User reviews

"Valmont" is a 1989 film based on the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos, as well, of course, the better-known film Dangerous Liaisons starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich.

Here, Annette Benning is the Merteuil who is stunned to learn that her lover, Gercourt (Jeffrey Jones) is betrothed to the fifteen-year-old virginal Cecile (Fairuza Balk). She makes a bet with her Casanova-like friend Valmont (Colin Firth) that he can seduce Cecile so that on her wedding night, she is not a virgin, thus giving Merteuil revenge against Gercourt. Of course, the best-laid plans and all that - Cecile is in love with her music teacher (Henry Thomas), and Merteuil aids and abets the romance as much as possible. But things become more and more complicated, with Valmont, the eternal playboy, actually falling in love himself. And as the story says, once you fall in love, your power is gone.

This film is far superior to the more famous one. Forman is a fantastic director, and the cast warms up what is basically a cold, calculated story and really makes you care.

Annette Bening is more full-dimensional than Close's Martueil - she's beautiful, smart, and she's so sweet and lies so beautifully one has no idea what she's really like. Firth's Valmont is far more believable than Malkoitch's egomaniacal portrayal.

Henry Thomas is the desperately in love music teacher - it's good casting, but he comes off as too modern. It's a minor point because the entire cast is wonderful, including Fabia Drake as Madame de Rosemond, Sian Philips, Meg Tilly, and Fairuza Balik.

The film is beautiful to look at, sumptuously and carefully produced. It's a sad case of being the second film version out when the first was better marketed with a more American cast. Nevertheless, it's not too late to discover this gem.

I notice a bit of a war going on between partisans of this and "Dangerous Liaisons" (the Glenn Close/John Malkovich/Stephen Frears vehicle). I'm not entirely sure why, but I find "Valmont" so much better. I think it's because: A) Milos Forman is unquestionably a better director than Frears, especially when he can call on the photographic talents of a cinematographer like Miroslav Ondricek; B) "Valmont" takes the time to develop some of the relationships between characters on screen, while the other simply injects the viewers into preexisting relationships; C) Colin Firth and Annette Benning are quite simply sexier than Glenn Close and John Malkovich; "Dangerous Liaisons" is too intellectual, while "Valmont" works at the hormonal level too. D) Fairuza Balk is far more believable as a virgin than Uma Thurman (can anyone say differently?!?). I certainly acknowledge "Dangerous Liaisons" as a well-made, well-acted film, but in the end I find it nearly unwatchable compared to "Valmont", which I can (and have) enjoyed over and over.

Cecile (Fairuza Balk) is a 15 year old who has been living in a convent for 6 years. She's happy that her mother Madame de Volanges (Siân Phillips) has arranged a marriage for her to Gercourt (Jeffrey Jones). Volanges trusts her cousin Marquise de Merteuil (Annette Bening) to guide Cecile but she doesn't know that Gercourt discarded Merteuil as his lover. For revenge, Merteuil intends to spoil Cecile's virginity and thereby her pending marriage to Gercourt. She asks her former lover, the Vicomte de Valmont (Colin Firth), to do the seducing but he refuses. He is more interested in bedding the married Madame de Tourvel (Meg Tilly). Merteuil makes an indecent bet with Valmont. Meanwhile Cecile falls for her music teacher Danceny (Henry Thomas).

Director Miloš Forman brings a lascivious feeling to the material. The romance is drained out of this which is replaced with something darker. Fairuza Balk is shockingly young which only adds to its forbidden realism. Whereas the great Dangerous Liaisons feels luscious and beautiful, this version feels dirtier and uglier. Annette Bening is wonderful. This is an interesting second look at the same story.

Annette Bening has proved again what a versatile actress she is. She positively emanates cruelty and perverseness in this film, but she is the epitome of sweetness in "American President" and fragility in "American Beauty." The pleasure her character takes in causing others' pain makes one easily imagine her reincarnated as a Gestapo torturer. Colin Firth is, as usual, handsome, charming, and believable. Fairuza Balk completely captures the confusion, excitement, and naiveté one would expect of a girl reentering the world after years in a convent. Meg Tilly shows a depth that I hadn't expected and Fabia Drake is wonderful as the hard-of-hearing, elderly, but wise, matron. The costumes and sets were exquisite and evoked the period completely. I highly recommend this for the performances and the ambiance.

