1) Its perfect casting - especially Fairuza Balk as the extremely naive and innocent 15-year old Cecile. You must watch this movie to find out just how wonderfully charming and adoring she is. By comparison, Uma Thurman's "Cecile" in "DL" seems too old and sophisticated for the character. Annette Benning is also brilliant as the calculating and scheming "de Merteuil". In "Valmont", de Merteuil appears more human - she shows both her good and bad sides i.e. she's not ALL bad/evil like Glenn Glose's portrayal of the character in "DL". Colin Firth also makes for a more likeable and dashing Valmont than John Malkovich in "DL". I find Glenn Close and John Malkovich's portrayals to be too "scary" for anyone to be genuinely attracted to them. Their characters seem a little too cold and "serpent-like" to me.

2) The sets, cinematography and costumes in "Valmont" are more lavish and beautiful than in "DL". In "Valmont", there are more out-of door scenes e.g. the very lovely scene in the park where Valmont (Colin Firth) manages to coax the shy and proper Mdm de Tourveil (played by the luminous Meg Tilly) to get on the horse with him where he then proceeds to teach her archery, and the ensuing dance-and-picnic scene. In "Valmont", Cecile also plays the harp and sings a couple of beautiful songs.

3) A better screenplay and a more natural dialogue. This adaptation is also more detailed and thorough, and has more humour.