Wild Things 2

Why did i rent this movie? to see 2 girls kiss, its as simple as that. I didn't expect a masterpiece, or even anything as good as the surprisingly entertaining film the original was.. but i did not expect something as insipid as this.

This film goes out of its way to insult your intelligence, and to prove the fact a script can be written within 2 hrs and actually end up as a real life movie.

Gigli to me wasn't a bad film, its more misunderstood, and a bit different from usual fare, without Lopez and Affleck in it, i doubt many would make as much fuss.. its still made well, yet people quote it as the worst film ever.. but those people clearly don't watch these straight to video sequels. I just don't get why they have to be so bad, it really isn't hard to write an average script and at the very least make some sense, but to write something as completely moronic as this, and have it take up 2 ft on a Blockbuster shelf defies all logic and reasonable belief.

I am someone who can watch an average movie, a film that doesn't quite hit the spot, or truly achieve its potential.. and come out the other side with few complaints, i like to watch movies, i'm generally pretty positive to a lot of them that i watch.. but every once in a while a film like this comes up, and you honestly believe you have become more stupid as a result of watching it. The people who wrote this, are not intelligent, i hope there was a lot of red tape going on, and no one actually had any creative control, because that is the only way to forgive the people behind a film like this. If i was given the job to make a straight to video sequel, of a guilty pleasure film like Wild Things, i knew i wouldn't make a classic, but i knew i could take the basic ingredients of that film, twist it a bit, and still make a fun movie.. a bit like the Tremors sequels. I wouldn't do like this, and simply try copy everything, and do that poorly. All i ever ask of a film, past technical competence, is for it to at the very least make sense, something this film dies flat on its face.

Is there hot lesbian action? yes, and of course taking away the star factor of the original, its probably hotter, though it is a carbon copy of that scene. Everyone went to see Wild Things, for the threesome scene, and expected little else, but instead got a good pulp storyline that was genuinely entertaining.. everyone will watch Wild Things 2 for a threesome, they'll get it, but they'll also get brain damage in return. Stick the subtitles on, and fast forward.. that's a health warning people.

So it's a sequel. So what? So the plot arc echoes the original. Again I ask, so what? I would argue that this carefully constructed film is a work of campy creativity, one that should be considered as an entertaining romp, especially in "cult movie" circles. It's not like you'd go to see Nightmare on Elm Street 2 for its gripping new plot - no, you'd go because you want to see Freddy claw peoples' guts out. Here's what I think you'd expect from a sequel to Wild Things: plot twists (check), breasts (3 pairs), a few good belly laughs (the vet steals the show), and an entertaining way to spend an evening (check and check). This alone should be enough to satisfy the (usually unreasonable) expectations of a casual viewer - it's not a multi-million-dollar star-filled red-carpet hooplah, after all. Moreover, I would say that it's actually quite an enjoyable film. Given its budget, size, and distribution, it goes above and beyond the minimum requirements (see above) with its concise, witty dialogue, smooth "private dick" plot pacing, and its original interpretation of its genre. A lot of sweat and hard work clearly went into this film, and I for one feel the writers and producers have a lot to be proud about.

The original 'Wild Things' was hardly a classic, although the movie had some apparent attraction (I'll leave it to your imagination what they are exactly). But, as it turned out many people apparently were interested in that one, they decided to make yet another one. In many occasions, when made a sequel, the same actors are called in to stage in a (somewhat) different story. This time, the high profile actors of part 1 (Kevin Bacon, Neve Campbell, Matt Dillon and Denise Richards) are left out, traded for some unknown (but equally gorgeous, I must admit) actors to do *exactly the same thing*. Names are changed, sure, events are slightly different, right, but it all adds up to the same thing.

So, if you've actually seen the original Wild Things there's really no reason to watch this one as well. Except if you're interested in the same 'menage a trois' thing Wild Things offered, but then with different actors... 3/10.

Wild Things 2 is basically the first one all over again, the only difference is that the script and acting is worthless. While trying to make a tricky plot to fool the audience, it fail's miserabely. The movie is predictable from the first opening sequence and the character's identically match one's from the first movie. There is no real character development, but what these girls lack in dialogue they gain in natural assets. The plot is confusing and doesn't make much sense, but that was not the point of the movie. The purpose of this movie is to see hot girls walk around in skimpy clothes, with criminal thoughts. Watch this film if you dare, but don't expect to much out of it other then one hot scene followed by complete boredom. 1.5 stars out of 5.

Susan Ward shines in this mediocre direct to video soft-core sex flick. While the original "Wild Things" has it's moments of thrilling scenes and a memorable plot twist, this sequel has only sex and hot women running around in skimpy outfits trying to figure out some stuff.

I won't get into detail because believe me, this one does not deserves your time or your money.

Susan Ward and a threesome scene (better than the one from the original!!) are the highlights. So my recommendation is: watch this on late cable and wait for the sex scenes to happen.

This movie is a total robbery and a poor excuse for nudity.