Cruel Intentions Reviews

  • May 30, 2019

    Much like Dangerous Liaisons (1988) and Valmont (1989) this is a film that parodies the conservative sexual mores of society that only allow the manipulative to get ahead. This film doesn't work as well as the two 1980s adaptations of the same story but it still packs a mighty punch as a piece of late 90s cinema that's endured in popularity despite the new questions asked due to the #metoo movement. I won't deny that I did derive some pleasure from the film but I have the same issue with it that I do with all previous incarnations of the same story. Watch for the plethora of stars, campy performances and style choices as you watch what is essentially a mash up of Adrian Lyne and Neil LaBute. Manipulative high school senior Kathryn Merteuil, Sarah Michelle Gellar, pretends to be a good Christian girl while engaging in nasty manipulations of those around her behind the scenes. She has grown bored with the state of her life however and enlists her equally devilish stepbrother Sebastian Valmont, Ryan Philippe, to seduce the virginal , Reese Witherspoon, for the reward of sleeping with her. Merteuil's plans are thrown into disarray when Valmont and begin to genuinely fall in love. In the background the innocent Cecile, Selma Blair, who began an affair with Merteuil's ex-lover has her life destroyed by Valmont and she and her black lover ,, are separated. My biggest issue with the story is that it pretends to be a morality tale about how people should actually be good and moral but the only real enjoyment that can be derived out of the film is from the nastiness of Merteuil and Valmont. I would have had them each achieve their goals because they really are the heroes of this film as the relationship between Valmont and is bland. Yes, the final shot of Dangerous Liaisons provides Glenn Close with a great acting moment but would it not have been more wonderful if she does triumph and continues to reign over her oblivious peers. I just couldn't muster up any real caring for the true love story in this film and moments that were meant to be dramatic lost a lot of the impact they were meant to have because this is not a sappy romantic drama like Out of Africa (1985) but a mean comedy like In the Company of Men (1996). Beyond that issue I also felt that we didn't get any real stakes in terms of what these wealthy teenagers would lose if they failed to keep up appearances. In Dangerous Liaisons we come to understand that having a position in court and appearing to be morally conservative is the only way to maintain your social position therefore you lose everything if people discover you have been amoral. In 1999 at a high school full of rich kids I doubt you would lose everything if your fellow students discovered you had been messing with your personal lives, maybe there would have been some fallout but it's a big city you could find other friends or move to another school. We don't have any set up because we don't get to see the other people who would be ousting our main characters from the society if they were to discover their secrets instead we spend all of our time with our main characters who appear to have no other friends. In terms of positives Gellar's performance is positively villainous as she proves herself a worthy successor to Close, high praise I know, and the screenplay has parotic elements that work. We get to see Cecile's racist mother awkwardly try to explain away her opposition to their relationship while Merteuil and Valmont play ridiculous games of seduction. It is these moments that people show up for and had everybody's performance been on the level of Gellar's I would have said that this film was equal to Dangerous Liaisons. 1999 was one of the deepest years in cinema history and this film goes into the She's All That, Anywhere But Here pile where it has it's cult following but is not on the level of American Beauty (1999) or Being John Malkovich (1999). Much like Dangerous Liaisons (1988) and Valmont (1989) this is a film that parodies the conservative sexual mores of society that only allow the manipulative to get ahead. This film doesn't work as well as the two 1980s adaptations of the same story but it still packs a mighty punch as a piece of late 90s cinema that's endured in popularity despite the new questions asked due to the #metoo movement. I won't deny that I did derive some pleasure from the film but I have the same issue with it that I do with all previous incarnations of the same story. Watch for the plethora of stars, campy performances and style choices as you watch what is essentially a mash up of Adrian Lyne and Neil LaBute. Manipulative high school senior Kathryn Merteuil, Sarah Michelle Gellar, pretends to be a good Christian girl while engaging in nasty manipulations of those around her behind the scenes. She has grown bored with the state of her life however and enlists her equally devilish stepbrother Sebastian Valmont, Ryan Philippe, to seduce the virginal , Reese Witherspoon, for the reward of sleeping with her. Merteuil's plans are thrown into disarray when Valmont and begin to genuinely fall in love. In the background the innocent Cecile, Selma Blair, who began an affair with Merteuil's ex-lover has her life destroyed by Valmont and she and her black lover ,, are separated. My biggest issue with the story is that it pretends to be a morality tale about how people should actually be good and moral but the only real enjoyment that can be derived out of the film is from the nastiness of Merteuil and Valmont. I would have had them each achieve their goals because they really are the heroes of this film as the relationship between Valmont and is bland. Yes, the final shot of Dangerous Liaisons provides Glenn Close with a great acting moment but would it not have been more wonderful if she does triumph and continues to reign over her oblivious peers. I just couldn't muster up any real caring for the true love story in this film and moments that were meant to be dramatic lost a lot of the impact they were meant to have because this is not a sappy romantic drama like Out of Africa (1985) but a mean comedy like In the Company of Men (1996). Beyond that issue I also felt that we didn't get any real stakes in terms of what these wealthy teenagers would lose if they failed to keep up appearances. In Dangerous Liaisons we come to understand that having a position in court and appearing to be morally conservative is the only way to maintain your social position therefore you lose everything if people discover you have been amoral. In 1999 at a high school full of rich kids I doubt you would lose everything if your fellow students discovered you had been messing with your personal lives, maybe there would have been some fallout but it's a big city you could find other friends or move to another school. We don't have any set up because we don't get to see the other people who would be ousting our main characters from the society if they were to discover their secrets instead we spend all of our time with our main characters who appear to have no other friends. In terms of positives Gellar's performance is positively villainous as she proves herself a worthy successor to Close, high praise I know, and the screenplay has parotic elements that work. We get to see Cecile's racist mother awkwardly try to explain away her opposition to their relationship while Merteuil and Valmont play ridiculous games of seduction. It is these moments that people show up for and had everybody's performance been on the level of Gellar's I would have said that this film was equal to Dangerous Liaisons. 1999 was one of the deepest years in cinema history and this film goes into the She's All That, Anywhere But Here pile where it has it's cult following but is not on the level of American Beauty (1999) or Being John Malkovich (1999).

