Wild Things 3 (2005) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

See if you recognize this movie description:

The scene is a snooty community in Florida called Blue Bay. The most popular girl in school comes from a very rich family, but can't seem to break her inheritance free from the grasp of her family. Meanwhile, a trashy brunette from the trailer park near the swamp accuses an authority figure of rape. When the first push comes to the first shove, and layer one of the onion is cleared away, it is revealed that Miss Popular and Miss Trailer Trash are actually in cahoots to fabricate the rape as a means to embezzle funds from the former's family. Even though the two girls seem to hate one another in public, it turns out that they are not only in partnership, but are lesbian lovers as well. Oh, yeah, and they also enjoy having three-way sex with an adult male who is in on the scam.

As the film progresses, we find that other people are also in on the scam, including one of the investigating officers, but as the layers continue to be peeled away, we find that various members of the conspiracy have been keeping secrets from various others, that still other secrets have been hidden from the audience, and that many additional double crosses eventually ensue. The rich girl will end up dead, as will the false rapist, as will a member of the Blue Bay police force. At the end, a sleazy lawyer will turn out to have a far more significant role than originally thought.

The veil is finally lifted during the closing credits, when we get to see all of the off-camera plotting that we were not aware of.

I suppose you movie buffs recognize that as the plot of Wild Things. It is also the plot of Wild Things 3. You can't really call this a sequel to the original for a few reasons: (1) It doesn't use any of the same characters. (2) It may take place either before or after the original. (3) It is basically the same plot told again with new characters. A sequel, on the other hand, is a new plot with the same characters.

How does it stack up against the original? Well ...

  • The first film had some solid star power: Neve Campbell and Denise Richards played the Wild Things, and they were ably supported by Matt Dillon, Kevin Bacon, Bill Murray, Kathleen Turner and Robert Wagner. The second film basically consists of unknowns and Dina Meyer. Even Dina, while always good, is nowhere near the A-list.

  • A gimmicky plot like this only works once. The first one worked because it was original and the plot twists were at least somewhat unexpected. What is the fun of watching it again with the characters re-named? It's like watching a local dinner theater presentation of Camelot after having already seen Burton, Andrews, and Goulet on Broadway.

  • Let's face it, the only thing that stayed the same was the plot, and the first film had a hokey plot to begin with. That was part of the point - it was a genre film gone wild. Besides the originality, what really made Wild Things work was the complete swamp ambience mixed with sleazy charm and a lot of humor. There isn't really much of that in Wild Things 3.

  • On the other side of the ledger, a summary of the the conjunctive abbreviations reveals that this film has more T&A than the original and more F&S. Like the original, it has no S&M and A&W. I can forgive their failure to step up the root beer content, since the filmmakers did gear up the nudity and the hot girl-on-girl action. There is even a lesbian shower scene.

Summary: Basically a re-make of Wild Things without the fun, the originality, and the stars, but with a bit more sex and nudity.



  • Widescreen, anamorphic 16x9, good transfer.
  • No features.



  • Sarah Laine and Sandra McCoy, as the Wild Things, show their breasts.
  • Sarah Laine's bare bum is seen from the side.
  • an unknown party-goer shows her breasts.
  • Dina Meyer, as a parole officer, appears in a white t-shirt.

The Critics Vote ...

  • No major reviews online

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a C-. Marginal genre film. Better than the disappointing Wild Things 2, but only a pale third-generation STV copy of the original. Not worth a look unless you want to see these specific girls with their shirts off.

Return to the Movie House home page