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.
74 Reviews
Stunning version of "Dangerous Liaisons"
blanche-28 June 2017
"Valmont" is a 1989 film based on the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos, as well, of course, the better-known film Dangerous Liaisons starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich.
Here, Annette Benning is the Merteuil who is stunned to learn that her lover, Gercourt (Jeffrey Jones) is betrothed to the fifteen-year-old virginal Cecile (Fairuza Balk). She makes a bet with her Casanova-like friend Valmont (Colin Firth) that he can seduce Cecile so that on her wedding night, she is not a virgin, thus giving Merteuil revenge against Gercourt. Of course, the best-laid plans and all that - Cecile is in love with her music teacher (Henry Thomas), and Merteuil aids and abets the romance as much as possible. But things become more and more complicated, with Valmont, the eternal playboy, actually falling in love himself. And as the story says, once you fall in love, your power is gone.
This film is far superior to the more famous one. Forman is a fantastic director, and the cast warms up what is basically a cold, calculated story and really makes you care.
Annette Bening is more full-dimensional than Close's Martueil - she's beautiful, smart, and she's so sweet and lies so beautifully one has no idea what she's really like. Firth's Valmont is far more believable than Malkoitch's egomaniacal portrayal.
Henry Thomas is the desperately in love music teacher - it's good casting, but he comes off as too modern. It's a minor point because the entire cast is wonderful, including Fabia Drake as Madame de Rosemond, Sian Philips, Meg Tilly, and Fairuza Balik.
The film is beautiful to look at, sumptuously and carefully produced. It's a sad case of being the second film version out when the first was better marketed with a more American cast. Nevertheless, it's not too late to discover this gem.
Here, Annette Benning is the Merteuil who is stunned to learn that her lover, Gercourt (Jeffrey Jones) is betrothed to the fifteen-year-old virginal Cecile (Fairuza Balk). She makes a bet with her Casanova-like friend Valmont (Colin Firth) that he can seduce Cecile so that on her wedding night, she is not a virgin, thus giving Merteuil revenge against Gercourt. Of course, the best-laid plans and all that - Cecile is in love with her music teacher (Henry Thomas), and Merteuil aids and abets the romance as much as possible. But things become more and more complicated, with Valmont, the eternal playboy, actually falling in love himself. And as the story says, once you fall in love, your power is gone.
This film is far superior to the more famous one. Forman is a fantastic director, and the cast warms up what is basically a cold, calculated story and really makes you care.
Annette Bening is more full-dimensional than Close's Martueil - she's beautiful, smart, and she's so sweet and lies so beautifully one has no idea what she's really like. Firth's Valmont is far more believable than Malkoitch's egomaniacal portrayal.
Henry Thomas is the desperately in love music teacher - it's good casting, but he comes off as too modern. It's a minor point because the entire cast is wonderful, including Fabia Drake as Madame de Rosemond, Sian Philips, Meg Tilly, and Fairuza Balik.
The film is beautiful to look at, sumptuously and carefully produced. It's a sad case of being the second film version out when the first was better marketed with a more American cast. Nevertheless, it's not too late to discover this gem.
lascivious take on the material
SnoopyStyle26 January 2016
Cecile (Fairuza Balk) is a 15 year old who has been living in a convent for 6 years. She's happy that her mother Madame de Volanges (Siân Phillips) has arranged a marriage for her to Gercourt (Jeffrey Jones). Volanges trusts her cousin Marquise de Merteuil (Annette Bening) to guide Cecile but she doesn't know that Gercourt discarded Merteuil as his lover. For revenge, Merteuil intends to spoil Cecile's virginity and thereby her pending marriage to Gercourt. She asks her former lover, the Vicomte de Valmont (Colin Firth), to do the seducing but he refuses. He is more interested in bedding the married Madame de Tourvel (Meg Tilly). Merteuil makes an indecent bet with Valmont. Meanwhile Cecile falls for her music teacher Danceny (Henry Thomas).
