Cruel Intentions 2 (Video 2000) Poster

(2000 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
143 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Backstory is better than the film...
almostgrown1 April 2004
To understand how this film came to be, you first should know the backstory. In 1999, Fox bought a pilot TV show called Manchester Prep, a "reimagined" prequel to the film Cruel Intentions. It had all the same characters as the film and spread a fairly similar plot over the 22 episode arc. The film's producing and directing team oversaw creation of the TV show and production began. '99 was a decent year for TV and one of the gems was a show called Popular. Popular turned out to be....well, popular and Manchester Prep was canceled before it ever aired it's pilot. The first few episodes were already shot, so it was repackaged with a few re-shoots and rewrites (and some gratuitous nudity) into the form of Cruel Intentions 2.

The tonal changes throughout the film and different stylistic changes that plague the film are due to the segments of the TV episodes having been shot by different directors and then roughly tied together with reshoots by another director for the movie version. The film takes on a "pulp" feel as it plays on the inside jokes from the original film (which was designed to set up a connection between the show and the film as time progressed) and panders to the innuendos of the film in the lowest exploitative ways possible.

If you look hard enough you will find its connection to the first film, however viewing Cruel Intentions 2 before the original will likely dissuade you from viewing the original as this one lacks the sophistication and charisma of the original.
52 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It may be campy but I still Love it
valmont66625 January 2001
This movie, unlike the original, was a flat out comedy. I loved it. It's not nearly as good as the original but who cares, it's still alot of fun. By watching this movie you can see why the show MANCHESTER PREP never made it on the air. Not because it's bad but because it's very R rated. Amy Adams was excellent in the role of Kathryn Merteuil, although not as good as Sarah Michelle Gellar, but pretty close. Keri Lynn Pratt is just hysterical at playing the volnerable virgin. Especially when Kathryn teaches her how to ride a horse: "Up! Down! Back! Forth! Faster! Faster!" . The ending itself is pretty cool and we also learn how Sebastian got his journal. This movie also has something else that the original didn't have: nudity. Although THe deleted scenes of the first one had a few seconds, this one has two sisters taking a shower with Sebastian. If you're looking for something to compare to the first cruel intentions then this isn't it but if you are looking for a fun guilty pleasure then you found it.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Why bother?
mattymatt4ever1 May 2001
This is another one of those "Why bother?" sequels, or should say prequel? The film opens with a scene that mirrors the opening scene in the original "Cruel Intentions." And we also have a few other scenes that were mimicked straight from the original. We're introduced to some new characters, which were supposed to purposely bear similarities to ones in the original, like the nerdy blonde chick who was a mimic of Selma Blair's character.

This movie was originally going to become a TV show, "Manchester Prep." But with all the controversy, it never made it to air. I think it might've worked out quite well as a TV program, and I probably would've watched it--but if you're going to coarsen it up a bit and transform it into a direct-to-video prequel to "Cruel Intentions"...once again, I say "Why bother?"

The actors, in general, were a notch below the ones in the original. The one who played Sebastian in this installment doesn't have the charm or looks of Ryan Phillippe. In fact, he looks pretty geeky. You can't imagine this guy seducing an old lady, much less his beautiful love interest in the movie. The actress who takes over the role of Catherine has that "b**ch" quality that almost measures up Sarah Michelle's, so I can't really complain about her performance.

If anything, this movie has more of a sense of humor. There are some sitcom-like gags--again showing us this was more suited for TV--that I got a chuckle out of.

The plot goes through the formulaic motions, and concludes with a preposterous plot twist that--I guess--served as an eye-opener for an otherwise mediocre tale. Speaking of eye-openers, there's a shower scene that the guys will fully appreciate. *wink wink* If you have the DVD, it's much more convenient. You can just go straight to that scene. God bless the makers of DVD!!!

OK, that was a shallow comment, but I'm not criticizing "Casablanca" over here. This is a direct-to-video prequel, and you pretty much get what you expect. I loved the original "Cruel Intentions," but I can't say I'm going to keep high expectations for anything that heads straight to the video racks. But I have to say my expectations were slightly heightened when I found out Roger Kumble, the writer/director of the original, wrote and directed this movie, too.

