Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 18 comments in total 

28 out of 39 people found the following comment useful :-
So bad it could be used as a weapon of mass destruction, 23 July 2005
1/10
Author: mentalcritic from Southern Hemisphere

One really has to feel for Dina Meyer as she struggles through this C-level production. The law of diminishing returns pretty much states that the more one tries to repeat an accomplishment or action, the less successful the results will be. Most film franchises conform to this rule faithfully, with the latter episodes in the Police Academy or Aliens series managing to plumb depths in their respective genres that used to keep television programmers well-stocked for early-morning material. There are also exceptional sequels, the second Star Trek or X-Men films being good examples. The third Wild Things film is the same thing to late franchise entries as Police Academy: Mission To Moscow. The most telling sign of the third Wild Things film being crap is that it did not even receive so much as a direct to video release. This was filmed with cable, or even free to air, television in mind. My guess would be one of those hotel cable channels where they screen not-quite-porn for desperate customers who have nothing better to watch.

Like the previous two Wild Things films, Diamonds In The Rough attempts to create a twisting and turning plot for the titillation of the viewer. While Wild Things 2 succeeded by completely recycling the plot of the highly entertaining original, Diamonds In The Rough attempts to recreate the mild revival of the erotic thriller without resorting to recycling the screenplay or screen composition of the original. Calling it moderately, or even mildly, successful would be flattering. Diamonds In The Rough is a failure thanks in no small part to a pace that is so rushed it feels incoherent. An attempt to recreate the threesome scene is made, and it has the virtue of both women getting naked in front of the camera, but it goes by so quickly that viewers are often hard-pressed to remember anything about it mere minutes after viewing. Sandra McCoy apparently suffered a fifty-percent pay cut for hiring a body double in this film. That should summarise how much dedication to one's art this film inspires.

Dina Meyer essentially jumps into the role played by Terence Bridge in the previous film, and by Kevin Bacon in the one before that. She is about the only person in this film who can act, and the screenplay does a good job of obscuring this. The dialogue is not exactly daft, but it really only fills space while we wait for the next display of flesh. In Wild Things, the plot was coherent and even intriguing without the little tidbits displayed during the end credits. Wild Things 2 is neither here nor there, since both the main plot and the tidbits are more or less entirely lifted from Wild Things. Diamonds In The Rough's main plot and tidbits were not written by an army of monkeys seated in front of an army of typewriters. It was vomited out by a bunch of crack-addled monkeys who bashed their heads into the keys of a bunch of typewriters for a year.

My summary says it all, really. I watched Diamonds In The Rough for over an hour, even making mental notes as something particularly stupid took place. I cannot remember a singular detail of the threadbare plot, save for something to do with Dina Meyer's character being a parole officer with a personal mission. Of course, there is the usual stuff about two characters having a complex interplay relationship that turns out to be a shady criminal conspiracy. There is simply not enough screen time in this film to give this element proper development. About the only satisfactory continuance in the film comes when a line is repeated. Plot tangents are mentioned in one second, dropped like a stone in the next, and then resumed a reel or three later with not the slightest bit of linking. Perhaps it was deliberately designed to cause viewers to lose millions of brain cells in the memory area. Perhaps the film is simply so bland or stupid that, like the production of RoboCop, the mind just blanks it out like a violent crime. As I said earlier, however, it is less than a day since I watched Wild Things: Diamonds In The Rough, and I am absolutely stumped when trying to recall something memorable about it.

Out of ten, I gave Wild Things: Diamonds In The Rough a one. It is bad enough that one could show it to people they want information or cooperation out of. After the first viewing, one is in a mildly uncomfortable mood. About halfway through the second viewing, that cyanide capsule starts to look mighty tempting.

Was the above comment useful to you?

19 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
Hot Hot Hot, 19 November 2005
6/10
Author: bigdgun (bigdgunferd@yahoo.com) from Central California

The plot of this updated Wild Things is weak and the acting isn't much better, but Sarah Laine just might have best body ever seen naked on screen outside of the porn industry. And the extras lying around the pool, diving at the competition, and turning up dead are absolutely gorgeous. Sandra McCoy isn't too bad either. It's a shame that she hired a body double. This one I might have to buy. When the movie ends you might find yourself wondering who and how they all got where they end up, but don't try too hard. You might hurt your pretty head. A physicist couldn't figure it out. So I like to watch two beautiful girls kissing and fondling each other. So I like to watch beautiful girls get even with nasty older guys. So I like beautiful girls. So sue me.

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Oh my oh my, 14 January 2007
1/10
Author: Kris from Norway

Some Sundays you just want to stay indoors, sheltered from the poor weather, watching movies and eating popcorn. And mostly you do not really care about the quality of the film you are watching. Unfortunately, having too little to choose from, this does not always end up being the case: I had a bad feeling about this one, and did only see the movie because a friend of mine gave it to me for free (and I wonder why...). This boring and VERY predictable flick contained tons of cartoonish stereotypes, pisspoor acting, lousy editing and a script worse than in most cartoons for kids. Even the wannabe sexy seminude girl-on-girl scenes are so put on that they get you less hot than outdoor swimming during a snowy winter. Be warned, spend your two hours doing something better!

