|
|
Post by maxwellperfect on May 26, 2017 15:52:02 GMT
....starring Sarah Michelle Gellar.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonerxmas on May 26, 2017 15:55:16 GMT
worthless
|
|
|
|
Post by maxwellperfect on May 26, 2017 18:30:07 GMT
I'd rate it around 5 or 6. I actually prefer the sleazy direct-to-video prequel starring Amy Adams.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonerxmas on Jul 20, 2017 7:30:25 GMT
I'd rate it around 5 or 6. I actually prefer the sleazy direct-to-video prequel starring Amy Adams. that had those twins with huge knockers in the shower, 10/10 |
|
|
|
Post by sjg on May 21, 2018 14:52:11 GMT
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on May 22, 2018 17:35:15 GMT
6/10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 17:38:31 GMT
6\10
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 27, 2018 2:31:21 GMT
7/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Nov 27, 2018 3:40:14 GMT
7/10.
The sequels: very subpar.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 27, 2018 4:00:32 GMT
9.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 3:31:41 GMT
7
I liked it, mostly. Where it falls down is the modern setting. In the original movie, the setting is one where a public scandal could ruin your life. The stuff Glen Close did - and was publicly seen to have done - would be something she would never, ever recover from. She'd be an utter outcast, and nothing she did would ever change that.
In the modern world, what Sarah Michelle Gellar did would barely raise eyebrows. You can see the school being hardass on her over the drugs, but even that is something she'd come back from. Six months to let the fuss die down, some community service time for the drugs, then she'd do an "I found jesus" speech and most everyone would buy it. Six months after that nobody would care or even remember.
Which means the original story had stakes that the remake did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 29, 2018 22:40:19 GMT
7 I liked it, mostly. Where it falls down is the modern setting. In the original movie, the setting is one where a public scandal could ruin your life. The stuff Glen Close did - and was publicly seen to have done - would be something she would never, ever recover from. She'd be an utter outcast, and nothing she did would ever change that. In the modern world, what Sarah Michelle Gellar did would barely raise eyebrows. You can see the school being hardass on her over the drugs, but even that is something she'd come back from. Six months to let the fuss die down, some community service time for the drugs, then she'd do an "I found jesus" speech and most everyone would buy it. Six months after that nobody would care or even remember. Which means the original story had stakes that the remake did not. Well, we won't know for sure as long as no one buys the 2016 pilot. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Dec 1, 2018 8:11:25 GMT
Isn't that the film that's based on 'Dangerous Liasons'? If so then I much preferred the former. The acting was superb: Michelle Pfeiffer, Glen Close, John Malkovich, and the time setting made much more sense of the danger of the liasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Dec 1, 2018 8:52:50 GMT
6/10
O.K.
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jan 11, 2021 7:32:54 GMT
7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Jan 17, 2021 13:54:38 GMT
I really liked this as a teenager, in fact it was one of the first films I bought on dvd, but can barely make myself to watch it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Jan 17, 2021 13:55:41 GMT
I'd rate it around 5 or 6. I actually prefer the sleazy direct-to-video prequel starring Amy Adams. I haven't seen the sequel, but you make it sound intriguing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jan 25, 2021 1:57:17 GMT
7/10
|
|
