Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

John Doe I liked this movie. It was as good as Wild Things Part 3 and had a good story and characters. The acting was good also, but still the first Wild Things was the best. This film has interesting plot twists like part 1 and 3 did. All the actors and actresses did a good job, especially the beautiful, Marnette Patterson.I give Wild Things: Foursome a 6/10

MBunge 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.

kosmasp 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.

marquisderon 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.