Director Milo Forman brings a lascivious feeling to the material. The romance is drained out of this which is replaced with something darker. Fairuza Balk is shockingly young which only adds to its forbidden realism. Whereas the great Dangerous Liaisons feels luscious and beautiful, this version feels dirtier and uglier. Annette Bening is wonderful. This is an interesting second look at the same story.
Director Milo Forman brings a lascivious feeling to the material. The romance is drained out of this which is replaced with something darker. Fairuza Balk is shockingly young which only adds to its forbidden realism. Whereas the great Dangerous Liaisons feels luscious and beautiful, this version feels dirtier and uglier. Annette Bening is wonderful. This is an interesting second look at the same story.
Annette Bening is fantastic
MinneapolisJane22 September 2004
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.
no better or worse than Dangerous Liaisons
mukava99124 February 2010
Milos Forman's Valmont is ultimately no better and no worse an adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuse than Dangerous Liaisons by Stephen Frears which made it into theaters months earlier. Both are entertaining, yet both dip into tedium around the three-quarter point because the web of aristocratic intrigues they are following gets too tangled for a two-hour screen treatment.
"Valmont" occupies a wider canvas which encompasses visual reminders that the privileged central characters live amidst a largely impoverished society. As soon as horse-drawn carriage gallops away from palace or mansion, the squalid reality of the streets of Paris is revealed. Frears's "DL" is able to show the same difference by closing in on relationships such as the intimate master-servant morning rituals that open his film. Forman's "Valmont" humanizes the main characters by toning down their cruelty and blunting their extremes. By contrast, in "DL" Glenn Close plays the Comtesse de Merteuil with a cold reserve that dissolves into hysteria whereas Annette Bening in "V" exudes a high-wattage, tightly controlled gaiety which remains more or less constant throughout. Colin Firth's Valmont is more dashing and virile than John Malkovich's, but his performance lacks the corrupt menace which Malkovich provides in overly strong doses. Firth's seduction of the young Cecile (Fairuza Balk), is brilliantly conceived, staged and performed. Meg Tilly as Mme. De Tourvel has a simplicity and vulnerability that eluded Michelle Pfeiffer in DL, and Tilly doesn't strain for effects. She and Firth are also a better physical match, and the development of their relationship makes more sense here. Henry Thomas as the music tutor in love with young Cecile has much more screen time than Keanu Reeves in DL, which is all for the better because he has the acting chops to pull it off – a 17-year-old with more principles and purity than all of the adults in his orbit combined. Whereas "Valmont" is a diffuse and leisurely satire, DL is a highly stylized tragedy.
"Valmont" occupies a wider canvas which encompasses visual reminders that the privileged central characters live amidst a largely impoverished society. As soon as horse-drawn carriage gallops away from palace or mansion, the squalid reality of the streets of Paris is revealed. Frears's "DL" is able to show the same difference by closing in on relationships such as the intimate master-servant morning rituals that open his film. Forman's "Valmont" humanizes the main characters by toning down their cruelty and blunting their extremes. By contrast, in "DL" Glenn Close plays the Comtesse de Merteuil with a cold reserve that dissolves into hysteria whereas Annette Bening in "V" exudes a high-wattage, tightly controlled gaiety which remains more or less constant throughout. Colin Firth's Valmont is more dashing and virile than John Malkovich's, but his performance lacks the corrupt menace which Malkovich provides in overly strong doses. Firth's seduction of the young Cecile (Fairuza Balk), is brilliantly conceived, staged and performed. Meg Tilly as Mme. De Tourvel has a simplicity and vulnerability that eluded Michelle Pfeiffer in DL, and Tilly doesn't strain for effects. She and Firth are also a better physical match, and the development of their relationship makes more sense here. Henry Thomas as the music tutor in love with young Cecile has much more screen time than Keanu Reeves in DL, which is all for the better because he has the acting chops to pull it off – a 17-year-old with more principles and purity than all of the adults in his orbit combined. Whereas "Valmont" is a diffuse and leisurely satire, DL is a highly stylized tragedy.
