|Page 19 of 32:||               |
|Index||316 reviews in total|
Yes i'll say before i start commenting, this movie is incredibly
Sharon Stone is great in her role of Catherine Trammell as is Morrissey as Dr glass. He is an analyst sent in to evaluate her after the death of a sports star. Glass is drawn into a seductive game that Trammel uses to manipulate his mind.
The acting was good (apart from Thewlis)
Stone really has a talent with this role. She's slick, naughty and seductive and doesn't look a day older than she did in the first.She really impressed me(like in Casino). Morrisey was also good. He showed much vunerablitity in a role that needed it. Thewlis however was lame. He ruined his character and was over-the-top the whole way. He really sucked.
Overall, this movie not as good the first but Stone is a hoot to watch. Just ignore Thewlis.
Basic Instinct was a classic as it came out in the early 90's. It's
sexual contents and the erotic chemistry between Sharon Stone and
Michael Douglas made it one of the movies that most people new. It
brought something new into the movies, although the same kind of erotic
thrillers were already available as paperback novels.
The question that rises always before actually watching a sequel to a movie is, that why does one actually make those movies. The same question rises also when watching this film: Basic Instinct 2. Whereas the first one is thrilling, the second part has none of that chemistry. The only one doing a decent role is Sharon Stone.
David Morissey wasn't a name for me before this film and I have to say that although he was not really bad, he lacked everything that Michael Douglas had. Perhaps one of the reason was also that the director of the movie wasn't at the level of the first one and neither was the whole script.
Basic Instinct 2 is not really a movie that one should see. It doesn't have any really thrilling moments and it is lacking in every aspect that would make it a good and entertaining movie.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Catherine Tramell, as depicted in this sequel, is slightly different
from the predecessor. I guess I would say that she appeared more
straight than bisexual, far more slutty with definite loss of her soft
innocent charms. It definitely did not live up to my expectations of
the Catherine I knew from BI 1 who was charming, intelligent, sexual
and at the same time soft and innocent. The group sex scene was totally
not necessary and I thought it was deliberately pushed into the movie
to make it overtly sexual. The story line was neither so tight or
suspenseful (not to mention confusing at places), nor filled with
erotic tension as we have seen in BI 1. Still I think the writers were
successful in making the story just as open ended as in the first one
with spectators left guessing on who the real murderer was! Also I
think the film has some provocative dialogs from Catherine which was
fun to watch too.
The only positive side that I see in the movie is David Morrissey's acting as Dr. Glass. I think he did a great job, perhaps better than Douglas as Curran. Oh BTW, we get to know that inspector Curran was murdered in between BI 1 and BI 2, "his girlfriend did it". Honestly, I really felt bad to hear Douglass' this sad destiny.
Overall, I would say that the writer and the directors (the fact that they were not the same as the ones who made BI 1 were pretty obvious in the whole movie) were probably more carried away in making BI 2 a soft porn movie than an erotic thriller with a suspenseful and entertaining storyline. If you do like soft porn stuff, go ahead and see the movie and forget about what you had known from the BI 1 days. Just another effort in making a successful sequel gone waste.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
i have to admit, before watching basic instinct 2,i was sure it would be a horrible movie.turns out i was wrong.it's actually pretty decent the acting was good,for the most part.Sharon Stone seemed to really have fun in her role.the film had a mysterious air to it which i liked.it did drag at times,but not for long periods.i also thought that the love interest for stone's character was weak.by that i mean weakly written.stone still looks good for someone her age,and of course she gets naked at least once.she still has a great body.i also liked the dialogue.some of it was corny,but most of it was well written. i thought having the film set in england was a good idea.it sort of added a different kind of ambiance to the film.it's been a while since i've watched it but as i recall it was less violent than the first,though there is quite a lot of harsh language.i didn't like it as much a BI 1, but that had more to do with Paul Verhoeven,and his ability to make the movie look better than it actually was.however i did enjoy it enough to recommend it. 6*
i am not a fun of the original basic instinct at all, but i'm working at a video store and i get to rent films for free. this looked like fun trash so i decided to go for it. i must say the first thirty minutes were pretty cool in a crappy way. the dialogue was kind of fun and sharon stone (whom i've never considered a great actress) was actually enjoyable in an over the top catty way. the opening scene in the car was funny and i must say the overall look of the film isn't that bad. but the whole plot was silly and the lead actor looked as though he was a capable actor but just didn't fit into this role. i had a good laugh at the dresses mrs stone wore during the therapy session, i doubt there appropriate for the occasion. in the end the mystery didn't work and the trashy fun of it wore out rather fast. by the way mrs stone looks great but i think the plastic surgeon did a rather mediocre job on the boobs. all in all: not unbearable but certainly bad, while it really could've been fun
I never managed to watch all of Basic Instinct for one reason or
another. Of course, I have seen pieces of it (including the most
notorious scene from it), but never from beginning to end. Despite
this, I gave the recent sequel, Basic Instinct 2 a whirl. And like
everyone could have predicted from the start, it is quite terrible
albeit not as bad as I thought it would be.
