Basic Instinct 2 (2006) User Reviews

Writers could not pull off what Joe Eszterhas created.

[doorbomb62 · 4/10 · 1 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.

BI2. A beaten down horse without a fighting chance,

[smashsmack · 5/10 · 11 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.

Sexy Beast

[Newairbus · 5/10 · 28 April 2006]

Hey, Basic Instinct 2 feels like a Agatha Christie novel written for a sexy protagonist and a modern setting. But there is no Miss Marple involved, for she is at the same time the woman who gets away, the author and the "gärningskvinna" or perpetrator. The word in quotes is Swedish, not German, though it looks like "Götterdammerung".

Everybody and his cousin has chided Sharon Stone for being such a wooden actress cast in this role for the second time, but put your hand on your heart: Could someone else have pulled off the part (which is provocative and implausible from the beginning) any better? Would Keira Knightley, Gwyneth Paltrow or Lena Olin have portrayed a better Catherine Tramell? My verdict is no, therefore, she gets a vindication of sorts. You see, this role doesn't require a perfect body but rather someone who almost has it with brains, conceit and assuredness on top of that. Also, this sequel is good in the sense that it has made me want to see the first part which I missed to see at the time.

Worse than any of us could have imagined.....

[Screen-Space · 1/10 · 22 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.

Painfully Bad

[annaharbacz · 1/10 · 19 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.

Stone Cold Vanity.

[herlenwein-1 · 2/10 · 31 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.

A really terrible film with no saving graces - bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction...just plain BAD!

[DutchMan82 · 1/10 · 16 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.

A sequel that should have never been made!

[karl-mauk · 1/10 · 30 March 2006]

In my book "Basic Instinct" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!

This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the "There is no smoking in this room" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away!

I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film!

film noir with a confusing cleavage

[Chris_Docker · 7/10 · 29 April 2006]

Sharon Stone has had a very chequered career, spanning performances that have garnered Golden Globes and Oscar nominations, as well as Razzies. Her performance in Casino convinced skeptics of her acting ability and yet it is for her portrayal of the sexily sinister author Catherine Tramell - in Basic Instinct - that she is perhaps most remembered. Basic Instinct II revives the role – a dangerous undertaking and one that many critics have panned (possibly without even watching it). Yet the character is an interesting one and deserves not to be dismissed so lightly, especially in this well-written sequel.

The enigma of Tramell is whether, in researching her novels, she just gets very close to actual murders, or whether she actually commits them. In Basic Instinct II we become aware of a third possibility – that she manipulates people into creating interesting story lines, even if it means pushing them over the edge mentally and emotionally so they perhaps commit crimes they would not otherwise have committed. Following in the footsteps of twisted real-life authors recently depicted on screen such as Capote, such a possibility does not seem so preposterous.

Where Basic Instinct II fails, is in capturing a suitable target audience. The original Basic Instinct, however good a thriller, is linked in the public imagination with a particularly explicit scene involving Stone uncrossing and crossing her legs during a police interview. Given the raunchy nature of Tramell's personal life, to which the film gave ample reign, the movie drew adult audiences hoping to be shocked. This creates a number of problems for Basic Instinct II. Firstly, the public taste for sexual explicitness seems to have ebbed. Sex scenes are more likely to kill a blockbuster than boost attendances. The independent and European films featuring explicit sexuality tend not to get multiplex coverage – and the limits are now so broad that most mainstream actresses are unlikely to want to push the envelope with such explicitness unless it is to test the limits of art – and Basic Instinct II, like its forerunner, is a thriller not an art house movie.

Yet it suffers from the 'sex-movie' tag. Re-shot in black and white, with a shorter running time, and minimizing any nudity, Basic Instinct II could have been marketed as film noir. The difficulty of puzzling out the who-dunnit keeps the attention, but waiting for the next sex scene it just fizzles (as there's very little to wait for). With a running time of nearly two hours, some of the direction could have been tighter, but the overall feel of the movie almost creates a genre. Sharon Stone hones Tramell's character even better than in the original, and the final twist is difficult to anticipate. As a portrait of a genius writer that can run rings around police detectives and psycho-analysts, Basic Instinct delivers in spades. While Sharon Stone is a good-looking fortysomething, those watching it for sexy thrills may be disappointed.