Not a bad film, but...
fer_abra14 November 2016
...You feel like you're watching a Bridget Jones movie set in the 18th century. This film feels like a comedy. It's not, and that's the problem. Milos Forman is not going to make a bad film, because he's a damn good director. "Amadeus" is one of my favourite films ever, the period is the same (1780s), and formally is marvellous too, but the material is completely different. This story is wicked and this film just does not capture how wicked, twisted, cruel and depraved the characters really are. They are all lovable and nice, even though they still do wicked things. But the Coyote and Roadrunner do really wicked things to each other and they're funny... Watching this movie and "Dangerous Liaisons" back to back is a textbook example of how the very same material can be explored in very different ways. This is lighter. "Dangerous Liaisons" IMO does more justice to the material and although Uma Thurman is totally unbelievable as a 15 year old virgin, the rest of the cast runs circles around Colin Firth as Valmont (too British), Annete Benning and Meg Tilly. John Malkovich and Glenn Close are just unbeatable in those roles. Henry Thomas is better than Keanu Reeves (period never suited Keanu, did it?). Very watchable film, develops certain aspects better, but overall the story's treatment does not need Jane Austen overtones, but "Silence of the Lambs" ones.
Wicked, wicked fun.
=G=6 February 2001
"Valmont" ventures into the decadence of 18th century French aristocracy where Firth (Valmont) and Benning involve themselves in wickedness and sexual intrigues. The film, one of several spin-offs of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, is well cast and acted (though the absence of French accents is obvious); sets and costuming lavish; scenery sumptuous; and the screen play and script excellent. The 2+ hour run passes swiftly though the end seems to want for something more. A fun romp for those into period films.
Sexual decadence before the time of the guillotine
DennisLittrell5 August 2001
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.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
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.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
A Lavish Period Piece
BBD-311 December 1999
Warning: Spoilers
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.
A less sadistic version of the French classic Les Liaisons Dangereruses
countryway_4886424 April 2002
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.
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.
Botched Screenplay but Annette Bening Shines
mightypossibility28 July 2005
The only reason I rate this movie as generously as six stars ("forgettable, plus") is Annette Bening. Would that she had been cast in Dangerous Liaisons, another adaptation, released around the same time, of the same book. She brings a winning charm to the depraved Marquise de Merteuil that makes the character's personal and social power, as well as her motivations as an everywoman, much more believable and understandable.
Other than that, the story was absolutely botched by just how "freely adapted" it was from Chorderos de Laclos's brilliant novel. The screen writers changed the ending of de Laclos's story so much that the film becomes a vapid period romance. It loses everything that is so searing and moving about the book.
Madame de Tourvel was also badly written. Why Valmont finds her (in particular, among other women faithful to their husbands) so fascinating, remains a mystery. I like Meg Tilly, but, in this role, she is completely outshone by Michelle Pfeiffer, who also has a better written part, in Dangerous Liaisons.
The part of Cecile was better cast in Valmont with Fairiza Balk than in Dangerous Liaisons with Uma Thurman - principally because Balk appears to be and conveys the requisite vulnerability of a real fifteen-year-old. Uma Thurman, with all her presence and six feet of goddess glory, probably never could play fifteen!
Other than that, the story was absolutely botched by just how "freely adapted" it was from Chorderos de Laclos's brilliant novel. The screen writers changed the ending of de Laclos's story so much that the film becomes a vapid period romance. It loses everything that is so searing and moving about the book.
Madame de Tourvel was also badly written. Why Valmont finds her (in particular, among other women faithful to their husbands) so fascinating, remains a mystery. I like Meg Tilly, but, in this role, she is completely outshone by Michelle Pfeiffer, who also has a better written part, in Dangerous Liaisons.
