Garotas Selvagens 2

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.

One of the standout features of Wild Things was that in spite of having an obvious emphasis on the eye-candy content, it also contained enough to keep the other areas of the mind stimulated. In addition to a cast that was very pleasant to look at, doing some things that were equally pleasing to the eye, it had a credible plot that read like an everyday event in parts of America. Most importantly, however, the original Wild Things wasn't afraid to recognise that adults have a right to be entertained, too.

As my summary suggests, when you take the original Wild Things and remove everything that made it worthwhile, you get Wild Things 2. Many key scenes from Wild Things get replicated here, only there is a certain something lacking. It could be credible acting. It could be a decent script. But what is most apparently missing here is creativity. The photography, so lush and dynamic in the first film, is flat and uninteresting here. About twenty-eight minutes into the film, we hear one of the detectives say something along the lines of "oh, plot thickens". This plot would need to eat a whole turkey for every meal every day for a year in order to stop resembling a death camp survivor.

Speaking of the plot, one critique of Ralph Bakshi's production of The Lord Of The Rings states that about a third of the way through, Ralph shifts gears and simply gives all the neat highlights without any of the setup that links them together to give coherence. Wild Things 2 never shifts gears. It starts out on the assumption that it has given enough exposition to make sense, and simply throws scenes in the viewer's face without any hint of transition. It is almost as if an entire half-hour of footage was deleted from throughout the film, all from between one scene or another.

Another feature of Wild Things that Wild Things 2 left out is the plot twists. Sure, there's plot twists here, but the lack of setup in the rest of the film, combined with the scenes' rapid-fire handling, gives them the same level of impact as a funeral in an Ed Wood film. After the half-hearted attempt to recreate the threesome scene, and its ability to demonstrate how "wider audience" seems to mean "children/adolescents only" in Hollywood, I'm sure nobody who's seen the film will be surprised that I tend to think of this mess as Wild Things Lite.

In all, I gave this mess a two out of ten. It is a perfect example of a Hollywood studio trying to please everyone, and winding up pleasing no one as a result. Save your money and buy the original instead. You won't feel as if you wasted ninety minutes of your life and a few thousand brain cells as a result.

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 isn't a sequel; it's a cheap emulation, an imperfect carbon-copy that takes nearly all of the elements from the first film and simply replays them with a slightly modified script and a different (ie., less memorable) cast. As in the original, the noir-style plot revolves around a group of morally bankrupt characters out to get rich any way they can, meaning that double-crosses, murder, and sex are once again the order of the day, all of which leaves the viewer with a very strong feeling of deja-vu.

Bisexual rich girl/poor girl combo: it's there! Gratuitous threesome scene: it's there! Sexy pool scene: it's there! Inquisitive detective: he's there! Further plot explanations during the end credits: you guessed it... it's all bloody there, with zero effort made to add anything new. The no-name cast do their best with the regurgitated material, and the girls are plenty hot enough to make matters easy to endure, but at the end of the day, this is nothing more than an unimaginative cash-in that really didn't need to be made.

5/10 for all the lesbian snogging and boobs and stuff, but that's being generous.

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.