MovieChat Forums > Valmont (1989) Discussion > why was this film even made?

why was this film even made?

posted 14 years ago by harfordamanda
30 replies | jump to latest

although i can tolerate Valmont it's an exact carbon copy of Dangerous Liasons except more sugar coated. DL was much more exciting and entertaining and there really was no need for Valmont at all. I thought when i first saw it that it was going to be a prequel to DL showing all his previous exploits which would of been a good movie but sadly enough it had to be the same story at least to a point. B-O-R-I-N-G. Cruel intentions was good though in an updated dirtier way but Valmont I could live without.

[–] bluzup-1 12 years ago

valmont was a better made film, the actors were better , the costumes were better. the film all around was better. dangerous liasons was boring and although i like glenn close she was horrible and john malkovich was not handsome enough to be valmont. all in all a much better piece of work

[–] WalterDenton 11 years ago

I agree, this was slop, some pathetic casting, this sort of film is made for horny represeed people.

"It's the stuff that dreams are made of."

[–] MyMovieTVRomance 11 years ago

I agree, this was slop, some pathetic casting,

The film was beautiful in many aspects, but I agree with you about the casting -- I didn't care for Colin Firth, nor did I like Tilly -- she was the very worst! About the only person I liked in this movie was Anneette Bening -- but I was distracted by how sweet she seemed. As much as I like her, I think I prefer Glenn Close's more sinister take on the character -- because despite the cynicism, she was somehow very likable.

this sort of film is made for horny represeed people.

Ha ha, that's me! And I have no shame about it either!

Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!

[–] VoltaCabra 11 years ago

I agree apart from when you say that Cruel Intentions was good.

Valmont was just a bit schlocky, IMO. And WAY too long. Dangerous Liaisons was well acted and very precise and intelligent in dialogue. I often found the dialogue in Valmont to be really uninspired and some of the acting was just awful. I thought Colin Firth did well with his part, but some of his dialogue was so bad that there really wasn't much he could do with it. Annette Bening was...okay. She might be (definitely is) sexier than Glenn Close...but you can't even compare their acting abilities: Glenn Close blows her right out of the water in her wet dressing gown and all. Fairuza Balk did fair acting I suppose, but I'd say Uma Thurman was better. And don't get me started on Meg Tilly. She's a really pretty girl but she's not a very good actress and was all wrong for the part. She just seemed too modern and a bit too tomboyish at times.

And the way they set up the plot was not good either. There was supposedly some challenge to the Firth/Tilly seduction, but I didn't see it. The writing there was particularly lax. I did actually enjoy some of Valmont. The sets were pretty and some of the scenes were enjoyable in a sort of guilty pleasure miniseries way...but it just wasn't on par with Dangerous Liaisons. Though there was a lot of attempt at conflict, it was really fuzzy throughout. It didn't have the precision or the poison of Dangerous Liaisons. And by the time half of it was over I was bleary-eyed and just hung on with a death-grip, determined to finish it since I had started it. Dangerous Liaisons is thoroughly enjoyable and worth watching many times over. Tonight is the first and last time I'll see Valmont.

[–] marousha_n 9 years ago

All the actors in DL were miscast. That killed all the movie. Did Uma Thurman look 15 to you? Or Keanu Reeves 17? Were Glenn Close and John Malkovich charming and sexy? You must be deluded to say that movie was better. The casting choices killed it before it got a chance. Nothing in it was credible because of that. I only watched it because I love John Malkovich. But he was miscast regardless.

"Relics of ancient times. Lonely cenotaphs. Standing along that melancholy tideland."

[–] zargmatt-73661 7 years ago

I'm a fan of the director Milos Forman and Colin Firth > John Malkovich as lead just about every damn time. Malkovich shines more as a supporting role. I've seen Valmont at least 3 times all the way through and then random moments here and there from when it was (often) syndicated on cable movie channels in the '90s.

I also have the hots for Annette Bening as Merteuil and Colin Firth makes you almost like the character of Valmont, which might make the movie feel more "light hearted" but that makes her betrayal all the more horrific.

I also enjoy Dangerous Liasons (1988) but the rewatchability of Valmont (1989) is higher for me because of my obvious bias for the director and actors.