The part of Cecile was better cast in Valmont with Fairiza Balk than in Dangerous Liaisons with Uma Thurman - principally because Balk appears to be and conveys the requisite vulnerability of a real fifteen-year-old. Uma Thurman, with all her presence and six feet of goddess glory, probably never could play fifteen!
all about subtleties
cathy-3927 July 1999
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.
A unique take on the story
triple811 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING-SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: Valmont is a gorgeous costume drama in the form of Dangerous Liasions and later Cruel Intentions. I liked Valmont in many ways, there was a lot of Beauty visually and the characters are all compelling. Yet, I had one or two problems with the ending and here come the ENDING SPOILERS: This ending just bothered me. It just seemed to lack something. I think flat is the word I'm looking for or to put it another way: it was just sort of THERE.
There isn't a lot of power to the ending, it leaves you just kind of wanting more or something. A good comparison would be Cruel Intentions which had POWER throughout. The ending in Valmont doesn't go with the rest of the movie, it kind of lets you down(I hope I'm kind of making sense here.) For how long the movie is and how closely we get to know the characters, there should have been something more at the end. They say many times, less is more, not in this case. We don't really see how these characters fare, how they are truly FEELING, What happens, We just get a brief glimpse. There is such power to much of what I saw in Valmont, the end is just a letdown.
I also think Meg Tilley was miscast, I adore her from a very obscure film called:The girl on a swing. She's a great actress, she should have played one of the other roles, how about Benning's? (that would have been strange casting I know but it might have worked!) I did love the energy and the back and forth between Benning and Firth, very powerful.
I did enjoy Valmont despite the ending. It is a great period piece with great acting and powerful moments. I liked it but as of right now prefer Cruel Intentions although I would not hesitate to recommend Valmont to all. It was a good movie.
There isn't a lot of power to the ending, it leaves you just kind of wanting more or something. A good comparison would be Cruel Intentions which had POWER throughout. The ending in Valmont doesn't go with the rest of the movie, it kind of lets you down(I hope I'm kind of making sense here.) For how long the movie is and how closely we get to know the characters, there should have been something more at the end. They say many times, less is more, not in this case. We don't really see how these characters fare, how they are truly FEELING, What happens, We just get a brief glimpse. There is such power to much of what I saw in Valmont, the end is just a letdown.
I also think Meg Tilley was miscast, I adore her from a very obscure film called:The girl on a swing. She's a great actress, she should have played one of the other roles, how about Benning's? (that would have been strange casting I know but it might have worked!) I did love the energy and the back and forth between Benning and Firth, very powerful.
I did enjoy Valmont despite the ending. It is a great period piece with great acting and powerful moments. I liked it but as of right now prefer Cruel Intentions although I would not hesitate to recommend Valmont to all. It was a good movie.
Slightly bloated blandness
jeannine198021 March 2005
I heard somewhere that Milos Forman didn't reread "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" before writing the screenplay for Valmont, but worked instead from his memory of its sex-positive, good-natured blasphemy (my adjectives). I don't know if that's true, but it's a useful origin myth and yet, it renders the slightly bloated blandness of "Valmont" all the sadder. If its lurking turgidity could be blamed on fidelity to a well-padded book, the case would be unfortunate but not unusual. But the truth is that even the mush-mouthed Meg Tilly isn't entirely to blame for the film's lack of luster (although she does have a lot to answer for). No, the problem with "Valmont" is that there are no stakes. No character takes anything seriously, and it is therefore hard for a viewer to do so. Madame de Merteuil's constant, pretty smiles are those of the life of a fairly good party. The Vicomte de Valmont is a sweetie, really, and if he hurts a fly or two along the way, since the flies don't mind much, why should we? Of course, "Valmont" is supposed to be a satire on upper class hypocrisy - I get that. But it paints its portraits with such temperate clarity that it's impossible to miss this point and therefore there is nothing for a viewer to do, to root out, to think. "Valmont" is not a bad film it's just not a good one either. And yet, that is exactly why I have taken the time to write this comment, for I can think of few other films that are so puzzlingly not quite good in their consummate inoffensiveness.
