Basic Instinct 2 (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
316 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
6/10
It's not easy to take your eyes off Stone…
Nazi_Fighter_David12 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
In Michael Caton-Jones' "Basic Instinct 2," Sharon Stone tries desperately to prove she is still sexy and dangerous… To each uncrossing of legs, she supplies every type of attraction… And yes, she does get naked, but not as naked as before… teasing us only with a glimpse of her nethers… In every step of the way, every line of dialog, every gesture, makes her look absolutely stunning, even better than she did in the original erotic thriller back in 1992…

Stone returns as novelist Catherine Tramell whose bestselling books match her deadly reality so perfectly making us wonder… This time the action moves from San Francisco to London, where she attracts the attention of the Scotland Yard… Soon a celebrated psychologist named Michael Glass is caught between her seductive powers… Glass knows all about homicidal impulse and identifies Catherine as having "risk addiction." But when the people surrounding him start falling in graphic ways, Glass starts jeopardizing his profession to keep at distance the siren's notorious advances…

With his soft brown eyes, bland haircut, and prominent chin, Morrissey's Dr. Glass is no match for a sultry, sexy and smart vixen like Sharon Stone… Stone completely embodies every aspect of Catherine's physical attribute, manipulating the hell out of the freshly divorced psychiatrist… Dr. Milena Gardosh (Charlotte Rampling) recognizes Glass is falling for Catherine and advises him to remove himself as her therapist…

Stone seems to be a strong figure only composed of "capital sins." She is daring and shameless in her teasing, temptations and commands… She never shows any remorse, and remains, one more time, one of the classic femme fatales…

"Basic Instinct 2" is hardly unwatchable, because Stone is very winding, puzzling and intensely fascinating in the way she puts out of side issues through dialog that seems foolishly open and penetrating…
117 out of 156 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
It is now fashionable to trash "Basic Instinct 2" even before you see it.
ENRIQUE-33 April 2006
It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip "Basic Instinct 2," to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone who—like all of us—is now fourteen years older, and—unlike most of us—still looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. "Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.

The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.

I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators.
169 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
What is wrong with you people?
ericose4 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I don't understand your objections to this movie. It is a taut, thrilling extension of the character created in "Basic Instinct". The only part of the story that is the least bit unrealistic, is the fact that Sharon Stone's character is still alive and not in jail at this late date.

SPOILER ALERT: As the movie progresses, we are presented with three theories of what is going on: 1) Sharon Stone's character is killing all these people because she's crazy (Risk Addicted); 2) David Thewlis' crooked cop is killing these people in order to frame Sharon Stone's character; 3) David Morrissey's analyst is killing these people for revenge. What upsets most people about the movie seems to be that none of these theories are ever explicated as the "real" story. (Although the analyst is in a psychiatric care facility for killing the cop; the only killing that occurs on screen.)

I think this is a brilliant plot device in the spirit of "2001, A Space Odyssey." WHO CARES what is real? The blonde really is crazy, the cop really is crooked and the analyst really wants revenge. What's important is the interactions between these and other characters in the story. Like real life, everyone is more complicated than anyone thinks and reality is more complicated than a movie. Get over it!
69 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Well I liked it !
peter-burton-19 April 2006
I cannot accept the negative comments of other reviewers. They are too critical, perhaps because they are stuck in the past. I would like to see a comment from someone who had never seen Basic Instinct 1, perhaps someone very young ? I left the cinema feeling glad that I had not been swayed by the IMDb reviewers. 14 hours later I am still trying to find flaws in the plot but I cannot think of anything serious. My advice to everyone is see it for yourself and make up your own mind.

