IMDb-BEWERTUNG
4,4/10
16.709
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Kathryn trifft Sebastian zum ersten Mal, ihre sexuelle Anziehung zueinander und ihr Vergnügen daran, das Leben der anderen zu zerstören.Kathryn trifft Sebastian zum ersten Mal, ihre sexuelle Anziehung zueinander und ihr Vergnügen daran, das Leben der anderen zu zerstören.Kathryn trifft Sebastian zum ersten Mal, ihre sexuelle Anziehung zueinander und ihr Vergnügen daran, das Leben der anderen zu zerstören.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Clement von Franckenstein
- Henry
- (as Clement Von Franckenstein)
Christophe Davidson
- Gordon Anderson
- (as Christopher Davidson)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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
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.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesSebastian says "God, we sound like a canceled television series" and that's exactly what happened.
- PatzerWhen Sebastian's father is on the phone to his "accountant" and Sebastian walks in, to the right hand side of the screen above the sofa his father is sitting on, you can see the head of a crew-member in the whole shot.
- Alternative VersionenThe original pilot episode and most of the first two episodes of the original shot footage were included in the movie but here are the major differences from the TV series to actual movie:
- Sarah Thompson's character was actually called Annette Hargrove but is now called Danielle Sherman.
- Keri Lynn Pratt's character was actually called Cecile Caldwell, but is now called Cherie Claymon.
- "TV friendly" dialog was originally used instead of what is currently present.
- A different score and soundtrack was used.
- Certain sub-plots (More about secret Manchester Prep tribunal, characters Penny Cartwright, Todd Michaels, Millicent Davies, Nigel Danby, etc.) were dropped from the plot completely focusing on the Merteuil/Valmont family completely.
- 10 minutes of newly added footage which was shot in 2000, including the shower sex scene with the twins, and the twist ending.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Beyond Clueless (2014)
- SoundtracksWeed
Written by Greg Lattimer
Performed by Thin Lizard Dawn
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen