User reviews

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)

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.

When I watched this film, I was expecting it to have a lot of excellent and intelligent parts like in Cruel Intentions. But when I watched it, this was stupid. Katherine has a club with sex fiends? How lame is that? It's just really dumb. And Sebastion, I think personally, it would of been better if he was just bad all along. His character, I just couldn't stand him. He's TRYING to change, yet he can't resist. They use a lot of the same lines from the first one, which is really cheesy. And with the chick that Katherine wants to destroy, Sebastion just pulls her in a limo, and they do it? I'm sorry, but this was just too stupid, and not nessesary. Cruel Intentions was 1000 times better than this. I must say that they really did a bad job on making the characters looking like the original. Because I did not know that Katherine had blond hair, and Sebastion had brown.

bad, bad, bad!

3/10

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.

... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10

Cruel Intentions 2 feels so disjointed and fragmented that you wonder whether the director just patched together random scenes and polyfillered the spare filmtime with sex scenes. This sequel (or prequel) differed so much from the original Cruel Intentions that it's hard to believe both movies were directed by the same person.

Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.

The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.

Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.

There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.

This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.

I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.

Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.

Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.

This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.

Take my advice: before viewing Cruel Intentions 2, watch Disney's Enchanted. After falling in love with Amy Adams as the sweet, pure and innocent Princess Giselle, watching her play a rich-bitch schoolgirl slut is somehow so much more satisfying. It seems so wrong, yet so right!

Manchester Prep, a prequel to Cruel Intentions, stars the scrummy Ms.Adams as Kathryn, wicked step-sister to Sebastian (Robin Dunne), a student with a chequered past who tries to turn over a new leaf when he falls for the headmaster's daughter Danielle (Sarah Thompson). Kathryn, whose passion is to cause trouble whenever possible, attempts to scupper Sebastian's new relationship, whilst also doing her best to corrupt pretty and naive virgin Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt).

Whereas the original Cruel Intentions was, with its cast of trendy Hollywood stars, a calculated attempt to be cool, savvy and oh-so-clever, Manchester Prep is a trashy, immature, and totally unsophisticated movie that, by being far less pretentious, manages to be just as entertaining as, if not more than, the first.

Adams is easily a match for Sarah Michelle Gellar (Kathryn in Cruel Intentions), being both convincingly cruel and very sexy; Thompson is great as the pretty poor girl of the school who captures Sebastian's heart; and Keri Lynn Pratt is charming as the Manchester Prep virgin who learns why riding horses is so popular with young women. Hats off also to Annie Sorell and Alicia Lorén, who are unforgettable as Sebastian's horny, brunette shower buddies (female nudity in a teen drama has rarely been so gratuitous!).

Manchester Prep might not be innovative groundbreaking cinema, but it sure is fun. Not quite an 8/10, but a pretty high 7.

If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.

This movie, unlike the original, was a flat out comedy. I loved it. It's not nearly as good as the original but who cares, it's still alot of fun. By watching this movie you can see why the show MANCHESTER PREP never made it on the air. Not because it's bad but because it's very R rated. Amy Adams was excellent in the role of Kathryn Merteuil, although not as good as Sarah Michelle Gellar, but pretty close. Keri Lynn Pratt is just hysterical at playing the volnerable virgin. Especially when Kathryn teaches her how to ride a horse: "Up! Down! Back! Forth! Faster! Faster!" . The ending itself is pretty cool and we also learn how Sebastian got his journal. This movie also has something else that the original didn't have: nudity. Although THe deleted scenes of the first one had a few seconds, this one has two sisters taking a shower with Sebastian. If you're looking for something to compare to the first cruel intentions then this isn't it but if you are looking for a fun guilty pleasure then you found it.

This was originally intended to be a new TV show. It's supposed to be a prequel to the 1999 movie when the brash Sebastian (Robin Dunne) first meets scheming Kathryn (Amy Adams). Sebastian's father newly marries the wealthy mother of Kathryn (Mimi Rogers).

The production quality is much lower than the movie. It just doesn't measure up to the original. Not all of prequel story line up with the movie either. The great thing here is Amy Adams. She is delicious as the evil and snooty school girl. Sarah Thompson plays the goody headmaster's daughter. Keri Lynn Pratt does a funny bit of 'riding a horse'.

This prequel, sequel, whatever it is, to the first Cruel Intentions is absolutely rubbish and no where near as good as the first one. Some of the scenes from Cruel Intentions 2 are taken from Cruel Intentions and they're absolutely useless and sick. Their was a twist at the end of the film which was absolutely pathetic. And, the acting was VERY poor. I didn't enjoy this 'film' one bit. 1/10.

