miscast
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Dangerous Liaisons
kleena — 13 years ago(February 03, 2013 03:39 AM)
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.
-
-
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(February 08, 2014 11:21 PM)
'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.
-
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(February 09, 2014 02:40 PM)
'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? -
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(February 09, 2014 11:08 PM)
'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? -
jh66 — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 02:07 AM)
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! -
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 01:44 PM)
'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. -
spookyrat1 — 12 years ago(February 15, 2014 01:01 AM)
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 supposefor a less successful film. -
jeskavandetta — 12 years ago(March 08, 2014 07:37 PM)
A nice face is timeless.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.
What is considered a "nice face" is highly subjective. I know that I, for one, tend to like big noses (Jewish or Iranian shapes in particular) others may prefer different shaped eyes, different sized lips, &c. Of course, the idea that the perfect face is anyway timeless doesn't take into account the fact that different shapes are quite obviously more prominent among different ethnicities - how do you suppose the Sub-Saharan Africans or East Asians, for example, who don't fit your Eurocentric ideal of beauty have managed to reproduce for so many years? -
Elynne — 12 years ago(March 12, 2014 08:15 PM)
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. -
furienna — 13 years ago(February 24, 2013 09:23 AM)
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. -
sarizonana — 13 years ago(March 13, 2013 06:40 PM)
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.