Own the rights?
49 out of 54 people found the following review useful: Sexual decadence before the time of the guillotine, 5 August 2001 Author: Dennis Littrell (dalittrell@yahoo.com) from SoCal
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.
52 out of 64 people found the following review useful: better of the two by far, 4 October 2000 Author: Andy Sandfoss from Cold Spring, KY
I notice a bit of a war going on between partisans of this and "Dangerous Liaisons" (the Glenn Close/John Malkovich/Stephen Frears vehicle). I'm not entirely sure why, but I find "Valmont" so much better. I think it's because: A) Milos Forman is unquestionably a better director than Frears, especially when he can call on the photographic talents of a cinematographer like Miroslav Ondricek; B) "Valmont" takes the time to develop some of the relationships between characters on screen, while the other simply injects the viewers into preexisting relationships; C) Colin Firth and Annette Benning are quite simply sexier than Glenn Close and John Malkovich; "Dangerous Liaisons" is too intellectual, while "Valmont" works at the hormonal level too. D) Fairuza Balk is far more believable as a virgin than Uma Thurman (can anyone say differently?!?). I certainly acknowledge "Dangerous Liaisons" as a well-made, well-acted film, but in the end I find it nearly unwatchable compared to "Valmont", which I can (and have) enjoyed over and over.
25 out of 30 people found the following review useful: Annette Bening is fantastic, 22 September 2004 Author: MinneapolisJane from Minneapolis, United States
Annette Bening has proved again what a versatile actress she is. She positively emanates cruelty and perverseness in this film, but she is the epitome of sweetness in "American President" and fragility in "American Beauty." The pleasure her character takes in causing others' pain makes one easily imagine her reincarnated as a Gestapo torturer. Colin Firth is, as usual, handsome, charming, and believable. Fairuza Balk completely captures the confusion, excitement, and naiveté one would expect of a girl reentering the world after years in a convent. Meg Tilly shows a depth that I hadn't expected and Fabia Drake is wonderful as the hard-of-hearing, elderly, but wise, matron. The costumes and sets were exquisite and evoked the period completely. I highly recommend this for the performances and the ambiance.
36 out of 52 people found the following review useful: "Valmont" is better than "dangerous liason" in some ways, 12 April 2002 Author: Louise Liu (nirvana_83) from DC, USA
I just watched "Valmont" just now actually, and what can I say, I was really impressed with the film... I've seen "Dangerous Liason" so many times before, and it's always been one of my favorites, so maybe that's why I was a bit skeptical about "Valmont" as it started (for me it was overshadowed by "Dangerous Liason", but it was quick for me to be proven wrong...) The film was great, very interesting, because it provided different insight into the the story. Colin Firth (who I've fallen in love with ever since I watched "Bridget Jones' Diary, because he is one charming brit!) was dazzling as Valmont, and he managed to display another kind of Valmont, which John Malkovich wasn't, but he was great as well. Firth's Valmont was very charming and he has a passion and charisma to him that Malkovich lacked (he was overall rather "cool"), and what can i say? He just took my breath away again once again. Annette Bening (is that how u spell her name?) was also brilliant, and in the begining I was tricked into thinking that she was too nice for the part, but nope, she was evil as well, and maybe to some extent more evil that Glenn Close's portryal, because beneath all the nice and sweetness, beining was evil indeed! and Henry Thomas, he was extroidinary, and he did a great job! His potrayal of his character was so much better than Keanu Reeves (who can't act), and he made the movie interesting indeed. it was sad to see his innocence lost at the end though, what really disturbed me, because before he was such a loyal lover! sad, the loss of innocence, once it's gone, it never comes back...maybe "Valmont" is lacking in the sense that it failed to illustrate the importance of Madame de Tourvel, like "Dangerous Liason" did, but otherwise, Valmont is magnificent. passionate, fun, and definetly keeps you going!
18 out of 23 people found the following review useful: A less sadistic version of the French classic Les Liaisons Dangereruses, 24 April 2002 Author: countryway_48864 from United States
I think I've seen all the variations on a theme of this story, which, in turn, is a variation on the Don Juan legend. Of all of them, I like this one best.Colin Firth is a marvelous Valmont. Firth is a VERY subtle actor. Early in the film, he pretends to be helpless in the water, unable to swim in order to elicite a response from his victim,(Tilly), but when his actions do not receive the response he expected, his face changes immediately. He is no longer the smiling, charmer, but a man furious that his plan was thwarted. These changes in expression happen in an instant. The alteration of his features is absolutely chilling.It is, to me, far more effective to have the villian of the piece LOOK like an angel, than to look like what he really is (Malkovitch).Annette Benning, with her delicate beauty and dimple certainly doesn't look like the scheming, sexual predator that she really is.There is one scene in which Firth really does a virtuoso performance. He dances with four women in turn. First, he dances with his elderly Aunt. This lady still loves to flirt. He is graceful and charming and flatters her outrageously. Next he dances with his 15 year old prey. Here he cappers like a 15 year old, which delights and disarmes her. Next, Valmont dances with Benning, his former lover. Here he is remote and aloof. It is SHE who flirts with him! He withholds what she knows should be hers. THEN he dances with the woman he has fallen in love with. He has a bet with Benning that he can bed this married, pious lady. In this dance he is sensual and genuine. SHE reacts with the most rapturous expressions and movements I have ever seen on screen. Meg Tilly and Colin Firth dancing in this sequence are breathtaking to behold.Because all of the feelings of the characters in Valmont are so beautifully acted, Firth, Benning, Tilly and Balk are all believable and because you believe in them you also feel their pain.Each character suffers because of decisions they have made, over and above the seductions that do take place.A marvelous film that I recommend to those over 18. There are some explicite scenes in this film that are too hot for young people.
