Valmont
Tags: tragedy, revenge, murder, romantic

Plot synopsis:
In eighteenth century France, the Marquise de Merteuil (Annette Bening), a beautiful wealthy widow, learns from her cousin Madame de Volanges (Siân Phillips) that Volanges' 15-year-old daughter Cécile (Fairuza Balk) has been betrothed to a middle-age man named Gercourt (Jeffrey Jones)—Merteuil's own secret lover. Volanges confides in Merteuil that the arranged marriage required that Cécile be raised in a convent to ensure her chastity. Unaware that Merteuil is Gercourt's paramour, Volanges reveals that according to Gercourt, he is having trouble breaking off relations with his "former" mistress who is mentally unbalanced.
Angered over the loss of her lover and his slight of her character, Merteuil devises a devious plan of revenge. She approaches her former lover, the Vicomte de Valmont (Colin Firth), and proposes that he seduce the virgin Cécile prior to her wedding night when Gercourt will learn he was "not the first to arrive". Valmont declines Merteuil's request. He is more interested in pursuing Madame de Tourvel (Meg Tilly), a beautiful married woman staying at his aunt's estate. When the subject of infidelity is introduced, Tourvel insists she would never be unfaithful to her husband who is in Rouen on business. Merteuil later mocks Valmont for his futile desire for Tourvel and makes him a wager: if Valmont succeeds in bedding Madame de Tourvel, he may also bed Merteuil; if he fails, he must consign himself to a monastery.
After learning that Cécile's music teacher, Danceny (Henry Thomas), has been writing love letters to Cécile, Merteuil gains the confidence of the young girl who confesses she loves Danceny. Merteuil then convinces her cousin to allow Cécile to join her in the country while helping Cécile write secret love letters to Danceny. Soon after, Merteuil and Cécile join Valmont at his aunt's country estate where Valmont flirts playfully with the innocent young girl. When Merteuil suggests that Valmont help Cécile write a love letter to Danceny, Valmont agrees and ends up taking Cécile's virginity. When Cécile confides in Merteuil about her experience with Valmont, Merteuil encourages the girl to marry Gercourt and keep Danceny as her lover.
Meanwhile, Valmont is unsuccessful in his numerous attempts at wooing Tourvel, who has been warned of his sexual scheming and debauchery. When Tourvel feels her defenses weakening and her attraction to Valmont growing, she flees to the city to get away from the temptation. After learning of her departure, Valmont rides to her residence and is there when she arrives. Surprised by Valmont's romantic actions and unable to resist her feelings for him, Tourvel finally returns his affections and they make love. In the morning, Tourvel says she has written her husband about her new love. She then leaves for the market to prepare a meal for her lover, but when she returns Valmont is gone.
Soon after, Valmont arrives at Merteuil's residence to collect his "prize" from her. When Merteuil initially refuses to honor her wager, and then offers herself in the wrong way, Valmont leaves in anger. He goes to Cécile and convinces her to write Danceny a letter explaining that Merteuil encouraged her to marry Gercourt and keep Danceny as her lover. Tourvel later comes to Valmont and spends the night, leaving before he wakes the next morning. Later, when Danceny reads Cécile's letter, he visits Merteuil and threatens her, demanding she send a letter to Cécile recommending that she call off her marriage. When Valmont arrives, he discovers that Merteuil has already seduced Danceny and revealed that Valmont took Cécile's virginity.
The following day, Danceny challenges Valmont to a duel set for the following morning. That evening, Valmont prepares for the duel by drinking himself into a drunken stupor. The next morning, Valmont arrives at the duel hung over and Danceny refuses to duel him in his condition. Refusing to apologize to Danceny for his actions, he charges toward the young man with his sword drawn and is slain after a brief exchange. At the funeral, Cécile reveals to Valmont's aunt that she believes she is carrying her (the aunt's) dead nephew's child. The elderly aunt is overjoyed by the news. Cécile and Gercourt are soon married in a grand ceremony in the presence of the king, with Merteuil looking on—alone.
Sometime later, Madame de Tourvel visits the country estate and lovingly places a single flower on Valmont's grave.

Review: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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".
As for Colin Firth's Valmont he is charming, he flies like a butterfly, but he knows exactly what he is doing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!).
Colin Firth is exceptional, as always, as is Annette Bening and Meg Tilly.
Milos Forman gives it a slightly larger than life look with the colourful lavish sets and exquisite costumes but he balances it wonderfully with the actors' subtle performances, a beautiful soundtrack and stunning cinematography.Forman tells the story very well.
Their sequences along with the one where a soaking wet Meg Tilly asks Valmont to love her and a dance number where Valmont dances with four women are some of the most memorable movie moments.Needless to say, each and every one of the performances are first rate.
The rest of the leads either look like kids in a school play (Fairuz Balk and poor Henry Thomas) or sound like children (Meg Tilly).Usually we think a certain movie sucks because it bites.
Neither Jean-Claude Carrière's screenplay, nor Milos Forman's direction could capture the suspense felt in the stage play by Choderlos de Laclos ("Les Liaisons Dangereuses"), or Stephen Frears' film "Dangerous Liaisons" with Glenn Close and John Malkovich in the two leading roles.Notwithstanding, "Valmont" is a lush and beautifully filmed adaptation of this piece with a cast well worth watching the film for.
Visually, I think I prefer Forman's film to Frears', and certain performances are more layered in "Valmont".
Colin Firth's Valmont is a killer: his charm and sex appeal are like a Venus flytrap...you know they're dangerous, but you can't help being sucked in by them.
This makes it easier to forgive him in the end.No offense to Ulma Thurman, but I really did like the young lovers in Valmont better than in Dangerous Liaisons: Fairuza Balk as Cecile is perfect.
Dangerous Liaisons just has a better script with much more tension and suspense than Valmont, but give this one a look - you won't be wasting your time..
I was very surprised to see just how much of Valmont was very much the same as Dangerous Liaisons & Cruel Intentions, but also, how different the ending was compared to the endings in the other two movies.I like Dangerous Liaisons & Valmont better than Cruel Intentions, mainly because of the fact that they are movies from another century, as opposed to the modern telling of the story.However, I would recommend seeing Dangerous Liaisons & Cruel Intentions before seeing Valmont, because they are nearly the same movie, minus costume/set/scenery differences.The acting is wonderful in all 3 movies.
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.
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.
I heard somewhere that Milos Forman didn't reread "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" before writing the screenplay for Valmont, but worked instead from his memory of its sex-positive, good-natured blasphemy (my adjectives).
Casting accordingly Colin 'Darcy' Firth as Valmont and adorable slightly schizo Annette Bening as marquisee Merteuil.Turns out it is a better story to start with, with a lot of rustic props.
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.
Unfortunately, "DANGEROUS LIAISONS" beat VALMONT to the cinemas and sank this wonderful film.
It's the bawdy adventures of Valmont (Colin Firth suited perfect for the role), and Merteuil (Annette Bening showing that she can act without Warren Beatty), that amuses you greatly..
The costumes were a definite mixed bag, with the truly awful ones being dreadfully jarring: sloppy wigs, gowns cut in an obviously un-period way, Colin Firth's completely incorrect hairdo (they pretty much just stuck a ponytail on him without modifying his own modern hairstyle one bit) - at one point, Annette Bening wears a dress that had to be made from a CIVIL WAR pattern - at least 80 YEARS out of date!
Much better to watch 'Dangerous Liaisons 1988' or 'Cruel Intentions' - a great modernisation of the story, or better still, read the book..
"Valmont" and "Dangerous Liaisons" came out at about the same time and are based on the same novel.
If you can only watch one, then "Valmont" is the one to see, the story is easier to follow plus "Valmont" stars the wonderful Annette Benning in the same role Glenn Close plays in "Dangerous Liaisons."  Close is good, but Benning is a thousand times better, she is charming, elegant, mischievous, clever and marvelous to watch..
Colin Firth is better for the role as Valmont.
Had Annette Benning played Merteuil and Fairuza Balk played Cecille in Dangerous Liasons, I believe that movie would have been nearly perfect!Regardless, both movies are well worth seeing, particularly for fans of period pieces..
If you are interested in seeing a number of very good artistes make a mess out of an excellent story and book, by all means watch Valmont.I was misled by the ratings given to this movie here and feel compelled to write a true depiction of how bad this movie really was.So let's see the positives - great cast ...
Also, I liked "DL" more for the love story between Valmont and Madame De Tourvel.
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.
"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.
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.
Firth is spot-on, Bening is amazing in her second on-screen performance, Tilly is great and Balk is absolutely perfect, and at age 15, no less.
There is no comparing Valmont (1988) to Dangerous Liaisons (1989) which is a darker version of the story.
Valmont (Colin Firth) and Merteuil (Annette Bening) have a deal.
There's more going on but it gets complicated.The original book and 1988 movie show Valmont and Merteuil as vicious evil people who will ruin people just because they can.