Milos Forman's Valmont is ultimately no better and no worse an adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuse than Dangerous Liaisons by Stephen Frears which made it into theaters months earlier. Both are entertaining, yet both dip into tedium around the three-quarter point because the web of aristocratic intrigues they are following gets too tangled for a two-hour screen treatment.

"Valmont" occupies a wider canvas which encompasses visual reminders that the privileged central characters live amidst a largely impoverished society. As soon as horse-drawn carriage gallops away from palace or mansion, the squalid reality of the streets of Paris is revealed. Frears's "DL" is able to show the same difference by closing in on relationships such as the intimate master-servant morning rituals that open his film. Forman's "Valmont" humanizes the main characters by toning down their cruelty and blunting their extremes. By contrast, in "DL" Glenn Close plays the Comtesse de Merteuil with a cold reserve that dissolves into hysteria whereas Annette Bening in "V" exudes a high-wattage, tightly controlled gaiety which remains more or less constant throughout. Colin Firth's Valmont is more dashing and virile than John Malkovich's, but his performance lacks the corrupt menace which Malkovich provides in overly strong doses. Firth's seduction of the young Cecile (Fairuza Balk), is brilliantly conceived, staged and performed. Meg Tilly as Mme. De Tourvel has a simplicity and vulnerability that eluded Michelle Pfeiffer in DL, and Tilly doesn't strain for effects. She and Firth are also a better physical match, and the development of their relationship makes more sense here. Henry Thomas as the music tutor in love with young Cecile has much more screen time than Keanu Reeves in DL, which is all for the better because he has the acting chops to pull it off – a 17-year-old with more principles and purity than all of the adults in his orbit combined. Whereas "Valmont" is a diffuse and leisurely satire, DL is a highly stylized tragedy.

"Valmont" ventures into the decadence of 18th century French aristocracy where Firth (Valmont) and Benning involve themselves in wickedness and sexual intrigues. The film, one of several spin-offs of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, is well cast and acted (though the absence of French accents is obvious); sets and costuming lavish; scenery sumptuous; and the screen play and script excellent. The 2+ hour run passes swiftly though the end seems to want for something more. A fun romp for those into period films.

...You feel like you're watching a Bridget Jones movie set in the 18th century. This film feels like a comedy. It's not, and that's the problem. Milos Forman is not going to make a bad film, because he's a damn good director. "Amadeus" is one of my favourite films ever, the period is the same (1780s), and formally is marvellous too, but the material is completely different. This story is wicked and this film just does not capture how wicked, twisted, cruel and depraved the characters really are. They are all lovable and nice, even though they still do wicked things. But the Coyote and Roadrunner do really wicked things to each other and they're funny... Watching this movie and "Dangerous Liaisons" back to back is a textbook example of how the very same material can be explored in very different ways. This is lighter. "Dangerous Liaisons" IMO does more justice to the material and although Uma Thurman is totally unbelievable as a 15 year old virgin, the rest of the cast runs circles around Colin Firth as Valmont (too British), Annete Benning and Meg Tilly. John Malkovich and Glenn Close are just unbeatable in those roles. Henry Thomas is better than Keanu Reeves (period never suited Keanu, did it?). Very watchable film, develops certain aspects better, but overall the story's treatment does not need Jane Austen overtones, but "Silence of the Lambs" ones.

I liked this better than Dangerous Liaisons which came out at about the same time. Of course Dangerous Liaisons was very good, and John Malkovich, who played Vicomte de Valmont, is an actor of power, and Glenn Close, who played the Marquise de Merteuil, is highly accomplished, but I preferred the charm of Colin Firth in this film to the brutality of Malkovich, and I thought Annette Bening was just delightful. She played Merteuil with exquisite timing and an ironic witchery and warmth that I shall not soon forget. I preferred her playful, sly wit to Close's cool cynicism.

The story comes from a novel by Choderlos de Laclos set in 18th century France that was made into a stage play by Christopher Hampton. It is a cynical satire on human sexuality as well as a very subtle examination of sexual hypocrisy and desire, a kind of oh so sophisticated laugh at bourgeois morality that would have delighted Voltaire and Moliere and greatly amused Shakespeare. It is a tale of elaborate lechery and revenge that backfires because it seems that anybody, even the most jagged rake can fall in love, and thereby become the victim. The central assumption here is the same as that of the Cavalier poets, namely that marriage kills love. As Merteuil says, "You don't marry your lover."

