Watch Cruel Intentions For Free

To me, this movie is perfection.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Did you people see the same film I saw?

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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.

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.

Given that this is - or at first glance looks very much like - a "teen flick", it perhaps feels freer than many of the need to engage in adult-style moralising. Indeed in the first half it is (as the title suggests) cruel, brutally calculating and entirely open in its acceptance - and even its lauding - of the most highly cynical and manipulative motives. It is perhaps the way of the world, the way of human nature in film-viewer as much as film-maker, that all of this makes for a shamefully attractive and hotly erotic kick-off to the movie. The faint-hearted should make no mistake, this is a very (for me surprisingly) dirty film, notwithstanding the fact that virtually nothing of any openly sexual nature is even shown. It is well-enough known that "Cruel Intentions" gets its inspiration from late 18th-century French literature, and so it can come as no surprise that both characters and viewers seduced by the superficial desirability of the depicted life without moral compass must get their comeuppance. And so to the second half of the film, in which half of the cynically manipulative duo that controls the piece so mesmerisingly experiences a change of heart - literally - with gentle and genuine feelings overwhelming those whose roots lie in unbridled lust for sex and power. Inevitably, perhaps, the film looks far less unique and original, and far less compelling, from this point on, though we do have some (guilt-laden) fun in seeing the unreformed half of the duo get their just desserts. We as viewers are happy enough then to point the finger of condemnation at a character whose meanness had at first ensnared us in fascination! For me, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Ryan Phillipe offer spellbindingly good performances, while it is also interesting (if not especially impressive) to see Joshua Jackson in a pre-"Fringe" role. Selma Blair does a good job, and all the more so if one can really believe the truth that she was 25+ when the film was made! For this viewer there were far more problems with the Reese Witherspoon part, though this may in part have reflected the change of mood she imposed upon the film, perhaps a little artificially.

Cruel Intentions (1999): Dir: Roger Kumble / Cast: Ryan Phillippe, Reese Witherspoon, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Selma Blair, Sean Patrick Thomas: Interesting teen comedy that is perhaps a tad too manipulative for its own good, but that is what makes it fun, right? Theme regards direct harm for personal gain. Ryan Phillippe and Sarah Michelle Gellar are step-siblings who use each other as if a target for sport. He uses his charm to sleep with women who becomes victims when their nude photos hit the Internet. Gellar resists him and cherishes only her cross necklace that conceals cocaine. He is out to sleep with a charity worker. She seeks revenge on her ex-boyfriend's girlfriend. He bets his car while she bets her body to him. Decent setup details characters through numerous encounters and plot turns plus a triumphant ending. Director Roger Kumble is backed with fine settings and a tease screenplay. Phillippe unleashes the charm but finds an emotional wall and an ultimate end. Witherspoon plays the naïve charity worker with her values that are threatened with compromise. Gellar steals scenes as the seductive and sadistic step-sister dead on vengeance. Sean Patrick Thomas plays Blair's music teacher whom she makes the mistake of reveal her affections about. Hilarious performance by Selma Blair as the awkward target of Gellar's rage. Manipulation theme bares consequences too cruel to ponder. Score: 9 / 10