Piece of crap

[avenkash · 1/10 · 15 March 2007]

Seriously,

I felt like I developed a tumor in my head after watching this movie. The movie is so pathetic and it should have been in the category of a comedy. Sharon stone is old and she looks like an ugly witch. The story line is so weak and none of the characters were impressive with their performances. There was no suspense, the sexual scenes are horrible and finally it was a real pain to watch the movie. At least there should have been an end to the story in the sequel after watching all that crap. Instead watch either a pure thriller or a porno. I would not suggest this movie to anyone.....especially to people who might fall into the trap of watching Sharon... No she is not hot at all.....It so funny that she at grandmother's age had done this film. Actually I thought of giving a zero to this film, but unfortunately there is no zero here.

It is now fashionable to trash "Basic Instinct 2" even before you see it.

[ENRIQUE-3 · 8/10 · 3 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.

Well I liked it !

[peter-burton-1 · 7/10 · 9 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.

sequels this bad usually go straight to video

[lotekguy-1 · 2/10 · 1 April 2006]

Seldom has the decline from hit to sequel in a theatrical release been this severe. B.I. 2 is an awful movie (B.O. might be more accurate), coasting on fumes left over from the sizzling sensuality of the 1992 thriller that made Sharon Stone a star.

First of all, Stone is absolutely not too old to reprise her femme fatale, Catherine Trammel. Though we don't see as much of her body this time, at 48 she's still got enough of the icy cool sexuality to toy with the men around her, despite their authority over her. It's the script that's flaccid, further sapped by British TV actor David Morrissey replacing Michael Douglas as the male lead. Douglas played a tormented cop, torn between convicting and bedding her; Morrissey's a tormented psychiatrist who can't tell whether she's a psychopath or the love of his life. The guy's such a stiff, one wonders how many wiser Clive-Owen wannabes read the script and declined. Morrissey's wife is Sigmund Freud's great-granddaughter, which apparently qualifies him more for the part than either his charisma or chemistry with Ms. Stone. He imbues this shrink with about the same emotional range as the office couch.

In a sexy, but almost cartoonish, opening sequence, Stone drives a drugged-out dude around London for a high-speed thrill ride that ends in his death. Once again, the circumstances ominously match the plot of one of her novels. A detective (David Thewlis) seems hell-bent on convicting her, and brings in Morrissey for a medical opinion on how dangerous she may be to herself and others. The rest of the film involves more murders and another guessing game about whether Stone is the killer, someone else's front, or even a potential victim, while dredging up various devils and temptations of Dr. Dull.

Everything about this story feels contrived, failing to create characters or a situation that stirs the emotions as the first one did. The original interrogation scene has become a film classic, even apart from Ms. Stone's controversial leg-crossing. Its analog here is so ill-conceived, director Michael Caton-Jones almost seems to have intended parody, rather than an homage.

At one point Stone's Catherine asks the shrink who he thinks she's gonna kill next? In real life, her most obvious choices would be among the writers, director and her agent.

Not very thrilling, intrigueing, nor sexy.

[Just_a_critic · 3/10 · 31 March 2006]

OK so I just saw Basic Instinct the US rated-R version.

From what I've heard is the heavily edited version. The movie for me wasn't very thrilling. The twists are just devices that make no sense, and their explanations are weak.

The acting was OK not great, The British actors do better than Stone though.

I did like the first one it was sexy and kept you wondering "Is she the Killer?" This one made me think man when is this movie going to be over?

If you going to see this movie hoping for a good thriller don't bother. If you live in the US and hope for a movie that is sexy, don't bother. If you want to waste a couple or hours and some money then go ahead and see the movie.

BASICally should have followed my INSTINCTs.....

[lfca1 · 1/10 · 31 March 2006]

.....and stayed away. This movie was like a really, really, bad parody of itself. Where to begin? Sharon Stone. She looks "good" for her age.......the last three words are imperative to follow the first three. Never once did her highly BOTOX-ed brow move. She was angry? Nothing. She was smiling? Nada. And the sneer! Too much. Her constant monotone delivery did nothing to help the audience stay awake- and I noticed 3 movie goers dozing in my area within the first 45 minutes! David Morrissey wasn't much better. His weak, sniveling character was totally implausible for a shrink. (She WASN'T "all that"!!) Michael Douglas, he ain't! And speaking of Michael Douglas....they sure paid homage to the absent -but sorely needed actor: Shrink's name? Michael. Stone's name? Catherine. And the shrink was trying to earn the "Douglas" award. In a better script, with better actors, it could have allowed for some comic relief, but near the end of the movie when one character emits an overly-long anguished scream, I found myself, with the rest of the audience, wishing I could do the same aloud, instead of inwardly. Sharon, PLEASE, I beg of you, if they come around (which is doubtful) with BI-3, "Just say NO!" You're already too long in the tooth to play the original seductress. Everyone was laughing at you! Minus one star from me! This was an abominable waste of time and money. It's destined to be a 2 week (max) runner.....

