VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,4/10
16.657
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Siamo diversi anni prima di quando Kathryn incontra per la prima volta Sebastian e la loro attrazione sessuale reciproca nonché il loro divertimento nel distruggere la vita dei loro coetanei... Leggi tuttoSiamo diversi anni prima di quando Kathryn incontra per la prima volta Sebastian e la loro attrazione sessuale reciproca nonché il loro divertimento nel distruggere la vita dei loro coetanei si rivela.Siamo diversi anni prima di quando Kathryn incontra per la prima volta Sebastian e la loro attrazione sessuale reciproca nonché il loro divertimento nel distruggere la vita dei loro coetanei si rivela.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Clement von Franckenstein
- Henry
- (as Clement Von Franckenstein)
Christophe Davidson
- Gordon Anderson
- (as Christopher Davidson)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizSebastian says "God, we sound like a canceled television series" and that's exactly what happened.
- BlooperWhen 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.
- Versioni alternativeThe 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.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Beyond Clueless (2014)
- Colonne sonoreWeed
Written by Greg Lattimer
Performed by Thin Lizard Dawn
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
What is the Spanish language plot outline for Cruel Intentions 2: Non illudersi mai (2000)?
Rispondi