27 out of 43 people found the following review useful: Better than the other version, 14 December 2004 Author: pekinman from Illinois
Milos Forman's version of 'Dangerous Liasons' was relegated to the second tier at the time of its release, which occurred close on the heels of Stephen Frears' version starring Glenn Close and John Malkovitch. I saw them both in the theatre when they were released and from the start enjoyed Forman's film far more than Frears'.Annette Beining is a wonderful Madame de Mertueil, beautiful, intelligent, ruthless and in the end tragic. Glenn Close is pretty two-dimensional by comparison for Frears. And Colin Firth is more the laughing cavalier, with a heart, than was John Malkovitch for Frears, who mostly grimaces smugly and is highly distasteful and ego-centric. I liked Firth's sense of humor about himself, it makes the ending more poignant.On paper some of the casting of Forman's version seems questionable, but all, except one, work very well. Most surprising was Henry Thomas's young lover. Thomas can be a dull actor but his reticent performance is apt for the gauche young man learning the ropes of 18th century Parisian society. Fairuza Bulk is delightful and funny as the virginal Céline. The supporting cast, notably Fabia Drake's dotty old Madame de Rosemond, are excellent. Siân Philips and Jeffrey Jones provide some very funny moments, though their characters are anything but "funny".Only Meg Tilly falls short. Her American accent and modern delivery of the lines is disappointing. But she is a good actress and manages to convince in the end, though a more "Frenchified" performer would have served the story more effectively.The music, cinematography and choreography are superb. The settings are very beautiful.Forman's 'Valmont' deserves to be reconsidered by those critics who found it lacking when it first appeared.
13 out of 16 people found the following review useful: all about subtleties, 27 July 1999 Author: catherine desgranges (catherinedesgranges@yahoo.com) from montreal, canada
I must confess that the first time I saw that movie, few years after it's release, I couldn't help, but find it a pale version of Stefan Freirs "Dangerous Liaison". Recently I have seen both movies and I must say that my opinion is quite the opposite now. In "Valmont" everything is subtle and I think this is why most people didn't get it. You can destroy someone's life without having written "I'm Bad!" on your forehead. With her slow-velvet voice Annette Bening is a snake under a rock:she is terrifying. As for Colin Firth's Valmont he is charming, he flies like a butterfly, but he knows exactly what he is doing. We believe in his seduction not because we are told to but because we are seduced ourselves. People have been saying that Valmont was too light, too boyish. There is nothing boyish in the way he says at Mme de Tourvelle "Is that what you want?" You see at that point how his hight-pitched voice, that goes with his voice and smile, is only a mask, as powder was John Malkovitch's mask. Colin Firth said that Milos Forman was too subtle for his own good and I think this is why some people can still find "Dangerous Liaisons" more powerful. As for "Valmont" even if the end is a bit weak, I wouldn't hesitate to say that it is from far the best version of the two movies. For those who go by the book, as I once did, you might be puzzled by the differences with the original story but for its deep sensitivity, its wonderful cast and this art of subtlety, it's really worth every moment of it.
12 out of 16 people found the following review useful: beautifully crafted, passionately acted, 26 August 1999 Author: shuaige from sydney, australia
i only saw the movie tonight, more than 10 years after it is made. That's a real pity. This is such a beautiful film, attractive actors, regal costumes, lavish settings.... seductive, funny... good combo of everything... i would recommend this film to everyone!!!
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful: The Lack of Suspense is Made Up for by the Cast & the Look, 8 February 2003 Author: (tim.halkin) from Munich, Germany
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 won't be wasting your time.
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful: A Lavish Period Piece, 11 December 1999 Author: BBD-3 (eskdale@earthlink.net) from Perry Hall, MD
This movie grabbed my attention while channel surfing on cable. I would have never picked it out of the guide, but I guess I "tuned in" at the right moment, because before I knew it I had watched the film to the end and then watched it again to see what I missed in the beginning. I think Colin Firth was very sexy in the role of Valmont, exuding charm while at the same time playing the base animal. Annette Bening plays a great temptress/schemer and Sian Phillips, still has that sinister aire of the evil mother/stepmother that she played so well in "I Claudius". Great cast with an interesting plot. Too bad its Valmont who dies, I think it should have been Merteuil--she was the villain. Its worth the time to watch.
Add another review
