Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough

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

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

The plot of this updated Wild Things is weak and the acting isn't much better, but Sarah Laine just might have best body ever seen naked on screen outside of the porn industry. And the extras lying around the pool, diving at the competition, and turning up dead are absolutely gorgeous. Sandra McCoy isn't too bad either. It's a shame that she hired a body double. This one I might have to buy. When the movie ends you might find yourself wondering who and how they all got where they end up, but don't try too hard. You might hurt your pretty head. A physicist couldn't figure it out. So I like to watch two beautiful girls kissing and fondling each other. So I like to watch beautiful girls get even with nasty older guys. So I like beautiful girls. So sue me.

The first was good with an A list cast and great soundtrack, the second one okay - quite amusing and clever, this third one is very weak. It only serves to show the earlier 2 in a better light.

The cast isn't good. The 2 main leads are inadequate actresses with blank faces. Remember the first one which launched Denise Richards? This cheap installment has the most forgettable actresses who look like they would rather be elsewhere. It's a shame Dina Meyer and Linden Ashby (the cops) were reduced to taking on this weak and predictable story.

Don't bother to watch this - it isn't even worth a TIVO.

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!