Gloaming" but, she had to wear face powder at the Opera to hide her age. Swoozie Kurtz looked awful in her costume. And while we are on the subject of being too old, Uma Thurman did not convince me that she could pass for 15. I liked Fairuza Balk as Cecile because she looked the part of an innocent 15 year-old, even though she was 14. Also, she could sing better than Uma Thurman. Thurman really squeaked when she hit the high notes during her solo, which hurt my ears. John Malkovich disappointed me as the suave Vicomte de Valmont. It's the age thing again. His only saving grace is that he was vicious to Mdme. de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer). She really was hurt by his rejection. Meg Tilly played an excellent Mdme. de Tourvel. While we all know that Pfeiffer was older than she played, she convinced me of her naivete. Tilly may have been too old for her role, but she didn't have to wear a lot of make-up like Glenn Close and she looked better in her costume.

Yes, it did seem like Annette Benning as Mdme. de Merteuil smiled through most of her plan to get even with her ex-lover, but she didn't smile for too long. Revenge may be a dish better served cold, but she couldn't handle the end result. Her ex-lover had the last laugh, which served her right for being so vindictive and coniving.

The only beautiful people in "Dangerous Liasons" were Michelle Pfeiffer and Keanu Reeves, everyone else seemed to be miscast because of age and a little off the mark costume-wise.

Now my curiosity is peeked because I plan to hunt down the book and read it despite how I feel about the movie of the same name. I also plan to buy "Valmont" in the future.

Rating:
Summary: Sumptous adaptation
Review: It was highly unfortunate that this adaptation of 'Les Liasons Dangereux', a bigger movie with a bigger cast. Although shot at the same time, the release date of 'Valmont' was shifted so that they wouldn't clash. Many of the strengths of the movie lie in its writing, which has a great deal of light humour that certainly stops it ever getting bogged down or becoming too heavy. It's a gorgeous story though, and this is a beautiful adaptation with some excellent photography.

It's a pity that the leads, excellent actors thought they are, are simply not suited to these roles. After watching the BBC adaptation of 'Pride And Prejudice' though he's always remembered as Mr. Darcy. Likewise, Annette Bening never seems bitter enough, smiling her way through the role. Fortunately the young Fairuza Balk brings an endearing vulnerability to her role as the innocent Cecile and the rest of the cast are outstanding as well.

In making use of huge gardens, parks and lakes, there isn't quite the sense of the characters being trapped. However, there's a passionate rich feeling that truly makes the audience believe that the two despicable rogues at the centre are truly enjoying themselves. Consequently this gorgeous life of sexual politics is properly evoked.

The resultant tragedy isn't as moving as it might have been but the themes of true love and its clashes with marriage are certainly well done. Yet maybe the ending is appropriate, done with a quiet melancholy that somehow seems appropriate.

Rating:
Summary: Gorgeous music
Review: I liked this movie a lot. My only regret about this movie is that
they didn't release a soundtrack. The music is so beautiful!

The costumes were very good. I thought that the actors did a very good job.

Rating:
Summary: Valmont
Review: This was a wonderful movie that was not given its due. Unfortunately, it is the same story as "Dangerous Liaisons" which hit theaters first. In my opinion, this version is much better with move believable and likable characters.
Colin Firth is flawless as the cad Valmont. Although Valmont is not a very nice person in the story, this talented actor manages to get your sympathy for him.
Not only was his performance flawless, but this movie was filmed when he was around twenty-seven, I understand,and he is flawlessly beautiful physically and so incredibly charming.
Performances all around were excellent and I enjoyed the movie so much, I plan to buy it.

Rating:
Summary: Better than "DL"
Review: Personally, I liked Valmont better than "DL" even though "DL" had more of a bite to it.
Colin Firth was a believable seducer of women unlike John Malkovich who's hideous! He was manipulative in a charming way. I wished that there would have been more anguish over Meg Tilly's return to her husband. I found out that Tilly and Firth actually had a real off screen affair after this movie and a resulting son Will(footnote) There is real magnetism between them.
I did not care for the ending though-Valmont should have suffered more emotionally for his crimes of the heart onscreen. Death was too good for such a scoundrel!
Annette Benning was both wonderfully devilish and charming and again more believable as a seductress.