It follows a similar pattern to Basic Instinct 1 but the plot is less confused. It still left me wondering at the end but in a more satisfactory way. Sharon Stone is as sexy and evil as before and wears her 48 years extremely well; this remains her defining role. David Morrisey was satisfactory even though he is no Michael Douglas. Of the supporting cast I particularly liked David Thewlis as the police detective.
26 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Watch without prejudice! It's not that bad at all!
lt-ripley9 April 2006
So, every year there is at least one movie, that hasn't got any chance of being a box office success, because from the moment of production, even before one simple shot is filmed, everybody's picking on this movie... There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits! I mean, my gosh, just because the wide crowd does have to have a victim each year they can pick on, not everybody has to join them. So yeaaah, maybe those movies aren't perfect, but c'mon, how many movies are? Not every movie is supposed to be a new The Lord of the Rings! Not everybody will enjoy these movies, but I bet there are more than who admit they do. Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former "Bennifer"-Couple, and this year it's "Basic Instinct 2"! Well, when I heard the rumors of a sequel to one of my favorite movies I was very sceptically, and although I really love Sharon Stone I stayed sceptically until I've finally seen this movie. And really, I was very positively surprised! I can't understand why it gets such a bad press and such a bad voting here. It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life! With 47 years when shooting the movie she looks hotter than many stars in their 20s, but it's more than her being beautiful, it's brilliantly acted, with all her looks, her famous smile, the way she speaks and moves... from the very first frame she's in you can't take your eyes off of her. It's simply a pleasure to watch her as Catherine Tramell, and all of the other actors deliver solid performances, too! So I really can't see what's wrong with this movie... it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored! Maybe the story isn't Oscar-caliber, but it never even tries to be! It's an entertainment-movie, and by this standard it absolutely delivers in my opinion! So give it a try!
38 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
It's Clear Some People Are Out To Get This Movie
MacLovesMoon5 April 2006
I think the reason for all the opinionated diarrhea on this movie is that most people have it out for Sharon Stone being around 50 and getting naked while playing sexy. No one cared when the Golden Girls sat around eating cheesecake and discussing their first orgasm, but to see someone post menopausal getting digitally pleased while driving I guess is just too much for some to handle. Let's face it, she looks good, she's light years hotter than my mother who's the same age! It's not an Oscar or a cult classic like the first, but ever since the turn of the century that's all movie goers seem to expect: a cinematic experience that will touch your soul. As such, it never claims to be either. It's an erotic thriller that is both erotic and thrilling, and is a continuation of a brilliant character that we all love to hate. It's the character of Catherine Trammell that helped give way for this sequel. Fans of the first movie want to see more of that frosty ice queen.

The cinematography and art direction were lush and extravagant and made me want to move to Britian for sure. The score is amazing as well.

Sure there's some overacting from some characters but there's some brilliant work from David Morrissey who's virtually unknown.

There's a setback in that the script is virtually the same as the first movie only plugging in a psychiatrist in place of the cop. As well as the criminal decision of the MPAA to force the movie to be cut down even more which takes away from the guilty-pleasure raunchiness that the story is known for.

At the very least it's entertaining and fun to look at it, and that's the movie's only intentions. So if you've got beef with Mizz Stone, maybe you should actually SEE the movie and draw your own conclusions before you spew forth your projectile vomit?
213 out of 336 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Not So Basic as you would imagine
Chris Clazie6 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Yes,this movie is not as good as the original.That's that out of the way.It is,however,not so turgid as most reviews would have you think.There is an underlying intelligence to the whole movie,and although it is quite different to the first one in terms of mood and mystery,after all,we didn't know Catherine Tremayne then,it is a fairly decent attempt to attempt a what if,what if Catherine hadn't been caught out,what if she had succeeded in getting to England to carry on in her evil ways.The movie is good to look at,as was the first one,there are several confused characters,as in the first one,and there are more murders,although it's never really made clear as to who does what.In tone it reminded me of the ITV Monday,Tuesday night thrillers but I guess that's because it's set in London.Yes,there are some fairly amusing sexual encounters along the way,but they are there to give some emotional coherence to the characters involved.Stone still looks good,although her hairstyle is unflattering,and she seems to play it as though she's an ageing Barbie doll doing her best to get rid of all the sexual heat she's built up.The other actors are fair to good,and it was a good idea of the writers to add the scene at the end which is meant to screw our minds just as much as the poor Psychologist who's been caught up in all this.If you liked the first one,then give this a go.See it with an open mind.The first half is slow and a bit dull,the second half is much better.Six out of 10.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
The heck with Capote and Johnny Cash- this is Catherine Tramells' movie!
TruPretender9 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Finally, after years of awaiting a new film to continue the sexual mayhem of "Basic Instinct", we have been given a great sequel that is packed with the right elements needed for a franchise such as this! I remember everything about the original, the steam, the romance, the sex, the interrogation, the music (by the master Jerry Goldsmith), and everything else from violence and murder, to intense confrontations of all kind! Make no mistake, "Basic Instinct" was a real winner for audiences everywhere. I can remember in 2001 when we were first given the news about such a sequel. Five years later, we have it. I never would have thought it to end up such as this. When it was declared a dropped project, time sure couldn't tell if it was ever a real possibility to begin with. Well, I guess we now know anything's possible in this case. Even if the original director, or writer are not present, all we need is the glamorous, always reliable Sharon Stone, and we have a done deal! Please, hear me out...

