|
When Glenn Close and John Malkovich played their games
of sexual intrigue in the other version, it was all about cerebral
conquest and calculation and power. It is hard to picture either of them
filled with sexual rapture, and equally hard to picture anybody filled
with rapture at the prospect of bedding them. Close and Malkovich are so
creepy and spooky and obviously insincere that old Eastern European
ladies would cross themselves if they passed.
Colin Firth and Annette Bening, on the other hand, are lively,
attractive, sexual, likeable rogues. You could imagine yourself
seduced by either of them. They may indulge in power games, but it is
apparent that they enjoy their encounters. I especially liked the
perpetually underrated Colin Firth in the title role, as a Valmont whose
company would be great fun at any occasion, and whose seductiveness owes
at least as much to his innate charm as to his conniving. Old ladies and
children like him as much as his lovers. Malkovich, on the other hand,
carried a dour, sinister, superior presence which could not only scare
children, but could cause dogs to start howling in his proximity. Firth and Malkovich are both
fine performers, but they created radically different interpretations
of the role. Firth's Valmont is a guy you'd have a drink with. If
Malkovich bought you a drink, you'd switch glasses on him. |
|
Valmont's settings are elegant and lovely. Today's Prague stands in
nicely for a Paris long gone, and the interiors are equally splendid.
The movie is dappled with the appropriate sights and music to evoke
the era, and it contains an equal measure of plot and merriment. It is
probably not as true to the correct tone of the root story as
Dangerous Liaisons or Cruel Intentions, a modern day version of the
same story, but I enjoyed it just as much or more than those other two
films. |
TUNA's THOUGHTS
|
|
Milos Forman had a high budget
project planned with lots of location shooting, lots of set
decoration, and fantastic costumes. Then he heard that Stephen
Frears was doing a much less ambitious interpretation of the
same story called Dangerous Liaisons, which was adapted from a
stage play, and would make it to release almost a year before
Forman could finish. Forman was afraid his project would be
cancelled, but the producers showed enough faith in him to let
him continue the film. (Scoop's note:
The producers' trust was misplaced. Forman made a good enough
movie, but the film lost just about every penny they invested in
it. It is one of the most notorious money losers in history.)
Valmont is much less spiteful and vindictive than Dangerous
Liaisons (or the modern copycat, Cruel Intentions). The
characters, both the seducer and seduced, act as if they are at
least having fun while playing these seduction games, and the
characters are much more multi-dimensional, and therefore much
more likable. The film looks great, showing the effort put into
sets, locations, costumes, etc. For me, it is a better film than
Dangerous Liaisons for that reason. Roger Ebert awards Valmont
three and a half stars, while giving Dangerous Liaisons three. I
suspect that, had Valmont been released first, it would have had
the awards and the acclaim rather than Liaisons. |
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
- with their dollars: it lost a lot of
money. It was a complete box office failure, with a mere
million in domestic gross, despite lavish production costs.
|
| IMDb
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this description, this
film is a B- according to Tuna "Period
costume dramas are not my favorite genre, but I was able to stay
awake through this one." Scoop says: "I have to buy into
that rating based on the crossover appeal to Tuna, who doesn't
like costume dramas. I do like them, and I like this one. Of
course, this version isn't really about 18th century people. It
is about modern people wearing old clothing. I doubt if it is
much like pre-revolutionary France or the original novel, but I
just plain enjoy it. I always recommend it as an undeservedly
forgotten film, and as a refreshingly different way to look at
the same story."
|
|
