Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough (2005)

Too many fans seem to be blown away

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

This is a better movie then Wild Things 2 (stay away from that thing trust me). The story is more interesting and has better characters. Also, the women are cuter in this film then Wild Things 2.The acting is very well done with Serah D'Laine (who portrays Marie Clifton), and Sandra McCoy (who portrays Elena Sandoval) taking their roles seriously. I think this should be a little bit higher then 4.5 stars but not by much.This sequel has more depth then Wild Things 2 but is not as good as Wild Things 1.I give it a 6/10

"Tangled" director Jay Lowi's "Wild Things" sequel "Wild Things 3," a.k.a. "Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough" qualifies as more of the same things as well as tame things. The exotic sunny Florida locations, the treacherous bare-breasted babes, and melodrama galore make the action tolerable to watch, even if the acting has, on the whole, an amateurish spontaneity. Not surprisingly, "Wild Things 2" scribe Andy Hurst, who also penned "Single White Female 2," has things down pat with this second sequel. Like the previous "Things," two gals are looking for the good life, even if it means that a man has to suffer the bad life. Most of the characters lack charisma and they turn on each other in a heartbeat. Eventually, some even wind up paying the piper. Indeed, the only decent, likable character in "Wild Things 3" is ruthlessly taken advantage of and his trust abused. Lowi generates enough momentum with the melodramatic elements in the narrative so that this nonsense doesn't wear out its welcome.Teenager Marie Clifton (Sarah Lang of "American Pie 2") is itching to get her fingers on $4-million dollars worth of diamonds when she turns eighteen, but her stepfather Jay Clifton (Brad Johnson of "Always") is putting up roadblocks. Marie's high school girlfriend suggests that she get a lawyer to fight Jay. During a pool competition where Marie competes, Elena Sandoval (Sandra McCoy of "Cry Wolf") is cleaning up. Jay takes pity on her and invites her to Marie's party. At Marie's party, Marie slaps Elena around in a frisky little catfight and they both wind up in the pool. Later, Elena has a rendezvous with Jay at his construction site. Jay is running behind on a project and the contractors are upset.The next morning Jay finds the police, Detective Michael Morrison (Linden Ashby of "Wyatt Earp") and Kristen Richards (Dana Meyers of "Starship Troopers") at his lush home. They arrest him for the rape of Elena Sandoval and Jay finds himself on trial for a crime that he never committed. Elena, it seems, was on parole, too, at the time. Marie truly hates her now.The Andy Hurst screenplay goes into overdrive during the second half and the co-conspirators come out of the woodwork by the dozens. Meanwhile, Detective Morrison who is getting divorced from his wife discovers that another member of the Blue Bay Police Department has her eyes on him—Detective Kirsten Richards. They get it on in the evidence room because the inevitable call interrupts them.At least, this derivative straight-to-cable melodrama with its wild twists and turns wraps itself up in 87 merciful minutes. The girls look really hot, awesome, and cute and the lesbian love scenes with Lang and McCoy swapping spit in the shower with a bare breast or two between him adds a little sizzle to this jaded saga.

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

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.