Making this garbage in 1989 right after Dangerous Liaisons in 1988 was an insane attemt and failed shamefully. These mini-mouse actors and their work tuned out to be a complete joke. Glenn Close and John Malkovich were phenomenal in Dangerous Liaisons. Nobody should dare to dare to remake that, it would be putting a mouse next to a lion. Annette Bening shouldn't show her face again.
shareClose and Malkovich may have been "phenomenal," but they WEREN'T Merteuil and Valmont.
Oddly enough, this movie was closer to the spirit and style of the original book, despite some pretty glaring departures from its plot.
For ex. -- In the book Cécile is not pregnant at her wedding, but suffers a miscarriage; Mme de Merteuil is utterly disgraced, and banished from society, as well as being facially disfigured -- whereas in this movie she's still clearly around. This movie gives a much more gentle outcome to Mme de Tourvel, who apparently reconciles with her husband, and does not die.
For the best dramatization of "Liaisons Dangereuses," my vote still goes to the early 1960s modern-dress version directed by Roger Vadim, with Jeanne Moreau and Gérard Philipe. Moreau was born to play Merteuil -- she is absolutely peerless.
I enjoyed both versions (my wife and I just watched them both, one after the other, for purposes of comparison), although I do agree with your fundamental contention that "Dangerous Liaisons" was superior to "Valmont."
Uma Thurman was very poorly cast in "Dangerous Liaisons," however. The more appropriately youthful actress who played "Cecile" in "Valmont" was far superior. Thurman's towering height made every scene in which she appeared seem faintly ridiculous.
Been making IMDB board posts since the 90s, yet can't bring up any from before December of 2004.
[deleted]
Calm down, you! I haven't seen Valmont but I don't care because Dangerous Liaisons was made after a wonderful play with British actors (Les Liaisons Dangereuses) so I could say how Frears dared to cast those actors to make the film. At least Valmont was another version but Dangerous Liaisons was a COPY of the play. The credit of this story should go to actors Lindsay Duncan and Alan Rickman and director Howard Davis. They made a hit of this play and they were better but by that time they were just unknown stage actors.
I don't have any problem with Glenn Close and John Malkovich, I think they're wonderful but not for films like this for god shake! Especially Malkovich, he's creepy! Besides, I find it quite unfair that a bunch of great actors were working in this play for two years (from 1985 to 1987) in England and Broadway and when Hollywood wanted a movie of this (because they saw this was such an incredible story) they hired new American actors.
Lindsay Duncan (Merteuil) and Alan Rickman (Valmont) were way better. More attractive and truly seductive.
How often do the actors in a play, no matter how successful, get the nod from Hollywood ? You can count them on one hand with a couple of fingers left over. Unfortunately, that is just the way it is.
"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"
I wouldn't call this version garbage.
Believe me, I prefer DL but this version had its hallmarks. I think the leads were more attractive. Unfortunately it cut out all the bite of the book and turned into a drawing room farce gone wrong. Which I thought strange. It also cut off Valmont's redemption. Which ultimately makes this light hearted film unexpectedly cynical in the wrong place.
Anyway it is lovely to look at and I feel quite sorry that it doesn't get the notice it deserves. It is almost impossible to get it on DVD now and it isn't even on iTunes or other download sites.
ETA: It is now offered by Amazon's on demand service for rental or purchase. I thought I saw it on iTunes once, but it is no longer available.
Hmmm...for me DL was like a rich oil painting whereas Valmont was more an impressionist water colour. Both pleasant and enjoyable in their way, but one makes more of an impact.
The only casting I preferred in Valmont was the young girl who played Cecile - if she'd taken Uma's place in DL, that would have been perfect. Uma looked about 30 - hard to buy as an ingénue.
The worst choice of actor was Meg Tilly. Good God, what an uninspired piece of casting that was. Each time a scene with her finished, I immediately forgot that Madame de Tourvel even existed. You could never say that of Pfieffer's de Tourvel. Pfeiffer was luminescent - you could feel her struggle as she warred with herself over her feelings for Valmont.
Benning as Merteuil was rather insipid. She just seemed like a bit of fluff who liked to go to the opera with a fake smile plastered on her face, whereas Close as Merteuil came across as a force to be reckoned with. Possessed of a mind constantly in motion and plotting, a powerful player in social circles, which made her fall from grace all the more effective (it's not even clear what happens to Benning's Merteuil at the end of the movie). Close was almost regal and Benning seemed like a little girl playing at dress-ups in comparison.
Again, Firth seemed like a boy compared with the almost menacing Malkovich as Valmont. There was a real danger in Malkovich's characterisation. You don't get any sense of danger with Firth. He didn't present as having enough wit to contrive to tie his shoe-laces! But Valmont in the hands of Malkovich, was canny and, like Close's Merteuil, adept at the art of manipulation.
And Keanu had a beautiful sweetness and innocence about him as Danceny, his romantic yearnings were written all over his face whenever Cecile was in the room. Thomas came across as grumpy and churlish most of the time - what's romantic about that? Why would any girl be inspired by his surly, awkward and bumbling overtures? Give me the graceful and romantic Reeves as Danceny every day of the week and twice on Sunday!
Edited to add: Madame de Volanges. As much as I love and adore Sian Phillips and think she is a goddess among thespians, the way the role was written for this movie just didn't give her enough to do. She just played a kindly, overprotective, if somewhat ambitious for her daughter, woman. Swoozie was wonderful as Volanges, a nervous hen of a mother, snooty, judgemental and nosy! Her scenes with Malkovich and Close were a delight.
Side note: anyone who's seen Phillips in I Claudius knows that she would have made the mother of all Merteuil's in her day!
So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb
I thought Malkovich felt much too dangerous too often, his claims to Tourvel of being reformed felt too clearly insincere; Firth had a lot of charm and some darkness but could have had some more intensity in dealing with Merteuil. I agree Close was better as her character, I thought she was really good with both intensity with Valmont and apparent charm with the other characters.
shareDangerous Liaisons was better
Kramer: ...he was very impressed with what I do.
Elaine: What you do? You don't do anything!