I watched this movie again a couple of days ago and I didn't get it this time around either. 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. Anybody going to any length for a night with her is a ridiculous idea, especially if you expect Hollywood movie rules to apply. And John's sex-appeal also must be in the director's eyes only. They just can't sell the story to me. Sorry.
shareBut we have to go back to late 18thC France, not 21stC Europe/US ideals of airbrushed models and plastic showbiz bling and 'beauty'?
They would have considered themselves to be attractive.
But we have to go back to late 18thC France, not 21stC Europe/US ideals of airbrushed models and plastic showbiz bling and 'beauty'?
But the film isn't set outside Europe or funded by any other nation than the US. Wake up call.
share'But we have to go back to late 18thC France, not 21stC Europe/US ideals of airbrushed models and plastic showbiz bling and 'beauty'? '
'They would have considered themselves to be attractive.'
----------------------
A nice face is timeless. If it was 1 million years B.C., a nice face is a nice face. What has changed is body image. Plastic surgery and airbrushed models(assuming they need to be airbrushed)only comes after the fact.
A nice face is timeless. If it was 1 million years B.C., a nice face is a nice face.
'That's subjective! A 'nice face' to you might be foul to the next person.'
--------------
are you trying to act semi-retarded? You missed the point !
The topic is about the time era, not subjectivity on looks,as such. Did you read the thread and what the other poster said, or just skim? DO you know what timeless means?
Chucking words about like 'retarded', you prove yourself one.
share'Chucking words about like 'retarded', you prove yourself one.'
------------------------
The word is being chucked based on your reply. You tell me off when you did not understand what I said,then you criticize me for calling you semi-retarded. You don't see how that could provoke somebody? How do you expect people to react when you do this? Should I give you the benefit of the doubt and consider you might be 12 yrs old and misunderstood,then?
[deleted]
'No, you should withdraw your tiny head from your large anus...'
-----------------------
..yes, that's all you people think about.
Nice intelligent mature reply; you proved my point.
'No, you should withdraw your tiny head from your large anus...'
-----------------------
..yes, that's all you people think about.
Nice intelligent mature reply; you proved my point.
'Don't throw stones in glass houses'.
-------------------------
Don't tell me what to do,regardless of what the house is made of. My original reply stands on it's own merit. No allowances are due you.
Oooooh, touchy? Lol. I bet you're stamping your tiny feet and got your manicured hands on your childbearing hips?
I think your username and girly over-sensitivity prove your own worth here, not that other guy you failed to flame!
'Oooooh, touchy? Lol. I bet you're stamping your tiny feet and got your manicured hands on your childbearing hips?'
--------------------------------
I don't have those physical characteristics. Why, do you want/need me too? are you projecting?
'I think your username and girly over-sensitivity prove your own worth here, not that other guy you failed to flame!'
-------------------------------
Why ,does sensitivity bother you because you lack such? If we lived in a world with more sensitive people, it would be a better place. Of course,if you knew you were insensitive,you would no longer be insensitive. Are you afraid of being perceived as girly if you emote? This is something you need to work on,or carry on in your primitive ways.
Hope I helped.
Some how I'm not sure this debate would be taking place if we were watching Hampton's play upon which the screenplay is partly based.
Glenn Close and John Malkovich steal the show IMO as the slimy, immoral patricians attempting to wreak havoc on their fellow aristocrats.
There don't appear to be many other substitute suggestions apart from the those in Valmont, which is OK I suppose...for a less successful film.
A nice face is timeless.
Having read this whole thread, I tried to figure out where the best spot would be for me to add my POV, and the sentence "They would have considered themselves to be attractive" is a very good observation. People who carry themselves in a certain way because they have an air of self-confidence will draw people to them, whether they are particularly good-looking or not.
But there's more to it than that. DL is a movie about people who were wealthy aristocrats, and just that fact would cause them to think very highly of themselves and to believe that they could get whatever and whomever they wanted. Also, because they were aristocrats, the peasants from that time period also probably envied them and thought them to be the most attractive and desirable, yet unattainable people on earth. Remember ~~~ there wasn't much of a "middle class" in those days; you were either very wealthy or you were as poor as dirt.
I too never understood how Uma Thurman's character could fall for John Malkovic's character, or how Keanu Reeves's character could fall for Glenn Close's character. I could maybe see Michelle Pfieffer's character falling for John Malkovic's character, but that's it.
Intelligence and purity.
I'm not a huge fan of John Malckovicth but I thought he had great chemistry with Glenn Close and that helped him a lot in his performance.
Glenn Close well I think I think she was amazing here.
She is not beautiful like let's say Catherine Zeta Jones right now or Angelina Jolie but she is attractive in a sophisticated way, she was sexy avoiding the typical cliches in a sexy type of performance.
I loved Glenn's casting in this film.
I'm so glad they didn't go for typical beauty for this part.
I saw absolutely no chemistry with John Malkovich and any of them, but irony of ironies, he did have a real life love affair with Michelle Pfeiffer when they met on this film. I actually preferred the film VALMONT with Colin Firth in the John Malkovich role, Annette Bening in the Glenn Close role (she was evil) and Meg Tilly in the UMA Thurman role where she and Colin fell in love and had a child together. Seems like there was more going on behind the scenes of these films that was actually on the screen LOL.
Remember us, for we too have lived, loved and laughed
She is not beautiful like let's say Catherine Zeta Jones right now or Angelina JolieAnd, thank goodness for that!
but she is attractive in a sophisticated wayAmen! The best kind of attractive, outside of good vs. bad.
she was sexy avoiding the typical cliches in a sexy type of performance.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 loved Glenn's casting in this film.
And, thank goodness for that!
Amen! The best kind of attractive, outside of good vs. bad
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.
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.
shareI 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.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
rascal67: They are represented as mature, intelligent, supposedly wiser characters
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!!!
Malkovich has a strong commanding presence here in this film.
They made it believable, together.
Frear's is a fine director and knows what he is doing.
You just gave the perfect explanation of why this cast worked so well for this movie, I couldn't have said it better.
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."
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.
shareThis 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.