Blu-ray Review A Few Words About A few words about…™ Valmont – in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

Milos Forman's Valmont happened to be in the unfortunate position of being released only nine months after Stephen Frears Dangerous Liaisons, based upon the same 1782 novel.

It was a popular novel, as a decade after the Valmont and Dangerous Liaisons, it was redrafted into a more youth oriented version - Cruel Intentions.

The difference between the two 1989 productions. Valmont was produced on a far greater budget, while Dangerous Liaisons was based not directly upon the 18th century novel but upon the Christopher Hampton play.

They're quite different films.

And both very worthwhile.

I was looking forward to finally having a Blu-ray of Valmont, and while I have it, I'm not a happy camper.

Color, densities and other niceties are all fine, but the overall image appears to have been harvested from an older (and not terribly well made) interpositive.

The problem, for those who notice these things is that the image is constantly in motion. It could have been stabilized, but that would have meant that it would be cropped slightly on all four sides. That move might have been better.

As a bit of extraneous information, a young actress, Annette Bening, ended up getting her role in The Grifters, which brought her an Academy nomination, because Milos Forman was willing to build a sample reel of her work on Valmont for Stephen Frears. A bit of casting background.

All in all, a terrific film, a bit hobbled by a just acceptable IP.


Image – 6.5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Works in projection - Yes

Works up-rezzed to 4k - OK

Upgrade from DVD - Yes

Worth your attention - 10

Slipcover rating - 2

Highly Recommended

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

 

[titch]

Pity. I had already ordered this two weeks ago and it's on its way across the pond to me. I've always had a soft spot for Valmont, despite it being critically mauled upon release (because of Dangerous Liaisons).

Kino Lorber generally do not release substandard masters, but this time they did.

The Saul Zaentz Film Library was sold to some obscure company three months ago. So a bit up in the air, as to whether any further, rather more critically lauded Milos Forman, from pristine, 4K masters, will be emerging any time soon.

 

[JohnRice]

Pity. I had already ordered this two weeks ago and it's on its way across the pond to me. I've always had a soft spot for Valmont, despite it being critically mauled upon release (because of Dangerous Liaisons).

Kino Lorber generally do not release substandard masters, but this time they did.

The Saul Zaentz Film Library was sold to some obscure company three months ago. So a bit up in the air, as to whether any further, rather more critically lauded Milos Forman, from pristine, 4K masters, will be emerging any time soon.

I watched most of it yesterday. It got late and I was falling asleep, so I saved the final 30 minutes for today.

It looks good. Certainly not great, but also definitely not bad. I did see a couple instances of the image kind of vibrating, which is what I expect Robert means by "movement", but on my 65" it wasn't often. Still, as I recall, the DVD was awful, but I'll give it a quick look to see if that's correct. I'm not sure it was ever even released anamorphic. But it also doesn't appear to me that it was made with the intention of having stunning image quality. Colors are kind of muted, and I suspected that is intentional.

So, I'd agree with Robert that it is definitely worth an upgrade.

 

[JohnRice]

BTW, I did take a quick look at the DVD. The one I have is non-anamorphic, and it is atrocious. The BR is an easy upgrade, even if it's less than ideal.

 

[PaulRossen]

I have the Eagle Pictures version from Italy. Was really hoping that the Kino version would be an improvement. Oh well…

 

[JoshZ]

BTW, I did take a quick look at the DVD. The one I have is non-anamorphic, and it is atrocious. The BR is an easy upgrade, even if it's less than ideal.

What DVD is that? Is it not an American release? As far as I can find, the only American DVD was released by MGM in 2002. I actually reviewed the disc at that time, and my review says it was anamorphic widescreen, though I did give it pretty mediocre scores and complained about a soft picture and colors I wasn't convinced were accurate.

 

[JohnRice]

What DVD is that? Is it not an American release? As far as I can find, the only American DVD was released by MGM in 2002. I actually reviewed the disc at that time, and my review says it was anamorphic widescreen, though I did give it pretty mediocre scores and complained about a soft picture and colors I wasn't convinced were accurate.

