Cruel Intentions 3 (2004)

Too much of everything

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Cruel Intentions was a fun summer flick. It didn't need sequels. Regardless, it got sequels. Needless to say, this movie is bad. It doesn't have the characters of the originals, so it tries to imitate them with shallow copies - the characters even admit this! Their motivation is forced and often doesn't even make sense if you haven't seen the original film.At first, you wonder if there is any point to anything that is going on in the film, other than offering eye candy in the form of abs and boobs. At the end it is revealed that the story has been building up to a plot twist, and it comes as some relief, but the twist is lackluster. All in all, this film is pointless and shallow.

I sometimes wonder if the people who make good movies ever feel a pang of anger or disgust when they see somebody else doing a crappy direct-to-DVD sequel of their work. It's not like the original creators are responsible for the talentless mimics who superficially ape their creations. They most times probably don't have a choice and for poor efforts like Cruel Intentions 3 that only copy the idea and form but nothing specific from the first movie, I'm not even sure they get paid for it. But it takes time and energy to make any film and when those efforts produce something worthy, it can't be fun to see someone else do a half-assed job trying to piggy back off your labor and success.Cruel Intentions, itself a modern version of Dangerous Liasons, was the story of amoral and decadent young people playing games of sex and betrayal where Sarah Michelle Geller and Selma Blair made out with each other. By the time they bothered to crap out this thing, that plot was as worn out as a heavily used piece of carbon paper (how's that for a dated reference?) This movie is actually closer to a Star Trek mirror universe version of Beverly Hills 90210 where Dylan has been coated in sleaze, Steve is a psychotic rapist and Brenda…well, she's just an even bigger bitch.Set at an expensive private college that's more like a summer resort than any kind of school, the movie's main characters are Jason and Cassidy (Kerr Smith and Kristina Anapau). She's a jaded rich girl and he's the guy from more humble origins who wants to have sex with her. Jason and Cassidy sit around and talk about what horrible people they are, even though they never do anything bad enough to get themselves on the Jerry Springer show. They're eventually joined by Patrick (Nathan J. Wetheringon), who's supposed to be so evil and twisted he made Jason and Cassidy just look "naughty". Since they're neither all terrible or shocking, Patrick comes off like some aggravated fraternity reject.Those three, surrounded by a cluster of poorly written script fodder, engage in a string of contests where the goal is for somebody to have sex with somebody else. That's pretty much what most college students spend all their time doing anyway, so there's never much of a point to it. The plot plods along with the occasional scene that isn't outright horrible and then concludes with a double cross that only confuses who is actually the evil character in this bunch.Here's the bottom line on Cruel Intentions 3. A couple of bit part actresses take their tops off for a combined total of less than 45 seconds. They look nice but there is no other nudity here. The only violence is an implied rape that happens 99% off camera. The language never gets saltier than an infrequent F-bomb. The young cast all seems reasonably capable, but their roles are less than paper thin and there's never any reason to care if anyone lives or gets run over by a golf cart. And the film ends with a moral that being a screwed up bastard is fun and the only thing that matters is being an even more screwed up bastard than the next guy.If this had been trashier with more naked flesh, profanity and all around debauchery, it might have made a marginally decent flick. However, the substance of Cruel Intentions 3 is simply too tame to overcome the disinterested storytelling and sub-mediocre filmmaking on display here. There are no facepalm moments where it runs completely off the rails. There are also no moments where it gets anywhere close to being interesting. You shouldn't watch this but if you've got a friend who wants to see it for some silly reason, you don't need to run screaming out of the house to get away.

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.

Hey.. I was wondering if you agree with me,but i think Jason(smith) resembled Julian who plays Cole in Charmed. when he and Sheila were in that church, after he gave Shiela the jacket in the Carmel Trip Do you agree with me?I can't paste the link of the picture so i guess u have to remember the film to tell if its true or not.Just give Me the feedback and let me know if I'm right or notThankx Bye ByeThanks for whom is sending back-Live-and-let-Live