You couldnt be more wrong. They both were perfect in their act.

I agree -while I like the movie I cant help thinking what jamie Dornan would do with the role ? Malkovich has no sex appeal

Well, both she and Valmont only disgust me (even if he somewhat redeemed himself in the end).
Intelligence and purity.

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.

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.

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.

Oh boy..beauty and sex appeal, apparently completelyy unbeknowest to you, goes far beyond physical looks. When you and your significant other lose yours, you'd better have learned that.

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.

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.

I found Malkovich to be devastatingly sexy in this. He had stained teeth and an evil, menacing face but there was something about his charm that was irresistible.

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."

You just gave the perfect explanation of why this cast worked so well for this movie, I couldn't have said it better.

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!

But are those attributes enough to drag a woman like Pfeiffer's character into destruction and death? I don't think so.
So, just imagine if those attributes also had stunning looks as a bonus they would be so much more believable, I think.

You have made a good point. Pfeiffer being as beautiful as she was and Malkovich, well looking as Malkovich does, wasn't really a big issue for me though. I have never found him physically attractive; but he has a strong commanding presence here in this film. I think 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. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, Pfeiffer's character, would have been intelligent enough, to know that looks are only skin deep.
They cast 2 pretties for the teenagers, Thurman and Reeves, they gave us a stunning looker with Pfeiffer and we got average but striking looking Close and Malkovich, to balance out the eye candy. I suppose, you could also take it, that both their manipulating and cruel natures, could have soured their looks as they had gotten older. They made it believable, together. Frear's is a fine director and knows what he is doing.
I will have to revisit VALMONT. It may give me a different take on both films.
And Close's shuttering scream and amok when she heard about Valmont's death was worth watching the whole film, and then some.

Replay value here. Close is superb!!!

rascal67:
They are represented as mature, intelligent, supposedly wiser characters
Yes of course, I agree. But any good actor/actress of their acting league and their age would have portrayed all those attributes successfully, for that's only a matter of (great) script and direction. But are those attributes enough to drag a woman like Pfeiffer's character into distruction and death? I don't think so. (Cinematically, I mean, because in real life people have driven themselves mad for much lesser seducers than those two. In cinema usually everything has to be magnified and more "stereotypical" of sorts to be believable, and for us viewers to relate with. That's the nature of the beast, and much more when it comes to such stylized, stereotypical characters and eras, imo.)
So, just imagine if those attributes also had stunning looks as a bonus they would be so much more believable, I think. Because yes, Close was sexy in Fatal Attraction, sexy enough to seduce a married man into an one-night-stand or even a brief affair. But she was not nearly sexy enough to make Douglas leave his wife or jeopardize his married life, not by far, or, much more so, to ruin his life by making him fall into depression or die for her love, as Pfeiffer's character did for Valmont. I don't think Close could ever play a femme-fatale successfully (which oddly enough Meryl Sreep did), for the simple reason that she's not beautiful enough, as cruel as this sounds. Same goes for Malkovich. Looks are not something significant generally, not for me, but for, let's say, "iconic" roles of famous seducers they are actually essential. Imagine Casanova played by some average looking bloke. I can't imagine the beastly sex-appeal this actor should have to be believable, but it should certainly be more than Malkovich's.
I watched 1989 Valmont very recently, and I have to say, Colin Firth was da bomb imo. He was exquisite. And Benning was not bad, eventhough she didn't have the gravitas of Firth. The '89 film was a lighter but not a shallow one, and frankly, I enjoyed it more, because of guess what? Firth's natural playful charm and hotness. The man is just beautiful and acts great (and I'm not even his fan, lol).
But I sure have to agree with what you said about Close/Malkovich being sublime in their interaction, as a pair. Yes, they were powerful and amazing, and their extreme passion for each other was totally believable. But this passion was different from the one they aimed to inspire to their seduction victims. Their mutual passion rooted much deeply than any other, it was like two beasts recognizing their mutual dark scent and be captivated forever, I don't know how to express it. Anyway, in the end that was all this film was about, I think, their soul-eating, excruciating relationship. And Close's shuttering scream and amok when she heard about Valmont's death was worth watching the whole film, and then some. God, Close is an amazing actress.

And both actors are just not sexy enough to fall for so hard; they are not nearly as irresistible, handsome and fatally hot as they should be.

