User reviews

The original Wild things is a classic.

They're not going to ruin that with these non-inventive low budget straight-to-video sequels, it's more embarrassing for the ones involved with it.

All the attempts to make it like the first one fall short.

The movie has the same twist and turns as the first movie and it's sequel, which is now formulated and makes nothing that happen a surprise.

Normally, I would give a point for nudity, but naked boobs is not even enough to make this film appealing.

just really crap.

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

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!

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.

The first was good with an A list cast and great soundtrack, the second one okay - quite amusing and clever, this third one is very weak. It only serves to show the earlier 2 in a better light.

The cast isn't good. The 2 main leads are inadequate actresses with blank faces. Remember the first one which launched Denise Richards? This cheap installment has the most forgettable actresses who look like they would rather be elsewhere. It's a shame Dina Meyer and Linden Ashby (the cops) were reduced to taking on this weak and predictable story.

Don't bother to watch this - it isn't even worth a TIVO.

If you have seen the original Wild Things you've already seen the two sequels by default. Actually I hate to use the word sequels when referring to those two "movies" as they're much more akin to bargain basement remakes. None of the quote 'twists and turns' will surprise you in the least, well strike that it does have one or two new twists but they're both so extremely retarded that you'll be lobotomized by just witnessing them. Furthermore the one reason that you'd presumingly ever watch this are the 'hot girls', let me save you some time and money (if you didn't just watch it on Starz like everyone else), see that box art of the film on the main movie page? The women in the film are far from as striking visually and are the least attractive of the other girls in the series. Oh yeah, and a hearty huge fat BOOO to both Sandra McCoy AND Sarah Laine on both relying on body doubles. Neither one of them is going to go anywhere in the film industry with that lame attitude.

My Grade: F

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.

Hollywood is incredible sometimes. Not only they made "Wild things 2" with basically the same plot as the original , but now they made this. "Wild things 3" is essentially a remake of first two movies ! My God. What a lazy and greedy people live in Hollywood. I'm even more surprised that they made "Wild things 4" ! I haven't seen that one and I'm not going too. From what I've heard the only change they made is that they have now 3 sexy girls in it instead of two.

This ? This is a waste of time. Even the sex scenes were awful , because the girls are UGLY.

Don't watch it. I give it 1/10.

Even though everyone knows this movie doesn't compare to the original movie, it's still a great movie. Personally I think Marie and Elena are good actors even though they could have done better. Let me also say the sex scenes were really hot. This is not deja U all over again like the last person said. It is a completely different movie with a completely different plot. Maybe one or two twists were predictable, but most of them weren't. It was a lot better than Wild Things 2 and I don't know why everyone dislikes this. The girls weren't as hot as the ones in the other movie, but they were still extremely hot. My grade for this movie is a B+ and I really recommend it.

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.

Wild Things 3: Diamonds in the Rough is the final installment to the Wild Things franchise. This film is an equivalent to rotting meat in the sun— it stinks. The film suffers from unoriginality. It tackles the same old recycled plot devices, by going through the motions of tackling the same typical state of affairs. There' the quintessential "Rich-Bitch" & "Trailer-Trash"; there's a rape accusation, (which of course, these chicks are behind on the plan.) Of course, there's a corrupted official of law enforcement caught in the middle of the scheme—leading to a threesome with the two young women, until he meets his doom. Of course the misunderstood good girl (either the trailer-trash or the rich bitch) ends up being the mastermind behind the whole scheme. It all takes place in the infamous seedy providence of Blue Bay, Florida.

Sarah Laine plays Marie Clifton, the spoil brat stepdaughter (who for some reason, shares her stepfather's maiden name) of filthy rich construction tycoon Jay Clifton (Brad Johnson). Marie is not satisfied with her stepfather challenging her heritance—which are two flawless diamonds that are worth 4 million dollars that were left to her by her deceased mother until her 18th birthday.

While Jay is on the verge of bankruptcy and a couple of missing fingers by the mob, the two are caught in a bitter battle for the diamonds, until Jay is accused of rape by one of Marie's fellow classmate name Elena Sandoval (Sandra McCoy), who is the chick from the opposite side of the tracks. So Marie uses this as an opportunity to retrieve the diamonds, by first, convincing Jay that she can sell the diamonds and use the money to help clear his name, therefore, this is when the thread of deceitfulness untangles, and you see the same ironic plot twists.