My score: 5 (out of 10)
28 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boring!
famousgir13 June 2001
This prequel, sequel, whatever it is, to the first Cruel Intentions is absolutely rubbish and no where near as good as the first one. Some of the scenes from Cruel Intentions 2 are taken from Cruel Intentions and they're absolutely useless and sick. Their was a twist at the end of the film which was absolutely pathetic. And, the acting was VERY poor. I didn't enjoy this 'film' one bit. 1/10.
36 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not impressed
dracosbabe882 May 2007
They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as "down boy", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Possibly the worst movie ever made
Movie_Buff_Brad9 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
There isn't one decent scene.

Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well.

Then the dialogue is also crap.

Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them...

Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?

Lame.

The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was "the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him". She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.

And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw "losers", only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?

Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid.

There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.

After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera.

The end...

Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Maybe one should consider this a parody on the first...
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews20 January 2004
... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10
41 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Call me Mr. Easily Pleased, but I liked it.
BA_Harrison16 June 2008
Take my advice: before viewing Cruel Intentions 2, watch Disney's Enchanted. After falling in love with Amy Adams as the sweet, pure and innocent Princess Giselle, watching her play a rich-bitch schoolgirl slut is somehow so much more satisfying. It seems so wrong, yet so right!

Manchester Prep, a prequel to Cruel Intentions, stars the scrummy Ms.Adams as Kathryn, wicked step-sister to Sebastian (Robin Dunne), a student with a chequered past who tries to turn over a new leaf when he falls for the headmaster's daughter Danielle (Sarah Thompson). Kathryn, whose passion is to cause trouble whenever possible, attempts to scupper Sebastian's new relationship, whilst also doing her best to corrupt pretty and naive virgin Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt).

Whereas the original Cruel Intentions was, with its cast of trendy Hollywood stars, a calculated attempt to be cool, savvy and oh-so-clever, Manchester Prep is a trashy, immature, and totally unsophisticated movie that, by being far less pretentious, manages to be just as entertaining as, if not more than, the first.

Adams is easily a match for Sarah Michelle Gellar (Kathryn in Cruel Intentions), being both convincingly cruel and very sexy; Thompson is great as the pretty poor girl of the school who captures Sebastian's heart; and Keri Lynn Pratt is charming as the Manchester Prep virgin who learns why riding horses is so popular with young women. Hats off also to Annie Sorell and Alicia Lorén, who are unforgettable as Sebastian's horny, brunette shower buddies (female nudity in a teen drama has rarely been so gratuitous!).

Manchester Prep might not be innovative groundbreaking cinema, but it sure is fun. Not quite an 8/10, but a pretty high 7.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sleazy teen-market trash to capitalize on the success of it's theatrical predecessor.
TheVid24 March 2003
This one, like the teeny-bop remake of DANGEROUS LIAISONS, is populated by fragile, pasty teens whose sex scenes are vapid and unimpressive, unless you're an easily turned-on adolescent. Utterly cute in the worst sense of the word and, sadly, lacking any prurient interest.
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nothing if you compare with first one
AngellikesLA20 February 2005
If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Girl Likes Horse Riding
freemantle_uk19 August 2008
Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.

The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.

Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.

There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.

This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An interesting soap
MsDivine1 October 2001
This movie actually turned out to be pretty good. The characters were quite interesting as opposed to other teen characters that we normally see on Teen TV. Though this movie was more adult oriented. I thought the actors in this movie were much better than the first movie. This movie was funny and had lots of odd quirky humor that Krumble had thrown in. I enjoyed this movie and watched it along the lines as a soap with fun characters.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Just ignore the reviews! Bold, unexpected gem!
mariogomezg4 August 2003
First I´ll say I´m not in the teenage bunch (I´m 29), and that I´m happy to see an intellectual piece anytime, as long as it´s entertaining also (got that, Andrei Tarkovsky?).

