Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough

2005 "Bad girls just want to have fun."
4.5| 1h27m| R| en| More Info
Released: 19 February 2005 Released
Producted By: Mandalay Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Two young women will stop at nothing for one to gain a $4 million inheritance of two priceless diamonds, while two detectives try to thwart their plans, but find complications abound.

Genre

Drama, Crime, Mystery

Watch Online

Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough (2005) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

Jay Lowi

Production Companies

Mandalay Pictures

Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough Videos and Images
View All
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough Audience Reviews

TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film
SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped
Ploydsge just watch it!
Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.
John Doe 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
Maziun 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.
Kris 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!
movieman_kev 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