Rating:
Summary: I Like It Better than "Dangerous Liaisons (DL)"!
Review: Both "Valmont" and "DL" have their own merits.... but I personally find "Valmont" to be the better movie. REASONS:

1) Its perfect casting - especially Fairuza Balk as the extremely naive and innocent 15-year old Cecile. You must watch this movie to find out just how wonderfully charming and adoring she is. By comparison, Uma Thurman's "Cecile" in "DL" seems too old and sophisticated for the character. Annette Benning is also brilliant as the calculating and scheming "de Merteuil". In "Valmont", de Merteuil appears more human - she shows both her good and bad sides i.e. she's not ALL bad/evil like Glenn Glose's portrayal of the character in "DL". Colin Firth also makes for a more likeable and dashing Valmont than John Malkovich in "DL". I find Glenn Close and John Malkovich's portrayals to be too "scary" for anyone to be genuinely attracted to them. Their characters seem a little too cold and "serpent-like" to me.

2) The sets, cinematography and costumes in "Valmont" are more lavish and beautiful than in "DL". In "Valmont", there are more out-of door scenes e.g. the very lovely scene in the park where Valmont (Colin Firth) manages to coax the shy and proper Mdm de Tourveil (played by the luminous Meg Tilly) to get on the horse with him where he then proceeds to teach her archery, and the ensuing dance-and-picnic scene. In "Valmont", Cecile also plays the harp and sings a couple of beautiful songs.

3) A better screenplay and a more natural dialogue. This adaptation is also more detailed and thorough, and has more humour. Unlike in "DL" where the character of Gercourt (Cecile's fiance - a rich, older man) does not make an appearance at all, in "Valmont", his character (played to perfection by Jeffrey Jones) gets proper screen time. Also, Cecile's character is given more prominence here.

"Valmont" runs for slightly over 2 hours. The last 15 minutes of the movie is a little dissapointing, though. The ending is rather different from the novel's. Another little complaint of mine is that Colin Firth's Valmont seems less passionate towards Mdm de Tourveil than he should be. Right up to the end of the movie, we don't see him being "tormented by love" at all. He doesn't seem to care much when he realizes that Mdm de Tourveil has left him and returned to her husband.

The ending in "DL" has more "oomph!" actually, although it is very disturbing. But, OVERALL, I find "Valmont" to be the more enjoyable adaptation as it is so... beautiful to watch and has many wonderful moments that will make the viewer laugh and cry.
Quite sad that while "DL" garnered many Oscar nominations, "Valmont" (being released just a year later), didn't do quite as well at the Oscars.

My advice: watch both versions!

Rating:
Summary: Can't hold a candle to "Dangerous Liaisons"
Review: This movie does not pack a punch like its predecessor, "Dangerous Liaisons," whether you view it before or after. However unfair, one cannot but help to compare the two. Of course in a Milos Forman movie you'd expect to see lavish setting and locales and here he does not disappoint. Annette Bening as the Marquise de Merteuil, Fairuza Balk as Cecile and Henry Thomas as Danceny are quite good. However, I found Colin Firth as Valmont and Meg Tilly as Madame de Tourvel to be unsatisfactory, especially the latter. Firth's Valmont is played in a much too schoolboyish fashion--he is more like a harmless, charming rogue than the callous, manipulative cad he is supposed to evince. Tilly's Tourvel I had a BIG problem with as she was so obviously miscast. Most of the time she goes around with various degrees of mournful or stoic expressions fixed on her face. I also thought her character would have been drastically more convincing had she been made up to look like she did in "The Two Jakes"--in it she was a breathtaking, fresh-looking strawberry blond--because in this movie she is a plain-jane brunette (did the makeup and hair people ignore her, or what?). The even bigger letdown than Tilly was the watering down of the storyline in which the powers that be tacked on a palatable, humdrum ending.

Go and watch by far the better of the two films, "Dangerous Liaisons." Although at first glance Glenn Close as Merteiul and John Malkovich as Valmont may seem physically miscast, their superb, powerhouse performances truly make the characters their own and wholly convincing (unlike the not-as-skilled Tilly). Michelle Pfeiffer as Tourvel is a revelation: she is perfect as the spiritually tormented, tragic beauty. And unlike the namby-pamby ending of "Valmont," this version is not afraid to disturb the viewers with its no-holds-barred ending.

Rating:
Summary: A superior cast than Dangerous Liaisons
Review: This movie version of the novel has a much superior cast to the Hollywood version, Dangerous Liaisons. Colin Firth was exceptional as Valmont. I can believe women being unable to resist this version of Valmont (the sexy vulnerability always works on the maternal instinct of women, no matter their age). In comparison, John Malkovich's Valmont made me cringe every time he got near any woman (too "slimy").

Rating:
Summary: Better and more 'deep' than DL!
Review: My wife (expert critic, imho) and I both agree that Dangerous Liasions is the 'dumbed down' version of the novel. Valmont is much more realistic and detailed, and the characters are such that one minute you are liking them (taken in by their good side), and the next minute loathing them.

If you preferred DL over this movie, then you probably don't appreciate Shakespeare either. Sorry, but the truth hurts.