After a fairly intriguing opening, we catch back up with Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone). She has apparently relocated to London since we last saw her, and she is being charged with murder. Detective Roy Washburn (David Thewlis) wants her behind bars, but since the murder cannot be proved, he needs to have a state psychologist examine her. So enter Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey). He thinks she may re-offend, and despite his testimony in court, Tramell manages to get out on bail. But she feels the need to get some help, so she enlists Glass to be her therapist. And then the bodies start piling up.
This is without a shadow of doubt, one of those sequels labeled "should have been made less than 14 years ago, or not at all". Basic Instinct was fresh (or fairly fresh) back in 1992. A lot of copycats and ripoffs have come and gone since, and now we finally have a sequel. The film smells stale from the start, and fails to pick up at all through its two hour running time. It just does not have any zest or even feel like a real story unfolding. It just looks like a really confused guy with a jones for a great-looking woman, who just happens to be turning 50 in less than two years, mixed in a blender with a half-assed plot. The weakness emits itself throughout, and the film just cannot get anywhere away from it.
Moving the action to London felt like a good match, but never do we really actually feel like we are in London. There is almost nothing to suggest it being any different than an American city. The cinematography is interesting to watch however, as despite the undistinguishing features, the bright colours and great scenery all look beautiful for the camera. Some of the costumes Stone manages to put herself into are also quite interesting in their own way. The writing itself is cheese all the way, and none of the actors really make a valiant try at helping to make it any better. They seemed content at what it was at, and really did not care what everyone else thought.
Morrissey tries his best here, but he's too young and innocent looking to actually believably get wrapped up in the web of Catherine Tramell. Michael Douglas had edge. This guy has an expressionless face, and not much else. He tries playing off all of the other actors, but he just does not have any chemistry with a single soul, and just looks and feels totally awkward. It may be the problem in the fact that Morrissey did not bother making the almost two-dimensional character any better, or it just may be that he is not that great an actor (but I have yet to see any other films with him starring in it, so I will just leave that out).
Stone, while her physique is absolutely stunning to look at (especially out of the clothes, which takes almost an hour before we see), just sounds too old for this role. She is well past her prime, and she is still trying to do the roles that got her fame back when she was younger. Her face looks nowhere near as perfect as her body, and neither does her posture. When she is sitting trying to seduce Glass, you are unsure of whether she is believing what she is telling him, or is looking at the material and wondering why she even bothers. Her character is supposed to have stronger potential than Morrissey's, but they really feel like they are on the same page (and what is up with practically tearing out all that lesbian subtext from the original film?).
Thewlis on the other hand, despite his very small role, is excellent as the "corrupt" detective. He has the charisma, the zest and the actual morphing of the character to allow himself to feel real. He carries the film on his shoulder when he is around, and is one of the key reasons why this movie is mildly watchable. He gives poetic justice to some of the most horrific dialogue I have ever heard, and looks great saying it. More than everyone else can say for themselves.
While it is muddled by all sorts of issues, Basic Instinct 2 is not a bad choice for some random escapism. Just do not go in expecting it to be anything amazing, or anywhere near as good as the first one (or at least, the brief parts that I have).
There really isn't much to say about this movie except you'll be waiting for it to end after the first scene. The only thing that keeps your attention is Sharon Stone's hot 50 year old body --which you don't get to see until the final few scenes. The movie ends so ridiculously that you wish you hadn't watched it to begin with. This movie is about as good as the first which doesn't say much. It's nothing to be remembered except for a 50 year old's body who looks like she's 30. Need plastic surgery or a cool haircut? Rent this movie. Want to watch a good movie? Don't rent this. It's a waste of 4 bucks and even a bigger waste if you buy it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
'Basic instinct 2' begins with a car wreck, and like car wrecks one
always slows down to watch it. This is the kind of flick I don't pay to
see in theatres anymore but it happened to be on pay-per-view last
night at a friend's so I watched. I watched simply to see how Sharon
Stone is doing these days after her stroke and plastic surgery.
She LOOKS good I thought, still every inch the demonic succubus she was in Verhoeven's original 'Basic Instinct', though she's leaner and has a couple of new blemishes on her body. Some of her costumes were ill-advised but that's the fun of Sharon Stone. She wears stilettos like no one else since Joan Crawford.
