I have a soft spot for these sort of twist-within-a-twist-within-a-twist films, both at a certain intellectual level and at a visceral "oho, they tricked me!" level. It is fun to be hoodwinked by a magician who knows his audience and knows sleight-of-hand.
Last year I watched two of Mamet's entries into this canon — The Spanish Prisoner and House of Games — and of the former (which I liked more of the two) I wrote:
The only fault I can assign it is that it lacks any sort of emotional resonance, which sounds like a more biting criticism than I mean it to be.
The Spanish Prisoner was a perfectly-constructed puzzle of a film that took a brilliant plot (with every final-act twist feeling earned) and added a dagger-sharp script and little else, accomplishing exactly what it set out to do and little else.
Wild Things, on the other hand, feels like a funhouse mirror of the same general thesis. There is no precision, no brilliant script, no asexual cynicism: it is pure, sweaty, roiling id, it is Matt Dillon writing SEXCRIMES on a chalkboard, it is Neve Campbell making out with Denise Richards [1], it is not thinking about anything too hard.
The reveal of the initial con — Matt and Denise were in on it from the start! — is a great little twist, and I think a more succesful version of this film could have stopped there with the hijinks and then proceed to a more conventional answer to "okay, what happens next?". It is the hubris of the successive twists — the penultimate one, of Kevin Bacon secretly being on it too from the start — that I think takes this film out of its trappings and forces you to realize just how harebrained the entire enterprise is.
And this is a shame, because there are successful moments. The film sells the setting — swampy, overhumid Florida — extremely well, and individual performances (in particular Bill Murray in an early "caricature of a caricature"-type role) work well. But the worst thing a film can do is beggar belief, and Wild Things refuses to let you take it seriously.
It is funny and unsurprising that so much contemporary discussion of the film was about the sex scenes, which I think actually worked in service of its debaucherous gestalt. ↩︎
★★★