MovieChat Forums > Dangerous Liaisons (1989) Discussion > Who else prefers Cruel Intentions?

Who else prefers Cruel Intentions?

posted 18 years ago by Ricardo_Br
131 replies | jump to latest

I've seen Cruel Intentions two or three times and today, already knowing they were inspired on the same novel, I decided to watch DL.

Well... It really IS a great movie, but I found CI to be sooo much better. I think its story is much more devilish, fresh and clever. Maybe DL slightly outdoes it when it comes to acting, but I think it's just not enough to make up for the much better plot. Besides, [SPOILERS AHEAD]
the ending of Dangerous Liaisons is unnecessarily tragic. I mean, why did Madame de Tourvel have to die? It came completely out of nowhere.

Anyway... Which one do YOU prefer?

[–] microbit 17 years ago

It's funny how perspective can change over time. I saw DL when it screened and thought it was brilliant, one of a kind. Now, I'd seen Cruel Intentions on the shelf at the local vid club and was put off by the title for the last few years.
I decided to try it out recently - didn't even know it was also based on 'Les Liasons Dangereuses'. The first time I saw CI I thought 'no way can this match DL'....
Now having seen CI several times - and re-watching DL, I must say I wholly agree with you. The director/writer (especially considering it's a debut !) did a fantastic job !!!! I didn't think such a story could be set in modern times !
CI is much more fresh, less demanding (but still needs it) on your focus. CI flows extremely well, great humour. The only thing I have against it is bloody Selma Blair. IMO she can't act sufficiently (eg. the scene in the park with Sarah Michelle, that's BAD acting).
In contrast, Sarah Michelle Gellar _shines_ in a stellar performance, Ryan Phillipe seems more kinda 'along for the ride'.
It is a movie I now watch on occasion and it keeps on entertaining, that says something about quality of film making too. I don't bother with DL anymore actually, CI is a much better version to convey the charm, emotion and insanity of the novel.....
PS : I agree, the De Tourvel character didn't need to die. (Annette in CI didn't, wise choice IMO !!)

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bitch-22 17 years ago

No one with an IQ over 15.

"Rock is dead! Long live Paper and Scissors!

[–] marjoriem 17 years ago

Actually, I prefer the 1959 modern dress version with Jeanne Moreau as Mme de Merteuil and Gérard Philipe as Valmont.

Nobody could possibly be a better Merteuil than Moreau -- certainly not Glenn Close with her the fresh-faced all-American looks.

[–] bitch-22 17 years ago

I haven't seen that, I'll have to check it out!

"Rock is dead! Long live Paper and Scissors!

[–] Serenella 17 years ago

Dangerous Liaisons is way better than Cruel Intentions in every possible way: writing, acting, direction, costumes, cinematography... everything really. The latter is ok, and perhaps even good for what it is, but ultimately there is no comparison. DL is far superior in all respects. Valmont is also better than Cruel Intentions IMO. I'd rank them as

Dangerous Liaisons
Valmont
Cruel Intentions

[–] AninhaLuvsIt 17 years ago

Dangerous Liaisons is a great movie, and I think it´s better, actually, beyond that, superior (like the last poster said) than Cruel Intentions.

But I have to confess I prefer the second one, cause, as it was already said in this post, I find it more entertaining!

Also, I not a sucker for these kinds of movies that are always nominated by the Academy for Best Picture. It´s not like I have a prejudice against Oscar movies, but most of them are simply not in my list of favorite film genres.

-- E-music is my lifestyle. Electro is my heartbeat. But film is what I breath! --

[–] HmmmOhkaee 17 years ago

I found cruel intentions to be far better than Dangerous Liaisons. YEAH AS IF! Cruel intentions was stupid and aimed for a teen generation. I thought Ryan Phillipe was absoloutly terrible, some of the worst acting I have ever seen, every scene he was in was complete agony to watch. Dangerous Liaisons kept me entertained through out the whole film and worthy of every oscar it won, and deserved to win the few it didn't. Brilliant acting from all actors and I film I would gladly watch again and again.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HmmmOhkaee 17 years ago

But they acting was absolutely terrible from most of the actors in cruel intentions. And I know some were young but so were keanu reeves and uma thurman in DL.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HmmmOhkaee 16 years ago

Cruel Intentions would have been better if Ryan Phillipe wasn't in it or he didnt talk and had his shirt off the whole time. And I agree that Keanu Reeves is a pretty bad actor and not much to look at lol

[–] Skylab23 16 years ago

Cruel Intentions better than Dangerous Liaisons? Not in my world.

It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
Indiana Jones, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"

[–] koliver-10 16 years ago

hahaha. cruel intentions!

[–] CorpseFuker 16 years ago

OBVIOUSLY.

N' WHOEVER SAID: "IT'S INTERESTING, BUT BORING" WAS A TOTAL IDIOT, SINCE IT'S A CONTRADICTION. NOTHING CAN BE BOTH BORING AND INTERESTING.

"Sandy n' myself r no longer engaged or 2gether" Now u can call ME Mrs. Padalecki

[–] caracallac 16 years ago

I really don't see how Cruel Intentions could be considered a better film. While the premise of comparing the decadence of pre-revolutionary France to the decadence of modern society is magnificent, I felt the execution was poor. Whereas Glenn Close as the Marquise was a creature of the purest malevolence Sarah Michelle Geller just came across as a spoilt, petulant brat. Selma Blair didn't convince and Ryan Phillippe was just too limited in his acting range. Reese Witherspoon was excellent though. If the characters were to be updated, I'd see them as senior executives and their trophy wives.