They are represented as mature, intelligent, supposedly wiser characters and had their own unique appeal. Close oozed sex appeal in FATAL ATTRACTION from the previous year, even though she wasn't traditionally hot as Douglas's wife played by Anne Archer. It worked fine and she was believable.
Close and Malkovich complemented each other here, as neither is a stunner in looks department, but they were sublime together. Too much emphasis is put on looks and sex appeal can derive from the commanding presence of a person. Uma Thurman's character was a silly little teen, who liked the attention that Malkovich adorned on her and was a man of influence and persuasion. Pfeiffer's character, was not so shallow as to be smitten by just good looks. This would have made the challenge even more ambitious. I would say, this film was perfectly cast, due to the skill in which the material was presented.
Milos Forman's VALMONT-89', the following year had Annette Benning and Colin Firth in the 2 lead roles and could be considered more appropriate lookers for their characters. I would have to view again to comment on the film, as only seen once and years ago. Don't recall being as impressed as DL though.

Well, I totaly agree with you. Neither Malcovic nor Close do it for me at all which is subjective of course, but I really don't think they can be considered attractive enough for those roles at any era, not by any "objective" standard either.
I can see their charm coming from the brilliance of their acting, their strong real-life personalities and the great direction of the film. But may I remind you, those two characters are not supposed to inspire true love or admiration or respect or any other noble/deep/everlasting feelings to the other characters. They just need to inspire overwhelming sexual attraction, physical fascination and lust, they are predators, professional seducers. And both actors are just
not
sexy enough to fall for so hard; they are not nearly as irresistible, handsome and fatally hot as they should be.

I think so too that he was looking more for who fitted the best acting wise instead of looks wise and There is exactly where debate Relays on.
Some say including me and obviously you that it was a good choice picking the actors more based on who were the better actors for these roles acting wise since their performances who transmit that sex appeall anf would bring other stuff to the table like for example Glenn Close that evilness the role required and the experience on what made Cecile trust her so much and made Cecile's mom think she was good influence on her daughter.
If there was a live TV debate this would be our argument in favor of closing the best acting wise.
On the other aside who prefer them fitting the parts better looks wise
Have the argument of this characters were famous and got away on what they did for their natural SEX APPEAL, CHARM and LOOKS. Those were their main weapons or tools.
They also argue that everybody should have felt the sexiness of thr characters and their appeal should be obvious.
The thing is both sides have a good argument for our position : we the people who prefer fitting the parts talent wise and the ones on the other side.
It would be cool to see a TV debate on this novel and its adaptations.
Personally if I'd make my own version I'd be getting closer to what Frears did or the casting director I'd DL did.
My cast would be
Valmont: Ralph Fiennes or Daniel Day Lewis
Merteuil Kristin Scott Thomas, Kate Winslet or Cate Blanchett
Madamme de Tourvell : Natalie Portman, Keira Knightley or Jessica Chastain.
Cecile : Amanda Seyfried, Tamzin Merchant who played Catherine Howard in The Tudors or Jennifer Lawrence
Rapahel Danceny : Liam Hemsworth.
Madame de Volanges : Glenn Close.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

I believe that the casting director looked at who fit the role best, acting wise, not who looked the part best. After watching this version I can't stomach any other, the actors here just fit their roles so well they made them their own. These actors aren't unattractive either you know; they might not be underwear models but they're all charming and good looking.

Really? It might be interesting to you to know that Michelle Pfeiffer and John Malkovich got together during this film (he left his wife) and had a long affair. I guess she found him attractive and lord knows she is gorgeous.

I think if this was a straight drama/tearjerker film then they may have cast if differently, but if you think about the fact it was based on a satire it makes more sense.

And, thank goodness for that!
OfCourse, that's what makes this film so special
Amen! The best kind of attractive, outside of good vs. bad
Couldn't agree more with that, Actually if there was another adaptation I'd cast an actress in a similar type of sophisticated beauty like Kristin Scott Thomas.
As did I.! I tried to watch the remake with Annette Bening, but I didn't get through it, because I just couldn't imagine anyone but Glenn in the role, and she made a Annette Bening character looks so sub par!
I haven't seen Valmont with Colin Firth and Annette Bening but I feel like they are too cute or soft for those roles, I saw the modern take and even though it was very good SMG and Ryan Philipie fall a bitt into cliches of sex appeal and evil.