Glenn Close isn't in both, Swoosie Kurtz is.
-
wiked_wich — 15 years ago(March 06, 2011 10:38 PM)
Interesting.
I prefer DL more for the richer story and dialogue and better cast in it, but also like CI for the modern-day story-telling. Overall, DL is superior to me.
Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability. -
sarizonana — 14 years ago(November 15, 2011 08:58 AM)
I like much more DL
It has much better performances by everyone
Especially Glenn Close no one can't compete with her.
Now I have to say that I liked cruel intentions too, it's not a masterpiece but whoever made the adpatatiion in to the modern days did a very good job.
I can understand the people who prefer CI.
There are some people who hate period dramas, so it's normal thier preference forvth teens version.
Anyway the story it's fantastic one of best fictional stories I've seen adapted to the screen and it's too flexible.
Producers could make thousands of adaptations of this story
The next ones could be with college students, it could with all adults in a corportatte world,they could take it back to the 18th century and still make a very successful remake.
I would never get tired of DL adaptations, Two Dangerous Liaisacions would have been much more exciting than the two snow whites coming soon -
Aibhlin — 14 years ago(November 26, 2011 07:57 AM)
If only Cruel Intentions had kept its original script the two movies could at least be comparable, despite CI's weaker cast
Seriously, if you haven't read the original script, go read it now. Much more real and intriguing than the watered-down, censored version.
One girls fears in the night are another girls paradise -
heartsinwonderland — 14 years ago(November 28, 2011 05:05 PM)
(Spoilers!)
Dangerous Liaisons. It has superb acting, and Glenn Close is perfect. It doesn't feel quite as extreme as CI. The ending is much better too. Sarah's character in CI was just plain awful and evil, and showed no emotion towards the death in the film. Glenn showed many emotions, and you see her breakdown at John's death. She loved to seduce, play games, and mess with people, but in the end she realized she went too far. Sarah was just plain monstrous.
Cruel Intentions tried to hard.
If being crazy means living life as if it matters, then I don't mind being completely insane. - RR -
madman_salv — 14 years ago(March 25, 2012 01:26 PM)
I think both are brilliant to be honest.
But I don't know, even though I adore Sarah Michelle Gellar, the ACTING in DL was better, however, the ending of Cruel Intentions just has that something (IMO of course).It could be down to the song choice they used for that specific ending scene. -
charlespdk — 13 years ago(May 22, 2012 12:35 PM)
I know I'm kind of necroing this thread, but whatever. I just saw DL and looked into the novel when I realized that this was the same plot as CI and made the connection. This maybe an issue of my age (25) but I prefer CI. Now, DL is the better made movie, of course. Who would argue that Gellar's performance is better than Glenn Close or that the Kumble made better decisions than Frears (a multi-award winning director)? Still, I'm pretty disinterested in period films like this especially one with a bunch of English actors being French. The plot itself is laughable in its condemnation of aristocratic privilege not matter how seriously you try to take it.
I prefer CI because it's simpler and has more fun with what it's doing. It doesn't take the premise so seriously and drag us down with its dumb morals and gravitas. It does portray those evil rich kids, but evil rich kids that I can at least recognize. And as far as movies about teens being bad go, it ranks pretty high up there. If CI is a better example of a teen movie is DL a better example of period films? I'd it's not, but that's just my opinion. -
nilbog44 — 12 years ago(May 29, 2013 01:55 PM)
All of you are trashing Cruel Intentions? Sheesh Everyone takes themselves way too seriously. They are both great movies for different reasons. Of course Cruel Intentions is over the top but it's in a winking manner and it's entertaining as hell. If you don't like it I would assume it's because you are forcing yourself not to like it in order to keep up your "serious film buff" street cred. Don't tell me you didn't like that final scene with "bittersweet symphony" playing in the background. If you don't then kindly remove the stick from your rectum.
-
johnnabriggs12 — 12 years ago(January 31, 2014 11:48 PM)
Yeah I totally think CI was better. It felt more resolved? I liked Sebastian getting to say he loved Annette before dying vs having some kid who killed you deliver the msg postmortem. DL was pretty good, and some parts were just hilarious, it was very dark, but not as sensual as people have made it seem. I just guess i can identify more with the way the characters come off in CI. DL is defintely more of an oscar buzzed movie where CI is more of a guilty pleasure. But what do I know, I'm just young uncultured swine.
-
jeskavandetta — 12 years ago(March 08, 2014 08:01 PM)
I honestly don't know.
One thing I'll say is that at the end of Cruel Intentions, I never get the impression that the two main characters deserve their comeuppance. They're quite obviously bad people in Dangerous Liaisons in that Sebastian's a rapist (with an STI?) and Merteuil's a crazy old witch but in CI they're just kind of douchey.
Dangerous Liaisons had better actors. Cruel Intentions had more attractive actors and a cool soundtrack (which is rather shallow).
Dangerous Liaisons has an strangely sexy older woman as Merteuil which, as a concept, is more fascinating to watch. Cruel Intention has Buffy the Vampire Slayer play her which, given the context, seems more realistic (why would an older woman be
that
involved in the affairs of modern day teenagers anyways?). -
Morbius_Fitzgerald — 12 years ago(March 11, 2014 01:04 AM)
I have read through the entirety of this thread and have seen three versions of the story; Dangerous Liaisons, Valmont and Cruel Intentions. I have never read the book or seen the play but for personal taste, I'd rank the movies in this order
Valmont
Dangerous Liaisons
Cruel Intentions
I didn't like either of these two films but if I had to choose one, Dangerous Liaisons knocks Cruel Intentions out of the park. I mean Malkovich has a lot of that manipulative characteristics down and Glen Close was actually pretty well performed but in terms of De Tourvel, no one and I mean no one can compete with Michelle Pfeiffer. The dark tone did actually do a lot in the movies favour and made me feel uncomfortable in scenes such as when Valmont rapes Cecile.
Cruel Intentions had a kind of premature tone about it. The acting in this film was atrocious and the writing is hypnotisingly bad (I know thats not a word but its the only way I can describe it). After I saw Cruel Intentions, I had to comprehend for a bit that the movie actually had fans. I mean considering that Valmont and Merteuil were step-siblingsthat made the movie more disturbing. Why am I complaining? A bet two people make where they destroy the lives of everyone involved is disturbing enough, even in modern times, it doesn't need THAT too.
The reason why Valmont is by far my favourite is for a few reasons. The tone of this movie is kind of light but that is what works so well with it. At first it feels like fun and games and when all these horrible things start happening, it becomes more shocking to someone who knows nothing about the story. Colin Firth plays his part with plenty of charm and he did kind of pull off the look that Milos Forman was going for. I mentioned a rape scene in Dangerous Liaisons. In that they don't even try to mask it and in Valmont they make it even more uncomfortable by giving the scene an almost soothing tone. It gave both Valmont and Merteuil more of a human side than I have seen in either of the two versions which just added to the emotional weight of the climax. The emotional subtlety of this film is simply phenomenal and I stick by this as my vote for the best of the three versions I've seen.
"I have always valued my lifelessness."