I have to admit, I'm not absolutely certain. It's on my media server, and I can't remember what the disc was, and I don't know where it is. It very well could have been a European disc, which would be another reason it's on the server. So I don't have to deal with region issues. Normally, when something is that way, it was non-anamorphic. Plus, the image quality is so absolutely horrible, I figured it couldn't be anamorphic.

As I finish watching the KL Blu-Ray, I really don't have any major complaints. I'm sure it could have been better, but it certainly doesn't detract from the film for me. Once I get into it and stop thinking about the image, I'm fine with it.

 

[Malcolm R]

The 2002 MGM release is anamorphic (also only stereo).

 

[PaulRossen]

The 2002 MGM release is anamorphic (also only stereo).

View attachment 208020

I believe the DVD version is cut by a few minutes.

 

[Malcolm R]

I don't have the disc handy to check, but the back of the box in DVD Profiler says 137 minutes (which is also listed at IMDb) while the DVD Profiler data screen says 134 minutes.

Wikipedia does mention it's missing a couple minutes, so the 134 minute running time is probably correct for the old DVD. Did they fix this on the new blu-ray?

Missing scenes on the Region 1 DVD​

The Region 1 DVD released in 2002 by MGM is missing a short sequence after Valmont wakes up alone from his last night with Tourvel. In the sequence, Valmont takes flowers to Tourvel's home later the same day, but on arrival discovers that she is back with her husband. Unseen by either, he leaves the flowers on her bed before heading off to confront Merteuil. The sequence is included in the 2000 MGM VHS release, and is also in the high-definition transfer shown on MGM HD

 

[titch]

Having watched Valmont last night, I decided to give Dangerous Liaisons a spin tonight, as it's been years since I last saw that. Guess what: transfer-wise, the Kino Lorber looks very similar to the 2012 Warner blu-ray. A similarly dated transfer, which doesn't cut the mustard in these 4K OCN scans days of splendour. And absolutely no question, in case one wonders whether considerable time passing has been in to Milos Forman's favour: the Stephen Frears' take completely trashes the Milos Forman one. The script, the actors, the editing - everything is far, FAR superior in Dangerous Liaisons. Even the ending - ludicrous in Valmont, as it skipped the book's humiliation of the Marquise de Merteuil. Compare the final scene of Valmont - a cemetery - with Dangerous Liaisons ending with an acting masterclass on Glenn Close, wiping her face, a single tear rolling down her cheek, baring her soul, in one incredible take - together with an in-camera fade-out. Sorry, Milos.

 

[JohnRice]

Having watched Valmont last night, I decided to give Dangerous Liaisons a spin tonight, as it's been years since I last saw that. Guess what: transfer-wise, the Kino Lorber looks very similar to the 2012 Warner blu-ray. A similarly dated transfer, which doesn't cut the mustard in these 4K OCN scans days of splendour. And absolutely no question, in case one wonders whether considerable time passing has been in to Milos Forman's favour: the Stephen Frears' take completely trashes the Milos Forman one. The script, the actors, the editing - everything is far, FAR superior in Dangerous Liaisons. Even the ending - ludicrous in Valmont, as it skipped the book's humiliation of the Marquise de Merteuil. Compare the final scene of Valmont - a cemetery - with Dangerous Liaisons ending with an acting masterclass on Glenn Close, wiping her face, a single tear rolling down her cheek, baring her soul, in one incredible take - together with an in-camera fade-out. Sorry, Milos.

I like them both, and have always gotten a real kick out of Cruel Intentions, but the change to the ending, and in fact the entire point of the story, has always annoyed me with Valmont.

 

[bujaki]

I like them both, and have always gotten a real kick out of Cruel Intentions, but the change to the ending, and in fact the entire point of the story, has always annoyed me with Valmont.

Which is why Valmont fails. I read the novel and was aghast at the bastardization of the story. I'll stick with Malkovich (who makes you believe that he is an irresistible seducer), and Close, precisely for that final shot.