Who else prefers Cruel Intentions?
-
nonsequitous — 18 years ago(October 03, 2007 07:07 PM)
Cruel Intentions is not a movie, it is a cartoon, and all the characters are two-dimensional cartoon characters (and saying "two" is being generous). It's a waste of film. It should never have been made. The actors should have been embarrassed to be a part of it. It is an insult to the book, the play and Dangerous Liaisons. It sucks pond water through a dirty sock.
I trust I've made myself clear.
God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." Voltaire -
khmmo — 17 years ago(November 07, 2008 10:01 PM)
CI is fun but please les Liassions dangurous is sooooooooooooooooo mcuh better. the only good updating of a play boook etc is clueless from emma. it at least sparked a jane austen revivalS and S anyone or the colin firth P and p..need i continue?
-
talldarkstranger27 — 19 years ago(February 06, 2007 05:04 PM)
I found the death of Michelle Pfieffer's character to be the weakest plot point. It was unneccessery and the fact that it was of greif or a broken heart? Ridiculous! I also believe the scene in which Valmont is killed in that sword fight was badly acted, badly scripted and built absolutley no atmosphere. The scene in the theatre where Glenn Close has been discovered and the final shot of her wiping off the makeup are both masterful however. They serve as very powerful images to conclude the film, it's just a shame the rest of the ending isn't up to the same standard. I believe the ending of Cruel Intentions was exceptional. Remembering that this film is only suggested by the novel, I completley agree with Roger Kumble's decision to omit Anette's death.
-
talldarkstranger27 — 19 years ago(February 07, 2007 12:01 AM)
I have to say you have shed new light on the ending, next time I view this film, I may see it differently. Your explanations have certainly made the ending much more sensical. But I still prefer Cruel Intentions lol.
-
sambrolan_gee — 19 years ago(February 07, 2007 12:06 PM)
Dangerous Liaisons is one of the best films ever- amazing. Cruel Intentions is typical, teenage over-sexed dribble that cheaply cashes in on a great storyline. Though Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe were a sweet couple- pity about his being unable to keep it zipped.
"Can't act. Slightly bald. Can dance a little" The verdict on Fred Astaire's first screen test -
talldarkstranger27 — 19 years ago(February 07, 2007 02:48 PM)
Ignoring the unthoughtout generic response above - I have another flaw in the film that bothered me. Glenn Close does give a brilliant performance as Merteuil. But I don't think she's attractive enough to make the character completley convincing. Merteuil should be beautiful, and therefore have men in the palm of her hand. Her sexuality and physical appearance are her tools of manipulation, and Glenn Close is rather plain. Sarah Michelle Gellar on the other hand is stunning.
-
talldarkstranger27 — 19 years ago(February 12, 2007 05:19 PM)
I completley agree that they are indeed masters of manipulation, and I think this is the reason why John Malkovitch can get away with not being particularly handsome. But men, especially in these old, unequal times, were very shallow when it came to females. That is one of the motivations to Merteuil's character. Gellar can get away with playing the pretty and innocent "Mary Sunshine" and uses this to wrap men around her finger.
-
sambrolan_gee — 19 years ago(February 08, 2007 10:15 AM)
Do forgive me for making a joke- I didn't realise you had to be serious in this board all the time. Just giving my opinion like you.
She doesn't have to be beautiful to be sexually attractive. She's sophisticated, cunning, deceptive, mysterious, influential and simply oozes confidence and charm, with her older-woman worldliness, experience and wisdom as the cherry on top. Most men find qualities such as these very attractive and appealing, well, perhaps apart from the cunning and deceptive part. Physical appearance isn't absolutely everything. She is indeed a pretty girl, but her character lacks the substance and depth of Merteuil. And Glenn Close gives a first class performance. For some reason to me her portrayal is just that bit more human than Sarah Michelle Gellar's.
"Can't act. Slightly bald. Can dance a little" The verdict on Fred Astaire's first screen test -
talldarkstranger27 — 19 years ago(February 12, 2007 05:13 PM)
I think they both give great performances. I find Gellar completley believeable, I know girls liek her (although obviously not to that extreme). Her use of eye rolls and mutterances under her breath give her that extra human dimension and make us realise that although highly intelligent, she is still just a teenage girl, playing at being a woman.
-
spyfoxforever — 19 years ago(February 18, 2007 10:19 AM)
I, being he youngin' that I am, saw Cruel Intentions and at the time I thought it was the best thing since slicwed bread, but then I saw Dangerous Liasons and I was blown away. I love Glenn Close's performance and It's definetly one of my favorite films ever.