Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough

while there was no reason to make this movie,at least it is better than the 2nd one.the acting is better,the twists are more believable and the characters,while not overly developed,have at least some dimension to them.the movie is much better paced than its predecessor,and will hold your interest for the most part.though you may wonder,as i did,why we needed two sequels to a movie that tells the same basic story only much more effectively.there is not a lot more to say about this one.it certainly falls short of the original.it is still a less than average effort for this genre(just not as bad as the 2nd installment)and offers nothing new.but if you have nothing better to do with your time,you could do worse than watch this movie.keep your expectations low and you may not be too disappointed. 4* out of 10

Some Sundays you just want to stay indoors, sheltered from the poor weather, watching movies and eating popcorn. And mostly you do not really care about the quality of the film you are watching. Unfortunately, having too little to choose from, this does not always end up being the case: I had a bad feeling about this one, and did only see the movie because a friend of mine gave it to me for free (and I wonder why...). This boring and VERY predictable flick contained tons of cartoonish stereotypes, pisspoor acting, lousy editing and a script worse than in most cartoons for kids. Even the wannabe sexy seminude girl-on-girl scenes are so put on that they get you less hot than outdoor swimming during a snowy winter. Be warned, spend your two hours doing something better!

The original Wild things is a classic.

They're not going to ruin that with these non-inventive low budget straight-to-video sequels, it's more embarrassing for the ones involved with it.

All the attempts to make it like the first one fall short.

The movie has the same twist and turns as the first movie and it's sequel, which is now formulated and makes nothing that happen a surprise.

Normally, I would give a point for nudity, but naked boobs is not even enough to make this film appealing.

just really crap.

Like the previous Wild Things movies, this one too starts with a meeting in the Blue Bay school auditorium for a speech on sex crimes by a cop and probation officer (Dina Meyer) who has personal experience with rape. In the auditorium we meet the bad rich girl Marie and the innocent Elena with a troubled past who is on probation herself, poverty-stricken and lives in a trailer. The two girls of course don't exactly get along. Marie stands to inherit 2 giant diamonds from her deceased mother. However she cannot obtain them until she turns 18. Stepdad Jay, in turn is in deep financial troubles and is not inclined to let the girl get the diamonds. Jay also has an interest in pretty young things and invites Elena over to the party he organizes for Marie. The issue is who will end up with the diamonds and what intrigues they will devise to get them. This movie, like its prequels has a steamy three-way which is shot too dark and with the use of body doubles. There are two additional girl-girl scenes which are much more erotic but far shorter. Overall, this movie is more enjoyable than part II. It is not as slow and the cast is quite attractive. The story, too, is interesting and has its surprising twists and turns. I only wish there had been more nudity. This series has a lot of potential I think, considering the stuff that is released in theaters these days and I wouldn't mind additional entries.

If you have seen the original Wild Things you've already seen the two sequels by default. Actually I hate to use the word sequels when referring to those two "movies" as they're much more akin to bargain basement remakes. None of the quote 'twists and turns' will surprise you in the least, well strike that it does have one or two new twists but they're both so extremely retarded that you'll be lobotomized by just witnessing them. Furthermore the one reason that you'd presumingly ever watch this are the 'hot girls', let me save you some time and money (if you didn't just watch it on Starz like everyone else), see that box art of the film on the main movie page? The women in the film are far from as striking visually and are the least attractive of the other girls in the series. Oh yeah, and a hearty huge fat BOOO to both Sandra McCoy AND Sarah Laine on both relying on body doubles. Neither one of them is going to go anywhere in the film industry with that lame attitude.

My Grade: F