Valmont (1989) - Okay, but Dangerous Liaisons...

Alright peeps, I finally got around to watching 'Valmont' (1989) and honestly... I'm kinda torn. Like, it's fine, y'know? Set in Baroque France, super pretty costumes (duh!), and a plot about seduction and manipulation. That sounds exciting, it should be good! The cast is decent enough, Annette Bening is always a treat, but ugh... Colin Firth as Valmont? I just couldn't buy it. He felt kinda bland, especially when you compare him to John Malkovich in 'Dangerous Liaisons'. Speaking of 'Dangerous Liaisons,' it's almost the exact SAME STORY, right?! I watched that one first and honestly it blew this one out of the water. Like, hardcore. The whole scene with Valmont trying to seduce Madame de Tourvel just felt... off. Way less intense and believable than Malkovich's performance (sorry Firth fans!). I kinda felt like this one lacked the dark humor and overall bite of 'Dangerous Liaisons,' so if I had to choose, I'd watch that one first. The ending was also kinda blah. I mean, I knew what was coming, but it didn't have the same emotional impact. Did anyone else feel like Uma Thurman was underutilized? She was great but I feel like she could've been given way more to do. Overall, it's okay for a period piece if you’re into that genre, but it's not something I'd watch again soon. If you haven't seen either, DEF watch 'Dangerous Liaisons' first. You won't regret it. What did you guys think? Am I being too harsh?