When people say that this film is bad, I think it is only due to the fact that the style is extreme, and slightly dated. I use the word "dated" only because we have not seen a certain film of the like in many years, and audiences have become adapted to the pointless, boring storytelling seen in other movies that actually make money, and the only reason they make such big numbers is because those films are family friendly. Who needs hole some and clean? Of course it's a pleasant thing to have, but c'mon! Escapism is really seldom these days, and "Basic Instinct 2" gives us real fans what we've been expecting. This film is not an Academy Award winner, nor does it try to be. It simply delivers the die-hard fans what they have been expecting. It's a film for fun. Movies today seem to take themselves way too seriously, but this film is just loose and fun, not taking itself seriously, not too seriously anyway. That said, I shall evaluate the film.

The film is a fast-paced film from the first second, as we see Cathernine Tremell in a car, speeding at 110 MPH-and enjoying lustful thrills doing so. Perhaps sex and driving does not mix, because our sexy novelist takes a bad turn and...well, she gets away unharmed, but her studly partner doesn't fare too well. Once again, Tremell is the primary suspect of the accident, and will be put under analyst's and psychiatrists. Dr. Michael Glass (Morrissey) is automatically drawn to to her from the first moment he meets her. Like another criminal investigator before him, he is entranced and seduced, slowly, and surely. His denial of it all begins to crumble around him as she weaves a spell only she has the power to do. Tramell is possibly more dangerous now, than she was before,but like the first one, we'll never really know, will we? Once the seduction is in motion, jealousy, rage, drugs, and a plateful of erotic scenery ensues!

This film does not recycle the first one, but rather mentions the previous films incidents briefly from time to time. This is a good thing. It lets us as an audience know that the script has been written to bring the level up a notch or two. Sharon Stone dazzles us again, as though 14 years has not come to pass. Her second run of the deceitful novelist is right on the spot as earlier. Just awesome! David Morrissey is well cast, and manages pretty well. The fact that a non-popular star was chosen, makes his performance all the more enjoyable because we as an audience have no background on him, just what we see him perform. My final thought-8.5 to 9 out of 10. So it's not the first one, nor can it live up to the first ones prize winning place. It can, however, live up to the standards set by the first film, and it does folks! It does.
34 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Enjoyed it a lot....it's just a movie!
jasgalli_us4 April 2006
I never trust the opinions of anyone regarding a film. That goes for critics as well. Sure, if it gets positive reviews that's OK and a plus, but most films that get critical rave I hate. I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film. It takes you out of your life for a couple hours and into a fictional character...that being Catherine Trammell. Sharon Stone is awesome in this role, just like she was in the first one. Anyone who says she is horrible in this film must have felt the same in the first one b/c she is back acting the same way she did in Basic Instinct 1. Catherine is hers and she plays her to perfection. Her one liners are great, much like in the first one. Who can forget in the first film when she tells the cops, "If you're gonna arrest me do it...otherwise get the f**k out of here!" Great scene, and believe me, she does it again in this one. I was captivated by her. Her outfits, the way she smoked her cigarettes, believe me, its worth the price just to see Stone's performance. I cannot wait for this film to be released on DVD, uncut, because I can only imagine how much better it is going to be. And yes, there are lots of twists, as in the first one, including the ending!
108 out of 168 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worse than any of us could have imagined.....
Screen-Space22 March 2006
It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.
264 out of 431 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Writers could not pull off what Joe Eszterhas created.
doorbomb621 July 2015
There's really no way to pull off a sequel to the original classic, Basic Instinct. To do so would require much more than Sharon Stone who sizzles no matter what she is doing. She a fine actress, but surrounding her with unfamiliar actors in London, and handling a script that lacks everything witty and tight that Joe Eszterhas weaved in the original picture, is just disastrous.