Meg Tilly played Madame de Tourvel with subtlety and a riveting passion. One of the great sequences in the movie occurs after she has fallen madly in love with Valmont against her will. She stands outside his doorway in the rain for hours looking adoringly and forlornly up at his window. And then she is allowed to enter and receive a cool reception. Valmont says, "Do you want me to lie to you?" and she replies desperately, "Yes," and then it is her passion that overwhelms him, leading to a beautifully ironic twist. Shortly afterward he sees Merteuil, who has become more like a sister than an ex-lover, and says, "I feel awful." She replies, "Are you surprised? (Pause) You are an awful man." Hanging his head he continues, "Do you think a man can change?" "Yes. (Pause) For the worse."

This theme, that it is the beloved who has the power and that once you fall in love you lose all power, is repeated several times in the movie. Valmont pursues women, the harder to get the better, with a relentless and maniacal passion, but once he has them, he immediately loses interest. His making love absentmindedly to Cecile de Volanges (played with wide-eyed innocence and girlish charm by Fairuza Balk) was an incredible irony when we consider what she would cost Gercourt, played with his rather substantial nose in the air by Jeffrey Jones, whom you may recall as the pratfalling principal in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986).

There is some insidious philosophy here, some sardonic observations on human nature worth mentioning. One is that the man beloved of women gets most of the reproductive tries, and regardless of his rakishness, is still beloved. Another is that duplicity is the accepted, even required, standard of behavior in society, and that when it comes to sex, one must, perforce, always lie.

Milos Forman's direction was invisible and therefore a work of art. The incidental scenes and backdrops depicting the color, squalor and decadence of pre-revolutionary France added just the right amount of atmosphere. The costumes were stunning and much cleaner than they would have been in reality. The elegance and beauty of all the titled people merrily contrasted with the crude ugliness of the common people, rightly reflecting the effete snobbery of the aristocracy before the time of the guillotine.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

I think I've seen all the variations on a theme of this story, which, in turn, is a variation on the Don Juan legend. Of all of them, I like this one best.

Colin Firth is a marvelous Valmont. Firth is a VERY subtle actor. Early in the film, he pretends to be helpless in the water, unable to swim in order to elicite a response from his victim,(Tilly), but when his actions do not receive the response he expected, his face changes immediately. He is no longer the smiling, charmer, but a man furious that his plan was thwarted. These changes in expression happen in an instant. The alteration of his features is absolutely chilling.

It is, to me, far more effective to have the villian of the piece LOOK like an angel, than to look like what he really is (Malkovitch).

Annette Benning, with her delicate beauty and dimple certainly doesn't look like the scheming, sexual predator that she really is.

There is one scene in which Firth really does a virtuoso performance. He dances with four women in turn. First, he dances with his elderly Aunt. This lady still loves to flirt. He is graceful and charming and flatters her outrageously. Next he dances with his 15 year old prey. Here he cappers like a 15 year old, which delights and disarmes her. Next, Valmont dances with Benning, his former lover. Here he is remote and aloof. It is SHE who flirts with him! He withholds what she knows should be hers. THEN he dances with the woman he has fallen in love with. He has a bet with Benning that he can bed this married, pious lady. In this dance he is sensual and genuine. SHE reacts with the most rapturous expressions and movements I have ever seen on screen. Meg Tilly and Colin Firth dancing in this sequence are breathtaking to behold.

Because all of the feelings of the characters in Valmont are so beautifully acted, Firth, Benning, Tilly and Balk are all believable and because you believe in them you also feel their pain.

Each character suffers because of decisions they have made, over and above the seductions that do take place.

A marvelous film that I recommend to those over 18. There are some explicite scenes in this film that are too hot for young people.

I must confess that the first time I saw that movie, few years after it's release, I couldn't help, but find it a pale version of Stefan Freirs "Dangerous Liaison". Recently I have seen both movies and I must say that my opinion is quite the opposite now. In "Valmont" everything is subtle and I think this is why most people didn't get it. You can destroy someone's life without having written "I'm Bad!" on your forehead. With her slow-velvet voice Annette Bening is a snake under a rock:she is terrifying. As for Colin Firth's Valmont he is charming, he flies like a butterfly, but he knows exactly what he is doing. We believe in his seduction not because we are told to but because we are seduced ourselves. People have been saying that Valmont was too light, too boyish. There is nothing boyish in the way he says at Mme de Tourvelle "Is that what you want?" You see at that point how his hight-pitched voice, that goes with his voice and smile, is only a mask, as powder was John Malkovitch's mask. Colin Firth said that Milos Forman was too subtle for his own good and I think this is why some people can still find "Dangerous Liaisons" more powerful. As for "Valmont" even if the end is a bit weak, I wouldn't hesitate to say that it is from far the best version of the two movies. For those who go by the book, as I once did, you might be puzzled by the differences with the original story but for its deep sensitivity, its wonderful cast and this art of subtlety, it's really worth every moment of it.