Everything in this film is so horrible cheap and B-Grade. To the disappointingly brief threesome sex-scene—which was nothing but shots of groping of the breasts (McCoy's body-double's that is). While Sandra McCoy couldn't emote to save her life, there's nothing sexy or seductive about her whatsoever, and since she's taken a 50% pay-cut for a body-double to do her nude scene—it ruins the effect that the actress has what it takes to bring some sort of sex appeal in front of the camera. If you're going to do sex-scenes where nudity is needed, then what's with these body-doubles? Sara Laine isn't as bad to look at, but she's no Denise Richards—who back in 1998, brought the essence of seduction and sexiness to her rich bitch Kelly Lanier Van Ryan. But you couldn't blame the two lead stars for chasing a quick paycheck. Noticeable Dina Meyer (Saw 1 & 2) as Elena's Parole officer and Mortal Combat's Linden Ashby returning from "Wild Things 2" as Detective Michael Morrison seems to be the only two actors that display some sort decent acting chops, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still B-listers. Wild Things 3: Diamonds in the Rough is a brainless mess of a film. Though I shouldn't have expected too much from this film since it's a straight-to-DVD effort. Though it's neither entertaining nor worth renting. It's just straight up trash. What a waste of time.

The third instalment of the Wild Things franchise sees relatively a very similar plot with its twists and turns. Once you have seen the original with its unpredictability and full of turns in the conclusion, these lesser straight to video sequels simply don't have the same pull.

Wild Things 3 isn't as good as Wild Things 2 for several reasons. First there is less interest and development on the lead women of Marie and Elena. The acting feels more generic and what unfolds was ultimately predictable.

The same charm and wit of the original is gone. At times this film feels boring and somewhat drags on. And although this is the shortest runtime of the franchise, everything feels rushed.

In an alternate reality, cops would be as slack as they are in this movie. All the men would be that much hapless, hopeless, helpless, and clueless. And the women would all be that much beautiful. If you want to see beautiful women, you will find them in this movie. If you want a believable film, watch something else. All the Wild Things film series, including number four, are on Tubi, the free streaming site; which now has live TV.

I'd like to say that this movie has some nice scenery in the make believe town of Blue Bay, Fl. aka Miami...lol My DVD had an A side & B side....The B side had commentary from the director & actors during the scenes while the movie was playing, kinda kewl hearing Kevin Bacon, Matt Dillon bitch about the mosquito's in South FLA. lol...They were talking like how much money they saved, aka low budget on the film in general and it definitely shows.... They were also talking like the movie was a smash hit !....personally I paid about $3 for it on Amazon. A bargain? nnnnot...oh well...... I want to see "Wild Things 3" chillyfil p.s. remember, just don't buy it..

I recently watched Wild Things 3: Diamonds in the Rough (2005) on Tubi. The plot revolves around a young woman who, feeling cheated out of her family fortune, devises a plan with her "girlfriend" to secure family diamonds and eliminate her stepfather. Lying, deceit, and backstabbing ensue, revealing the lack of honor amongst thieves.

Directed by Jay Lowi (Tangled), the film stars Sarah D'Laine (The Rig), Brad Johnson (Always), Nicole Griffin (The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift), Dina Meyer (Birds of Prey), and Claire Coffee (Grimm).

Sequels to the first film were unnecessary, as Wild Things 3 falls short in every aspect. The storyline, dialogue, and acting are terrible and cheesy. While the film delivers anticipated nudity, the reliance on sex for manipulation in heist plots feels stale. The inclusion of a parole officer love story and lackluster girl fights further diminish the movie's appeal.

In conclusion, the existence of more films in this series is rediculous. I'd score this a 2.5/10 and recommend skipping it.

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.

The real diamonds lie within the movie "Wild Things" ... that is/was the first part (they actually went and did a fourth one). The others just retell the same story, with some tweaks here and there (though the second felt, like a complete copy of the formula). And while this might steer a bit away from that, it's still as weak/"good", as the second movie. Though it feels weird calling those movies sequels. They are just cash-ins, made for the quick buck.

Stay with the original, to get the story with the acting and the story as it should be told. Of course, if you think you have to watch some nice ladies wearing next to nothing (sometimes only the latter), than you can give this a try. But other than that (acting, story, production values), there is nothing much to see here

Hot girls in a crime drama movie... the way wild things are expected ...

Haters were expecting a titanic sequel. The movie has the content the franchise is known for....

I think WT3 is a pretty decent movie, much better than the second, but don't expect a clever movie because you'll be disappointed. The plot doesn't differ too much from the first movie, a man accused of raping a young girl plus the difficult relationship with his step-daughter (Sarah Laine) with the diamonds in the middle. The low-class girl is interpreted by Sandra McCoy as Neve Campbell did that role in the first. Both girls are very good-looking, especially Laine. There's treason, blackmail and a well-thought scheme (at least in the minds of the characters). The revealing ending shows with flashbacks during the credits the key points of the plot, a surprising finale that is hard to anticipate. So, if you like WT1 you definitely will enjoy this one. I give WT3 Diamonds in the Rough 6/10.

I loved this film as it was full of comedy and action and drama. The performances were excellent by a great cast of actresses. The sex scenes were well done with great lesbian kisses. Overall a great film and I recomend you watch it.