Our story here has Ms. Tramell, notorious author from Basic Instinct at the epicenter of a death, accidental, or perhaps...intentional??? She is handled by Scotland yard in this one, a far cry from the San Fransisco PD and Detective Nick Curan, who is sorely absent. Rather than prance around with her sexuality tugging at the police, and seducing them blindly, she is more a bully here, and she pushes authoritative figures, especially Michael Glass the professional assigned to her case, into her game this time around.

Sharon Stone turns in a mostly witty and sharp (no pun intended) continuation of Catherine Tramell, Complete with incomparable physique, sexy sultry voice, and some more blonde poison. Her co-stars, however, do not measure up.U.K. veteran Charlotte Rampling is the only other cast member/character on Stones level. The rest of the cast are like fish out of water. I think it's part of why the film doesn't work. We have very stiff European authoritative figures, bent on the unraveling of the case, as well they should be, except it doesn't feel like Basic Instinct, and the good moments that are had, are reminders that it might have been better had they stuck with the original idea which was to have been set in NYC.

The production design and art direction are diabolical though (again, no pun intended), and it's a scene set greatly, if only the expectations were met. Ultimately I feel the writing was the biggest let down. It's as if Leora Barish and Henry Bean didn't know the character of Catherine, and thusly could not completely tell her story. Whatever they have for every one else is a more or less lacking shadow of what the original was.

Michael Caton-Jones is okay, but this flick, released in 2006, looks like EVERY other action thriller from that time period, and that's sad. The original was a cut (there I go again)above the rest of what was released back in 1992. It had so much style and charisma, and even charm, mixed with an extremely interwoven and complex, even abstract plot/story. This is just a run-of-the-mill follow up sequel that is as bland and boring as every other product that was churned out by studios at the time. It's all in your face at value, which is not very high. There is noting beyond the cheese & crackers. The cigar is just the cigar, and in this films case, it needed to be a highly intoxicating cigarette.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Painfully Bad
annaharbacz19 March 2006
Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like "I want to *beep* you " and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?" All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film.
288 out of 478 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
BI2. A beaten down horse without a fighting chance,
smashsmack11 April 2006
It has been over a decade since the original Basic Instinct was released and more resources have came along that provide easy access to information. Have these very resources caused more harm than people realize? Have people become stuck up and over-opinionated for their own good? In the recent years it seems to be pointed in that direction, some people are dependent on popular belief and with these new resources it can sometimes cause a negative reaction. More on this later, right now let's move onto the review.

Basic Instinct 2 is the long-awaited sequel, at least by Sharon Stone, of a raunchy classic that was released back in 1992. Sharon Stone reprises her role as Catherine and once again finds herself mixed up in some trouble. After surviving a car crash, tragically leaving her momentary lover dead, Catherine is put to psychiatric care with one Dr. Michael Glass and is diagnosed with "Risk Addiction." After a very intimate session, more murders are taking place and Michale starts to gain an obsession over the might-be murderer. Is she really capable of such unspeakable acts? Is there someone else out there after her? Or are they after him.

The plot is very basic indeed, if not a little exacerbated by me, but the movie really isn't as bad as everyone says it is. The suspense might not be high, the sexual tension isn't always there, but that doesn't mean the movie isn't interesting. The plot holds it's ground and can keep your attention if you don't try to take it all seriously. Despite what other people might say, Sharon Stone steals every scene she is in, no matter how over the top it may be. I guess we'll have to wait until the "unrated" DVD to be released to see all of the goods, which may be very shortly from the looks of it.