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Call me crazy, but I enjoyed this movie a lot!, 30 October 2005
7/10
Author: guyfromjerzee from United States

This is the perfect movie to watch after a hard day at work, when you just want to give your brain a rest and indulge in some trashy entertainment. I was especially impressed, considering how much I hated the second film. I bought the "Wild Things" box set, which has all three of the films, so it's good to know that two out of three of the films are worth watching. Sure, this ain't exactly Shakespeare, but it's intriguing and fun. I was glued to the screen from start to finish. Unlike the second entry in the series, the acting is pretty good for direct-to-video standards. It's not much better than the acting you'd see on an afternoon soap, but it works, being that the "Wild Things" films are kind of like soap operas. Like in the other two films, there are tons of plot twists and over the end credits, we watch tiny scenes that explain how these twists occurred. And of course, we have to have the good ol' threesome scene. It's great to watch, being that the two lead actresses are very gorgeous and their lesbian scenes are pretty hot--not like in some other films where the girls kiss with their lips barely touching each other. Some of the plot twists are downright ridiculous, but that didn't ruin the film for me. Like I said, it's almost like a soap opera. You're just watching to be intrigued and to keep guessing what will happen next. And what can I say? It's one hell of a ride.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Pretty Unnecessary, 18 June 2008
5/10
Author: Moviefreak4653 from United States

Being impressed with Wild Things 2 I was really thinking that since this one would go back to the whole rape story line that the first one had, that this would be better than Wild Things 2.Well, I found this to definitely not be what i thought it would be.I actually think in a way its because this film tried to live up to the first ones effort, that I found this to be boring, predictable, unexciting and so on.I mean sure the second one reused some of the first ones elements, it was actually entertaining and a had some since to it.This one had no potential and nothing that appealing about it.Ill say it was a little cool at times, and I liked how it was a quite shy girl who was the rape victim.Overall i gotta say this was unnecessary and was a bit over the top, its not really worth a viewing, but if you would like to see this, just for the heck of it go ahead it won't kill you, because I didn't find it to be god awful, just not good. 5.0 out of 10 stars

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
better than the 2nd effort,but not great, 3 January 2007
4/10
Author: disdressed12 from Canada

while there was no reason to make this movie,at least it is better than the 2nd one.the acting is better,the twists are more believable and the characters,while not overly developed,have at least some dimension to them.the movie is much better paced than its predecessor,and will hold your interest for the most part.though you may wonder,as i did,why we needed two sequels to a movie that tells the same basic story only much more effectively.there is not a lot more to say about this one.it certainly falls short of the original.it is still a less than average effort for this genre(just not as bad as the 2nd installment)and offers nothing new.but if you have nothing better to do with your time,you could do worse than watch this movie.keep your expectations low and you may not be too disappointed. 4* out of 10

Was the above comment useful to you?

9 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
not bad!, 5 April 2005
Author: Troy from Windsor, Vermont

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

**contains a few spoilers** WT3 has its good points and its bad points. One of the main good points, at least for me, is the character of Dr. Johnson, the handsome, clever forensic geek who plays an instrumental part in the twist of the plot. I'm a forensic buff myself and thought the addition of a forensic scientist was somewhat beneficial to the story. I also liked the return of Linden Ashby, who reprises his WT2 role of Detective Morrison, the cop who's always a step or two behind the deceiving main characters. The only truly bad point was the generic plot line. Money is involved and some of the main characters concoct a scheme to claim it for themselves by staging or committing crimes. But, other than that, the movie's quite watchable.

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Better than part 2, 2 September 2005
7/10
Author: Chaz_233 from US

Like the previous Wild Things movies, this one too starts with a meeting in the Blue Bay school auditorium for a speech on sex crimes by a cop and probation officer (Dina Meyer) who has personal experience with rape. In the auditorium we meet the bad rich girl Marie and the innocent Elena with a troubled past who is on probation herself, poverty-stricken and lives in a trailer. The two girls of course don't exactly get along. Marie stands to inherit 2 giant diamonds from her deceased mother. However she cannot obtain them until she turns 18. Stepdad Jay, in turn is in deep financial troubles and is not inclined to let the girl get the diamonds. Jay also has an interest in pretty young things and invites Elena over to the party he organizes for Marie. The issue is who will end up with the diamonds and what intrigues they will devise to get them. This movie, like its prequels has a steamy three-way which is shot too dark and with the use of body doubles. There are two additional girl-girl scenes which are much more erotic but far shorter. Overall, this movie is more enjoyable than part II. It is not as slow and the cast is quite attractive. The story, too, is interesting and has its surprising twists and turns. I only wish there had been more nudity. This series has a lot of potential I think, considering the stuff that is released in theaters these days and I wouldn't mind additional entries.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
The only thing that's left good... are the beautiful women, 20 May 2009
5/10
Author: Joop_de_Mol (hetcanadaproject@hetnet.nl) from Waalwijk, Netherlands

Forget the good story lines, forget the great directing, forget the great camera-work... even forget the great script. They're all worse than bad. Even more worse. It looks as if the makers where not really interested in the result of the movie.

What's left, after you leave everything away: The great looking women; with or without clothes. Though nothing really happens if they're without clothes.

And that is what makes this movie and it's story lines look bad: nothing really happens throughout the movie. Every time you think something great is going to happen, the story breaks in two one hundred pieces.

The only thing that's left good... are the beautiful women.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
HIGHLY Unnecessary, 24 May 2008
5/10
Author: Dragoneyed363 from United States

Wild Things 3 while not being complete filth, was bad and TOTALLY unneeded.I already knew everything that was going to happen in the film before I even started it,the actors and actresses in this film were more of nobodies than the ones in the 2nd, and yes I still found how they tried to dodge the main scheme of the 1st and 2nd Wild Things was clever, but it didn't work out well at all.How did they even get this far anyway?The first one was wonderful, the second one didn't do good at all, so they thought a third would be the way to go?They should've stopped with the second, and even a better suggestion than that, the first!!!Avoid this movie at all costs if you have seen the sequel to Wild Things, because it is a movie you can definitely live without watching.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

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