Wild Things: Foursome

(2009) Wild Things: Foursome THRILLER/ DRAMA You know a movie is bad when it starts off with a bunch of teens getting excited over a couple of yuppies playing foosball on a sunny resort near a pool! And like the other "Wild Things" films known for it's twists, it's still quite bad with it's mediocre acting from a bunch of wannabes and a fake making out scene involving a single guy and three other girls, hence the title! Centers on a father who was killed in a racing accident and the spoiled brat of a teenage son finding a way to collect it's inheritance. Even after showing the film's credits making everything to make sense, one still has to go through all the bad acting and idiocy that makes things that turn out the way they do possible.

Each Wild Things movie seems like a remake of sorts. This installment has Andy Hurst, who wrote the second and third, directing and a script by Howard Zemski and Monty Featherstone, the team who wrote Sharkman. The major difference is that this time, we're talking about twenty-year-olds and not high schoolers. Carson Wheetly (Ashley Parker Angel, who was in O-Town) is the rich and spoiled son of NASCAR car racer Ted Wheetly (Cameron Daddo). He thinks his dad may have killed his mother, but first, let's get to this movie's other main difference. Whereas every Wild Things is built around a threesome, this one goes one better and has, as the title spoils for you, a foursome between Carson, his girlfriend Rachel Thomas (Marnette Patterson), Brandi Cox (Jillian Murray, Cabin Fever 3: Patient Zero) and Linda Dobson (Jessie Nickson). Within a few days of that MFFF miracle -- surely Carson is some level of science fiction character or at least a former boy band member -- his father dies in a car crash that Bruno Mattei's some Days of Thunder footage. That death is suspicious, so Detective Frank Walker (John Schneider, who may know a thing or two about car crashes) starts to investigate just as the will is announced, which states that Carson cannot inherit his father's money and estate until he turns thirty or marries. That means a quick marriage to Rachel, but they had a deal with everyone in the foursome, so Brandi and Linda seem to be dead meat, except that Rachel and Brandi are also working together to kill Carson. Once the girls end up -- spoiler warning -- using sex to kill Carson, they start conspiring to keep making love and attempting to murder one another. This is the sort of movie that keeps the twists coming after the credits roll. All I have to say is keep your eye on lawyer George Stuben (Ethan Smith). I miss the swamps of the other movies, but appreciate that this one is all about death and sex, which let's face it, all giallo should be. It doesn't get to that level, as it needs more fashion and better music, but it certainly has the sleaze -- well, homogenized 2000s sleaze -- going for it. I kind of wish there was a fifth movie just to see if they'd get a fiveway into it.

I can just imagine the pitch meeting for this movie. "Why don't we make a sequel to Wild Things?" "Uh, doesn't that movie already have 2 crappy, direct-to-DVD sequels?" "Yeah, but I got a great idea! Instead of a scene where a guy has sex with 2 women, we'll have a scene with a guy having sex with 3 women!" "You're a genius! When can we start shooting?" I wish I was trying to be funny, but an extra chick in the orgy scene is literally the only thing that differentiates this from the previous 2 substandard follow ups to the trashy classic where Kevin Bacon and Denise Richards get naked but Neve Campbell doesn't. Pretty much everything else is the same, from the false accusation of rape to the ridiculous number of double crosses and the utterly unremarkable direction and cinematography. Hopefully, the fact that this film only has one actual sex scene indicates the franchise is running out of steam. None of the sequels have any of the style or cleverness of the original. All they have to offer is naked chicks and simulated sex. Wild Things: Foursome can barely be bothered to do that, so we may be spared a fifth edition which somehow involves a bisexual sheep. The plot, which has all the complexity of a Rubix Cube where all the sides are the same color, concerns a rich man's douchey son (Ashley Parker Angel) with a moderately hot blonde girlfriend (Marnette Patterson) and the very hot poor girl (Jillian Murray) who supposedly comes between them, only for the audience to discover the three were in cahoots all along. Since that's exactly what happened in the previous Wild Things flicks, I don't think I'm spoiling anything. Besides, I've always wanted to use the word cahoots in a sentence. Anyway, the douche's rich dad dies, the poor girl accuses the douche of rape, a marginally seedy detective (John Schneider) investigates and so on and so forth. To be fair, this thing isn't atrociously written to the point where nothing makes any sense, but it is flat, stupid and uninvolving. If you find this story to be at all interesting or surprising, that means you've got a low wattage bulb in your lighthouse. The only folks in the cast who look like they have any business being professional actors are John Schneider, Jillian Murray and Josh Randall, who plays a red herring so obvious he might as well have been wearing a crimson fish costume. For the other actors, Wild Things: Foursome will be the highlight of their alleged careers. And by the way, somebody needs to tell Ashley Parker Angel to change his name. I don't care if it's on his birth certificate, a dude can't have a name like a Playboy Playmate. Ashley Parker Angel sounds like the latest poor girl to hook up with David Spade, not a guy who'll ever have a major part in a decent, non-pornographic motion picture. Unless you're related to or dating somebody in the cast, there's no reason to watch Wild Things: Foursome. Either go rent the first movie and watch Campbell and Richardson make out again or ram your head through a plate glass window. Both would be a better use of your time.