The only reason I rate this movie as generously as six stars ("forgettable, plus") is Annette Bening. Would that she had been cast in Dangerous Liaisons, another adaptation, released around the same time, of the same book. She brings a winning charm to the depraved Marquise de Merteuil that makes the character's personal and social power, as well as her motivations as an everywoman, much more believable and understandable.

Other than that, the story was absolutely botched by just how "freely adapted" it was from Chorderos de Laclos's brilliant novel. The screen writers changed the ending of de Laclos's story so much that the film becomes a vapid period romance. It loses everything that is so searing and moving about the book.

Madame de Tourvel was also badly written. Why Valmont finds her (in particular, among other women faithful to their husbands) so fascinating, remains a mystery. I like Meg Tilly, but, in this role, she is completely outshone by Michelle Pfeiffer, who also has a better written part, in Dangerous Liaisons.

The part of Cecile was better cast in Valmont with Fairiza Balk than in Dangerous Liaisons with Uma Thurman - principally because Balk appears to be and conveys the requisite vulnerability of a real fifteen-year-old. Uma Thurman, with all her presence and six feet of goddess glory, probably never could play fifteen!

Milos Forman's version of 'Dangerous Liasons' was relegated to the second tier at the time of its release, which occurred close on the heels of Stephen Frears' version starring Glenn Close and John Malkovitch. I saw them both in the theatre when they were released and from the start enjoyed Forman's film far more than Frears'.

Annette Beining is a wonderful Madame de Mertueil, beautiful, intelligent, ruthless and in the end tragic. Glenn Close is pretty two-dimensional by comparison for Frears. And Colin Firth is more the laughing cavalier, with a heart, than was John Malkovitch for Frears, who mostly grimaces smugly and is highly distasteful and ego-centric. I liked Firth's sense of humor about himself, it makes the ending more poignant.

On paper some of the casting of Forman's version seems questionable, but all, except one, work very well. Most surprising was Henry Thomas's young lover. Thomas can be a dull actor but his reticent performance is apt for the gauche young man learning the ropes of 18th century Parisian society. Fairuza Bulk is delightful and funny as the virginal Céline. The supporting cast, notably Fabia Drake's dotty old Madame de Rosemond, are excellent. Siân Philips and Jeffrey Jones provide some very funny moments, though their characters are anything but "funny".

Only Meg Tilly falls short. Her American accent and modern delivery of the lines is disappointing. But she is a good actress and manages to convince in the end, though a more "Frenchified" performer would have served the story more effectively.

The music, cinematography and choreography are superb. The settings are very beautiful.

Forman's 'Valmont' deserves to be reconsidered by those critics who found it lacking when it first appeared.

I've just watched "Valmont" and "Dangerous Liaisons" back to back and immediately after reading the book (I had seen "Dangerous Liaisons" before and loved it). I loved the book, and "Dangerous Liaisons" is good and reasonably faithful adaptation of it, and certainly close to its bitter spirit. "Valmont" is a much looser and poorer adaptation of the book, and thus deserved to lose out on its rival film. The acting in Valmont is pretty decent, particularly Colin Firth, but John Malkovitch (Valmont), Glenn Close (Merteuil) and Michelle Pfeiffer (de Tourvel) are much more convincing in Dangerous Liaisons. Only Fairuza Balk (Cecile) is more plausible in Valmont than her counterpart in Dangerous Liaisons (Una Thurman).

There was something wrong with this movie. It didn't really seem like the story Les Liaisons Dangereruses was going with. Of course there are some remarkable actors including little Fauruza Baulk. But I'm not sure about the movie or story that "Valmont" went with.