Better than the other version
pekinman14 December 2004
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.
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.
The most under-appreciated version
n-mo25 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Of the four Western film adaptations of Laclos' notorious epistolary novel, Les liaisons dangereuses, Valmont is perhaps the least known, and if they do know of it, fans of the 1989 Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close and John Malkovich hold a rather low opinion of Valmont. To be sure, this one is definitely the inferior movie in terms of cinematic elegance and fidelity to the source, but it is not entirely fair to compare it to Dangerous Liaisons.
In the first place, for all its creative liberties, Valmont does stay true to the essentials of the novel. Yet unlike the other films, and rather in spite if its title, it chooses to focus on Cécile de Volanges rather than the Vicomte de Valmont and the Marquese de Merteuil as its main character. This Cécile is the only one since the Roger Valdin's black and white Les liaisons dangereuses who actually looks her young age, and certainly the only one who is even a remotely sympathetic character--which was not even the case in the novel, but this twist is definitely welcome. Fairuza Balk does a very convincing job of portraying an innocently naïve young girl, and for the first time one can appreciate the true magnitude of the nightmare inflicted upon her by these ruthless libertines. She had done nothing wrong, yet she was drawn into their relentless scheming and systematically destroyed.
The focus on Cécile, moreover, explains why Mme de Tourvel was not so central to the plot as she was in the novel or in other adaptations: this is Cécile's story, and that fact colors every other character. Thus it is not surprising that the dynamic between Colin Firth and Annette Bening is far softer, subtler, and sexier than that between other pairs who have filled these characters' roles: that was how Cécile, an innocent girl who looked up to the adults in her life, must have seen Valmont and Merteuil. Cécile's general naïveté manifests itself in the under-ripe look and feel of the film: it is beautiful while yet lacking a certain elegant edge.
Perhaps Cécile is depicted a bit too well, for the progression of her seduction is highly disturbing, even distressing, to watch. As well, her ultimate fate is deeply different from that suggested by the novel and by the other adaptations, and arguably more punitive (thanks in no small part to some very well-thought-out casting). This is not my favorite adaptation of that great jewel of eighteenth-century European literature, but it fulfills its mission.
In the first place, for all its creative liberties, Valmont does stay true to the essentials of the novel. Yet unlike the other films, and rather in spite if its title, it chooses to focus on Cécile de Volanges rather than the Vicomte de Valmont and the Marquese de Merteuil as its main character. This Cécile is the only one since the Roger Valdin's black and white Les liaisons dangereuses who actually looks her young age, and certainly the only one who is even a remotely sympathetic character--which was not even the case in the novel, but this twist is definitely welcome. Fairuza Balk does a very convincing job of portraying an innocently naïve young girl, and for the first time one can appreciate the true magnitude of the nightmare inflicted upon her by these ruthless libertines. She had done nothing wrong, yet she was drawn into their relentless scheming and systematically destroyed.
The focus on Cécile, moreover, explains why Mme de Tourvel was not so central to the plot as she was in the novel or in other adaptations: this is Cécile's story, and that fact colors every other character. Thus it is not surprising that the dynamic between Colin Firth and Annette Bening is far softer, subtler, and sexier than that between other pairs who have filled these characters' roles: that was how Cécile, an innocent girl who looked up to the adults in her life, must have seen Valmont and Merteuil. Cécile's general naïveté manifests itself in the under-ripe look and feel of the film: it is beautiful while yet lacking a certain elegant edge.
Perhaps Cécile is depicted a bit too well, for the progression of her seduction is highly disturbing, even distressing, to watch. As well, her ultimate fate is deeply different from that suggested by the novel and by the other adaptations, and arguably more punitive (thanks in no small part to some very well-thought-out casting). This is not my favorite adaptation of that great jewel of eighteenth-century European literature, but it fulfills its mission.
