Wild Things 2 Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
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.
| Linden Ashby | Detective Michael Morrison |
| Susan Ward | Brittney Havers |
| Leila Arcieri | Maya King |
| Katie Stuart | Shannon |
| Brett Gilbert | Titch |
| Michael Chieffo | Principal Mosster |
| Dorit Wolf | Lecture Hall Girl |
| Joe Michael Burke | Julian Haynes |
| Chad Gordon | Kip Kiepki |
| Anthony John Denison | Niles Dunlap |
| Kathy Neff | Brittney's Mother |
| Ski Carr | Cicatriz |
| Isaiah Washington | Terence Bridge |
| Dylan Kussman | Irvin Brillman |
| Kimberly Atkinson | Terri Breur |
| Jack Perez |
4.20 out of 10 (1535 votes)
Visitor Reviews
An alright sequel
posted on 12 Jul 2009I actually thought that Wild Things 2 was an alright little sequel to that of Wild Things. Let me start of by saying that I will admit this was not the way to go as far as a sequel to Wild Things, which did not need a sequel to begin with. Also this really is not anything to applaud or get Academy Awards for. Because compared to the first it's very predictable and you've kind of already got the whole movie planned out. Now let me say this I thought that it was a good movie it kept my eye on the screen most times and I enjoyed it's setting. So i actually found this movie to be entertaining, and I love the big twist scenes as I like the film. Overall if you have seen Wild Things one and enjoyed it, you most likely will not enjoy this, because apparently I'm one of few people who did. But if you're going to watch it, do it with an open mind. Don't go into this expecting a crappy direct-to-video film and nothing more, otherwise you'll get exactly that. Because even though "Wild Things 2" will probably never be in a "best sequels" list, that doesn't mean it's not worth a shot at watching. So I guess if you want to see it just for the heck of it go ahead you actually might enjoy it, who knows?
Wild Things minus all the things that made it interesting = Wild Things 2
posted on 10 Jun 2009One 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.
Enjoyed it in a "Please end" kind of way.
posted on 18 Mar 2009SPOILERS-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!
As dumb as storylines can get
posted on 15 Jun 2008If you have seen the first Wild Things film and enjoyed it, don't see this one. In the first film I was pleasantly surprised by the great storyline, thinking it was just some lame story with two girls making out (based on the trailer I saw in the theatre).Well, in part two they did exactly what I first expected of part one. First you think.. what the h*ll?! This story is almost identical as part one only with other actors! In the second half of the film it takes a different route, but it's not before the girl-girl-guy scene ;) They even made the scene twice as long.*SPOILERS*The detective arrests the ensurance guy because he saw the security camera tape placed next to the dead body in his trunk. What killer would place a tape, which could be evidence against him, next to the victim in the trunk of his car? What detective would believe that this wasn't a set up?The guy found in the crashed plane was already dead for a year (he looked pretty hilarious) and they didn't see that? (or checked the dental record for that matter) That's just stupid because they did find a clue in the stomach of a rat that was in the same plane..Well almost everyone dies in the end and then the presumed dead earlier in the film arise. I like twists, but they have to be believable and clever.. These ones weren'tOverall the story has too many sudden changes in plans by non predicted events, so it could never have been planned beforehand by mom and daughter.A good laugh though: the guy falling from the plane and has no parachute but some cut up newspapers in the backpack. Hilarious. You can almost see him laying on a blue screen.
The threesome is better this time.
posted on 20 Feb 2008Susan 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.
A piece of crap
posted on 25 Jan 2008This movie is a piece of crap, all it was is a reworking of the Wild Things without the original skilled Generation Y actresses. The actors and actresses playing the parts are "B" list at the best. This was a very cheap ripoff of the first movie only good for a showing on late night cable. The movie would of been better if they redone it with an original thought out script and a plot that had so many holes in it to drive a Sherman Tank through. And one more thing why is it that Hollywood would get twenty something actresses that look way too old for high school to play the parts? The plots twist along with the unbelievable situations make this so called film a complete waste of time do not watch it.
A new low in direct to video sequels
posted on 09 Jul 2007Rich high school girl Britney Harvers (Susan Ward) has a dead mother she misses and a lousy stepfather who hates her. He dies in a plane crash and she's left all his millions. But cruel, obnoxious school girl Maya King (Leila Arcieri) claims Britney's stepfather was HER father and she deserves all the money...Pointless "sequel" to "Wild Things". It's basically the same exact plot with a few (minor) twists and turns....just done with a bad cast and a terrible script. If you've seen the first you don't need to see this--you already have. It even copies the infamous threesome sex scene from the original! (Trust me--the original is better). This is just made to show young, attractive women in bikinis--wet ones preferably.I'm giving this a 2 because it has some good points. Everybody looks good (Ward and Arceri are beautiful and Joe Michael Burke has a nice body); the settings themselves are lush; there's one good performance by Isiah Washington and a nice score. But you're constantly one step ahead of this movie and it gets annoying. See the original--you'll be much better off.
Rich?
posted on 03 Jun 2007It's almost all been said about this dreck already except one thing. Yes I've found a new complaint for this rubbish! Apparently the people creating this movie have no idea how wealth should look, or they thought their audience would be fooled, or perhaps they thought that everything else in this (Did I mention this movie isn't worth downloading for nothing?) awful flick was so bad nobody would find the time to complain about what I'm going to complain about! Whatever. The limousine the supposedly wealthy girl rides in would have been old in 1990! The, rather small, home she lives in is devoid of decent furniture or art (Oh but it has a plain and cheap looking wine cellar, she must be rich!). The clothes Ms. Ward wears could be obtained easily at Sears.It has been said already that this drivelfest fails to get even the easy stuff right and this is yet another example.Pity I can't give it a 0.
Hollywood better stop while they're ahead with direct-to-video sequels
posted on 26 May 2007Wild 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
There is no excuse.
posted on 17 Feb 2007Why 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.
People screwing each other over
posted on 22 Jan 2007The original Wild Things is a decent movie...kind of a guilty pleasure of mine. I was hoping this would be the same.Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! First of all, the plot was weak, at best. Secondly, the twists were lame. I watched it with my best friend and at one point she turned to me and jokingly suggested a ludicrous ending.Imagine our surprise and disbelief when that WAS the real ending.Wild Things 2 lacks the sensuality, the intelligence, and the imagination of the original. It is predictable, and boring. The sex scenes are lack luster and have no passion to them.All through this movie I kept thinking that I need to know what happens, but I can't wait for this movie to end! I was feeling generous tonight, so it gets a 3/10 but probably deserves a 2.
This movie gave me a headache
posted on 04 Jan 2007When I heard there was a sequel to Wild Things, my first though was, how could they make a sequel to THAT movie? I mean, it had all sorts of unexpected plot twists, which couldn't possibly work in a sequel because everyone would be expecting them. Apparently this thought never crossed the minds of the film makers. Worse than that, they took the additional step - backwards - of copying a fair number of scenes from the original. It's not so much a sequel as it is an example of what the first movie might have been like if it had been made by a group of complete hacks.In the original, it was important to the plot that the two girls dislike each other. In this movie there's really no reason for this plot-wise, yet they spend the first half of the movie establishing the fact anyway. For all that was effective and believable in the relationship the first time around, this time it's done with complete crudeness. One girl comes off as detestable and hateful, the other as pitiful and weak. There's of course a third protagonist, whose character barely rises to the level of existence; he's more a non-entity due to poor writing and even worse acting.The idea is that the rich girl's father is killed (apparently by the mafia for gambling debts), and he has no "blood heirs" (his daughter is a step-daughter through marriage). So nobody gets his $75 million. He's also got a $2 million life insurance policy, payable only to "blood heirs" - did I mention he doesn't have any? That must have been quite an interesting scene in the insurance office, trying to buy a $2 million policy payable to no one. Is that even possible?Of course, this is the poor excuse for the "web of intrigue", where "nothing [as opposed to no one] is as it seems". The insurance policy only exists to introduce the insurance investigator. The finding of a blood heir only exists to set up a poor copy of the courtroom scene from the first movie. I'm not entirely sure there was even a need to go to court; the company with the $75 million never seemed to contest the finding. Unbelievably, they had $75 million (51 percent of their assets), conveniently sitting in their bank account. But the most laughable contrivance is when the investigator is spying on the house of one of the girls. A guy with a shotgun just happens to be lurking in the bushes and catches him. In the ensuing conversation, he tells the insurance investigator precisely the piece of information he needs to crack the case wide open. He doesn't even waste time getting to it - he tells him exactly what he needs to know with no preamble or additional conversation. Kind of like "The writers need you to know this, and I'm the device of that discovery, so here it is. Okay, I'm outta here".It just spirals downwards from there, becoming increasingly unbelievable. In the original, all the main characters were in on the scheme from the beginning, so their actions were coordinated to produce the desired result. Not so here, and that means the scheme couldn't possibly work as there are too many unknowns.Overall, as sympathetic and clever as the characters were the first time around, this time they're crude, one-dimensional and headache inducing. They're not even attractive, and the menage a trois scene is laugh inducing as it comes off as a parody. The marvelous soundtrack of the original is replaced with something bland. The slick look of the original is replaced with no look at all. Cleverness is replaced with absurdity. They even go the extra mile of having one of the girls park her car, and you can clearly hear the engine shut off, even though you can see her hand never came close to the ignition. A true testament to the sloppiness of every aspect of this thing.But I'm sure the film makers are laughing, as the only point of this whole thing was to make some money for the least amount of effort possible.