The detective in this is one of the better things in this, but also one of it's weak links. Then again, I don't think anyone will watch this, trying to figure out, which one is the better actor in here. Still pretty decent acting going on overall (that does not include everyone in the cast), even though the cast does not wear that much during the movies duration. Of course, I'd advice you to watch the first one. This is already the 3-rd cash-in, though as I've said, it seems as bit of an improvement to the other two "sequels" (they are not, just re-telling the story of the first one). I wonder if a fifth part, will top the "erotic" scene with a fifth member. Then again, it was pretty obvious that one actress had a "no nudity" clause in her contract. But I don't think that will put you off. While pretty silly (no pun intended), it might be funny at times for you, depending what you expect.

I recently watched Wild Things: Foursome (2010) on Tubi. The storyline follows a young man whose father dies, leaving his fortune in a trust fund for the son to access later. The son gets into legal trouble that leads him to need the funds. He enters into a shotgun wedding to allow his wife to access the money, hoping to get him out of trouble. Meanwhile, a dangerous game of cat and mouse ensues over the money and the young man's freedom. This film is directed by Andy Hurst (Evolver) and stars Jillian Murray (Cabin Fever 3: Patient Zero), Marnette Patterson (American Sniper), John Schneider (The Dukes of Hazzard) and Ashley Parker Angel (Longshot). Wild Things: Foursome is fairly consistent with the last two films in the series, making the storyline predictable for those who watched them. The actresses are gorgeous, but there's less nudity than the previous films, mostly limited to bootie shots. The acting ranges from average to poor, and the script and dialogue are inconsistently authentic. There is a fun twist at the end, and a stabbing during a fight scene was the highlight of the movie for me. In conclusion, Wild Things: Foursome continues to demonstrate why we didn't need a sequel after the first film. I would score this a 3/10 and recommend skipping it.

Saw this on a "pre-screening" it seems. Wasn't really expecting anything, but hoping for some kind of titillation, having seen the first in the series. Well, the movie started with some bikini babes and a poorly edited speed boat race which didn't really give me high hopes, but as the movie progressed I found myself getting more and more sucked in. There was at least one scene to satisfy the sex maniacs, but overall the movie concentrated on beautiful people, and a murder mystery type plot with some nice twists and turns. Along with nice Florida weather and scenery. Overall the movie was very entertaining and nicely photographed. The stars, although pretty much unknown, seem like they could all continue on to bigger better things, especially the girls who've all obviously been spending a lot of time in the gym in addition to their already having gifted gene-pools. Definitely worth seeing, but don't expect too much needless to say. Its like a very good TV movie.

With the last entry in the beloved Wild Things franchise, this fourth film sees this seemingly similar to the previous. At this point, had you watched the previous three films or only even the original, you would know the first major twist of the film (they all essentially follow the same basic formula) where by this point nothing is surprising. We are simply just waiting for it to occur. Wild Things: Foursome, as suggested but its title would include another woman in its recurring and predictable famous "scene". This time, the director does include more skin in the scene and for a longer running time than at least the previous two instalments. Around 32:00 - 35:00 were it occurs. This film of course isn't as good as the original but it is an improvement over the third film. The lead actor is solid enough and the leading women show stronger acting and have more character development and overall interest than the leading women in the third film. The end final twists get a little messy and convoluted and by that point we don't exactly care but it was slightly enjoyable watching the post credit scenes with the flashbacks.

Let's face it. The "Wild Things" films are never going to be confused with serious, art house cinema. They are lots of fun to watch though and if you are in a mood for escapist fare, they fit the bill just fine. The latest entry "Wild Things: Foursome" follows the formula of drop dead gorgeous women, eroticism, double crossing, slick production, and moody music. I rather liked this entry. The performances are pretty good, especially by veteran actor John Schneider, and I got a kick out of the multiple twists in the plot. The Florida location is also put to good use. It's not surprising that all of the "Wild Things" movies have been shot there. It will be interesting to see if they come up with a fifth film. Recommended.

A rich man dies in a race car accident and the cops think there is foul play. Meanwhile there is a twisty plot going on involving the son and three beautiful women...and yes we do get a "foursome" with nudity. The plot twists without clues and does so simply for the sake of twisting...Oh look at us, we are clever script writers. Except for the eye candy scene, the film was boring, as if it came from a TV script. F-bomb, sex, and nudity (Jillian Murray, Jessie Nickson)

The first "Wild things" was hardy a classic . Nobody really wanted a sequel, but Hollywood still made 2 crappy straight to DVD movies. The sequels were INCREDIBLY LAZY. They were basically remakes of the first movie only with small changes in script and of course anonymous cast . I guess they did make some money , because Hollywood made one more. What's the difference between this movie and the earlier ones ? Hint: it's in the title. Yep, guy has a sex with 3 women this time , not with 2. The rest ? EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST THE SAME. If you find this movie to be clever or surprising , well , then clearly something is wrong with you. The first movie had Kevin Bacon , Bill Murray , Denise Richards and Neve Campbell. Good actors and hot women. The sex scene was great and there was quite a lot of erotic tension too. Here the direction is unremarkable , the screenplay is flat and predictable. There is only one sex scene here (the foursome) and although it's nice it can't hold a candle to the original threesome from the first movie. The girls are quite pretty , but when it comes to acting ,wait , what acting ? The only actor from this movie that interested me was a guy named Ashley Parker Angel. This dude should seriously change his name , unless he is interested in making career in *. I don't remember too much from this movie. The whole movie is so uninspired and uninteresting that I can recommend it only for sex maniacs (who probably were the main target for this movie anyway). I give it 1/10.