Who else prefers Cruel Intentions? - Dangerous Liaisons (1989) Discussion

[–] szalami 18 years ago

dangerous liaisons is so much better than cruel intensions... the remake is hollywood-stylish... it is interesting, but boring...

reply

[–] lavashop 17 years ago

Agreed.
Dangerous Liaisons is soooooo much better.
I have watched DI like 135 times.

reply

[–] Mex5150 16 years ago

Hi

Personally I prefer 'Scandal - Joseon namnyeo sangyeoljisa' http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0380689/ to both.

~Mex

--

Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved?

reply

[–] rissypants15 16 years ago

Yeah i think Dangerous Liaisons is far better. I mean Sarah Michelle Gellar vs. Glenn Close..Glenn Close is by far the better actress and was amazing in Dangerous Liaisons.
I had actually seen Cruel Intentions first. And i thought that was great because im a teenager and good thats a great teen movie. But then i started to get into watching movies that were made in the 80s and i love Glenn Close as an actress and when you have her and the all-star cast of, Michelle Pfiefer, John Malcovich(who played a really sexy role for someone i never thought was sexy) Keanu Reeves (who doesn't love him) and young Uma Thurman). Plus the fact that this movie took place in the 1700s. A time where this kind of behavior was considered horrendous it makes the whole movie seem so bamf and out going. Which is so different than Cruel Intentions because nowadays anyone can do what Ryan Phillipe did and get away with it, that's no biggy.
So Dangerous Liaisons 10x better. And is one of the sexiest movies ever made!

reply

[–] rbylakx 16 years ago

Dangerous Liaisons is a far SUPERIOR acted, scenic, costumed and overall better film than the boorish and very Hollywood remake Cruel Intentions.

No comparison.

Malkovich and Close are perfect!!!

reply

[–] lpycb42 18 years ago

Are you kidding me?!?!?! I mean CI was good and all but DL is perfect!!!!

And excuse me but have you even READ the book? What do you mean it came out of nowhere? Are you basing the story according to what you saw in CI? For your information Madame de Tourvel DOES die. And how can you say an adaptation of the book, that is fairly faithful to it has a better plot than another adaptation that is almost completely faithful to it? You're not making sense at all.

Now yes they did a great job at modernizing the story but there is no way that it surpasses DL. No way.

reply

[–] kaciel16 18 years ago

I found the movies to be similar but not identical. Cruel Intentions is supposed to be based on this movie, but there were some differences that I found made the movies very individual from each other. It really depends on what style of movie you prefer: if you prefer the old-fashioned style of movie with the sort of old english, then sure you will go for this movie, but if you prefer the more modern style of films, you are going to go for Cruel Intentions. There. I have said my piece. Thank you.

-K-

reply

[–] awsum_ginger 18 years ago

Cruel Intensions better than Dangerous Liaisons? No, I have to disagree. Cruel Intensions is watered down, weaker, hollywoodized with superficial acting. Dangerous Liaisons is just so much better; the costumes are amazing, the acting is great, the storyline is truly wonderful and moving and the character development is fabulous.

But, I can understand why you could like Cruel Intensions more. I supposed it appeals to a certain group of people.

FROLLO LUVER!!
Frollolicious
#1- of the Society of Frollophiles.

reply

[–] nonsequitous 17 years ago

Cruel Intentions is not a movie, it is a cartoon, and all the characters are two-dimensional cartoon characters (and saying "two" is being generous). It's a waste of film. It should never have been made. The actors should have been embarrassed to be a part of it. It is an insult to the book, the play and Dangerous Liaisons. It sucks pond water through a dirty sock.

I trust I've made myself clear.

-----
God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -- Voltaire

reply

[–] khmmo 16 years ago

CI is fun but please les Liassions dangurous is sooooooooooooooooo mcuh better. the only good updating of a play boook etc is clueless from emma. it at least sparked a jane austen revival...S and S anyone or the colin firth P and p.....need i continue?

reply

[–] OldSchoolRecords 12 years ago

Cruel Intentions IS based on Dangerous Liaisons. It was a modern-day remake.

reply

[–] talldarkstranger27 18 years ago

I found the death of Michelle Pfieffer's character to be the weakest plot point. It was unneccessery and the fact that it was of greif or a broken heart? Ridiculous! I also believe the scene in which Valmont is killed in that sword fight was badly acted, badly scripted and built absolutley no atmosphere. The scene in the theatre where Glenn Close has been discovered and the final shot of her wiping off the makeup are both masterful however. They serve as very powerful images to conclude the film, it's just a shame the rest of the ending isn't up to the same standard. I believe the ending of Cruel Intentions was exceptional. Remembering that this film is only suggested by the novel, I completley agree with Roger Kumble's decision to omit Anette's death.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] talldarkstranger27 18 years ago

I have to say you have shed new light on the ending, next time I view this film, I may see it differently. Your explanations have certainly made the ending much more sensical. But I still prefer Cruel Intentions lol.

reply

[–] sambrolan_gee 18 years ago

Dangerous Liaisons is one of the best films ever- amazing. Cruel Intentions is typical, teenage over-sexed dribble that cheaply cashes in on a great storyline. Though Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe were a sweet couple- pity about his being unable to keep it zipped.