PS It's now 4/22, and apparently I was right. It's not to be found anywhere around here!!

Basic Insinct 2: Improving With Age

[Robert_Scott · 2 April 2006]

As we know, Basic Instinct was one of the most influential and controversial films of the early '90s. From the moment it begins, this wastes no time establishing what's in store, unveiling the bloody murder scene prefaced by some very arousing sex. I had to fight the urge to throw quarters at the screen to bounce off that perfectly rounded female backside. Anyway, this movie ultimately catered to our own "basic instincts" of inherent carnal and savage behaviors ( I'd say the female audience experienced a sensation of dominance while watching this film but that might get me in trouble) - thus the quintessential adaptation of the risqué and trashy material found only in paperback was born.

So it's now 2006 and the long awaited sequel has finally been released. Just browsing the background facts this went through to be produced is a bit astonishing. One of the most interesting facts is David Cronenberg was considered to direct this but how about Pierce Brosnan stepping down because of distasteful elements? I guess The Matador was okay because it didn't actually show him having unlawful relations with minors or playing "hide the weenie" with members of the same sex. There certainly was enough dialogue to suggest his character was into that (not saying it was a bad movie, just trying to understand the logic).

Moving on, it seemed these confusing issues over the years were influencing the final production getting seriously trashed. After personally viewing the film, my initial suspicions have been confirmed. Objectivity is the least element to be found in most of the reviews I've read. I know, it's all about freedom of speech and everybody is entitled to their opinion. With that said, here is my two cents regarding what could be considered a controversial film for the wrong reasons: Basic Instinct 2.

Let's start with Sharon Stone since she seems to be the source of all the commotion (how fitting- just like the movie!) . This of course has nothing to do with that unreasonable lawsuit filed against the producers (even I was shaking my head). No doubt she's still in great shape on for a woman who is almost 50 with some very revealing shots confirming this. However, there were some visible signs of aging that Botox or makeup couldn't conceal- her face was not the problem at all, the glossy lipstick is a personal favorite touch. I noticed some freckling and other various skin blemishes on her chest, back and legs that were rather unappealing. I'm talking about a particular sequence in Glass' office when they are first introduced. The lighting and close-up filming techniques captured everything- maybe too much. I think nylons would have been the solution here, there wasn't a muff shot anyway. At least during the sex scenes, the dim lighting and distance made this unnoticeable.

As for her acting, I really didn't have any complaints. I'd actually say her performance was even better than the first one coming across more enigmatic and sassy instead of slightly dingy. There was a part at the end that was pretty funny when she goes over the top that evoked a good chuckle from yours truly. She seemed to have good chemistry with David Morrisey who was better than I thought he would be (I did get a Liam Neeson vibe from his voice at times). That was important because he had quite a bit more screen time than Stone.

Unlike Douglas (whose character's integrity was laughable), he played a strong and serious character who enjoyed being in charge. The magnetism between the two was very evident and she could sense the vulnerability beneath his hardened exterior (pardon the pun). A part that stood out was when she was released from custody, Glass was watching her on a nearby television. She kept glancing at the camera like she was looking directly at him. One of the many effective techniques she used to reach his damaged emotional core for the provocative manipulation games (I believe Washburn had another term for this). I should mention Morrisey also had an over the top moment that paralleled the infamous "NOOO!!" in Star Wars: ROTS toward the end of the film....It actually makes sense why later, but it still sounded ridiculous being about 5 seconds too long.

Two more pleasant surprises were Charlotte Rampling (loved Swimming Pool) and David Thewlis (loved Kingdom of Heaven) who were both excellent.

Now the story really doesn't change a whole lot from the first one. There were a few references to Shooter (Douglas) and the murders but this honestly felt like a remake (some familiar notes in the score were pretty cool). The big difference being it was not as sexually or violently graphic as the first.

The benefits of course not trying to avoid visual contact of Michael Douglas' orange bum all the time (although this one had it's share of man arse and not enough luscious female gee maximus- Stone's was completely absent). Another benefit was the quality of film-making was far superior in this one. The changes made were the right ones making it more reserved yet kept it compelling- not just a campy shock fest. However, I must admit I'm hoping for a spicier extended version on DVD because there are plenty of opportunities.

To top it off, it was set in London so almost everyone except Stone spoke in a British accent (Sounded like Thewlis had a touch of Irish in his delivery - well, he was the detective after all. Oh, and the German with the bad wig- yet even more comedy) providing a paradoxical sense of elegance in such a maniacal situation.

Desperately Joyless Sequel Misses Its Destiny as a Black Comedy

[EUyeshima · 1/10 · 27 July 2006]

This is awful stuff but not for the obvious reasons. The most offensive aspect of this too-delinquent 2006 sequel to the 1992 box office hit is that it pretends to be a double-dip psychological thriller as well as yet another did-she-or-didn't-she sex crime story. Personally, I think there was great potential to turn this into a very black comedy about female empowerment, but the irony seems lost on the filmmakers. The net effect of all this heavy lifting in the plot is this enervating feeling that the movie will never end. The overly complicated screenplay by Leora Barish and Henry Bean is not the only culprit here, as Michael Caton-Jones' direction is pedestrian and plodding. Even the explicit sex scenes are captured in a rather clinical manner that generates nothing close to heat.

The plot picks up crime novelist Catherine Tramell years (fourteen to be exact) after her San Francisco police troubles. Relocated to London, she gets implicated in the car crash death of her soccer player lover (she, of course, was driving). Enter police psychologist Dr. Michael Glass to assess her mental state, and the sexually oriented dangers from the first movie get recycled in this story. People start to get murdered. Inevitably, Glass gets painted into a corner, while Catherine keeps one step ahead of everyone else. It seems beside the point that Sharon Stone looks great for 47, though there is a surgical aura about her beauty (whether or not this is the case). Her nihilistic character has not been empowered by the intervening years but flattened into a one-note Machiavellian nymphomaniac, all knowing looks and come-ons with nary a trace of humanity. The fun in her performance has been deflated to fit the constant contrivances of the plot turns.

She gets no help from her pasty-looking leading man, David Morrissey, who looks and sounds like the younger brother of Liam Neeson. He lacks the charisma and primal instincts to get away with Glass' quicksilver changes in behavior, especially in the sex scenes. The most inspired in-joke is placing the doctor's office in London's phallic-looking Swiss Re building. It seems a shame to recruit two world-class actors in supporting roles only to waste them – David Thewlis plays the suspicious police inspector, and Charlotte Rampling, looking spectacular at sixty (and a lesson in humility for Ms.Stone), as Glass' more seasoned colleague. Suffice it to say that the last five minutes are absurd to the extreme with no sense of viewer satisfaction over the conclusion.

The journey from theaters to DVD has been an unsurprisingly fast one, and the disc includes Caton-Jones' rather bored commentary on an alternative track, and there are several deleted scenes all wisely excised. In fact, not enough was excised for my taste. There is also a disposable ten-minute making-of featurette where there is mention (or dare I say, the threat) of a "Basic Instinct 3". Perhaps they can get Dakota Fanning for the role.

Beyond Excitement, Filled with Disappointment

[samuelding85 · 3/10 · 8 July 2006]

Mabey producer Mario F. Kassar should not have made the decision of bringing a sequel to the 1992 best selling erotic classic, and Sharon Stone should not have picked up the role of the author who uses psychological tactics to lure her victim into her trap.

Basic Instinct 2 is due far too long from the prequel, which not only makes the audience lost the excitement and anticipation, but also puts Sharon Stone at a disadvantage of baring nude at 48 years old. Her charm from Basic Instinct was lost, and what the audience get was a old actress trying to resurrect her fame by taking up Basic Instinct 2.

While Michael Caton Jones try to direct Basic Instinct 2 close to the same way as Paul Verhoeven, it seems to be a total disaster when the final piece of work was presented to the public. Cheesy and lengthy dialogue wrecks the film. The lack of chemistry between Stone and David Morrissey makes Basic Instinct 2 a crappy production which was hastily made instead of a sequel that guarantees to thrill the audience with new excitement. Somehow, Jones seems to be unable to bring the chemistry out of Stone and Morrissey, compared to Stone with Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct.

