Wild Things

Since there is not really much to constructively say about this movie, I have decided to make it into an Object Lesson, which will co-star "Starship Troopers," about expectations and enjoyment. I would recommmend scrolling down to the words "NUDITY CHECKLIST."

Okay then. I don't understand why this film has gotten bad reviews, mainly because it doesn't claim to be anything it's not. To provide the counter-example first, a "Starship Troopers" ad from when it first came out that hangs on my friend Robert's bedroom wall contains a quote claiming it "The best science-fiction movie of all time!" (I refuse to put all of these in all caps like they are in the ads.) If you were to actually show up at the movie based on this quote it would immediately become sickeningly obvious that it is not. It's barely better than "Stargate" (and I'm not even sure about that).

When Paul Veerhoven made the movie, though, he said, "I want to make a movie about giant bugs." Well, "Starship Troopers" is by far the best movie about giant bugs I've ever seen. There's no real competition. If you read that quote, instead of the one in the ad, and showed up at the movie, you would be perfectly satisfied (assuming you went on the strenght of that quote—I think we can see why they pumped it up a bit). But because it claimed to be more than it was, it got savaged.

Now to the present movie. The ad in the Washington Post Weekend section of a few days ago contains the phrases "Kinkier than any film in ages!" and "Slick and steamy!" It does not contain the phrase "Edifying Shakespearean drama!" anywhere in there, so far as I can see. So where does the Bethesda Gazette (a pimple on the face of movie reviewing, I am aware, but I have seen similar sentiments elsewhere) say that this is a "[r]idiculous, prurient and vile tale"? So? Is anyone in the world going to this movie expecting to see a profound, chaste and uplifting parable? Well, if you did, you're really really stupid, because the point of this movie is the

!!!NUDITY CHECKLIST!!!

• Denise Richards: If you counted actual minutes onscreen, I would guess that Denise Richards is either in lingerie, in a wet T-shirt, or naked an actual majority of the time. Which is good, from a certain (i.e., "male") point of view, because she has the body to make this a pleasurable viewing experience. She certainly has the ditzy, amoral, toned high school senior thing down cold (see "Starship Troopers," where she was the supposed-to-be-intelligent, but ditzy-seeming, high school senior), to the point where one wonders if she is actually acting.
• Neve Campbell: Apparently Campbell is a Big Star now and does not need to appear naked, except from the back during one lurid scene with Matt Dillon and Denise Richards (yes, that's right, she and Denise bat from both sides of the plate in this movie). You get up on your high horse from "Scream" and "Scream 2," Neve? Too important to appear naked? From my point of view, it's just as well.
• Matt Dillon: His chest is bare an awful lot; it's only the fact that he appears in court and in public a whole lot that probably stops him from having it bare an actual majority of the film. It's a rather impressively toned chest, as chests go, and much is made of his sexual prowess by the older female population of the movie. He is never actually naked as far as I can tell. Before you women start protesting, just think of the trauma you WILL experience with
• Kevin Bacon: We're just up on the end of the movie and Kevin Bacon comes out of the shower and forgets his towel for a while. As a result of what I can only hope is egregiously sloppy camerawork and editing (as opposed to intention, God forbid) we can see about 354 degrees too much of Kevin's Bacon. It's not even dramatic like in "Boogie Nights," it's just there, for no real purpose (it ain't that impressive, either).
• Teresa Russell: Whoever this is, we see her naked and having sex once. It's not an especially happy thing.
• Bill Murray: Just thought I'd throw a scare into you.

Believability: There is nothing terribly obviously wrong, if you can believe any of it (i.e., it works within its context, that context being that everyone is sex-obsessed scum).

Tension: You sort of know that everyone except one person is going to end up dead a third of the way through the movie; you're just wondering who it's going to be, and waiting for the next nekkid scene. That's the main problem with this movie: it's mainly concerned with plot towards the end, and no one is going to this movie to see the plot. You might end up caring about the plot by the end of the movie if you cared about any of the characters, but they're all scum, and as tolerant as I may or may not be it is still hard for me to find a spot in my heart for characters that make me wonder what Machiavelli would have been like as a porn star.

Action: There is plenty of action, heh heh, Butt-head. Yeah, Beavis, I'm sure you loved that Kevin Bacon dude's scene.

Attractive Woman Count: I'll give it a 2.

Attractive Man Count: New rule: Any man who exposes himself automatically forefits all his AMC points. Thus we have a 1.

Overall Grade: C+/B-. If you know someone else who wants to go and you are sort of intrigued, still, you'll enjoy it.

Dramas Home

Spam-O-Matic Home