"Can't act. Slightly bald. Can dance a little" The verdict on Fred Astaire's first screen test

reply

[–] Laptop22 18 years ago

I'm one of the younger generations I clearly prefer Dangerous Liasons.
CI is still just a teenage movie...typical hollywood teenage movie.

reply

[–] talldarkstranger27 18 years ago

Ignoring the unthoughtout generic response above - I have another flaw in the film that bothered me. Glenn Close does give a brilliant performance as Merteuil. But I don't think she's attractive enough to make the character completley convincing. Merteuil should be beautiful, and therefore have men in the palm of her hand. Her sexuality and physical appearance are her tools of manipulation, and Glenn Close is rather plain. Sarah Michelle Gellar on the other hand is stunning.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] talldarkstranger27 18 years ago

I completley agree that they are indeed masters of manipulation, and I think this is the reason why John Malkovitch can get away with not being particularly handsome. But men, especially in these old, unequal times, were very shallow when it came to females. That is one of the motivations to Merteuil's character. Gellar can get away with playing the pretty and innocent "Mary Sunshine" and uses this to wrap men around her finger.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sambrolan_gee 18 years ago

Do forgive me for making a joke- I didn't realise you had to be serious in this board all the time. Just giving my opinion like you.

She doesn't have to be beautiful to be sexually attractive. She's sophisticated, cunning, deceptive, mysterious, influential and simply oozes confidence and charm, with her older-woman worldliness, experience and wisdom as the cherry on top. Most men find qualities such as these very attractive and appealing, well, perhaps apart from the cunning and deceptive part. Physical appearance isn't absolutely everything. She is indeed a pretty girl, but her character lacks the substance and depth of Merteuil. And Glenn Close gives a first class performance. For some reason to me her portrayal is just that bit more human than Sarah Michelle Gellar's.

"Can't act. Slightly bald. Can dance a little" The verdict on Fred Astaire's first screen test

reply

[–] talldarkstranger27 18 years ago

I think they both give great performances. I find Gellar completley believeable, I know girls liek her (although obviously not to that extreme). Her use of eye rolls and mutterances under her breath give her that extra human dimension and make us realise that although highly intelligent, she is still just a teenage girl, playing at being a woman.

reply

[–] dashphire 18 years ago

I enjoyed both...but I prefer DL

Cruel Intentions is the poppy fun light version while DL is darker, and for the more mature audience.

!Meow!

reply

[–] spyfoxforever 18 years ago

I, being he youngin' that I am, saw Cruel Intentions and at the time I thought it was the best thing since slicwed bread, but then I saw Dangerous Liasons and I was blown away. I love Glenn Close's performance and It's definetly one of my favorite films ever.

reply

[–] Skipp10467 18 years ago

off course it's politcally correct to like the original "tradtionally accepted as better" verson and not the "commercial" Hollywood" version cuz dangerous liasons was not commercial at ALL!!!
thats sarcasm
Cruel Intentions IMO had its merits but u have to give Dangerous Liasons its due. It WAS the reason why cruel intentions had soo much of its satrical dark humor. I personally like both, but i like CI more.

They don't send people like me to hell. I'd end up running the place."

reply

[–] marshjes 15 years ago

Although I much prefer DL, I'm happy I first saw CI. That being said, CI doesn't hold a candle to DL

reply

[–] Uh_Oh_You_Too 14 years ago

I happen to think most of the men found her attractive because she was a very very rich widow during political and economic hard times (the brink of the French revolution). She would have been a good sugar mama.