The lighter version of Les Liaisons Dangereruses
Smells_Like_Cheese27 January 2004
There was something wrong with this movie. It didn't really seem like the story Les Liaisons Dangereruses was going with. Of course there are some remarkable actors including little Fauruza Baulk. But I'm not sure about the movie or story that "Valmont" went with.
7/10
7/10
An okay movie but not really my thing
The-Sarkologist27 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was released at the same time as Dangerous Liasons, and it was based on the same screenplay as that movie. As such it found itself trailing behind the American version (which is a shame because the American Version is sadly lacking).
Valmont is set in France in 1781 and is focused on a young girl Cecile. The movie is basically about her coming of age and how she comes into the world of intrigue and manipulations. Cecile is discovering herself and her passions, but she is also discovering the world that she is coming into.
What this movie shows us is the excesses of the French nobility. One should consider that this movie is set eight years before the French Revolution, so in a sense the nobility is at its most corrupt, but even then this has been going on for ages.
This movie is about the manipulations of the nobility and how Cecile's mentor is teaching her about the reality of noble life, but also working her own goals as well. She does not want her husband to be be the first to sleep with Cecile, so she works with another of her lovers, the noble Valmont, to do it instead.
This movie is okay but it is not really one in my interests. The intrigue in this movie is not the type that I really appreciate, and in fact the reality behind the nobility in France is far more than what is portrayed here. The peasants were in a much worse situation than the nobles were, and by looking at this movie we can see how bad the nobility is. Cecile is an innocent girl, but she is quickly corrupted by the nobles' excesses. She wants to go with the guy she loves, but is constantly directed in the way of the nobles. In the end she becomes like the rest of them.
Valmont is set in France in 1781 and is focused on a young girl Cecile. The movie is basically about her coming of age and how she comes into the world of intrigue and manipulations. Cecile is discovering herself and her passions, but she is also discovering the world that she is coming into.
What this movie shows us is the excesses of the French nobility. One should consider that this movie is set eight years before the French Revolution, so in a sense the nobility is at its most corrupt, but even then this has been going on for ages.
This movie is about the manipulations of the nobility and how Cecile's mentor is teaching her about the reality of noble life, but also working her own goals as well. She does not want her husband to be be the first to sleep with Cecile, so she works with another of her lovers, the noble Valmont, to do it instead.
This movie is okay but it is not really one in my interests. The intrigue in this movie is not the type that I really appreciate, and in fact the reality behind the nobility in France is far more than what is portrayed here. The peasants were in a much worse situation than the nobles were, and by looking at this movie we can see how bad the nobility is. Cecile is an innocent girl, but she is quickly corrupted by the nobles' excesses. She wants to go with the guy she loves, but is constantly directed in the way of the nobles. In the end she becomes like the rest of them.
exceptional period dramatic comedy
greg88811 October 1999
Since discovering this film, it has since become one of my all-time favorite period pieces. There is a unique combination of lightness and frivolity on one hand, and the very darkest side of love, deception and manipulation on the other. Foreman's "Amadeus" also was an elegant period-piece which brought the extremes of comedy and drama together brilliantly. The highlights of this film, for me, must begin with Annette Bening. After all is said and done this is her movie. She is absolutely radiant. There is a remarkable breadth in her character. . . she displays a sweet sensitivity towards Cecile's innocence and you sense that she longs to return to that kind of experience in love. And yet she has turned cold, bitter, and resentful through her real life experiences with love. There is much more to be said. . . Colin Firth as Valmont is funny, charming, and very sly. His 'old aunt' is a treasure. Fairuza Balk (who I loved in her debut 'Return to Oz') well portrays the anxiety, anticipation and awkwardness of all teenagers starting to embrace love. The locations and costumes are lucious. There are the inevitable comparisons to 'Dangerous Liaisons,' also a very entertaining film. Personally, I think there's no need to compare them. They're both excellently written and acted. However, since 'Valmont' was missed by many, it needs to be brought to the attention of those who haven't yet had
Poorer and looser adaptation of the novel, than Dangerous Liaison
harunmushod7 July 2010
I've just watched "Valmont" and "Dangerous Liaisons" back to back and immediately after reading the book (I had seen "Dangerous Liaisons" before and loved it). I loved the book, and "Dangerous Liaisons" is good and reasonably faithful adaptation of it, and certainly close to its bitter spirit. "Valmont" is a much looser and poorer adaptation of the book, and thus deserved to lose out on its rival film. The acting in Valmont is pretty decent, particularly Colin Firth, but John Malkovitch (Valmont), Glenn Close (Merteuil) and Michelle Pfeiffer (de Tourvel) are much more convincing in Dangerous Liaisons. Only Fairuza Balk (Cecile) is more plausible in Valmont than her counterpart in Dangerous Liaisons (Una Thurman).