Stone holds the movie together single-handedly. The script is awful, the balance of the rather good cast is wasted and the plot a muddle. The writers have confused obfuscation with mystery. It is unclear at the end of this flick just WHO done it, but we know, or at least it seemed obvious to me who done it, and I knew it all along, though the so-called "twist" at the end attempted to cast doubts in the viewers' minds but it didn't fool me.
The opening car wreck is ridiculous, as a car hitting the Thames at 95mph isn't just going to going to go "splash" and float to the bottom all of a piece, it's going to crunch. Hitting water is just as devastating to a vehicle, and its passengers, as it is hitting solid ground
But we get to see Sharon and her lover sitting placidly under water, not a scratch on them, or the car, sinking peacefully to the bottom. It was then that I knew what I was in for so I put myself into fantasy-gear and let this turkey gobble. Having done that I could enjoy Sharon as Sharon. No one does intelligent sluts like she can and she certainly has more charisma and energy than most of the other stars being featured in Hollywood flicks these days.
Michael Caton-Jones is a seasoned director when it comes to flashy trash. His best work is 'Scandal' from 1989 with Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and John Hurt (as well as Bridget Fonda who is splendid as Mandy Rice-Davies and alone worth the price of admission). But Caton-Jones is saddled with this stupid script in 'Basic Instinct 2' and can't do a thing with it.
The highlight of 'Basic Instinct 2' is the cinematography and interiors, though the latter are a bit old-hat these days. I'm tired of multi-million dollar urban hotel lobbies masquerading as luxury flats. But the coldness of the settings suits the coldness of the characters. The sleazy bits in the sex-streets of London are reminiscent of a back-lot. They don't "smell" as Verhoeven would have made them do. All in line with Stone's "dirty Barbie" portrayal, but it's fun when she's on screen and does her orgasm thing.
Her leading man is not an entire failure. David Morrissey is a very good actor and suits the role of the (possibly) psycho analyst. His whey-face and hunky body make for an interesting combination. The great Charlotte Rampling is utterly wasted but I hope she made a lot of money and will continue to act for many years to come, taking over Maggie Smith's lot in life as various goofy old ladies in blockbusters. David Thewlis is also wasted although his role is more faceted than the others, aside from Stone's but he resorts to over-acting to try to make something out of very little.
The panoramic shots of London that knit the various scenes together are evocative but there are so many panoramic shots of London between the many scenes that they become rather a bore in the end. And the parts of the city that are filmed from above look more like Houston or Denver or any other U.S. city financial center that has popped up in the last 25 years.
So, if you are "in" to car-wreck movies, in every sense of the word, get a bottle (or 2, or 3) and settle back and let your left brain doze for two hours. This sequel to 'Basic Instinct' has none of the original's assets so don't expect much, but it's sort of fun, until the last half hour when I began to wish it would end, which it does with that terribly lame "twist". It wasn't as bad as I expected it to be, and if you are ashamedly (or more importantly unashamedly) fascinated by the career of Sharon Stone this movie is essential viewing.
The Movie is way too ..Brittish and not so funny after all(meaning that i lost interest about halfway trough) and of course.the best way to understand it is to watch it 2 times..one to believe C and one to believe The psy.I mean what the **** was the director thinking putting these drama Brits actors next to "grandma" Stone? The story is with twists and turns but nevertheless copies the first part..and goes lame ... How can i trust movies like this if everything that happens is not believable? And one more thing..IS is really Me? or is it really You? AS others said,pretty bad plot..starting actor ex Footballer...not quite interesting..maybe for the fans..I say 6/10 it's a decent grade and let's hope "Grandma" is still on her best "shape" !
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Catherine Trammell (Stone) is everywhere a murder is committed. Did she
do any of them? Scotland Yard brings in a Criminal Psychiatrist to find
I took the DVD out for Basic Instinct 2 to see Sharon Stone cross her legs like she did in Basic Instinct (1). Didn't you? Didn't happen in the DVD version I got. The Poster lied. That was the first disappointment.
The second one was the story itself and it would have been okay if I didn't realize that this was just a vehicle for Sharon Stone to put herself out there again. She played everything too flip and it became annoying, most annoying. The rest of the cast played it straight even with some terrible dialogue, but they couldn't keep up with her. This was her moment and she took advantage of it a little too much. She is a good actress, but why did she act this way is beyond me. After a while I realized that it didn't matter what the clues were as I no longer cared who did what to who (whom?) and who was blamed. Everything was so contrived nothing mattered. Twists were thrown in to really confuse the issue and they sure did that. So what was the point?
There was no chemistry between Stone and Morrissey (Dr. Glass) and that hurt the story immensely and if Stone didn't play everything so flip that might have helped the story. You see, one person can make a difference and when that one person screws up everything comes apart in a NY minute.
And, for a thriller, there was no, nada, zero, forgetaboutit tension, or suspense.
|Page 19 of 32:||               |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|