Also, it looks to me that the casting directors were looking through paintings and other artwork of the period, as well as acting ability when casting the Marquise de Merteuil. Glenn Close looks like what 18th century Europe considered beautiful --- a woman with long cheeks on the plump side, a small mouth, a rounded forehead and chin, and a long straight nose (the more aquiline, the better). Nowadays, we'd put that 18th century beauty on the lemonade diet, get her cheeks liposuctioned and stuffed with fake knife-hilt cheekbones, inject her lips with collagen, put her through jaw surgery to straighten her chin, and whittle her nose to a third of its original size...unless it was truly aquiline, then it would be a fourth!

reply

[–] khmmo 16 years ago

She is a women of a certain age wich is high desitd and respected in french culture. She is at her peak. look at eht eFirst lady of france or denuave(sp) or any of the other french greats, they were not anororexic 15 yr olds

reply

[–] yorick-23 12 years ago

Of course, Glenn Close isn't Playboy's "Bunny of the month". The less you do'nt want to have John Malkovich plasterers next to yours. They still pretend to be attractive. That's why they're actors.

reply

[–] AdriCraw 18 years ago

My favourite version of the story is Valmont!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098575/. Mmmmm, Colin Firth!

But both DL and CI are good....

reply

[–] mit800 18 years ago

Cruel Intentions was the high school version of the story. While Ryann Phillipe had some good moments and there was some fun nudity it was still a pre-pubescent-aren`t we naughty-version of the story.

Sarah Michelle Gellar can only hope one day to be as good an actress as Glenn Close (or even Annette Benning in VALMONT). Gellar in CI is so totally amateurish that it is almost funny. Sure she is a striking looking young woman (even if a little chipmunk cheeked and nose-jobbed)but she can`t begin to compare in acting chops to those who have preceeded her in the part.

It`s still a fun movie to watch on certain levels but it can`t compare in performace or story quality to DANGEROUS LIASONS.

reply

[–] rh86 18 years ago

Cruel Intentions is good but Dangerous Liasons has the edge. Glenn Close is far superior to Sarah Michelle Gellar, plus their motivations are different. In Cruel Intentions its just a game for Kathryn while for Isabelle de Merteuil it is her method of survival.

Wild! I was absolutely Livid!

reply

[–] damnyouvilewoman15 18 years ago

OBVIOUSLY...the yougner generation would find CI better because we were bought up around it...Now i actually haven't seen DL...but knowing me. I wopuld still like cI much better...I'm only 15...and i jsut boguth CI cos i heard it was good...and i loved it....My mum has seen DL....we each want to see the other movie...it's quiet funny actually... But older generations would appreciate DL because it's was made for that age group....but then there are some others who love different ones....
I'm only saying all of this out of experience...

reply

[–] gben 18 years ago

Only an American would find Cruel Intentions better. Fact.

reply

[–] Ricardo_Br 18 years ago

"Only an American would find Cruel Intentions better. Fact." by gben

What a stupid prejudice!

I was the one who started this board in the first place, and I'm brazilian...

reply

[–] Cloudburst2000 18 years ago

Ummm...my little sister who is a junior in high school much prefers DL to CI. Actually, she considers CI 'a mediocre teeny-bopper' movie in her own words. It really all depends on a person's tastes. Not all young people like the same things you do. You shouldn't assume that just because you like something that every other person your age will like it too. And I was in college when CI came out. I was not that much older than the characters, but I still preferred DL too. But then, I love period pieces like DL and Sense and Sensibility.

reply

[–] Doctor_Desktructo 18 years ago

I believe DL is LEAUGES better than CI though the latter is still pretty good. The end of CL is complete BS, I d it. Sebastian's was random and Reese Witherspoon's character being alive and one upping Catherine was just annoying and cliqued.

King Arthur: One, two, five!
Sir Galahad: Three sir!
King Arthur: THREE!

reply

[–] noblesse_oblige 17 years ago

// Reese Witherspoon's character being alive and one upping Catherine was just annoying and cliqued. //

I hated that part. So very Hollywood. That's why I liked DL - the ending, while melodramatic, was a little more closer to what would have happened in real life. There were no happy survivors.

reply

[–] DarcyBrandon 16 years ago

Me too! I was just about to say that while I love DL (cannot stand CI) I just love Valmont. Colin Firth looks so good in period pieces.

reply

[–] Iva_ 18 years ago

haha well put

reply

[–] Cloudburst2000 18 years ago

You said it, girl! ITA, DL is a tragedy, and in a tragedy, there is no such thing as it being 'unnecessarily tragic'. The point of a tragedy is to be tragic.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] surrealsunshine-1 18 years ago

I don't want to be rude...but what are we discussing this for? Cruel Intentions is frothy, forgettable crap. It's something you watch on a Sunday afternoon because nothing else is on the television. Dangerous Liaisons is truly excellent; it is also based on the book "Les Liaisons Dangereuses". Everything that happens in DL, pretty much happened in the book, including Tourvel's death.

reply