7/10

The story of Liaisons Dangereuses has been told several times on film. Since '89 there have been no less than 3 versions. The gourmet, the fast food, and the junk food. Valmont is the gourmet. Some people don't like subtlety, so try the Malkovich or Ryan Philippe versions. This one has me enthralled from start to finish. Annette Bening and Colin Firth are at the top of their game. Milos Forman shows his absolute mastery here. I couldn't recommend a film more enthusiasticly.

Since discovering this film, it has since become one of my all-time favorite period pieces. There is a unique combination of lightness and frivolity on one hand, and the very darkest side of love, deception and manipulation on the other. Foreman's "Amadeus" also was an elegant period-piece which brought the extremes of comedy and drama together brilliantly. The highlights of this film, for me, must begin with Annette Bening. After all is said and done this is her movie. She is absolutely radiant. There is a remarkable breadth in her character. . . she displays a sweet sensitivity towards Cecile's innocence and you sense that she longs to return to that kind of experience in love. And yet she has turned cold, bitter, and resentful through her real life experiences with love. There is much more to be said. . . Colin Firth as Valmont is funny, charming, and very sly. His 'old aunt' is a treasure. Fairuza Balk (who I loved in her debut 'Return to Oz') well portrays the anxiety, anticipation and awkwardness of all teenagers starting to embrace love. The locations and costumes are lucious. There are the inevitable comparisons to 'Dangerous Liaisons,' also a very entertaining film. Personally, I think there's no need to compare them. They're both excellently written and acted. However, since 'Valmont' was missed by many, it needs to be brought to the attention of those who haven't yet had

I have just watched the movie. This is absolutely my top one, for so many reasons: storytelling is rich and dense, unforgettable acting, photography is amazing, scenarios are perfectly built, decorated and, at last, its progression is natural. Valmont is one of those movies we could never forget of. Its intrigue and sexual tension between all characters is simply out of this world. People's psychological profiles interaction work out almost as if the movie was a symphony. Innocence-driven decisions dance harmonically with persuasion and inducement capabilities. Well-crafted goals justify almost everything in the search of power, political evidence, social influence and "sexual superiority". Machiavelli would have been envious. All of this, alternated with some moments of great comedy and ease. Besides, when the two strongest characters decide to declare war against each other, Valmont gets even more delicious and delightful. If you are a "cinéphile", you should see it. If you are not, you should do the same. The movie is one of the most touching work-of-arts I have ever been exposed to. Amazing.

I just watched "Valmont" just now actually, and what can I say, I was really impressed with the film... I've seen "Dangerous Liason" so many times before, and it's always been one of my favorites, so maybe that's why I was a bit skeptical about "Valmont" as it started (for me it was overshadowed by "Dangerous Liason", but it was quick for me to be proven wrong...) The film was great, very interesting, because it provided different insight into the the story. Colin Firth (who I've fallen in love with ever since I watched "Bridget Jones' Diary, because he is one charming brit!) was dazzling as Valmont, and he managed to display another kind of Valmont, which John Malkovich wasn't, but he was great as well. Firth's Valmont was very charming and he has a passion and charisma to him that Malkovich lacked (he was overall rather "cool"), and what can i say? He just took my breath away again once again. Annette Bening (is that how u spell her name?) was also brilliant, and in the begining I was tricked into thinking that she was too nice for the part, but nope, she was evil as well, and maybe to some extent more evil that Glenn Close's portryal, because beneath all the nice and sweetness, beining was evil indeed! and Henry Thomas, he was extroidinary, and he did a great job! His potrayal of his character was so much better than Keanu Reeves (who can't act), and he made the movie interesting indeed. it was sad to see his innocence lost at the end though, what really disturbed me, because before he was such a loyal lover! sad, the loss of innocence, once it's gone, it never comes back...maybe "Valmont" is lacking in the sense that it failed to illustrate the importance of Madame de Tourvel, like "Dangerous Liason" did, but otherwise, Valmont is magnificent. passionate, fun, and definetly keeps you going!

I can't really see how Dangerous Liaison can be considered to be the better movie of the two (Valmont and Dangerous Liaison both being based on the same book). I think Dangerous Liaison is about as interesting as a dead fish, while this has passion, feeling, and a better director (Milos Forman is a genius!). Even the cast is better, even if the other movie features more "stars". Colin Firth is exceptional, as always, as is Annette Bening and Meg Tilly. Fairuza Balk is also great, and the scene where Valmont seduces Cecile is a classic!

I'd give it 10/10!