Valmont

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: An outstanding yet neglected film
Review: I happened to watch this movie on TV, quite a while ago. Despite the rather "unastable" ending (towards the book) I found it very good. Colin Firth (apart from being an absolute hunk in period frocks is also fantastic-though he smiles too much for such a tragic character) is much more down-to-earth and handsome than -otherwise great actor- John Malcovitch. Colin is brooding, John is SCARY. Not the person I'd trust my heart or body to. Glenn Glose is a lot more scary - Anette Benning is fantastic because she is bad, she is sexy,and can be even good sometimes. Glose is bad, bad, and scary. Not to mention that ravishing - and too old - Uma Thurman can't possibly persuade anyone for being innocent, pure and well, virgin. Fairuza Balk, is yet a child. Milos Forman gives the characters a depth that we don't see in DL1. The only thing I consider a good choice, was Michelle Pfeifer as the tragig widow. She is brilliant, beautiful (Meg Tilly was pretty but not as ravishing), and most of all, CAN ACT. A few years younger and next to Firth, could produce sparks. I definitely go for the Milos Forman edition. Despite the really bad ending, he gives his characters more dimensions. In DL1, the good are too good, the bad are too bad, and the people between, insignificant. Life isn't just that way.
I hope i will be able to find it in a DVD region 2 someday. Unless I buy an All-regions DVD player. (sigh).

Rating:
Summary: Delightful - Excellent cast but not good enough script
Review: I have watched both Valmont and Dangerous Liaisons DVDs and I definitely prefer Valmont. It¡¦s true that the script for Dangerous Liaisons is more complete but Valmont gives more depth to each character. In fact, every time when I watch Valmont, I like it better.

Colin Firth as Valmont is charming and you¡¦ll truly believe why women fall for him even they knew he¡¦s evil. This movie is not his best performance, but he¡¦s done it beautifully and very easily, he became the centre of the movie for every frame he¡¦s in. I think Annette Bening¡¦s not good enough to play Merteuil as she laughed so much that it¡¦s a bit annoying. Still, she¡¦s delighted to look at in the movie with the wonderful costume. Cecil played by Fairuza Balk is best cast in addition to Colin Firth. She¡¦s sweet, young, and energetic and is able to convey her emotions simply with her eyes. I just love to see her. For Meg Tilly, she¡¦s sweet too but her performance becomes not profession enough when the above three actors are present.

Back to the story, I have two comments to make. Firstly, it¡¦s really wrong to have two focuses in the same movie ¡V one is on the evil game between Valmont & Merteuil while another one is the grow-up of Cecil. This focus has to be the game between Valmont & Merteuil. But there is not even a line to explain the relationship between them which makes audience quite confused at the beginning if the audience didn¡¦t read the book. So, when Merteuil told Valmont she still loves him, I simply doubt it because it's not convincing.

Secondly, the ending is so bad. In particular, the duel scene between Valmont and Decenary happens so suddenly and I get lost why Valmont wanted to kill himself like this. He seems lost his mind after he found out Merteuil was in bed with Dacenary. But as I just mentioned, you won't believe Valmont is so in love with Merteuil that he wants to die instead.

I have also watched the big hit done by Milos Forman ¡V Amadeus. In terms of production quality, it's not worse than Amadeus. I think Valmont deserved a better rating as it¡¦s a delightful and sweet movie with specular scenary. It just came in bad timing.

Rating:
Summary: Perfectly Cast
Review: This version of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" was short changed by Stephen Frears "Dangerous Liaisons" (A decent movie in its own right). Milos Forman's direction was wonderful. In addition to the direction, the great success of this film is in its casting. As good as John Malkovich, Glenn Close, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Uma Thurman are in Dangerous Liaisons, Colin Firth, Annette Bening (one her two greatest performances, along with "The Grifters", IMO), Meg Tily, and Fairuza Balk are far and away the better cast in the sense that they make the story feel far more authentic. "Dangerous Liaisons", on the other hand, feels fabricated and overblown (very hard to believe that Glenn Close is supposed to be in her mid 30's and that Uma Thurman is playing a 15 year old). "Valmont" gives you a much more accurate sense of how this plot would play out without the Hollywood fanfare.

Magnificent Film! I've been waiting for quite some time to finally see this one arrive on DVD! Enjoy!

Rating:
Summary: A Close Call With Dangerous Liaisons
Review: I found this adaptation by Milos Forman to be better acted in some of the roles 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: MGM Home Video Does a Hachet Job On This Masterpiece
Review: Please, don't get me wrong--Valmont is one of my favorite films of all time. But I just discovered to my HORROR that it's true--MGM Home Entertainment has edited out a crucial and beautiful scene from this cinema masterpiece. I can't believe I missed it for the past two years, but the other reviewers are right. The lovely scene where Valmont buys a bouquet of flowers and brings them to Madame de Tourvel's apartment, and leaves them on her bed when she is not there, has been hacked out of this DVD! This scene is so beautiful and ingrained on my mind, that I must have mentally inserted it into my viewings for the past two years and consciously overlooked its absence. I can't tell you how betrayed and violated I feel, realizing that I have been watching the movie for two years without this important scene included. The scene is one of the most delicate and mysterious of the whole movie, showing a tender side of Valmont's character in such a subtle way. I am going to send my copy of the DVD to either MGM or Milos Forman and complain about this monstrosity. And I am going to buy a copy of the old VHS version that is intact and complete. If you care anything about the integrity of art and artistic accuracy, don't buy this DVD. You will be missing an imprtant part of the film. This DVD is tantamount to taking Monet's "Coquelicots", taking some shelack, and brushing over the woman's parasol. How does an outfit like MGM have the NERVE to commit such an atrocity on a masterpiece of art? They have no shame. I am totally appalled.

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: 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.