This is vastly different from the first Orchid, which has yourself questioning is this past of the first franchise, for this is a more refined tale about a girl becoming a woman, and discovering her sexual self, and the affect her beauty it has on other men. This is after making a bad choice in the wake of her very sick father (Skeritt, a sax player here, wasted). Left with much financial hardship, she's propositioned by a headmistress, excellently played by the late great Hughes, a real wicked so and so who runs an elite bordello, than caters for some weird tastes, as you'll see. The film runs high on nudity and it's quiet delicious, some really tasty girls on show, (Dominique the hottest) and this movie does have class, and is quite dramatic, specially as how Siesmasko wants to leave the business, where Hughes is intent on snatching her back. Too the black wig donning beauty has fallen in love with a young client, who if you can believe is a virgin. We are talking about Brendon Fraser here. The period and the way the film is shot is none short of excellent and beauty, and some of Blue's (Siesmasko's) clients are nasty, but in the end, the film has you asking what's the purpose of it. Really one answer there: to get you off. All performances are good, but it's Hughes's as that brutal Madam, that stays with you. The film really has some weird out scenes, like Dominique doing a sit and slow strip show for Blue's benefit, where in the back playing mutely on a t.v. in the b.g. is a pornographic cartoon. The little scene with Dominique getting done by a hunk in a steam room, where she catches Blue discreetly spying was hot. Though really there were quite boring stretches in this, that scene with Blue being dominated by her first client in that blue room was ridiculous. Another scene later on in the flick, has three of the girls totally nude standing, where a hession bag is put on a girl's head standing middle. To me and in many other scenes, they're just pointless, the norm with King's films. A few people will find this film a bore, some scenes testing their patience. Milk it for what it's work, an erotic adult pic, hiding under the facade of an adult drama, where I'm not bought but titillated.

I noticed that the overall IMDb rating for this film was a lowly 3.2. This seems a bit unfair. The story is good, not great, and may at times be bit predictable. But the acting is quite good with a very sympathetic performance by Tom Skerritt. Robert Davi shows a warm side in much contrast to the "heavy" he played in a James Bond Film. Wendy Hughes couldn't have been more cold and calculating in much contrast to the warm and loving character she played opposite Peter Falk in "Happy New Year" or the playful character she played opposite Pierce Brosnan in "The Heist." Lastly, Zalman King as a filmmaker has tried to elevate the adult genre to an art form. If not familiar, try to see his most successful series: "Red Shoes Diaries." Sometimes you can catch an episode on late night Showtime.It might be said that not every film is meant to be "Gone With the Wind" or "Citizen Kane." There's nothing wrong about a shoot-em-up western where the gunfighters never seem to run out of bullets. And although "The Fast and the Furious" may never make IMDb's top 250 list, it was a good enough film for the producers to make two sequels.It's all about entertainment and since the world's population is so diverse, we all like different types of movies. One could guess that some viewers who are offended by nudity may have been "turned off" by this film, which also may account for the low 3.2 rating. But the film is worth a watch.Finally, Nina Siemaszko is excellent in this film. She brings across her vulnerability, frustration, disappointment, etc. Her performance must have been good, because other producers noticed and she had a nice supporting role in "The American President" and a recurring role for 3 or 4 years on "The West Wing." On a personal note, I would urge all of us to respect the IMDb and the lengths they go to provide this forum. Let's give fair comments to all films we view. We may actually affect the careers of some of the industry people.

According to someone, this not bad sequel (Nina looks hot), otherwise, not a bad movie, no sequel (or most) do not equal the original (kinda like some remakes). Anyway, DVD cuts some minutes (according to some reviewer on Amazon.com); I've got the unrated VHS. I think I'll follow the suggestion that if the unrated version (with the additional material) comes out on DVD (one day, hopefully) to get it then. If the additional footage doesn't matter, I guess some people might buy it now. Viewer's choice. That's a problem with some movies. Unless someone puts both versions of a movie on the same disc, it might be better to wait. Also, the viewer has to beware of some manufacturer's discs. I bought a version (from Canada) of a movie called Terminal Island and it cut everything, language and the ladies' scenes (you know what I mean). I had to buy it again and can't even give the other one away. Ugh! A bit of advice for buyers/viewers of movies (if they want the full unadulterated versions of movies). You've been warned.

The story is about a young girl named Blue (Siemaszko) who takes a job in a brothel after her Jazz playing father (Skerritt) dies as a result of drugs. She later decides to leave and finds it difficult because of the dictator like headmistress (Hughes). The story is really weak and prevents the film from being any good. Then there is a lot of nudity and sexuality but it is not strong enough to keep the voyeurs attention either. Top it all off with poor acting and no imagination and you have "Wild Orchid II: Two Shades of Blue." So the film fails all around. The story has absolutely no similarity or connection to the original "Wild Orchid" starring Mickey Rourke which isn't much better.