Valmont (1989) is better than Dangerous Liaisons
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Dangerous Liaisons
Serrat — 20 years ago(March 04, 2006 04:28 PM)
Valmont (1989) was a beuatiful and inteligent movie about the death of the individual in the globalization. Dangerous Liaisons is a good movie, but his director filmed it with less emotion.
-
lescamer — 18 years ago(April 05, 2007 05:47 PM)
one simply can not compare the two; both are masterpieces but one is a cold very theatrical film and the other is a fun and warm film. it is like comparing Truffaut and Rohmer!!!!!!!!
However, if comparisons have to be made, Valmont is the better of the two. It has not aged a bit but Dangerous Liaisons has. They are both great but Dangerous Liaisons has a bit more flaws while Valmont has practically 0. -
kaybelle — 18 years ago(April 15, 2007 07:20 AM)
Ok well Dangerous Liaisons is just the BETTER movie. John and Glenn where AMAZING. Plus they were so close together. DL came in 88 and the other not as good one came out in 89. DL is just a plain out GREAT movie. It's my all time favorite and I'm only 18.
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature! -
Serrat — 18 years ago(May 06, 2007 11:35 AM)
From my point of view, Valmont is a great movie. My opinion is one more. For me its better than Dangreous. At this cuestions, nothing is definitely. I like more Annette than Glenn Close, Henry Thomas than K. Reeves But, its my opinion. I respect your opinion and I understand you arent agree with me. The world will be more boring if everybody thinks equal.
-
julden99 — 18 years ago(June 08, 2007 09:09 AM)
I agree, I like Valmont better than DL. Glenn Close is so rigid an actress and John Malkovich? has always given me the heebie-geebies. He looks like Lurch. I don't really care who these cronies screw next. Valmont was a much more beautiful movie in style and emotion and Colin Firth is H-O-T. Benning has always been a cutie in my book and the rest of the cast was great. Ever since seeing DL years ago, I have avoided these types of movies like Age of Innocence. It completely turned me off to aristocratic love triangle movies. I just watched Valmont for the first time and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I recognized the story from Cruel Intentions before I made the DL connection. Good thing to because, like I said, I did not enjoy DL. Since I enjoyed Valmont, I will give DL another chance since I haven't seen it since 1990. Valmont was delightful!
-
Fluke_Skywalker — 10 years ago(April 22, 2015 08:58 AM)
I don't remember Uma Thurman's perfect knockers in Valmont. Edge: Dangerous Liaisons
LMAO! This. I know, shallow and everything, but her breasts are. wow. Just wow.A journey into the realm of the obscure:
http://saturdayshowcase.blogspot.com/ -
scythian99 — 16 years ago(August 06, 2009 01:10 AM)
Dangerous Liaisons is a much better film. The mood, acting, pacing, and scenery are just better done in Dangerous Liaisons. In Dangerous Liaisons, I really feel like I am taken back to the era, in Valmont it feels a bit fake.
-
Bijal666 — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 02:24 AM)
Valmont is the better film in my opinion, mainly due to casting. I thought Annette Benning was a lot better than Glenn Close and I definitely prefer Fairuza Balk and Henry Thomas to Uma Thurman and Keanu Reeves. They look a lot more like kids coming of age and they're more convincing in their naivety. I like Keanu for his looks but it's far too exotic for baroque France. Plus, his acting is very poor. Somehow, he never seems very convincing to me, although it's not that I'm prejudiced against him - I like him, but not his acting.
I liked John Malkovich but again I think that Colin Firth was the better choice for the role of Valmont. I think him and Annette were simply better because they're HOTTER - and that makes them more credile as seducers. But also their acting seemed more natural. -
dmyriounis — 16 years ago(September 07, 2009 04:34 AM)
Annete Benning and Colin Firth are more beautiful by today's standards. Thus, John Malkovich and Glenn Close are just as believable as seducers. And, in my opinion, they are both far above Firth and Benning (who I both also like) as performers in their respective roles. Both Firth and Benning (especially the latter) are wonderful actors but I don't think they belong to the same league as Malkovich and Close (again especially the latter).
-
linda303 — 16 years ago(February 07, 2010 09:14 PM)
Though DL has all the bells and whistles of a big-budget film, I agree that Valmont is a better film at its essence of the story.
The casting of Valmont is much better. I cannot think of worst casting than John Malkovitch. Colin Firth hits his target in Valmont and is believable as a charming, handsome seducer. I cannot stand the whimpering, whining Michelle Pfeiffer in DL, and I usually like her. Uma Thurman may be the most miscast of all she towers over everyone and looks 25 and not the 15 year old she is playing. Glenn Close and Annette Benning do a great job; I just prefer Annette. Same for Keanu and Henry I prefer the latter though both are adequate.
Don't judge Valmont by the recent dvd release it is horribly edited from the original film, and the ending makes little sense. You must get an early version of the film to appreciate it. After all, it was directed by the genius of Amadeus! -
Ilario1 — 16 years ago(February 22, 2010 03:22 PM)
LOL @ This thread. Valmont was pretty good but let's not get carried away. I felt no tension between Annette Bening and Colin Firth at all. Although, I did feel it between he and Meg Tilly for some reason. There were some things I liked about Valmont but overall it just didn't wow me the way DL did upon first view. Valmont felt more like a comedy.
-
acyancat — 16 years ago(February 26, 2010 12:37 AM)
Well, if I'm not mistaken, Valmont had bigger budget than Dangerous Liaisons.
Beyond any doubt I prefer DL. I've watched countless times and totally love it.
Colin Firth and his fellow actors/actresses are all good performers~but they're just not as convincing as John Malkovich, Glenn Close and their fellows~ -
ClassicMovieholic — 15 years ago(August 28, 2010 11:29 PM)
I think both movies have good things to offer. I think Valmont has "prettier" costumes, though those in Dangerous Liaisons are just as artfully done. Both have good casts, but I prefer those in Dangerous Liaisons (let me note that I generally despise Malcovich, Close, Therman, and Reeves), but for some reason in this, they worked. I do actually prefer the actors in the Therman and Reeves roles in Valmont, but they are much less crucial than Valmont and the Marquise, for whom I vastly preferred Malcovich and Close. I also think Dangerous Liaisons did more interesting things cinematically. I am thinking primarily of that great moment in which Valmont, the Marquise, and Madame de Tourvel exchange glances during the opera performance. Valmont watches Tourvel, the Marquise watches Valmont Watching Tourvel, Tourvel turns to Valmont at which point the Marquise looks away. No dialogue and only a few seconds of film, and yet so much has been communicated. Dangerous Liaisons has that great, vindictive outcome, next to which Valmont's ending pales in comparison. Also, Dangerous Liaisons has a MUCH better script, and in a movie such as this, dialogue makes all the difference.
If I was to show one of these movies to one who normally doesn't watch this sort of thing, I would probably choose valmont. I do think it is more accessible. But I think Dangerous Liaisons is by far the better film.