    Much like Dangerous Liaisons (1988) and Valmont (1989) this is a film that parodies the conservative sexual mores of society that only allow the manipulative to get ahead. This film doesn't work as well as the two 1980s adaptations of the same story but it still packs a mighty punch as a piece of late 90s cinema that's endured in popularity despite the new questions asked due to the #metoo movement. I won't deny that I did derive some pleasure from the film but I have the same issue with it that I do with all previous incarnations of the same story. Watch for the plethora of stars, campy performances and style choices as you watch what is essentially a mash up of Adrian Lyne and Neil LaBute. Manipulative high school senior Kathryn Merteuil, Sarah Michelle Gellar, pretends to be a good Christian girl while engaging in nasty manipulations of those around her behind the scenes. She has grown bored with the state of her life however and enlists her equally devilish stepbrother Sebastian Valmont, Ryan Philippe, to seduce the virginal , Reese Witherspoon, for the reward of sleeping with her. Merteuil's plans are thrown into disarray when Valmont and begin to genuinely fall in love. In the background the innocent Cecile, Selma Blair, who began an affair with Merteuil's ex-lover has her life destroyed by Valmont and she and her black lover ,, are separated. My biggest issue with the story is that it pretends to be a morality tale about how people should actually be good and moral but the only real enjoyment that can be derived out of the film is from the nastiness of Merteuil and Valmont. I would have had them each achieve their goals because they really are the heroes of this film as the relationship between Valmont and is bland. Yes, the final shot of Dangerous Liaisons provides Glenn Close with a great acting moment but would it not have been more wonderful if she does triumph and continues to reign over her oblivious peers. I just couldn't muster up any real caring for the true love story in this film and moments that were meant to be dramatic lost a lot of the impact they were meant to have because this is not a sappy romantic drama like Out of Africa (1985) but a mean comedy like In the Company of Men (1996). Beyond that issue I also felt that we didn't get any real stakes in terms of what these wealthy teenagers would lose if they failed to keep up appearances. In Dangerous Liaisons we come to understand that having a position in court and appearing to be morally conservative is the only way to maintain your social position therefore you lose everything if people discover you have been amoral. In 1999 at a high school full of rich kids I doubt you would lose everything if your fellow students discovered you had been messing with your personal lives, maybe there would have been some fallout but it's a big city you could find other friends or move to another school. We don't have any set up because we don't get to see the other people who would be ousting our main characters from the society if they were to discover their secrets instead we spend all of our time with our main characters who appear to have no other friends. In terms of positives Gellar's performance is positively villainous as she proves herself a worthy successor to Close, high praise I know, and the screenplay has parotic elements that work. We get to see Cecile's racist mother awkwardly try to explain away her opposition to their relationship while Merteuil and Valmont play ridiculous games of seduction. It is these moments that people show up for and had everybody's performance been on the level of Gellar's I would have said that this film was equal to Dangerous Liaisons. 1999 was one of the deepest years in cinema history and this film goes into the She's All That, Anywhere But Here pile where it has it's cult following but is not on the level of American Beauty (1999) or Being John Malkovich (1999). Much like Dangerous Liaisons (1988) and Valmont (1989) this is a film that parodies the conservative sexual mores of society that only allow the manipulative to get ahead. This film doesn't work as well as the two 1980s adaptations of the same story but it still packs a mighty punch as a piece of late 90s cinema that's endured in popularity despite the new questions asked due to the #metoo movement. I won't deny that I did derive some pleasure from the film but I have the same issue with it that I do with all previous incarnations of the same story. Watch for the plethora of stars, campy performances and style choices as you watch what is essentially a mash up of Adrian Lyne and Neil LaBute. Manipulative high school senior Kathryn Merteuil, Sarah Michelle Gellar, pretends to be a good Christian girl while engaging in nasty manipulations of those around her behind the scenes. She has grown bored with the state of her life however and enlists her equally devilish stepbrother Sebastian Valmont, Ryan Philippe, to seduce the virginal , Reese Witherspoon, for the reward of sleeping with her. Merteuil's plans are thrown into disarray when Valmont and begin to genuinely fall in love. In the background the innocent Cecile, Selma Blair, who began an affair with Merteuil's ex-lover has her life destroyed by Valmont and she and her black lover ,, are separated. My biggest issue with the story is that it pretends to be a morality tale about how people should actually be good and moral but the only real enjoyment that can be derived out of the film is from the nastiness of Merteuil and Valmont. I would have had them each achieve their goals because they really are the heroes of this film as the relationship between Valmont and is bland. Yes, the final shot of Dangerous Liaisons provides Glenn Close with a great acting moment but would it not have been more wonderful if she does triumph and continues to reign over her oblivious peers. I just couldn't muster up any real caring for the true love story in this film and moments that were meant to be dramatic lost a lot of the impact they were meant to have because this is not a sappy romantic drama like Out of Africa (1985) but a mean comedy like In the Company of Men (1996). Beyond that issue I also felt that we didn't get any real stakes in terms of what these wealthy teenagers would lose if they failed to keep up appearances. In Dangerous Liaisons we come to understand that having a position in court and appearing to be morally conservative is the only way to maintain your social position therefore you lose everything if people discover you have been amoral. In 1999 at a high school full of rich kids I doubt you would lose everything if your fellow students discovered you had been messing with your personal lives, maybe there would have been some fallout but it's a big city you could find other friends or move to another school. We don't have any set up because we don't get to see the other people who would be ousting our main characters from the society if they were to discover their secrets instead we spend all of our time with our main characters who appear to have no other friends. In terms of positives Gellar's performance is positively villainous as she proves herself a worthy successor to Close, high praise I know, and the screenplay has parotic elements that work. We get to see Cecile's racist mother awkwardly try to explain away her opposition to their relationship while Merteuil and Valmont play ridiculous games of seduction. It is these moments that people show up for and had everybody's performance been on the level of Gellar's I would have said that this film was equal to Dangerous Liaisons. 1999 was one of the deepest years in cinema history and this film goes into the She's All That, Anywhere But Here pile where it has it's cult following but is not on the level of American Beauty (1999) or Being John Malkovich (1999).

