The first was good with an A list cast and great soundtrack, the second one okay - quite amusing and clever, this third one is very weak. It only serves to show the earlier 2 in a better light.The cast isn't good. The 2 main leads are inadequate actresses with blank faces. Remember the first one which launched Denise Richards? This cheap installment has the most forgettable actresses who look like they would rather be elsewhere. It's a shame Dina Meyer and Linden Ashby (the cops) were reduced to taking on this weak and predictable story.Don't bother to watch this - it isn't even worth a TIVO.

The real diamonds lie within the movie "Wild Things" ... that is/was the first part (they actually went and did a fourth one). The others just retell the same story, with some tweaks here and there (though the second felt, like a complete copy of the formula). And while this might steer a bit away from that, it's still as weak/"good", as the second movie. Though it feels weird calling those movies sequels. They are just cash-ins, made for the quick buck.Stay with the original, to get the story with the acting and the story as it should be told. Of course, if you think you have to watch some nice ladies wearing next to nothing (sometimes only the latter), than you can give this a try. But other than that (acting, story, production values), there is nothing much to see here

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

I think WT3 is a pretty decent movie, much better than the second, but don't expect a clever movie because you'll be disappointed. The plot doesn't differ too much from the first movie, a man accused of raping a young girl plus the difficult relationship with his step-daughter (Sarah Laine) with the diamonds in the middle. The low-class girl is interpreted by Sandra McCoy as Neve Campbell did that role in the first. Both girls are very good-looking, especially Laine. There's treason, blackmail and a well-thought scheme (at least in the minds of the characters). The revealing ending shows with flashbacks during the credits the key points of the plot, a surprising finale that is hard to anticipate. So, if you like WT1 you definitely will enjoy this one. I give WT3 Diamonds in the Rough 6/10.