Sublime. If you're into sublimity.
sherapchogyal22 July 2018
The story of Liaisons Dangereuses has been told several times on film. Since '89 there have been no less than 3 versions. The gourmet, the fast food, and the junk food. Valmont is the gourmet. Some people don't like subtlety, so try the Malkovich or Ryan Philippe versions. This one has me enthralled from start to finish. Annette Bening and Colin Firth are at the top of their game. Milos Forman shows his absolute mastery here. I couldn't recommend a film more enthusiasticly.
The Man Who Could Not Love
gbheron11 July 2000
Valmont is a very entertaining romance set in the upper classes of 17th century France. Valmont, the title character, is a rogue and womanizer. He is very likable, but has a terrible flaw; he can't love, and that is his ultimate undoing.
Milos Forman and his crew expertly recreate the world of baroque France. The actors are excellent especially Colin Firth as Valmont. The pacing is lively, as Valmont's world unravels, or at least gets away from him. Lots could be written on the psychology of Valmont, and its relationship to that of the modern Western man. And the movie works on that intellectual level, but it also works as a period-piece costume romance. I recommend it.
Milos Forman and his crew expertly recreate the world of baroque France. The actors are excellent especially Colin Firth as Valmont. The pacing is lively, as Valmont's world unravels, or at least gets away from him. Lots could be written on the psychology of Valmont, and its relationship to that of the modern Western man. And the movie works on that intellectual level, but it also works as a period-piece costume romance. I recommend it.
Not so Good
mitcheaven9 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly, I don't think this movie is deserving of its current rating, so I feel compelled to comment as a sort of public service. To the people who said this movie was better than Dangerous Liasons: I have seen both films, and read the book, and you are wrong.
I do agree with the other reviewers that this film had a superior Cecille; Uma Thurman (Cecille in Dangerous Liasons) is way too godesslike and statuesque to convincingly play a 15-year-old naif. Also, the sets and costumes were pretty to look at. (But honestly? If I want pretty, I'll look at a coffee-table book about Versailles or something, not watch a two-hour movie.) That, I'm afraid, is where the superiorities end.
Here are some reasons this movie is pretty bad:
1. Way too long. I started to get antsy and began fast-forwarding through a lot of parts that seemed unnecessary, and it still felt too long. Apparently the director felt that after a character delivered a line of dialogue, there should be an enormous, pregnant silence before someone else spoke. Unbelievably annoying.
2. A lot of praise has been heaped on this movie for "softening" the characters of Valmont and Madame de Merteuil, as if that's supposed to be a good thing. The fact that these two people are so callous and evil is what drives the entire plot and makes the book so compelling. I was really disappointed in Firth's Valmonth, although I'm not sure if it was because Colin Firth can't convincingly play a cold-blooded monster, or because the screenplay robbed Valmont of his cold-bloodedness. He came across as a sort of bumbling, ineffectual lothario, so that when he said he had seduced and ruined hundreds of women, it was utterly unconvincing. One of the most interesting things about the novel is how Valmont softens as he falls in love with Madame de Tourvel; in this version, that's pretty much absent, since Valmont doesn't seem all that bad to begin with.
