Wild Orchid II: Two Shades of Blue (1992)

Good concept, poorly executed.

Best movie ever!

The acting in this movie is really good.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

This film hit theaters in 1991, and played to empty houses. I was actually one of the few that saw "Wild Orchid II" in the theater. I wasn't expecting such a somber, downbeat movie, considering how the first "Wild Orchid" and "Two Moon Junction" were so much more lighthearted, sexy entertainment. Well it seems that director Zalman King wanted to create a serious film that would be respected as more than just erotic fluff. It does succeed in the fact that it is technically, a very well-made film; truly lovely cinematography/photography, stirring musical score, impressive editing, lighting etc. Even the performances were mostly good, most notably Wendy Hughes as the sinister Madam "Elle," and also Nina Sziemasko in the title role who, compared to Carre Otis, was on the level of Meryl Streep! Art direction was also excellent, with impeccable attention paid to cars and clothing of the 1950's, which is when the story takes place. The 4 star rating here is utterly ridiculous and inaccurate. The main problem with "Wild Orchid 2" is that there isn't a very large audience for a strange film like this. Fans of erotic/softcore sex films will most likely be bored with the dramatic, and depressing tale of an innocent girl losing herself in the sordid world of prostitution. And fans of drama will most likely be put off with all the sex and nudity on display, and in this film there is a LOT of that on screen. So much in fact, that the film had to be cut by almost 5 minutes to receive an R rating and play in theaters. When released on VHS it appeared uncut, and there is one sequence in particular that would NEVER have gotten past the censors. On a side note, I'm wondering if director King was at all influenced by David Lynch's "Blue Velvet," when he created this one; the two films have a VERY similar story arc, taking the viewer through a dark, sinister, seedy world of evil, corrupt people, and ending in the daylight, morning sun streaming through the trees as the two main characters find an idealistic "return to innocence." Both films take place in the 50's, and have a very similar aesthetic, and the lead character's name is "Blue." At times depressing, and surprisingly sleazy, but it does have an optimistic conclusion, and it's a film that is hard to forget.

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.

A pretty bad movie, and despite what others seem to think, it was not as good as the first (which wasn't especially "good" either).The whole attraction for the first Wild Orchid film is the awesome sex scene with Carre Otis and Mickey Rourke. Otherwise, it's a pretty dull and even pretentious movie.However, the sequel has only one halfway decent sex scene in it, and the female character is not enjoying it at all.Overall, both Wild Orchid films are of the sort one sees on Cinemax or Showtime at 1 AM. A minute or so of eye candy isn't really worth seeing the rest of the film.

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.