Once that´s clear, what makes Cruel Intentions 2 so damn good???!!! Well, I wouldn´t like to drag, so I´ll go straight to the point: It´s plainly the best teenage girl fantasy ever. Yup guys, this one´s got babes-a-plenty, but ones with wittiness and a brain. The step sister really makes for a GREAT villain. She´s not just the typical snobbish rich girl often seen in this kind of movies, she´s much colder, smarter...I could believe a girl like this exists!

As for the rest of the female cast, man, they´re heavenly! Beautiful, clever, and the guy who designed those uniforms really knew what he was up to! Don´t miss the step-sister´s merciless seduction of her teacher. That´s good cinema! On a minor note, what about when another teacher rejects her, but immediately shows his liking for a male student? It´s a great gag!

Thanks to the good writing, in this movie the "bad" brotherhood of rich spoiled teens actually ends up becoming sympathetic. Don´t miss the much-celebrated shower scene! You can´t hate those girls!!

The main character, Sebastian, makes for a great counterpart for the "villain". Intelligent, self-assured, but sensitive nevertheless, and unwilling to let his step-sister have her way.

And the movie really does have a message. It is: Romanticism and faithfulness are ok, but...other ways may be good also. Much better, in fact. Are the characters in this movie "bad", actually? Yeah, they´re rich and spoiled, but they only mess with their equals, and what for? To tell them: Hey, we´re rich; We´re beautiful. Put traditional morals aside and enjoy sex and life! Which, by other side, you can also do not being rich at all. You just don´t have to live by everybody´s standards. Is it having a single, steady lover, the only, better way? The story presents this questions with great intelligence.

And as said before, the flick is full of really beautiful ladies. The Danielle character in particular is one to really look at. I sure hope to see more of this actress!

So ignore the reviews, do yourself a favor and watch this one without prejudices! It´s lots better than 75% of the stuff that´s making it to the silver screen. Great story, great humor, gorgeous babes...It sure deserves a chance!
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
BOMB out of 5
casey_choas6626 August 2002
Warning: If you have not seen the first Cruel Intentions do not continue reading. Made for TV sequal has absolutly nothing to do with the first and takes a huge hit from the absence of any of the original cast members, especially Ryan Phillipi. Sebastian is somewho magically raised from the dead, who this time around is a poor prankster that is sent to live with his rich father, new step-mother and step-sister Kathryn . Here he meets Kathryn for the first time who turns out to be downright mean. At his first day of school he meet the sweet and innocent school masters daughter and falls in love with her. If you think it sounds familiar you are very correct, in fact most of the dialogue from the first is recycled and used all over again. Sarah Michelle Gellar was delightfully evil as the wicked Kathryn the first time around who seen herself ruined at the end of the first movie. This time she is so cruel her character is just plain annonying and seems to be put on a side note due to the high amount of unneeded characters, she even heads an undergroud cult of "popular" people. Ryan Phillipi is dearly missed as the new Sebastian lacks any of his swave, debonair-like charm. Where as the first film was somewhat erotic and passionate this one is just plain dirty. IN fact the film gained a reasonable amount of controversy due to a scene in which a girl has an orgasm on a horse. The acting is horrible, there is no emotion to be found anywhere and probably the only people this film will appeal to are people who have not seen the first. Where the first Cruel Intertions was a guilty pleasure, this one is just guilty, fans of the original should steer way clear of this sequal that is more of a remake due to the fact that it offers nothing new to the fold except a lot of homosexuality and an even stupider ending.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just Awful
IamYorConscience7 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Basically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third one.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Awesome... totally rocks
Bradley-drake7 July 2003
I'm a teenager, i was seventeen when I first saw this movie and I think it was great. I love the original, don't get me wrong but this movie allowed us to see how the 'mighty do fall', so to speak. Which I think adds to second movie. Those who put it down, however you might find are out of the age bracket this movie was directed at. Robin Dunne is one of my favourite actors, basically when he is in something you know your in for a great performance. I found he with Sarah Thompson and Keri Lynn Pratt gave an edgy and sexy (very sexy in the shower and park scenes) performance which I enjoyed and have enjoyed many times over. So no prizes to people who put this down just cause it's a sequel prequel or whatever it is, just see it as a good movie thats a companion to something great and buy the dvd like i did. 5 out of 5.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
what a pleasure!
venture417 April 2006
A really pleasurable movie to watch with very good cinematography. A wonderful school girl theme and nice erotic moments, although I felt that they could have been a bit longer and more complete without overdoing it. Nice school uniforms showing lovely thin legs. The movie made me feel much younger. The girl kissing scenes added a lot of fun to the movie, I would have enjoyed more of it, especially if the girls enjoyed it more and held each other. The masturbation on the horse was quite entertaining, especially when she fell off from the pleasure, very thoughtful indeed. A very refreshing movie indeed! I would like to see more.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A seriously immature prequel
geeb196117 August 2005
This film demonstrates the woeful Hollywood obsession with pre/sequel production. It is rare that a follow up film equals or betters the original (Godfather Two and Aliens are notable exceptions).