3. The plot was a mess. If I hadn't already read the book, I'm pretty sure I would have no idea what anyone's motivations were. What, exactly, is going on with Valmont and Madame de Tourvel? Why does she suddenly fall in love with him? What are his feelings towards her? Why does she suddenly leave? Why does Valmont become angry with Madame de Merteuil for refusing to uphold her end of their bet, but then refuse to claim the prize when she offers it to him? All this is left unexplored.
4. Meg Tilly is woefully miscast as Madame de Tourvel. It's hard to fathom why even this softer, less effectual Valmont would set his sights on a woman so uninteresting and unattractive.
5. Colin Firth has really, really bad hair. Like mullet bad.
You've been warned.
I do agree with the other reviewers that this film had a superior Cecille; Uma Thurman (Cecille in Dangerous Liasons) is way too godesslike and statuesque to convincingly play a 15-year-old naif. Also, the sets and costumes were pretty to look at. (But honestly? If I want pretty, I'll look at a coffee-table book about Versailles or something, not watch a two-hour movie.) That, I'm afraid, is where the superiorities end.
Here are some reasons this movie is pretty bad:
1. Way too long. I started to get antsy and began fast-forwarding through a lot of parts that seemed unnecessary, and it still felt too long. Apparently the director felt that after a character delivered a line of dialogue, there should be an enormous, pregnant silence before someone else spoke. Unbelievably annoying.
2. A lot of praise has been heaped on this movie for "softening" the characters of Valmont and Madame de Merteuil, as if that's supposed to be a good thing. The fact that these two people are so callous and evil is what drives the entire plot and makes the book so compelling. I was really disappointed in Firth's Valmonth, although I'm not sure if it was because Colin Firth can't convincingly play a cold-blooded monster, or because the screenplay robbed Valmont of his cold-bloodedness. He came across as a sort of bumbling, ineffectual lothario, so that when he said he had seduced and ruined hundreds of women, it was utterly unconvincing. One of the most interesting things about the novel is how Valmont softens as he falls in love with Madame de Tourvel; in this version, that's pretty much absent, since Valmont doesn't seem all that bad to begin with.
3. The plot was a mess. If I hadn't already read the book, I'm pretty sure I would have no idea what anyone's motivations were. What, exactly, is going on with Valmont and Madame de Tourvel? Why does she suddenly fall in love with him? What are his feelings towards her? Why does she suddenly leave? Why does Valmont become angry with Madame de Merteuil for refusing to uphold her end of their bet, but then refuse to claim the prize when she offers it to him? All this is left unexplored.
4. Meg Tilly is woefully miscast as Madame de Tourvel. It's hard to fathom why even this softer, less effectual Valmont would set his sights on a woman so uninteresting and unattractive.
5. Colin Firth has really, really bad hair. Like mullet bad.
You've been warned.
"Valmont" is better than "dangerous liason" in some ways
nirvana_8312 April 2002
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!
Sovereign
marcello-scattolini23 November 2013
I have just watched the movie. This is absolutely my top one, for so many reasons: storytelling is rich and dense, unforgettable acting, photography is amazing, scenarios are perfectly built, decorated and, at last, its progression is natural. Valmont is one of those movies we could never forget of. Its intrigue and sexual tension between all characters is simply out of this world. People's psychological profiles interaction work out almost as if the movie was a symphony. Innocence-driven decisions dance harmonically with persuasion and inducement capabilities. Well-crafted goals justify almost everything in the search of power, political evidence, social influence and "sexual superiority". Machiavelli would have been envious. All of this, alternated with some moments of great comedy and ease. Besides, when the two strongest characters decide to declare war against each other, Valmont gets even more delicious and delightful. If you are a "cinéphile", you should see it. If you are not, you should do the same. The movie is one of the most touching work-of-arts I have ever been exposed to. Amazing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