The casting of Meg Tilly is odd, as she does not possess the obvious attraction needed to convince the audience of Valmont's relentless attentions.The film is enjoyable but at times boring.
A hero who sends lightning-style glances to the audience through the beginning credits, and later seduces his "prey" with a school-type "kiss and run" technique (urges me to write on the DVD box - "Malko+Pffeifi = eternal love till the prom") - probably won't cut here, in the world of calm, non violent adults.Firth's self confidence, instead, is shown by his relaxed and steady "key-picking" manners, sense of humour, and most important, by letting us feel that he really enjoys the process itself (btw, something tells me that Malko-hero wouldn't miss the chance to jump on book-reading-legs-spread Benning, with a Tarzan scream).----- Meat = Burger King, Baroque = Ombra mai fu....Maybe if "Dangerous Liasons" would be the first talkie, it would really impress me with it's soundtrack attitude - "this is how baroque sounds".
But equation "We are shooting baroque era - lets play baroque music" brings a tear of suffering, since we discuss a motion picture being created in a 60-years old industry for God's sake!Valmont's music isn't really drifting from what you may call baroque, so voila - one of the details that makes Forman's talents shine - he creates an illusion of early classical style, but SO much connected to our contemporary melodic thinking, and it sounds incredible!!---- "Meg Tilly's miscast".One thing thrills me the most, even before I might ask myself whether or not Tilly's acting is good, is the fact that a great director, an artist, may allow himself to put such a non-European looking person into a movie with such a precise visual recreation going on the set!
Valmont and Dangerous Liaisons differ so much in story line it makes me wonder which of the two comes closest to the original story.
I loved the book, and "Dangerous Liaisons" is good and reasonably faithful adaptation of it, and certainly close to its bitter spirit.
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)..
I think Colin Firth was very sexy in the role of Valmont, exuding charm while at the same time playing the base animal.
But when I finally got to see Milos' Forman's Valmont, I was thunderstruck by how he had missed all of the main points of the story.Annette Bening spends most of the film with the same smile on her face - you never know what she is really thinking because she almost never changes her expression.
To the people who said this movie was better than Dangerous Liasons: I have seen both films, and read the book, and you are wrong.
2. A lot of praise has been heaped on this movie for "softening" the characters of Valmont and Madame de Merteuil, as if that's supposed to be a good thing.
Released in 1989, but filmed at the same time as the 1988 release of Dangerous Liasons starring Michelle Pfeiffer, Glenn Close and Jon Malkovitch, Milos Forman's Valmont tells the same story with a different cast of actors.
Colin Firth, I must say, cuts a better figure as Valmont than Jon Malkovitch's portrayal in Dangerous Liasons.
Meg Tilly as Madame Tourvel is another interesting performance but the clear winner in the cast is Annete Bening as Madame Merteuil which was the role played by Glenn Close.
Valmont and Dangerous Liaisons are two very different films.....
So this is what I think about Valmont:1) Colin Firth is a lovely Valmont and there's real chemistry with Meg Tilly's M.me De Tourvel.He looks the part, but I would have loved to have been given more background to his and Merteuil's story.
Also, the film would have benefited from dwelling more on his affair with M.me De Tourvel2) Annette Bening is great as Merteuil, albeit a tad too sadistic at times.
I liked Valmont in many ways, there was a lot of Beauty visually and the characters are all compelling.
(that would have been strange casting I know but it might have worked!) I did love the energy and the back and forth between Benning and Firth, very powerful.I did enjoy Valmont despite the ending.
Funny, sexy and witty, Valmont is completely different from its movie counterpart: Dangerous Liaisons, which is based on the same novel.
Thus it is not surprising that the dynamic between Colin Firth and Annette Bening is far softer, subtler, and sexier than that between other pairs who have filled these characters' roles: that was how Cécile, an innocent girl who looked up to the adults in her life, must have seen Valmont and Merteuil.
The book caused a scandal when it was published and remained banned for a very long time.This film is the toned-down, soap-opera version.A lot has been written about how Colin Firth is much better looking and hence more believable as a womaniser than John Malkovich in "Dangerous Liaisons".
If you look like the young Colin Firth, women will fall into your bed.
The actress playing Cecile does a competent job - but no better than Uma Thurman in DL.This was a frothy confection of a movie: it's a non-intellectual's idea of what an intellectual film should be like.
I've seen "Dangerous Liaisons" many years ago and I had thought it was quite good but at the same time I always felt something was missing.