Since the announcement of the movie, people have been trashing it before the production even began. Even the negative votes were coming in long before the movie was released, which is something IMDb really needs to fix, because how can people rate a movie that isn't even released? Most of the trashing is towards Sharon Stone, according to some once you hit over 45 you're not allowed to be sexy anymore. The fact is that Sharon Stone still is sexy and she can still deliver the goods she did over a decade ago. So what if she's up there? Let me see you at her age and try to pull off anything she did in this movie.

It really seems that this movie didn't have a fighting chance, because now it seems to be a popular thing to not give anything a chance. Even when given a chance, a hard headed person will still trash something, despite them enjoying it. Which is why I gave this movie a 10, it really doesn't deserve it, but somebody has to bring some balance to the ever opinionated and biased world.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Stone Cold Vanity.
herlenwein-131 March 2006
It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.

The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.

If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.

If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care.
122 out of 199 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Ignore What You've Read About This Movie
marko_polo_uk11 April 2006
It's the sequel that everybody (including me!) wanted to hate. The truth, is that there is actually damn all wrong with the movie. I expected an absolute disaster, and got something which is easily one of the most exciting films I have seen in a long time.

It is alarming to read such negative reviews from respected film critics who quite frankly, do nothing but romanticise the original - as we all know, time makes the heart grow fonder. It really does make you wonder if many reviewers have actually seen the latest movie. Obviously everything comes down to personal taste so one would expect some 'mid-range' scores, but within reason! There is very little to dislike about this movie.

Because of this, the movie (through no fault of anyone involved with it) will bomb at the box office. In the rental/retail market however, I have a feeling that it will be a different story altogether.

Do yourselves a favour, watch the movie and make up your own mind.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Go see for yourself!
andyrrr9 April 2006
I don't understand why the reviews of this film are so universally bad, unless I'm just off my rocker. I found it sick, brilliant, twisted, and psychologically sophisticated. You won't get deeper into the mind of a criminal psychopath in a Hollywood film than this one. It has layers within layers, nuanced acting by Stone,and a plot that will keep you guessing even after it's over. People need to get over the fact that Sharon Stone is 48,and that Michael Douglas isn't in this one. I predict that this film will be a huge hit on DVD once people see it for themselves and stop paying attention to the drivel professional reviewers put out. Give it a shot, you might be glad you did!
31 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A really terrible film with no saving graces - bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction...just plain BAD!
DutchMan8216 March 2006
I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.

The original "Basic Instinct" was no great film and is still something of a "smut classic" but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.

However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.

The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.

I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.

By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub.

"Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too.
275 out of 480 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
everything I had hoped for
Mario Garcia7 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I am not a usual commenter on this website but seeing how underrated this movie is, I endeavour myself to write some comments and remarks about it. I had fun watching this movie, perhaps because Cat is everything I wish I could be, I am not going to post spoilers or reveal plots but there's are things that i really found amazing, the way she manipulates people it's just so divine. this is a very underrated movie, I lack of arguments here, I usually go enjoy and then speak little about it, when you go to the movies is to have fun, and i really enjoyed the 1h53 i stayed in the dark room. a must seen over and over again until the delight fades away. let's try not be so critical about it. thank you for reading.
32 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
It Has Its Moments But Doesn't Measure Up To The Original
crazy_nanabush12 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, it's true. This film is a bit of a turkey but it does have its moments. For instance, one of my favourite scenes takes place during Catherine's last treatment with Dr. Glass. Straddling an armless black leather chair with her legs spread out on either side, she confronts Dr. Glass with a seductive sexual purr about his fantasies of wanting to sleep with her. She goes into explicit detail about how he'd like to ravage her all the while we hear the squeaking of the leather fabric on the chair that she's straddling. It was a great moment. Probably the best in the entire movie. The audience literally burst out laughing when Catherine suddenly breaks her predatory purr and gets up from the chair then walks out of the office.

