Wild Things 2 (2004)

GENRESCrime,Drama,Mystery,Thriller
LANGEnglish
ACTOR
Susan WardKatie StuartLeila ArcieriDorit Wolf
DIRECTOR
Jack Perez

SYNOPSICS

Wild Things 2 (2004) is a English movie. Jack Perez has directed this movie. Susan Ward,Katie Stuart,Leila Arcieri,Dorit Wolf are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2004. Wild Things 2 (2004) is considered one of the best Crime,Drama,Mystery,Thriller movie in India and around the world.

Rich 17 year old wild thing Brittney is devastated she loses her inheritence to a classmate, Maya. An insurance investigator uncovers the two girls plan, and soon the three are involved in a steamy relationship of sex, money and people being fed to aligators.

Wild Things 2 (2004) Reviews

  • Why even ad the '2'?

    TheOtherFool2004-12-23

    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.

  • Another lame direct-to-video sequel. What else is new?

    MovieLuvaMatt2004-05-19

    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)

  • There is no excuse.

    tj_director2004-02-25

    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.

  • Hollywood better stop while they're ahead with direct-to-video sequels

    kibler@adelphia.net2004-05-01

    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

  • Repeat?

    TheDustFactor-12004-04-21

    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.

Hot Search