miscast
-
LaissezFaire_Aggeliki — 12 years ago(March 05, 2014 01:13 PM)
Malkovich has a strong commanding presence here in this film.
Absolutely.
And I also agree with what you said, that "Pfeiffer's character, would have been intelligent enough, to know that looks are only skin deep", and that "the looks of Close and Malkovich, which are in contrast to Pfeiffer's demeanor and beauty, makes the game and challenge so much more intriguing".
So yes, I guess a level of strong attraction towards him is quite believable, you have a point.
They made it believable, together.
Yes, I think you're right, together they did.
Frear's is a fine director and knows what he is doing.
He sure is, and he sure does.
Actually, as much as I enjoyed 1989 "Valmont" while watching it, I have to say that Frear's take in "Dangerous Liaisons" had a much more powerful and profound aftertaste to me. It was a much more intense film, overall much more impressive. It was bitter and sad, its aftertaste was not quite a pleasant one, but it went much deeper under my skin. And the lead characters/performances are most memorable, if not entirely convincing. In the end of the day, "Dangerous Liaisons" is an outstanding film with amazing performances from both leads I think we can agree on that much! ;))
In any case,
rascal67
, thank you for this wonderful discussion. It's not everyday that one finds people as gracious as you on IMDb, so willing to have a nice debate, sticking to good, valid arguments instead of personal attacks. It was most refreshing. Cheers! -
Morbius_Fitzgerald — 12 years ago(March 04, 2014 12:03 AM)
This is one thing that I knew going in was going to be a problem with the movie. I mean, okay, take nothing away from these actors, they are brilliant actors but they just don't fit the parts they are given. Malkovich to be a kniving ladies man, that just doesn't work. In the scene where he confesses his love for Madame De Tourvel, I didn't get the impression "true love", I got the impression "psycho".
Now I will actually defend Close in saying that if she was a few years younger, she could've pulled this part off but her age at the time really brings her performance down. I don't think she was awful (I can't say the same for Malkovich) but she certainly didn't fit the part.
Maybe its because I prefer Valmont but I prefer the two leads in that. In fact, I prefer every casting choice made in that movie with one exception; Michelle Pfeiffer as De Tourvel. I mean she was just fantastic in this film. It stole the show out and away by far. But thats just my opinion. I can understand why people like this version but its just not for me.
"I have always valued my lifelessness." -
sidgirl — 10 years ago(August 29, 2015 08:18 AM)
This is an old post, but the conversation is so interesting!
I have to agree with you, shaye22. Malcovich is criminally sexy in this. His physical attributes matter so much less than his attitude and demeanor, his sense of humor and confidence and intelligence.
He made such an impression on me the first time I saw it in my teens that to this day I find him attractive.
To quote another period film I love (Amadeus) "Looks don't concern me, Maestro. Only
talent
interests a woman of taste."
People said love was blind, but what they meant was that love blinded them.
-
marilouba — 11 years ago(April 14, 2014 07:40 PM)
This http://www.imdb.com/board/10094947/board/nest/84148010?ref_=tt_bd_4
will answer why was John Malkovic picked up for the part, since women tend to drop like flies for him no matter how non conventionally handsome(to put it gently) he is. As for Glenn Close I really can't say, but in 18th Century France man's/woman's beauty was very much different to what we're used to seeing and classifying as beauty nowadays. Don't go too far..check out movies from later in the 90s and see what was considered pretty, comparing to now.
On the other hand, sex appeal and desire that someone causes to people is not 100% linked to the looks, someone can become charming or irresistible cause of station, act, snobbishness even. -
yorick-23 — 11 years ago(March 27, 2015 01:50 AM)
The plot is so unbelievable to me because both Malkovic and Close are disastrous miscasts. Glenn Close is a great actress of course but an ugly woman. () And John's sex-appeal also must be in the director's eyes only. They just can't sell the story to me. Sorry.
The fact that they don't look like underwear models makes this cast so perfect. This movie is about the art of seduction. To have to repel applicants just because of prettiness isn't seduction.
Valmont may not be a handsome man, but he compensates this lack with wit, charme, personality and unscrupulousness. That's why he's that famous seducer. At one point Merteuil states, she had to have him
before
they even met, for the sake of her self-esteem. So his looks were completely irrelevant. -
furienna — 11 years ago(April 03, 2015 11:54 AM)
To me, there was nothing witty or charming about Valmont. At least not enough to make it realistic that he seduced a teenage girl, who was in love already with a guy much more suitable for her age-wise. He was only disgusting to me.
Intelligence and purity. -
yorick-23 — 10 years ago(April 10, 2015 12:08 AM)
Valmont may be older than Danceny, but unlike that pale bore (another perfect cast: Keanu Reeves) he's interesting. If I had to choose between John Malkovich and Keanu Reeves, it would be John Malkovich, hands down. But like Marquise de Merteuil said so wisely, why either or you can have as many as you like.
Seduction is not a matter of the looks, it's a matter of the skills.