MovieChat Forums > Valmont (1989) Discussion > Come on.. where is everybody?

Come on.. where is everybody?

posted 21 years ago by nirvanak
22 replies | jump to latest

Well. Noones here. So i'm just gonna rave to myself about how wonderful this movie is. I still like Dangerous Liasions better- umm is that how you spell it?- but Valmont is second best. Cruel Intentions is a bit wishy-washy. You can tell it's meant for teens. But i am a teen and i freakin loooovvvveeddd Valmont. Colin Firth was a bloody brilliant sexy evil con artist guy, and Annette Benning made me want to punch the t.v when she revealed her plan at the end. I dunno. Go watch it right after you see Cruel Intentions and THEN tell yourself what's better...

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] badpoet 20 years ago

Alas my copy of Valmont is still downloading, hopefully wont be too long. I liked Colin Firth for his intense yet restrained performance in the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (which I head is _the_ version to watch), but I've not really been too impressed with his roles since then.

I've recently seen the 1988 (Stephen Frears) version of Dangerous Liaisons and thought it was magnificent especially in conjuring up a real emotional bond with the tragic hero (Malkovich's) Valmont.

As for Cruel Intentions - I liked it when I saw it a couple of years ago - it updated and modernised a classic cautionary tale for today's younger audiences, who might perhaps not fully engage with its period predecessors. Imo it still stands up as a film in its own right, and I wouldn't label it as just-another-no-brainer-remake.

Anyway I'm going to actually watch Valmont in a day or two, and like the Governator said...

[–] badpoet 20 years ago

Watched it and liked it...even more lavish than Liaisons, though the characters lacked that manipulative Machiavelian edge that old Malko and Glenn Close so devilishly portrayed. A different film with its own strengths and weaknesses - another good telling of a classic tale....a bit late...gotta go

PS: does anyone ever come here?

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movie80 20 years ago

I think people go to Colin Firth's board and post messages about Valmont there.

[–] julia_doppelfeld 19 years ago

Hello badpoet! Can you tell me please where you downloaded "Valmont" from? I'd very much like to download it myself but I can't find the site. Please, please help me!!

Thanks a lot!

[–] busjahn 19 years ago

julia: a few months late I know... Vamont just showed up 20 hours ago on alt.binaries.boneless If you dont understand newsgroups, google it.

[–] minuetone 20 years ago

Dangerous Liasons is better.

Colin Firth seemed to be absentmindedly evil. I did not fear him, nor feel for him when he died, as I did JM.
Annette Benning smiled too sweetly.

Henry Thomas was too naive, not sexy enough.

[–] HalfBloodPrincess1967 20 years ago

I agree that Dangerous Liasons is better, although I thought that Fairuza Balk did a very good job as Cecile. Uma played the character as more of a ditz, whereas Ru was more naturally naive.

[–] imitationsanity 20 years ago

I agree that the guy who played Valmont was a fox. Merrowww...

Ooo and whatsherface was great as Cecile. Her naïveté annoyed me to some extent, but that's how the girl is. I guess it puts me off because there aren't that many teen girls like that now a days and that kind of innocence is strange to me...>_> Being a teen girl myself.

I'm positively dying to read the book now.

~The Cheat.

[–] HalfBloodPrincess1967 20 years ago

I've read the book. It's written as though the characters are writing letters to each other. Bram Stokers Dracula was written that way too. The sex isn't as obvious as it is in both of the films because the novel was written in the late 1700's or early 1800's. The book was banned in France for about the 1st 40 years it was out though because it was considered very scandalous for it's time.

[–] Hana_N 19 years ago

I haven't seen Cruel Intentions, but I prefer Valmont, because I didn't quite follow Dangerous Liasons that closely, seemed a bit confusing in my opinion. John Malkovich just doesn't seem like a charmer to me, I liked Glen Close's performance though. Uma Thurman as Cecile was a bit weird, she didn't seem young enough to be playing that role.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand. - Homer Simpson

[–] CarrieAnn 19 years ago

I have seen bits and pieces of Cruel Intentions, and I prefer Valmont a LOT more. I will confess that some people find it strange that as a 15 year old girl I enjoy this film.

"It says Keds"

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gosundancekid 19 years ago

eggplant86: Hi, what's the exact title of the film Sex games? I tried to look for it on IMDb but it's not under the title Sex games.

Thanks,
Andrea

[–] alexandrapierce 19 years ago

I saw 'Valmont' the other day on TV, and thought, 'this is very similar to 'Cruel Intentions'...' well, it would be, wouldn't it!
I am only 16 but found 'Valmont' a wonderful film, very opulent, and it captured the times.
Would you recommend 'Dangerous Liasons', or the book they are all based on? As I shall go hunt them out if so...

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alexandrapierce 19 years ago

It's by Choderlos de Lados, and called 'Les Liaisons Dangereuse'.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CatLover4 19 years ago

I loved all of them...Dangerous Liasions, Valmont (my favorite) and Cruel Intentions. Each movie brought something special to the screen. Another good story, if you like the Valmont, Dangerous Liasion era, is Barry Lyndon, with Ryan O'Neal. It was a Kubrick film...very long, but worth it, IMHO. Watch it if you get the chance, and enjoy!

"oooooh....someone needs a RAID enema to kill that bug up their ass!"

[–] Who (5146) 4 years ago

Wow, this might be the oldest thread in here.

[–] Redsfan001 (6004) 4 years ago

Good spot!

I spotted a 17 year old one a few months back (I think that is the max, but I could be wrong)