Basic Instinct 2 follows everything from Basic Instinct: Catherine Tramell kills a man, investigation conducted, she try to control the man who wants to control her, and makes sure that he will fall into her trap which was written in her novels. Though there are thrills in Basic Instinct 2, it lacks the kick and the suspense it should had in Basic Instinct. Also, no excitement from Basic Instinct was seen in the sequel.

Perhaps it is time for Tramell to call for an end with her menace on man manipulating in Basic Instinct 2.

I'd rather stick my head in a toilet for two hours...

[vpa21133 · 2/10 · 3 September 2006]

The primary failure of this film relative to the original is an aged, faded Sharon Stone who is supposed to portray an irresistible sex goddess. That just does not work at all. In the first Basic Instinct she was credible as a sexy young beauty exploring the boundaries of her ability to control men by exploiting their lust for her.

I've noticed many other comments say "Wow, look at Sharon Stone, she is almost 50 and still attractive and sexy - that's incredible!" That is nonsense. It is ridiculous to say that mature women can't be attractive and sexy. What I would expect (and I am a 50-year-old man), is that an attractive woman of that age range would be more subtle and sophisticated about her sexuality. The way Stone's character acts in this film, I'd expect to find her as an old drunk falling off a bar stool in a trailer park in Dog Fart, Kentucky rather than as supposedly glamorous, world-famous novelist.

The secondary failure is David Morrisey's character, supposed to be a psychiatrist or psychologist. How could the character have an M.D. or Ph.D. degree when he is a moron who apparently never got past puberty sexually?

The tertiary failure is the complete unbelievability of the plot. How can one believe it is many years since the first film, Stone's character continues to be suspected of multiple murders, yet she is still free? At the rate people Stone knows get murdered, everyone she ever knew would have been dead five years before they made this film.

Even though I found the first Basic Instinct over-the-top and occasionally unintentionally laughable, it worked much better than this putrid sequel.

A powerful mind twist

[mario_c · 7/10 · 6 April 2006]

The sequel of Basic Instinct won't be for sure a remarkable movie, as the original one, but we cannot say it's awful, because it isn't. In fact, I think it's quite good.

The main reason why so many people think this movie is so awful is because they compare this one, more than they should, to the original one! Beside that, the expectation for this sequel was very high (many people expected the sequel since 1992!), and when that happens it's very hard to have success. In most cases it's condemned to fail. But in my opinion, this movie didn't fail, especially because it's a powerful mind twist!

All the plot is a twisted labyrinth where lies and deceives mix together with killer instinct. It's a game to survive! Of course Sharon Stone is not so "hot" in this sequel as she was in the original, nor either exist any "unusual sexy scene" (cross legs' scene), but on the other hand I think she has refined her "killer instinct"! In the original, her character was provocative, seductive and manipulative, but it didn't have the coldness and the evilness on its sight, as it has now at the sequel! The way she manipulates the psychologist and the way she looks at him, is really cold, wicked, in a word: evil!

So, generally, I don't think this movie is brilliant - in fact, it's far away from that - but it's not as bad as some people told!

Basic Instinct II

[rod2323 · 5/10 · 12 April 2006]

I have read some of the negative reviews. I went to the movie to see Sharon Stone. She is beautiful. I enjoyed the movie. It is not a three star one but it was entertaining. I thought Sharon did a great job playing a psychopath killer. I thought the movie revealed how vulnerable some men are to an attractive lady and how easily they can be manipulated by a beautiful lady. The movie theme is similar to the First Basic Instinct. The male lead was weak an unknown. I thought the detective did a good job of acting. I enjoyed the beginning of the movie and the ending. If you have high expectations for this movie you will be disappointed. If you like Sharon Stone,you will likely enjoy it. My friend and I agreed that it was not a great movie but we have seen worst.

Watch without prejudice! It's not that bad at all!

[lt-ripley · 8/10 · 9 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!

Tramell's Character Getting More Dangerous,It Evolves With Age

[costas26 · 7/10 · 8 April 2006]

I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it...

Unbelievable and Absurd Plot

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 20 November 2006]

In London, while using drugs and having sex in a speeding car with a famous soccer player, the blond writer Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) drives off the road, falls in the river and the athlete drowns. Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey) is assigned for a forensic evaluation, and in spite of being against bail, Catherine is released. Later Catherine goes to Dr. Michael's office and initiates therapy with him, and he sees that she is an omnipotent manipulative woman. However, as far as Dr. