Cruel Intentions 3 (2004) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Unlike Cruel Intentions 2, which was a prequel to Cruel Intentions featuring some of the same characters, this one actually takes place after the original. Of course, it doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with the original other than:

1. The two main characters mention that they are related to Sebastien and Kathryn.

2. It is about a bunch of spoiled rich kids betting on whether they can fuck other people and each other.


None of the five main male and female stars show the goodies. Two minor characters, played by Elizabeth McDonald and Tara Carroll, show their breasts in dark, inexplicit sex scenes.

Point number two is pretty the entire plot summary. The reasons don't matter much. They are universally mean-spirited, and the characters use more elaborate stings and scams and counterstings than in the previous versions of the story. In case you had forgotten, Cruel Intentions (Ryan Phillippe and Buffy) itself was a modern interpretation of an 18th century French tale which had already been made into several period movies, like Dangerous Liaisons (Glenn Close and John Malkovich) and Valmont (Annette Bening and Colin Firth).

As in all of previous interpretations of Dangerous Liaisons, the main characters are lacking in heart, relying solely on guile and calculation, and their sexual escapades have nothing to do with pleasure, but are all about power and advantage. The leads are lacking in charm, and you will hate them all. (Only Colin Firth, playing the title role in Valmont, has ever managed to bring any humanity and charm to any of the lead roles in this series.)

This is not the best of the Dangerous Liaison impersonators, but it is not the worst either (that would be Cruel Intentions 2). The dialogue in this film is quite weak, but the movie is otherwise marginally competent, and actually looks pretty well appointed! Miraculously, I made it through without the fast forward button.

Just as a matter of no special interest, couldn't this actor to the right (Tom Parker) make a living as a Tom Cruise impersonator?

The Critics Vote ...

  • no major reviews online

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a C-.

Return to the Movie House home page