Valmont

While the movie "Dangerous Liaisons" (a literal translation of Choderlos Laclos's novel "Les Liaisons Dangereuses") was also much more literal in following the plot of the book, I found it disappointing. It had a good script, a good cast, but no soul. John Malkovich was not Valmont, Glenn Close was not Madame de Merteuil, and I couldn't remotely envision either of them generating sparks either off each other or anyone else. But Milos Forman's reworking of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" as the movie "Valmont" is a success all around, and a much better film than its predecessor. There are two areas in which the movie departs radically from the book. I always thought the ending of the book was too slanted toward the need to show that crime does not pay, and hence Madame de Merteuil gets her comeuppance in a disastrous lawsuit which reduces her to penury and a confluent smallpox which makes a transfigures her beauty into ugliness ("her soul is visible on her face"). In "Valmont", however, Forman realizes that evil often wins out, after a fashion, and so we have Madame de Merteuil, if not flaunting it over her rivals, still able to be herself and continue her life of malicious intrigue. The story opens when Madame de Merteuil, to revenge herself on being dumped by her lover the Count de Gercourt, who is going to marry Cecile de Volanges, a young girl right out of the convent whom he prizes for her innocence and virginity (a polar opposite from Madame de Merteuil who is amorality itself), maneuvers Valmont, her old friend and former lover, to seduce Cecile before her marriage, so that Gercourt will realize on his wedding night that he is getting damaged goods after all. Annette Bening was devastating in this role. She brought out all of the Madame de Merteuil's superficial charm which captivated so many people, and her underlying deviousness and soullessness. Colin Firth, who was hopelessly miscast as Darcy in the A&E production of "Pride and Prejudice", was just right as Valmont; unlike Malkovich, whose portrayal of Valmont was purely one-dimensional, Firth also showed the character's vulnerability and sensitivity which he tried to mask behind his cynicism. And Fairuza Balk was a delight as Cecile de Volanges; one wants to ask how anyone over the age of seven could be so hopelessly naive. But the biggest treat in this movie is Fabia Drake as Madame de Rosemonde, Valmont's old aunt. In the book, Madame de Rosemonde is a saintly contrast to Valmont's predatory selfishness; in this movie, she is wickedly funny and much more in sync with her nephew than she is in the book. (There is a delicious bit near the movie's end where Madame de Rosemond and Cecile share a joke at Gercourt's expense, right in the middle of Cecile's wedding.) The second area where the movie and the book part company is the fate of Madame de Tourvel. Madame de Tourvel is the faithful wife who finally surrenders, against her better judgement, to the man she loves; only to discover that she has been used and abandoned. In the book, this so devastates her that she retires to a convent and dies of a broken heart. In the movie, however, she follows Valmont out of desperation, gets him to take her back into his bed for one more night, and coming to her senses in the morning, abandons him as he had previously left her, returning to her husband. Valmont is a truly pitiable figure at this point, especially when he realizes that Madame de Merteuil has played him far more effectively than he thought he was playing Madame de Tourvel; Firth's acting in this movie makes us sympathize with Valmont, whereas Malkovich just made us glad he got what was coming to him. In the end, "Valmont" is not "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" and it doesn't try to be. It's a reworking of the book on its own merit, and it stands up brilliantly.

I first saw Dangerous Liaisons with Glen Close and John Malkovich many years ago and it became a favorite. Then I found out about this movie, Valmont. Same basic story, but some differences. Having never read the original novel, I have no idea which movie is closer to the book, though I suppose it doesn't really matter unless you are a literary purist. Though both movies have their strengths and weaknesses, IMO Valmont is the better movie overall. Though I am a huge Malkovich fan, he is so reptilian in Dangerous Liaisons it is hard to accept him as a great seducer of women. Still, if you are fascinated by the evils that can come from pride, lust, jealousy and revenge, you will probably want to watch both movies.

