Customer Reviews

Valmont [VHS]

5 star:		(66)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

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!

"Valmont" is one of my favorite films of all time. It is so lovely to look at, with lavish sets, lovely country locations, exquisitely crafted costumes, and brilliant production design, that I have literally watched it over and over again. When you watch this movie, you are transported into the luxury of 17th Century aristocratic France. It also skillfully integrates music into the production, when Cecile and Madame de Merteuile go to the Opera, or when Cecile is performing songs with her harp. Of course, I want to make it clear to you right now that all reviews claiming that "Dangerous Liaisons" is a better film than Valmont are dead wrong! It is truly a tragic circumstance when a film as beautiful as "Valmont" is overlooked because of an inferior product such as "DL", just because "DL" came out first. Colin Firth is so much more likeable and dashing than John Malkovich. Annette Bening is much better than Glenn Close. In fact, the entire cast is perfect, as is every other detail of this movie, thanks to Director Milos Forman (the quality of this film is no accident). There are also fine supporting performances by Henry Thomas, Jeffrey Jones, Sian Phillips, and the last performance of the legendary Fabia Drake, who steals all the scenes she's in. But what you have to understand about "Valmont" is that it's a different kind of movie than "DL". "Dangerous Liaisons" was a cold, sinister, mean-hearted film. "Valmont" is gay, light-hearted at times, sad, tragic and heartbreaking at others. But it is never cold, and is always beautiful. And I will never neglect to say that Meg Tilly, as Madame de Tourville, is the most lovely, beautiful, and perfect creature to have ever graced the silver screen. Forget about all other actresses, Meg Tilly is the one for me. Fortunately, this film is now scheduled for release on DVD and might get the attention it truly deserves. If ever a film could exploit the brilliance of DVD technology, this one will.

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.

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.

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.

This film is definitely the better of the two versions of Les Liaisons Dangereuses. The Widescreen DVD would definitely be the best way to experience this movie. The color is glorious. However, BE WARNED! If you own a VHS copy of this movie, don't discard it yet! Every single copy I have viewed of this DVD release has the exact same, (approximately 3 minute long), scene missing. The missing minutes, which are critical to the plot as it explains Valmont's actions in the end, occur in the Scene Selection "The Return." (Sorry. Rating loses 2 stars due to missing footage.)

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.

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!

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).

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