This has got to be one of the worst movies ever. It certainly is the worst movie I have ever seen. The acting is horrendous, especially when compared to the original. The jokes, which worked perfectly in Cruel Intentions, fall flat and are the same, word for word, as the original ones. The actors in the movie are not particularly attractive people, and the plot is horrible. I loved the first movie, the acting was great and the jokes were funny. This, however, is simply a bad, bad rehashing. Don't bother to watch this, watch the original instead. I will never get back the hour plus of my life that I wasted watching this.

It often amazes me that film companies will pump good money into such drivel. Without a shadow of a doubt cruel intentions 2 has to be one of the most pathetic, unimaginative, cheesy messes of a movie I have seen in a long time.

It is a prequel to the original teen flick Cruel Intentions. (which wasn't much better) The pointless sex scenes are played by mindless teens that obviously haven't a clue how to play them. They fumble from one pathetic encounter to another. The film is suppose to be about seduction and the lost of innocence, not mindless teens fumbling for each other's zippers. You would see more seduction on a visit to Old McDonald's farm.

I wont bother mentioning the cast because without exception they were all awful. The script was awful, the direction awful. In fact everything was awful.



Avoid this movie at all cost.

This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.

I've seen Cruel Intentions many, many times and it's one of my favorites. It's sexy, cruel, intelligent etc. I heard that there was coming a sequel, but I didn't see it. I was afraid that it was bad, and that it would ruin my idea of the first film. Then it came on TV, I thought: "why not?". And then i watched it. I must say... this is the worst sequel I have ever seen. I mean, Roger Kumble who wrote and directed the first movie (and also this one) is a good movie-maker. How could he make such a bad movie? Cruel Intentions 2 has a very bad cast, a history that's so much like the first movies', and it's just not funny... or sexy for that matter. The best moments in the film is actually stolen from the first film! I don't understand how Roger Kumble could let this happen!? It's a very bad movie and not much worth a watch... I was very disappointed!

1/10

Be warned! This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen. If you enjoyed the good acting and witty plot of the original - don't watch this film. The young cast deliver tolerable performances but die on screen under a hail of friendly fire from their own side. In particular the blame must attach to the script writers who do not have a single original idea and appear not to have understood the fact that even apparently nasty characters have emotions (the portrayal of which made the first film so good).

Instead the writers seem to have gone in for a combination of sub-Dawsons creek teenage angst and dialogue intercut every 15 minutes or so with crude sexual scenes which must have been cut from such 70s British 'classics' as the amorous milkman. At every point the writers seem to have opted for the lowest common denominator wether it is the twice repeated gratuitous scenes of lesbianism to the stereotypical English Butler, Psychotic German chef, Asian maid etc. The producers must share some of the blame for the obvious budget limitations, and the director appears to have been incorrectly billed- surely only Pinocchio could produce such wooden direction!

Altogether 1/10 and no stars to the BBFC who gave this a 15 rating in the UK!

Very big spoiler ahead, don't say i didn't warn you!

look away now!

I have to applaud this movie for the unorthodox plot, especially the end. Which makes it actually diametrically opposed to the first movie.

What is going on? The first movie is the usual drab, squarish, victory of Goody-Two-Shoe-ism: The virtuous girl wins in the end, the virtuous boy also wins, since he dies heroically, in an effort to protect the virtue of the Biblebelter value girl! I mean, they did ALL but state explicitly that you should wait with sex until you're married.

Not so in the 2nd movie! It is devious until the very end, when we're all totally misled into thinking that the Boy and the Girl who are true to Each other will win in the end, that their values will triumph over the Evil Step-Sisters values, which are that it's good to corrupt naive innocent girls (and boys, no doubt). It appears that the Boy with the actual character development into a Square Boy with No PreMarital Sex values is actually not winning! Well, he wins, but not by virtue of his virtue, if you know what I mean. The message of the movie is that it's okay to have lotsa sex, because then your reward is the ultimate fantasy: sex with your (step-)sister AND her girlfriend! And also that it's okay and GOOD to seduce and corrupt that poor rich clueless blonde girl.

You have to admit that this a complete departure from the usual highly predictable teen movie, with the usual triumph of the Geek (or Regular Guy or Ugly girl) over the Jock/Prom Queen. Rich kids never win in American movies, and when they do, as in 'Richie Rich', they turn out to be Normal-After-All!

Also, about half of the people trashing this movie have as main complaint that "It's totally lacks credibility that Sebastian magically came back to life again!" to show you the level (or lack thereof) of the trashing comments. The other half is appearantly mad that their favourite movie is perverted, Cruel Intentions which was a commercialization and perversion of an otherwise great film, Dangerous Liasons. I mean, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Ryan Philippe GOOD actors? Get real!! Gimme a big F-ing break here.

I don't think that this one is comedy or a parody or whatever. It's a refreshing variation, even a serious critique on teen movies. Or rather a critique of the values embodied in present day Hollywood which say: It's TOTALLY EVIL to have sex with more than one girl in your whole life.