This movie was made around the same time as the more famous Dangerous Liaisons, but is a much more enjoyable film. The cast is much better. Cecile and Danceny are appropriate in age and naivety, and Colin Firth and Annette Bening are MUCH more believable as seducer and seductress than are John Malkovich and Glenn Close. While the latter actors do possess a certain Machiavellian quality, I find them more creepy than attractive in these roles, therefore, hard to accept as successful in the arts of seduction. Meg Tilly's Presidente de Tourvel, while perhaps less overtly appealing than Michelle Pfeiffer, who plays the role in Dangerous Liaisons, is more believable in the role because of her comparative lack of sophistication and worldliness. Valmont also has a much lighter tone than Dangerous Liaisons, which may belie the title, but in my opinion, is truer to the epistolary novel on which both films are based. My only complaint is with the script of Valmont, which changes some vital aspects of the story and robs the viewer of a bit of satisfaction with the ending. The film has Valmont immediately rejecting Presidente de Tourvel after seducing her, seemingly more eager to claim his reward from Madam de Merteuil, who rejects his claim for no apparent reason. In the novel, Valmont continues to see Presidente de Tourvel and seems to be sincerely falling in love with her. This evokes Madame de Merteuil's jealousy, which is why she rejects Valmont and forces him to abandon Presidente de Tourvel. The film also robs us of Valmont's delicious postmortem revenge on Madame de Merteuil. In the film, she is certainly sad, but her duplicity remains a secret and her face remains unravaged. The book gives us a much more satisfying ending in that respect. It also changes what happens to Presidente de Tourvel. While these changes may be in keeping with the films overall light tone, it is much less satisfying than the more vengeful version. However, all in all, this is a more enjoyable film to watch than it's more famous rival.

Colin Firth…any movie he’s in…excellent

Brilliantes Meisterwerk von Milos Forman, das durch den Erfolg von Stephen Frears "Dangerous Liaisons" leider in den Schatten gerückt war. Dabei schenken sich beide Filme nichts: Sie sind völlig unterschiedlich - und gleich gut. Während Frears sich peinlich genau an die literarische Vorlage hält, entnimmt Forman dem berühmten Roman lediglich den allgemeinen Plot und interpretiert ihn auf ganz eigene Weise. Dem Regisseur geht es nicht darum, jemanden zu verurteilen, zu entlarven oder die Abgründe der menschlichen Seele darzustellen: "Valmont" ist ein Film über die Nuancen der Liebe und wirkt licht, leicht, luftig und voller Lebensfreude - auch wenn dort herzzerreißende Momente vorkommen wie das zweite Wiedersehen zwischen Valmont und Mme de Turveil. Einige Momente aus diesem Film sind meiner Meinung nach in die Annalen der besten Filmszenen aller Zeiten eingegangen, wie z.B. die Tanzszene auf Schloss Rosemonde, in der Valmont mit drei verschiedenen Frauen tanzt und ihr jeweiliges Verhältnis dabei ohne Worte ersichtlich wird. Meisterhaftes Schauspiel (Colin Firth und Annette Bening auf dem Gipfel ihrer Ausstrahlung!), wunderschöne Kostüme und Landschaften sowie eine leichte, charmante, humorvolle Traurigkeit - für mich einer der besten Filme aller Zeiten.

Il s'agit d'une adaptation très libre du roman de Choderlos de Laclos, ''Les Liaisons Dangereuses''. Même si Milos Forman en prend large avec l'histoire du roman, le film est très intéressant et se laisse aisément regarder. Stephen Frears en avait également une adaptation en 1988, plus fidèle au roman, mais les personnages de ''Valmont'' sont un tantinet plus sympathiques, bien qu'aussi libertins. J'ai adoré le film.

What a beautiful film this is to watch! The actors are great, the costumes and sets are gorgeous, and the story is told in a light hearted tone with a healthy dose of humour. Despite her devious scheeming, Annette Benning's Merteuil is such a tease that it is a joy to watch her, and Colin Firth also plays Valmont with a twinkle in his eyes. Right to the end this is a character who enjoys life to the last and makes a joke of the most serious things. Fairuza Balk is well cast as the naive young bride Cecile, and Siân Phillips as her watchful mother is pure gold. Also worth mentioning is Fabia Drake as the elderly Madame de Rosemonde, who looks like she might die any minute, but who proves to be very much alive and still full of mischief. The DVD is fine, picture and sound are decent. The entire film is great fun and very watchable (and re-watchable). Highly recommended for a couple hours of escapism. And: You do get to see Colin Firth in a wet shirt!

un superbe film historico-érotique ou manipulation et trahison son monnaie courante. De superbe costume, de bons acteurs de quoi passer un agréable moment de cinéma

In francese con i sottotitoli o in inglese senza di essi, questo film è decisamente spumeggiante e ricco di intrighi e colpi di scena... I costumi e le ambientazioni sono favolosi e aderenti al periodo storico... Una vicenda che parrebbe leggera e invece a ben guardare maschera un "vuoto" che può condurre ad estreme conseguenze... Bravissimi i protagonisti, ne consiglio la visione...