True, this film will probably go onto to win a bunch of Razzies but I'm sure it will do relatively well on home video with the "rated" and "unrated" versions. I got a sense that a lot of the sexuality was cut out of the movie. A lot of the steamy scenes felt chopped to bits by bad editing.

Do I recommend you go see this film in the theatre? If you simply want to see a little bit of eye candy, fluff and experience Ms. Stone at trying to squeeze what's left out of the role that helped catapult her to stardom, then by all means go for it. But be for-warned. This movie is pretty bad. Even laughable at certain points that are suppose to be serious. It's camp value I think, but that's just my opinion. You be the judge after watching it.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Wow, Sharon Stone.
juanpablo22215 April 2006
Sharon Stone is super hot. She has 50 and I would still give it to her for the championship. She doesn't perform memorable scenes like the opening of the legs, but the sex scenes are truly amazing for those who like to see action and appealing women. ¿David Morrisey? Puhlease. He needs a serious acting coach. The storyline is, still again, random and lost. I liked the settings and how the dark corners are entraped in this film. The script, you ask? Worse than the adapation of "Narnia". No intelligent lines. I ask, why did they do this? The answer: to see Sharon Stone again, in her best moment. If you are a man; you should definitely spend 7.5 dollars to see this woman.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Why u should not listen to critics. they are not any better than real people
jessie-397 April 2006
We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.

This movie is very good. not just good but very good. The critics are a bunch of morons. Just because there is nudity and language they hated it. It was worth the price of ticket and that is all you can ask for. Is that not right? Every movie cannot be an academy award nominee. Sharon stone is gorgeous and does a great job in the movie and it mystifies me as to what in the hell the critics want
36 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Amazing Sequel being unfairly bashed!
mbrook618 April 2006
I just saw Basic Instinct 2 again, and my opinion of the movie changed. Initially, I had a lot of issues with the movie. And then I read all of the negative press and reviews, and coupled with the awful box office, I really went in a second time with a much dimmer impression. But oddly, I very much came to love this sequel. I went back to see it looking through the lens that was created by all of the negative and vicious criticism. I went out of my way to pay attention to why people were saying this was one of the worst movies and/or sequels of all times, and I was very happy to realize that are all dead wrong. (Warning: some of this may contain slight spoilers)

First, people are attacking Sharon Stone like she dressed up like the Prophet Mohammedand defecated on the screen. Her interpretation of Catherine is no different than it was in the first movie. She is SUPPOSED to be over the top. They did add a little more sarcasm to her character though, but it's because her position in the movie is different. This story definitely told from Catherine's P.O.V. She is purposely being a sarcastic and nasty and blatant about her machinations to see just how stupid these people really are. If you notice it's mostly directed towards Glass. It's a form of antagonizing him and making him angry enough to fight her, which is what she wanted. Catherine is much more exacting and evil in this sequel. I really enjoyed how much it fully exploited her character's potential.

The screenplay is just as implausible as the first movie. It takes no more leaps in logic that the original. The same goes for the dialog. Actually the dialog is a little more restrained in the second one. Am I the only one who remembers: "She's evil! She's brilliant!"? The acting in this one is also a lot more restrained. Michael Douglas wasn't all that subtle if you remember correctly.The sequel was darker and more focuses on the mind games than the first movie, which I prefer.

A lot of criticism has been placed on the sex scenes (or rather, the chopped and butchered ones in the R rated cut). Again, I felt the same way the first time I saw the movie. But I was wrong. People are viewing the sex through the lens of the first movie. The first movie's view of sex was very titillating and very much told from a soft-core-porn-cable-male point of view. It was so choreographed and so overdone. It worked brilliantly for the first movie. The sex in the second one is completely different. It's much more realistically done. It is not as staged. Also the sex in the sequel is, like the rest of the move, dark and violent and disturbing. That doesn't mean that it's not hot; it just means that the sex in the sequel is used for a completely purpose. Every sex scene has a very specific purpose and that is control and/or manipulation.