  • Mar 30, 2019

    This movie is 90s gold and I love it.

    This movie is 90s gold and I love it.

  • Mar 28, 2019

    Holy crap!!! Did NOT see that coming!!!

    Holy crap!!! Did NOT see that coming!!!

  • Mar 26, 2019

    I love this movie. If you are a fan of the 90ï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)s you will probably like it.

    I love this movie. If you are a fan of the 90ï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)s you will probably like it.

  • Mar 26, 2019

    First time I saw this, 20 years after it came out. Quite disappointing.

    First time I saw this, 20 years after it came out. Quite disappointing.

  • Mar 25, 2019

    Despised & hated it. immoral depraved writers. Walked out 1/2 way into it, which I almost never have done. & the main guy was not 'handsome'. saw '20th Anniversary' AMC 3.25.19.

    Despised & hated it. immoral depraved writers. Walked out 1/2 way into it, which I almost never have done. & the main guy was not 'handsome'. saw '20th Anniversary' AMC 3.25.19.

  • Mar 24, 2019

    Why exactly is this garbage in theaters again? It didn't make peoples' lips curl in disgust enough the first time around?

    Why exactly is this garbage in theaters again? It didn't make peoples' lips curl in disgust enough the first time around?

  • Mar 24, 2019

    Terrible perverted movie.

    Terrible perverted movie.

  • Mar 23, 2019

    good movie, when i was a boy i love this movie hahah

    good movie, when i was a boy i love this movie hahah

  • Mar 23, 2019

    Great movie, twisted ending.

    Great movie, twisted ending.