Sexcrimes 2

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.

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.

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.

The ironic thing about this movie is Susan Ward starred in "The In Crowd," an enormous box office bomb that came out way too soon after the original "Wild Things"--the earlier being like a bargain-basement version of the latter flick. I just thought I'd throw out that hint of trivia. Since I tend to take these movies with a grain of salt, the first 30 minutes had me engaged, but once I was introduced to the barrage of outlandish plot twists I was no longer able to offer forgiveness. Sure, one of the trademarks of the original movie is the outpouring of plot twists, and not all of them made perfect sense. But they made much more sense than the twists in this movie. After I was done watching the movie, I checked out the featurette on the DVD. As it turned, the director (Jack Perez) meant for the film to be outrageous and far-fetched. According to him, he chose to have the actors play it out like a campy thriller/horror flick/soap opera. However, that's not what I saw on screen! I saw a film that's too dumb to be taken seriously, and too serious to be taken as a dark comedy. About the only asset this film possesses is a cast of attractive performers. Yes, Susan Ward is a very attractive woman, but she isn't a great actress and certainly doesn't have what it takes to play a lead role. You may recognize her from her supporting role in "Shallow Hal," and she did a fine job in that movie. But "supporting" is the key word. Isaiah Washington has proved his acting chops in past films like "True Crime" and "Clockers," both of which he gave very impressive performances. However, he seems miscast in the role of a no-nonsense detective. He's just way too calm and low-key to pull off this type of role convincingly. Like the original "Wild Things," the film contains a 3-way with two girls and a guy, but it's not nearly as steamy with moments where one of the actresses was obviously switched with a body double. Even for direct-to-video standards, this one's a complete snore!!!

My score: 3 (out of 10)

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.