inferior clone of the original
posted on 02 Oct 2006this followup to the original Wildthings falls short in a lot of ares.it is nearly a carbon copy of the original plot structure.basically people betraying each other and being betrayed by others.however,there is no originality in this movie.the basic story has been done and much effectively in the original.there are a lot of twists and turns in this one,but they are very predictable,although ridiculous at time.the acting,while decent in the original,is less than decent in this movie.this is unfortunate,because the story itself is not good enough to carry the movie.you may find your eyelids drooping while watching this thing,as it is painfully slow at times.and you're eyes will glaze over and roll back in your head at the absurdity of the plot twists.i believe many of these plot twists were simply added to keep the movie at a certain running time.this movie is a much less than average effort 3* out of 10
Same Story, Worse Movie
posted on 19 Aug 2006This movie is exactly like the first Wild Things, a scam + a threesome (FFM) + murder + corruption. The only differences are that there was more nudity, the acting wasn't as good, and there were more characters involved in the movie. If you've seen the 1st Wild Things, there's no reason to watch this movie- they have the same chain of events (more or less). If you haven't seen the 1st Wild Things, there's still no reason to watch this movie, unless you only want to see hot girls frolic in a pointless movie, then by all means watch it. If you're looking for pornography, look elsewhere. They remain clothed from the waist down. If you're looking for a real chain of events, watch the first movie. I personally think it was better at surprising the audience than the second movie.
Complete rip-off of the original.
posted on 12 Jul 2006I thought this movie was going to be different than the original one but it seems to be a cheesy B-List copy in almost every way.It contains the same plot as the first Wild Things.The actors and the characters they play look like,act and talk almost identical to the characters in the original.They chose Susan Ward for the Denise Richards spoiled-rich girl role because she looks like Richards.They chose Joe Michael Burke for the Matt Dillion town-respected city worker role because he looks like Dillion and they chose Linden Ashby for the Kevin Bacon obsessed cop role because he looks like Bacon.The only difference between this one and the original is that in this one the rich girl gets the money and the poor girl dies,where a in the first movie the poor girl gets the cash and the rich girl dies.This movie is very predictable after the first fifteen minutes. Calling this piece of trash a great flick is blasphemy.I only rent this one when I can't find anything else to rent. My advice is go and rent the original not this one or wild things 3 either.
What's the point??
posted on 14 Dec 2005This film is not so much a sequel as it is a remake. And even worse, it seems to be taking itself way too seriously. The original Wild Things worked because it was tongue-in-cheek - Bill Murray's performance alone should certify that. So, why on earth would they make a sequel? Well, okay, there are probably some horny teenage boys out there waiting to see what benefits the sequel holds considering the first part contained a three-way and hot lesbian action. Well, boys you're not going to be disappointed because, the film contains plenty of T'n'A. Too much in fact, as it seems to think that this will excuse its plot. Or lack of. I was surprised to see Susan Ward in this considering she had already played the same type of character in The In Crowd (which, is a lot better than this in terms of being a trashy, guilty pleasure), Isaiah Washington (what's he doing in this??) and a newcomer Leila Arceri who seems to try too hard.Anyway, don't waste your time on this. You might as well rent out Wild Things. And for those Susan Ward fans why not try The In Crowd?
Sort of lame sequel
posted on 16 Nov 2005WILD 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.
Is this a sequel or a remake?
posted on 24 Aug 2005The movie is the same exact plot of Wild Things except this time the case is different and the actors are different. The characters are the same. The plot is the same. The ending might be the same but i'm not sure because i feel asleep with about twenty minutes left. So basically everything in this movie is the same as Wild Things except the quality of the movie. Wild Things was a pretty good movie and this remake/sequel is absolute garbage by comparison. Overall, if you have any desire to see this movie, just watch Wild Things. If you have already seen Wild Things, watch it again and then you can say you saw this movie. Nobody will know the difference, I swear.I do not recommend this movie.
Everything You've Come To Expect For A Straight-To-Video Movie
posted on 04 Aug 2005There are a lot of things in common with this movie to the first one:sex, greed and murder in Blue Bay. Considered a sequel, it really isn't, because none of the characters from the first film appear in any shape or form in this home video version (Although one actor from the first film is playing a totally different character in this one).Brittney Havers (Susan Ward)is the step-daughter of Niles Dunlap (Anthony John Denison, famous for his villainous role in the 80's TV show "Crime Story"), an incredibly wealthy guy. Brittney's mother married into money, but killed herself in a car accident. Brittney is of course popular, but Maya King (Leila Arcieri)REALLY can't stand her, calling her "trailer trash" and other ugly things.Their feud starts to take a really ugly turn when Brittney's stepfather dies in a plane crash. Brittney finds out that she will only receive $25,000/year from her father's $70 million estate because only a blood heir of Dunlap's can claim the full amount. Then things get really ugly when Maya claims that she is Dunlap's illegitimate daughter. Meanwhile, Terance Bridge, an insurance investigator (Isiah Washington)begins to smell something fishy with the goings on in Blue Bay...and it's not the swamp.Anyone who has seen the first film of the series (And yes, there is a third one out as well)can figure out the twists and turns a mile away. Lots of plot devices are recycled from the first film (Including some sex scenes). However, the film still makes for a good watch. If you're in the mood for some trash, then give this film a peek.
- 1
- 2
Entertaining "Cult" Flick
posted on 01 Aug 2009So 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.