I haven't seen DL yet, but I'm curious if it's as enjoyable as Valmont. There's something comedic in Valmont, and I'm hearing DL is much more along the Cruel Intention lines. I love the characters of Valmont and Merteuil in Valmont, are there any similarites between those in DL?
So shines a good deed, in a weary world...
[deleted]
I must say that I found Valmont to be more lush in its settings. Remember that Milos Forman also did the lush period piece "Amadeus." DL was a bit dry as far as glorious scenery, costumes and so on.
Ah, the rapier wit of an armless D'Artagnan.
[deleted]
Nice review, Dellamorte--I concur point for point, right down to your star-rating for both films. Especially appreciate this because so often, folks will make DL to be the better film, and after comparing the two, I'd say DL really can't measure up to Valmont. I think it comes down, perhaps, to the fact that Malkovich was greatly in vogue at the time, as was Glenn Close. These things can sway viewers, as can the fact that DL beat Valmont to the screen.
"We pray you pardon all where we fell short--/seeing we were your servants to this last." -Kipling
If only...Michelle Pfeiffer was Tourvel in this version
then it would be perfect.
I agree - she would've been great in this version. Or Firth switching with Malkovich (I can't imagine anyone imagining him as the great lover!).
DOLLHOUSE Friday nights on Fox. The best show you're not watching.
I prefer DL, but Valmont is fine as well. The characters are played in a different tone -- same melody, different key, if you will. Glenn Close plays it very differently than Annette Bening, for example, and Uma Thurman certainly makes a different Cecile than Fairuza Balk. The biggest difference is Malkovich vs. Firth, and in my mind this is why DL is superior -- I think it's one of Malkovich's masterpieces, and I think Firth's performance suffers by comparison.
DL is darker in tone, but is still very lively.
Amazingly enough, it is.
(In my opinion, obviously.)
I think DL is slightly overrated on account of its starring actors' flair and... well, acting style.
It is an extremely effective film, there's no doubt about it.
Alas, I also think it's slightly (and needlessly) pretentious.
And "Valmont" is not.
Whenever I think of a certain crucial moment in the plot (that had a huge personal meaning for me), it's a scene from "Valmont" that I spontaneously remember - not DL.
They are, after all, the same characters, but "Valmont" died at the box office where "Dangerous Liasons" was a hit, and not just because it got to the theatres first.
"Valmont" had wonderful sets and costumes and an excellent Valmont in Colin Firth, more believable as an irresistible seducer than John Malkovitch.
Firth played him as less intelligent than Malkovitch, more of a moral vacuum than the positively evil character Malkovitch portrayed.
The problem with Valmont is in the casting of the female roles ... Fairuza Balk is fine in the relatively uncomplicated role of the virginal Cecile, but Meg Tilley and Annette Bening, (an actress I admire), give curiously flat performances, which are so similar in vocal tone that they can only have been developed in consultation with director Milos Forman. This fatally flaws the film.
He had a hit with "Amadeus", but I felt that it too was marred by peculiar emphases in performance. The same strange deadness in performance destroyed the otherwise lovely film, "Ragtime"
All in all, Forman seems to be a director who would do well to stick to art direction and leave actors strictly alone.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
[deleted]
Since his dazzling debut in "The Barchester Chronicles", that man has never put a foot wrong ... even if the film is mediocre, he never is.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
[deleted]
[deleted]
i thought DL won valmont in every single tick box. the actors in the latter were generally better looking (with the exception of thurman and pfieffer, two of the most stunning women of all time), that was hardly a fair trade in for the incredible performances by glenn close and john malkovich.
"they should give nicole kidman an oscar for being able to show any emotion after THAT much botox".
I preferred the hard, brittle "D.L" over the curiously listless, slow paced "Valmont" ... I also didn't like Fairuza Balk's performance or Colin Firth's for that matter, it was sort of like he was playing Mr. D'Arcy's slightly nastier French cousin.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
I adore Annette Bening's Merteuil better than Glenn Close's -- she is so lovely and charming, and is thus better able to hide her evil interior.
Colin Firth is not terrible, by any means, but Malkovich is simply superb as Valmont.
Oddly, or not, Merteuil is the key role in Valmont, while Valmont is the key role in Dangerous Liaisons.
I prefer Valmont, but just barely.
"Chacun a son gout", as the French aristos used to so foppishly say, before 1789.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
That's how unbelievable his performance was. He may have been able to seduce the middle-aged spinsters who loved his performance - but a teen-aged virgin - what a fantasy.
share