TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

s Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Morbius Fitzgerald Okay, I am not the biggest fan of the Cruel Intentions movies, in fact the only reason why I watched all 3 of them is because I really like the Dangerous Liaisons storyline and I want to see how they could possibly carry it on. The original Cruel Intentions film was basically a retelling of a story about sexual deviency, originally set with adults of the French Aristocracy, set in High School and the way they try to make this work...Its pretty clear why this isn't everyone's cup of tea. Not because its shocking, but because it doesn't work. The second one, I will give credit, actually entertained me but because that movie assaults its audience with so much stupidity that its hard not to laugh at it. Its damn near one of the funniest movie ever made.Now when it comes to this film, its the worst of the series.The plot of this movie is split up into thirds. As in, one plot will take up one third of this movie, its that confused as to what the Cruel Intentions should be. The first plot is a bet that Merteuil has with Jason that she can sleep with a nerd named Patrick and then some bland guy who is in touch with royalty but that goes belly side up because during the date with the English guy (I'm sorry, I don't know his name) Patrick comes over with flowers and proves to him that she had sex with him. Patrick then reveals to her that this was his doing the entire time and he and Patrick were in cahoots with each other the entire time, which leads to the one biggest question, what the hell did either of the two guys get out of it?So the guys then decide to compete with each other for sexual "points" as such. One of them has sex with a girl who is engaged and a girl who is happily with a boyfriend. This plot starts 20 minutes in and ends by the hour mark. The THIRD story is that because they both succeeded in their quest on the exact same night, they decide to make a bet that they can bed Merteuil. It turns out that Patrick is being played the entire time and he ends up going to prison for raping Merteuil.I will give the acting of this movie credit, it does try to pull something off but considering they needed to split up the character of Valmont into two people to show the two faces to his personality instead of just having the one actor, that should tell you what the writing is like. Oversimplified, even for a Cruel Intentions movie. There isn't any character at all in this that has any depth; Merteuil is evil, Jason is a player, as is Patrick. There, the main characters and the height of their depth, all described as a list.I will give it credit in one area that this was pulled off. Instead of High School, its set in College and that is one area where I have to give it credit for. It tries to update it to an older age while keeping the "look" of a Cruel Intentions cast. Does it work? Even here, no.Overall, there is a slightly variant degree as to why this one is worse than the first one but its like measuring the pain of being stabbed in the chest or being shot in the chest, either way, its gonna hurt. If your a fan and you are a completionist, go check it out but I'm not sure that you'll enjoy it but if the filmmakers of this didn't put any effort into making the movie, why should I in my review of said movie?

Marc Davis First off, if you're expecting stellar, Academy Awards type material, then you should never, ever give this DVD a second look at your local Walmart. Better yet, you shouldn't even be reading the reviews for this movie in the first place.I mean really, it's Cruel Intentions 3. We know what this is all about - the petty betting matches between sex-crazed, wealthy teens/young adults with obviously too much time on their hands. It's a soppy, cliché-filled teen drama. What do you expect? The original Cruel Intentions wasn't great because of its airtight script or ingenious plot either, let me tell you. It was great because it had an exceptionally great cast for this genre. Do you honestly believe it would have been the hit it was without Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, Reese Witherspoon, Selma Blair, Christine Baranski, Louise Fletcher, etc? So that's where we are with Cruel Intentions 3. Same old plot, just without the stellar cast. So, what do you get? A fun, playful, knotty, and even down right mean-spirited movie all in one. And I hate to say it, but it's not nearly as bad as it could have been.The beautiful and relatively unknown Kristina Anapau does well as Cassidy Merteuil, cousin to Gellar's character in the original Cruel Intentions. The other actors are not worth mentioning, but do about as best a job as can be expected for this genre.As I said before, if you want Oscar material, this by, but if you're just bored and want a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, or you're a fan of the franchise, it's worth a look. I would have given it 5 stars, but because this film didn't add anything fresh over the original, it loses a point for lack of originality.

Mufop This film may be interpreted on multiple levels: a cheap low-budget T&A movie, a sloppy mystery in which no characters have any discernible motivation, a quickly-produced straight-to-DVD flick designed to initiate teeny bopper into popular conceptions of sex, or a combination thereof. Even so, I believe that Wittgenstein would suggest that the point of the film is an ethical one: for the Ethical is delimited from within, as it were by this movie; and I'm convinced that, strictly speaking, it can ONLY be delimited in this way. In brief, I think: All of that which many are babbling this movie has analyzed merely by remaining silent about it. Think of the following use of language: Cassidy Merteuil (played wantonly by Anapau) sends Jason Argyle (an apathetic Kerr Smith) shopping. Merteuil gives him a slip marked 'five red apples'. He takes the slip to the Michael Cattrall (brilliant portrayed by Tom Parker), who opens the drawer marked 'apples', then he looks up the word 'red' in a table and finds a color sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers— Merteuil assumes that he knows them by heart—up to the word 'five' and for each number he takes an apple of the same color as the sample out of the drawer.—It is in this and similar ways that one operates with words—"But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word 'red' and what he is to do with the word 'five'?" Well, I assume that he 'acts' as I have described. Explanations come to an end somewhere.—But what is the meaning of the word 'five'? No such thing was in question here, only how the word 'five' is used.

Serenade_my_soul Where to begin? This was, essentially, a shocking film. Cruel Intentions, the original directed by Roger Kumble, was revolutionary in its genre and is a personal favorite of mine. I rented this third installment hoping for a slight taste of the first (hell even the very weak second) movie. I was ultimately disappointed! If you are searching for the eloquent dialogue, the powerful acting talents, visually appealing set, strong narrative and bitter sweet love story found in the original movie, you will be extremely dissatisfied.The plot outlines the lives of three vindictive, shallow students in their scheme to seduce, conquer and destroy each other and other co-eds. The movie jumps from wager to wager, but there is no depth or satisfaction in any of their conquests. The sex scenes are tacky (REALLY tacky), the characterization is beyond week and the dialogue is short of drivel. Without the familiar face and on-screen ease of Kerr Smith or the sexy, savvy Kristina Anapau, I would have rated this film 1/10.Save yourself the horror, just rent the original again, even if you have seen it 100 times over!