This was a bad idea from the start. I had no real expectations for the first Cruel Intentions (Ryan Philippe/Sarah Michelle Gellar/Reese Witherspoon) because it was advertised to death on cable, but when I did tune in, I was absolutely blown away by an incredible movie. Honestly, I expected a little more of Cruel Intentions 2, possibly because the first was so good. Unfortunately for me (not to mention everyone else who watches it), this was not to be. I understand this is a prequel, which would certainly account for similarities between the movies and characters, but COME ON...nearly everything in this movie was either a rehash or seemingly downright plagiarized from CI. I heard IDENTICAL lines of dialogue. I saw identical scenes with the same characters. I saw scenes taken directly from the first movie featuring different-named characters interacting with Sebastian and Kathryn (I specify different-named because the basis of the supporting characters were also ripped off from the first movie).

The acting wasn't bad, and I, for one, hope Amy Adams has as promising a career as she seems to (she's got a lot of talent), but do yourselves a favor and don't bother with this movie. Be CERTAIN to see the original "Cruel Intentions" (1999), please watch "Valmont" (1989), but don't bother with "Cruel Intentions 2." It's a total waste of time. I give it a 1, but I think I'd give it less if I could.

First I´ll say I´m not in the teenage bunch (I´m 29), and that I´m happy to see an intellectual piece anytime, as long as it´s entertaining also (got that, Andrei Tarkovsky?).

Once that´s clear, what makes Cruel Intentions 2 so damn good???!!! Well, I wouldn´t like to drag, so I´ll go straight to the point: It´s plainly the best teenage girl fantasy ever. Yup guys, this one´s got babes-a-plenty, but ones with wittiness and a brain. The step sister really makes for a GREAT villain. She´s not just the typical snobbish rich girl often seen in this kind of movies, she´s much colder, smarter...I could believe a girl like this exists!

As for the rest of the female cast, man, they´re heavenly! Beautiful, clever, and the guy who designed those uniforms really knew what he was up to! Don´t miss the step-sister´s merciless seduction of her teacher. That´s good cinema! On a minor note, what about when another teacher rejects her, but immediately shows his liking for a male student? It´s a great gag!

Thanks to the good writing, in this movie the "bad" brotherhood of rich spoiled teens actually ends up becoming sympathetic. Don´t miss the much-celebrated shower scene! You can´t hate those girls!!

The main character, Sebastian, makes for a great counterpart for the "villain". Intelligent, self-assured, but sensitive nevertheless, and unwilling to let his step-sister have her way.

And the movie really does have a message. It is: Romanticism and faithfulness are ok, but...other ways may be good also. Much better, in fact. Are the characters in this movie "bad", actually? Yeah, they´re rich and spoiled, but they only mess with their equals, and what for? To tell them: Hey, we´re rich; We´re beautiful. Put traditional morals aside and enjoy sex and life! Which, by other side, you can also do not being rich at all. You just don´t have to live by everybody´s standards. Is it having a single, steady lover, the only, better way? The story presents this questions with great intelligence.

And as said before, the flick is full of really beautiful ladies. The Danielle character in particular is one to really look at. I sure hope to see more of this actress!

So ignore the reviews, do yourself a favor and watch this one without prejudices! It´s lots better than 75% of the stuff that´s making it to the silver screen. Great story, great humor, gorgeous babes...It sure deserves a chance!

This movie could have been good,but the acting is so bad I could'nt beleive it.Robin and Mimi are not bad for what they have to work with.All the female cast except for Cherry and the twins do not know what it means to be sexy.The Kathryn and Danielle characters are the worst.Where do they find those actresses are beyond me.I own this movie but I'm not proud of it.I keep it for one reason the twins in the shower and yet I don't know who they are no credit in the IMDB listing of credits or at the end of the movie.I never saw the first Cruel Intentions because of Miss Gellar this actress should stay on Buffy you don't need to know that much about acting to be in this serie.Well to my surprise they hire somebody as bad as Miss Gellar.Amy talks a lot but when it come to nudity is as bad as Miss Gellar.But what gets me the most where is the rest of this movie,it suppose to be 90 min.but what you get is 86 min. credits include.This movie is a total waste of money but a good deal of bad acting.

This movie was a disgrace to the original Cruel Intentions. In this 'prequel' we see the younger sebastian (not even half as cool, suave or witty) and Katherine meeting for the first time. The movie uses nearly the exact same lines as the first. It seems like a teen comedy but with so much smut it's not. The actors look and act nothing like the original Katherine and Sebastian. Leaving the first movie whith out this 'prequel' would have been fine, but, everytime I think of the brilliant Cruel Intentions I am going to think of it's terrible, disgraceful prequel. The first movie was sophisticated and mature while this was a joke. Eventhough it was the same director and writer it comes nowhere close to the original movie. Overall it had a bad script, bad cast (with the exception of Sarah Tompson)and it had suave, wit and sophistication lacking. I sincerely don't reccomend it to those of you who saw the first!