To be sure the first movie has sequences that can't be beat: Johnny's death; interrogation scene; the club scene, but the sequel isn't trying to one-up the first movie. It stands by itself. It's a completely different feel and angle. But the sequel has its own great moments as well: the scene where she straddles the chair in his office; threesome scene was hot and a great example of her power over him; the Jacuzzi; Milena's apartment. But especially the ending! It was far much more satisfying than the original. Evil, dark, and uncompromising, the ending was awesome.

People are condemning this movie for reasons that go far beyond tastes and preferences. They really seem to be punishing this movie for its existence. They are also not comfortable with a woman being that unapologetic about her sexuality. Also, Sharon's age is being repeatedly attacked and used as a negative slant. That's just stupid and indefensible. We should celebrate age and sexuality. Condemning them just shows how ignorant and pathetic the purview of this country has become.

I do agree that the timing of the release was very poorly chosen. This just isn't the market for erotic thrillers or for a more serious frank view of sex, period. It's a really safe time for movies. No one's really taking chances. And Brokeback Mountain doesn't count! I loved it, but it was defiantly very carefully done. It wasn't really all that envelope pushing. The fact that people think the idea of two men falling in love as "radical" or "envelope pushing" or "new" should probably stick their heads back in the sand.

If this movie had been released in a less restrictive time, it would have done better. It certainly wouldn't have been as vilified as it has been. Further more; the MPAA wouldn't have felt the need to cut the thing to all hell. It is an excellent sequel. It deserves far better treatment than it is receiving. It's really a shame actually, and it's also very telling of major issues within our overly judgmental and uneducated culture.

If for some odd reason Sharon Stone, ot some one from her team reads this review, I have seen "Basic Instinct 2" three times now. The second and third times I saw the movie with two different people, and they were totally surprised at how good the movie was and how much they really enjoyed it. They were also equally surprised at how unmerited and how cruel the reception for this movie was. And whatever each of our issues were with the movie, we all agreed on one thing - your portrayal of Catherine was everything that we had hoped for and more!
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Can't understand the bad reviews
Jim Huggard17 April 2006
I saw Basic Instinct 2 in German last Friday because a friend wanted to see it. Normally I wouldn't be bothered with this kind of movie and can't remember ever seeing the whole of Basic Instinct 1. Anyway I found the new one very entertaining and went to see it again in English yesterday, Sunday, partly too because the plot needed a bit of checking out. I enjoyed it even more the second time around. It's a film with very strong visual images that really stay with you. The acting is first rate, Sharon Stone is in my opinion just divine to look at, and the development of the plot is slow enough for the characters to take on real flesh but without losing tension. The plot in itself is incredibly unlikely but who cares? The scene where Dr. Glass screws the waitress was missing in the English version, and possibly a few other short scenes too.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
i think that it was a great film, or may be i just liked the actress??
charlotte smith12 April 2006
I have a very different opinion to what i have seen so far, i believe this movie was brilliant, yes Sharon stone was cringey at times, but i think she was brilliant, but she could have been seen as annoying at times.

Throughout the film there was an obvious thought which meant Sharon was the killer, but the twist was good because it was obviously not going to be the person who you thought it was from the beginning or there would be no point watching the end.

Yes, Sharon stone is still sexy, and i believe that she it a great actress.. However i would avoid going to see this film if you want an easy watching film, as you do need to put the pieces of the jigsaw together.

So far from basic instinct 2 i have only seen bad reviews and i do not think this is fair. It it not a particular strange taste that will like this as i like all sorts of films (man on fire, honey) all kinds such as chick flicks, comedy's, and thrillers.

Some people will not have liked the goriness, and raunchiness of the film, but it wasn't that bad really!!

overall, this film was a sexy film, i would see this again, and it is a good film to see with a partner or friends!
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Thoroughly Enjoyable movie
xena4gab2 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the movie last night and thought it was a huge improvement on the original. I thought Sharon Stone gave a great performance and looked stunning and the cast of well known British actors also gave their usual high standard of performance.

The camera work was very atmospheric and , as I am a Londoner myself, I felt it captured the glamorous and the seedy side of the West End.

I thought the dialogue in the original was clichéd whereas this felt a lot more believable.

The only scene I thought the film could have done without is the orgy in a Soho brothel.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews