If the thought of "Casablanca" being remade with Freddie Prinze, Jr. and Jennifer Love Hewitt in the lead roles and set during the war in Bosnia doesn't give you a queasy, pounding headache, or if the notion of James Van Der Beek loosely playing Bill Gates in a new version of "Citizen Kane" doesn't have you doubling over in hysterical laughter, then read on brave soul.
That's because while we intentionally fabricated those scenarios for your reading pleasure/nightmares, the classic story of Choderlos De Laclos' 18th century novel, "Les Liaisons Dangereuses," has been updated to modern times and populated with teenage characters in Columbia Pictures' release of "Cruel Intentions."
For those who think that novel sounds familiar, that's because in 1988 Stephen Frears adapted it as "Dangerous Liaisons," the three-time Oscar winner starring Glenn Close, John Malkovich, Michelle Pfeiffer and a young Uma Thurman.
While I suppose everyone has a right (if they pay for the rights) to adapt any story in any manner they chose, the only apparent reason for this campy and trashy piece of entertainment is apparently to cash in on the recent explosion of teen-related, box office success.
Why else would a group of hot, over twenty actors be cast in teenage parts that call for them neither to behave nor speak like teens? While the fact that the performers, who are too old for their parts, are playing characters too young for their behavior and dialogue is a major stumbling block for the film, it manages to survive if the following conditions are met.
If one can manage to forget Frears' excellent version of the story (which is quite hard to do considering the obviously inherent similarities) and accept this picture for what it's trying to be (something of a trashy and flippant combination of "Dangerous Liaisons" and "Heathers"), and finally still be in high school (the obvious target audience), then it begins to take on a bit of that guiltily enjoyable camp that certain films can get away with.
That said, while teens will probably groove on the malicious wickedness that oozes forth for nearly two hours, it's doubtful that most adults -- let alone parents of impressionable children -- will enjoy or appreciate what the film offers.
Basically following the familiar plot of "Dangerous Liaisons," but reducing the characters' ages, changing some names and locales, and having the manipulative protagonists as contemporary step-siblings, the film delivers the tried and true plot elements related to the old saying, "the best laid plans of mice and men..." Not surprisingly, while the audience will "enjoy" the characters' schemes, they'll also find their eventual comeuppances to their liking.
As such, first-time writer/director Roger Kumble (who, according to the press kit, "contributed" to the writing for the likes of "Dumb & Dumber" and "Kingpin") delivers a film that's certainly never boring to watch, a fact that isn't hurt by it being accompanied by an attractive and alluring cast. Unfortunately, those good looks don't always translate into good performances, although to be fair, the film's intentional campiness -- at least in its earlier moments -- diffuses some of that criticism. Even so, expect critical reaction to the performances to range all across the board.
Ryan Phillippe ("54," "Playing By Heart") delivers an interesting, but not completely satisfying and certainly not believable take on the manipulative womanizer. While he's got all of the seductive looks and mannerisms down pat, one can't help but think he's simply doing his best impersonation of John Malkovich's wonderful performance from the earlier film. Clearly not as slimy nor menacing as Malkovich, Phillippe seems to have fun chewing on the scenery, but obviously is of no comparative match to his older and more seasoned counterpart.
Sarah Michelle Gellar (TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and the recently released, but quickly vanished "Simply Irresistible") doesn't fare as well, although she clearly puts her earlier soap opera experience to work in portraying her cold, calculating and decidedly bitchy character. Nonetheless, and despite her glaring, vampish qualities, she's terribly miscast and even less believable than Phillippe (and certainly no Glenn Close).
Reese Witherspoon ("Pleasantville," "Fear"), who's quite easy on the eyes and prone to make many a teenage boy's heart go a flutter (just listen for their reactions to sights of her in tightfitting or revealing clothing), fares better than either of her co-stars, but that's simply because she's the most "normally" drawn character of the bunch. Selma Blair (making her feature film debut) provides some klutz-related humor, but certainly doesn't have the star power that her counterpart -- Uma Thurman -- exuded in that other film.
With any given release being a crap shot nowadays, this is easily one of those films that some people will love, and others will hate, undoubtably due to the "messing with a classic" factor. As such, it's somewhat difficult to rate. While it's a great deal nastier in tone and spirit than its predecessors, it's also obviously not meant to be taken seriously.
Thus, it's somewhat reminiscent of last year's similarly campy, trashy and decidedly sexy "Wild Things." Although it's nowhere as wildly entertaining as that film, this one still has enough guilty pleasures to prevent it from getting an awful rating. Of course that doesn't mean it's that good either, and as such, we give "Cruel Intentions" a 3.5 out of 10.