IMDb-BEWERTUNG
4,5/10
8144
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuSequel to the hot film Wild Things, Wild Things 2 sees teenage bad girls Maya and Britney go on a sex and killing spree to win millions.Sequel to the hot film Wild Things, Wild Things 2 sees teenage bad girls Maya and Britney go on a sex and killing spree to win millions.Sequel to the hot film Wild Things, Wild Things 2 sees teenage bad girls Maya and Britney go on a sex and killing spree to win millions.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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.
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.
If you liked the first Wild Things, chances are you'll like this one as it is basically a scene-for-scene remake, albeit with a few twists. Susan Ward is the Troubled Heiress (played by Denise Richards in the first), Lelie Arcierno is the Brainy Girl from the Wrong Side of the Tracks (Neve Campbell in the first one), plus the suspicious investigator (Kevin Bacon in the original) and the sleazy yuppie (Rob Lowe in the original).
lots and lots of bad language and some sex, so definitely not for family viewing. Ms. Ward and Ms. Arcierno are quite hot (look for the taking-off-the-work-shirt scene).
best thing about the movie is the Florida setting; a nice change from the usual Hollywood/SoCal scene.
all in all--well, like I said, if you liked the first one, you'll probably like this.
lots and lots of bad language and some sex, so definitely not for family viewing. Ms. Ward and Ms. Arcierno are quite hot (look for the taking-off-the-work-shirt scene).
best thing about the movie is the Florida setting; a nice change from the usual Hollywood/SoCal scene.
all in all--well, like I said, if you liked the first one, you'll probably like this.
Wild Things 2 (2004) Susan Ward, Leila Arcieri, Isaiah Washington, Joe Michael Burke, D: Jack Perez. Interminably unconvincing in-name-only sequel to WILD THINGS, with no relation, rewrites the same endless twists. Two sworn high-school enemies double-cross each other in a plan that begins with the loss of an inheritance and things only get fishier. This carbon copy goes through the paces, with plot turns you see coming from a mile away and only get dumber and dumber; you're not likely to care about anything except maybe Ward's tan lines. Advice: skip this and rent the original. Running Time: 93 minutes and rated R for sexual content, nudity, violence, and language. * ½
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesLeila Arcieri used a body double for the topless scenes.
- PatzerRight at the start when the alligator comes out to eat the flowers you can see the shadow of the boom mic on the water.
- Zitate
Terence Bridge: Nothing is ever as simple as it appears.
- Crazy CreditsThe Producers Wish To Thank Carlos from Parking
- VerbindungenFeatured in Wild Things II: Making the Glades (2004)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- The Glades
- Drehorte
- Venice, Los Angeles, Kalifornien, USA(exteior high school scene)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 2.800.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 35 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen