Cruel Intentions


Action / Drama / Romance

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 49%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 81%
IMDb Rating 6.8 10 162091


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 56,458 times
June 01, 2015 at 11:34 AM



Reese Witherspoon as Annette Hargrove
Tara Reid as Marci Greenbaum
Sarah Michelle Gellar as Kathryn Merteuil
Joshua Jackson as Blaine Tuttle
754.47 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 37 min
P/S 10 / 100

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by marieltrokan 6 / 10

The brainlessness of not explaining why facts and mysteries deserve to be synonymous

The 1999 adaptation, Cruel Intentions, is a film which is an error that doesn't deserve to be betrayed - an injury that doesn't deserve to be betrayed.

It shouldn't make any sense, that an injury can have the right to be honoured. An injury is pain, and it's grief and it's loss. A loss is intolerable, in actual fact - so Cruel Intentions actually translates to being a film which is an intolerance that doesn't deserve to be itself.

From a casual perspective, of life, it's literally impossible to experience an intolerance. With this being the case, Cruel Intentions is a film which takes the very root concept of an impossibility and turns it into a mystery. Mystery is connected to impossibility, and therefore certainty is connected to possibility - all possibility is certain.

And then that's when Cruel Intentions finds itself in a very awkward, and in a very messed up position: Cruel Intentions connects certainty to possibility, however, it's made this connection under the precarious terms of having also connected impossibility to certainty as well.

Unfortunately for Cruel Intentions, it's just a no-brainer: connecting both possibility and impossibility to certainty is one of the most intellectually brainless things that's possible.

How is it even remotely sane, that certainty is made into something that's simultaneously possible and impossible?

A certainty is a fact. A fact isn't a possibility, and yet it's also a fact that a fact can't be an impossibility either. Where does the insanity end?

Because of its lack of focus, and because of its lack of discipline and its lack of vision, the 1999 film Cruel Intentions is the absolute brainlessness of not giving a reason for why neither possibility and impossibility deserve to be distinguished from each other

Reviewed by Mihai Toma 7 / 10

A movie which had potential

A playboy with an impressive history and notoriety makes a bet with his mischievous step-sister. He will have to sleep with a girl determined to wait until true love in order to take his sister for a ride, or lose his beloved and expensive convertible.

It's an interesting, thrilling, sensual but also funny movie which shows that ultimately everyone can change if the right conditions are met, while other's cruel actions can tend to be limitless until the inevitable ending unexpectedly comes, an strikes with a huge blow. Unfortunately, its simplistic plot isn't able to sustain the main intrigue while the finale is quite disappointing, even easily avoidable. It's good in what it tries to achieve but an average movie in every other aspect.

Reviewed by ironhorse_iv 6 / 10

I won't be, too cruel on this movie, too much. It was just meh. There is nothing worth getting too work up, about.

There's a lesbian kiss between Sarah Michelle Gellar & Selma Blair's characters & sadly, that's what most people remember about this movie. Nevertheless, this film directed by Roger Kumble, originally named 'Cruel Inventions' before getting renamed, in order, to sound, less sci-fiction, has more to give, than just that. While, I wouldn't say, this American teenager film version is the best adaptation of author, Pierre Choderios de Laclo's 1782's novel, 'Les Liaisons dangereuses'; because it's not. I can say, the film about two teenager socialite step-siblings, Kathryn Merteuil (Sarah Michelle Gellar) & Sebastian Valmont (Ryan Phillippe), using seduction as a weapon to socially control and exploit others like Cecile Caldwell (Selma Blair) & Annette Hargrove (Reese Witherspoon), all the while enjoying their cruel games and boasting about their manipulative talents, was not that bad. It was mediocre, at best. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, this movie didn't have the same success and impact, as 1988's 'Dangerous Liaisons', had; maybe, because writer, Roger Kumble use a modern teenager settling, with little to no stalks, attached to it, rather than, setting the movie, with older crowd in a more compelling and complex location, like Wall Street, Hollywood, or better yet, in order, to fit more, with the French-like libertinism themes of the novel, post Antebellum, New Orleans College Life. Another reason, why the original settling works so well, is because, that novel depict 'Ancien Régime' French aristocracy, so cruel & corrupt, that it justified, the reasons, why the French Revolution, was needed. Here, the film does not, expose the dark side of capitalism & materialism that much, to justified, any reform, nor does it, make, the characters, too unlikable to hate. Toward the middle of the movie, the tone of the piece, switch, from, exposing the perversions of upper society to romantic teen drama, about Sebastian, slowly, falling in love, with one of his victim, Annette. Sebastian is presented far more sympathetically than his counterpart in the original novel and its adaptations. Because of this, the tone of this bet, makes the film, seem like it belong in the same typical cheesy teen-pop vain as films like 1999's "She's All that', than the cruel actions of 1959's 'Les liaisons dangereuses'. It's sad, because, this movie could had been something, so much, more, than kinda bland. Although, the film documents themes like incest, homosexuality, and miscegenation, it plays those subjects, pretty safe for a Rated R movie. Also, hardly any graphic nudity. This film, wasn't as risky as the original with its shining example of debauchery and decadence. After all, Valmont in the novel, does rape, and cause a lot of people to commit suicide, a lot more seriously. Sebastian in the film, is far from being, true-evil. Another big change from the novel, is the ending. Instead, of a justified duel to the death for a character that deserve it, the film, ends, bittersweet, with the lover, saving his love's life from accident. This ending, doesn't have the same impact as the original, because we know, that the character could perform an unselfish deed, while the reader of the novel has no way of knowing the protagonist true feelings. Did Valmont change for the good!? The book leave that, open-ended. I felt, the closure of 'Cruel Intentions', left, not enough work, for being thought-provoking. Another interesting observation that can be concluded after analyzing the film is the raw language is not as sophisticated as the book. I found the dialogue of the film, to be, shallow and not very memorable. Yet, another problem, with this film is overall, acting. While, Ryan Phillippe, was alright in the role, he was given. Some parts of his performance seem a little too annoying, whinny for my taste. The acting from Sarah Michelle Gellar was a little worst, with her going a little, too cartoony, over the top with being a vileness. Both young performers, couldn't touch, the sublime narcissistic egotism that, Glenn Close & John Malkovich pull off, in the 1988's film. Despite that, I have to say, the supporting cast was a lot better. While, Selma Blair's character, was made into a clueless ditz. She did play the role, well. The same with Reese Witherspoon. She really did, seem like she was the angelic virgin, despite, stealing a vintage car in the end. As for the adult performers, in this film. There were very unremarkable. I totally forgot that actress, Christine Baranski & Louise Fletcher, were in this film. That's how much, they didn't shine. Despite that, I do have to say, the movie was beautiful shot. The escalator scene, toward the end, was very noticeable. Another great thing, about this film, is the beautiful, well-crafted soundtrack. This movie had some of the best musicians of the '90s: 'Placebo, Aimee Mann, Skunk Anansie, Blur, and The Verve' to name, a few. It was nice to listen to. As for the sequels/prequels like 2000's 'Cruel Intentions 2' & 2004's 'Cruel Intentions 3'. They weren't worth checking out. However, the 2016 TV Movie/pilot of television series of the same name, might be worth seeing, if the footage is ever released. Overall: Despite its many flaws, this movie is still worth checking. 'Cruel Intentions' was somewhat seduced at the time.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment