The sequel to "Cruel Intentions" could have been a lot better if it had not beed titled "Cruel Intentions 2." The television show "Manchester Prep" looks like it must have been a decent show, but it should not have been edited together to make a film. Perhaps the best way to present these episodes would have been to release a video collection that had all the episodes (and maybe a couple of extra ones to end things more conclusively).
Turning these shows into a film sequel just confuses people and takes away from what's been done here. For one thing, there are numerous plot inaccuracies that turn up when comparing this movie to the first film. This movie robs Sebastain of his loveable vicious streak, which we saw in the fist movie. Also Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance as Katherine was certainly more menacing than this actress's work.
This movie lacked a lot in plot development. We saw a lot of things that just didn't add up. Why throw in a scene with Katherine trying to turn good when it will never evolve to anything by the film's end? Why quote lines directly from the first film and then reuse them in this "sequel" as if no one will notice? Why present a ditzy girl subplot that mirrors the Selma Blair subplot in the first movie? Looking at "Cruel Intentions 2," you can't help but wonder why this movie was made in the first place and what direction did it MEAN to take?
Turning these shows into a film sequel just confuses people and takes away from what's been done here. For one thing, there are numerous plot inaccuracies that turn up when comparing this movie to the first film. This movie robs Sebastain of his loveable vicious streak, which we saw in the fist movie. Also Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance as Katherine was certainly more menacing than this actress's work.
This movie lacked a lot in plot development. We saw a lot of things that just didn't add up. Why throw in a scene with Katherine trying to turn good when it will never evolve to anything by the film's end? Why quote lines directly from the first film and then reuse them in this "sequel" as if no one will notice? Why present a ditzy girl subplot that mirrors the Selma Blair subplot in the first movie? Looking at "Cruel Intentions 2," you can't help but wonder why this movie was made in the first place and what direction did it MEAN to take?