The joy of Cruel Intentions was watching the interplay between the characters - how they came to be where they were was neither here nor there. Cruel 2 really is NOT required to explain how the protagonists became the shallow, bitching individuals they did.

Whereas as the original Cruel intentions was dark, savvy, razor edged and excellently presented by cast and crew.....this is not.

A few martinis too many at lunch (or maybe over a month or so) may have hatched this awkward, smutty and downright dull prequel, which shows none of the maturity of the first film.

Why did anyone bother? Avoid at all costs and treasure the original. There are far better things to do with your time.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Did not see on TV
jazzjunkie4 August 2003
This was a VHS rental. I thought it was a prequel to the first one which as I had read I also like the first one better. Only because I saw that one first and it does have to slightly better plot. This movie makes sense when you understand that this is the first movie in that it lays all the plot for the cruel intentions (1) I t has its own plot but the Sebastion character is much less of a force equal to that of Kathryn in this one. this sebastion is much weaker in spirit but at the end starts coming around. Danielle is a good diversion in this movie. I think they cast the roles better in the first one Sarah Michelle Gellar is better at being Kathryn but this does quite an admirable job.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
never seen so bad acting !!!
cphdk18 July 2001
This has got to be the worst 2nd film I have ever seen (whether you want to call it sequel, prequel, etc). The acting was terrible, the script was poor, the filming left nothing to the imagination and the surprises were few. Too many repetitions Okay I liked the staff in the New York City-appartment was good, the Mother, the chancellors daughter and the young woman who is seduced by the Father were goods characters and well played but the rest is basically not worth a thing ... It is a shame that such a great film, as Cruel Intentions is, should be followed by such a fiasco.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Cruel Intentions? Fitting title.
i_luv_colour3 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
even Amy Adams' poise and talent couldn't save this movie
LizardKingBey8 January 2008
From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie really stinks
ltrotta13 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!

While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).

Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great film 4 out of 10
ckenley11 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I really like the concept of a dinosaur theme park it felt both realistic and practical. Tom Hanks was a good choice for the main character he really captured the imaginative soul of a vending machine. Will Smith deserves an award for his role as the 6th man.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A mixed bag!
atinder8 May 2014
This movie is not sequel or prequel , its' a remake of the first movie, with some different.

I enjoyed the opening scenes, if they it was copy of first movie, with bit different as the movies goes on.

This actually start on first day of school instead of Summer like the first movie.

Evil Kathryn in this movie was decent but nothing compared to Sarah Michelle Gellar but much better portrayed then new guy playing Sebastian.

It stated of okay but as the movie went on, I don't believe , it carried that character as it should have been.

Well I don't think the script helped in some place, I found some of it so bad.

Danielle is the new Annette in this movie, I did not like her at all, I didn't care for at all.

However I did like one scenes in this movie, two hot naked girls walking into shower and well they just peck on lip, while seb in the shower!

I thought ending was decent, I didn't not expect at all, I thought it was decent turn in the story.

5 out of 10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed