Reviews & Ratings for
Wild Things 2 (V) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

33 reviews in total

---

24 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Why even ad the '2'?, 23 December 2004

Author: TheOtherFool from The Netherlands

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.

---

22 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Repeat?, 21 April 2004
Author: Rian Powers (TheDustFactor@yahoo.com)

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.

---

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
There is no excuse., 25 February 2004
Author: tj_director from North Wales, UK

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.

---

12 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Sort of lame sequel, 13 March 2005

Author: btrocksyoursocks from New York

WILD THINGS 2 (2004)

starring: Susan Ward, Leila Arcieri, Isaiah Washington.

plot: When rich teen Brittney Havers' (Susan Ward) step-father dies, she is the heir to the family fortune, until trailer-trash Maya King (Leila Arcieri) claims that she is the daughter of the dead man, while yet another detective (Isaiah Washington) smells something fishy.

the good: This sequel is only saved by Susan Ward's performance as Brittney and the twist at the end, I never saw that coming!

the bad: Basically a rip off of the first, a rich teen and a trashy teen go against each other for millions of bucks, but a detective discovers that they are working together, and some other guy is involved, and they all have a threesome. Boring! I knew every twist until the final 5 minutes and it destroyed the movie for me.

---

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Hollywood better stop while they're ahead with direct-to-video sequels, 1 May 2004
Author: kibler@adelphia.net (jere816@verizon.net) from PA

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

---

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Another lame direct-to-video sequel. What else is new?, 19 May 2004

Author: MovieLuvaMatt from New Jersey

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)

---

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Wild Things minus all the things that made it interesting = Wild Things 2, 12 September 2004

Author: mentalcritic from Southern Hemisphere

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.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Enjoyed it in a "Please end" kind of way., 20 May 2005

Author: triple8 from Conn

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS-MANY OF THEM-THROUGHOUT:

Actually with Wild Things Two it is quite easy to come up with your own spoilers while your watching the movie. Just think:what's the craziest, most ridiculous, unexplainable thing that could possibly happen. Then wow!!! It happens.

That's pretty much the right way to figure this one out. This is a movie that is best watched when one's really out of it and wants a movie that doesn't strain the brain to much. At least with the first one, though it wasn't exactly Oscar material, it contained enough elements to make it interesting. The problem with this one is it's basically the first one taking itself seriously. It also contains(if you can believe this) double the plot twists of the first one. In fact it has so many plot twists it makes the first one look sweet, sedate and predictable. And actually, this is a great movie to watch if you want to really miss the first one. Because Wild things two actually makes Wild Things ONE look better then it is.

I don't mean to totally rag on this movie, it had great location shots-a lot of greenery, trees and such. And the cast did well with what they were given. And it actually holds your interest, in that you might want to actually see how far the movie will go in sheer and utter ridiculous plot twists. But be warned: probably further then you think....

I actually guessed the whole movie but as a joke-I really was joking when I said: hey what if this happens. Not that it actually would. Well-it did. I actually wish there was an award to give a movie for this kind of thing, because if there was, Wild Things Two would surely deserve to win.("And the Oscar for most improbable and outlandish goes TO"....). I have never actually been able to predict a movie based on what COULDN'T possibly happen. This was a new experience. So I guess the movie broke new ground in that respect.

To sum up-watch it for entertainment purposes, although it certainly isn't good, but, as with a few other not great movies such as Catwoman, there will definitely be some amusement to be had. Just remember: what you absolutely can't believe is really what this movie will give you....that's Wild Things two!

---

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Awful beyond my wildest expectations, 25 December 2004

Author: tom-456 from denver

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wild Things 2 uses re-enactments of memorable scenes from Wild Things, and borrows thematic elements, to justify its implied claim of derivation from Wild Things. But Wild Things 2 is missing the clever plot twists, and only barely manages a plot at all. It comes across as phony, contrived, and dishonest. Susan Ward was evidently cast because of her resemblance to Denise Richards, even though she actually looks more like Jack Lord on closer inspection, and couldn't give a convincing performance if her life depended on it. (If you don't think that she looks like Jack Lord, have yourself a side-by-side look at the close-up pictures of both in the image galleries.)

In Wild Things 2, the rich girl's stepfather dies in a plane crash (or so it seems), and the will stipulates that only a blood descendant will get any significant amount of inheritance. At probate, the poor girl successfully claims to be the biological daughter of the rich man. The rich girl, played by Susan Ward, then gives us a re-enactment of the outrage displayed by the Denise Richards' character in Wild Things when the poor girl breaks down under cross and admits to their conspiracy to get their teacher put away. Given the circumstances at this pivotal moment in Wild Things, it is to be expected that Denise Richards' character would display outrage in the courtroom. In Wild Things 2, the reason for the loss of composure of the Susan Ward character is not in the least bit apparent, and especially with the terrible acting, it comes across as bizarre.

In Wild Things, the teacher successfully sues, with the help of the lawyer played so aptly by Bill Murray, and afterward the teacher and the two girls meet up in a hotel room to celebrate. This is an important plot transition in Wild Things, being the point when a very different interpretation of what has transpired thus far, is revealed to the audience.

In Wild Things 2, right after the probate hearing, the two girls meet up in a re-enactment of that significant dramatic moment in Wild Things. For all that has been suggested up to this point, the poor girl was the legitimate heir of the rich man who was really dead, and there has been no suggestion of any sort of con or conspiracy. They use dialog here to tell the audience that the reason that they are celebrating is that they have succeeded, but exactly what they have succeeded at, you have no idea. At this point some guy walks in to re-enact the sordid 3-way scene from Wild Things, and other than the fact that some sort of successful plot is implied by all this celebrating, you're not at all certain that you even know who this guy even is, or how you should attempt to reinterpret anything that you have witnessed thus far.

They kill this poor guy right away, and it is clumsily revealed that he is the coroner who falsely certified that the body in plane crash was that of the rich man who isn't really dead, and it is clumsily revealed that the real conspirators were the rich man and his stepdaughter. When this is revealed, you naturally ask why they needed the poor girl, but it sort of makes sense because she effectively supplied the body, which was really her father who had died a year or so earlier. But the way it all comes together is just clumsy, devoid of any cleverness at all, and you can't help but wonder how that coroner could have been so stupid as to believe that he would get his payoff as opposed to getting killed.

Wild Things 2 is a cheap attempt to capitalize on the success of Wild Things. Wild Things had one of the most clever plots of any movie in recent memory, and it deserves to be recognized and remembered for that. It is very unfortunate that its legacy has been tarnished by this utter waste of time. The only possibly redeeming value of this movie is that it may prevent any legitimate movies from casting Susan Ward in a legitimate role. If so, then perhaps this movie has served a useful purpose after all.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
The threesome is better this time., 9 December 2006
Author: insomniac_rod from Noctropolis

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history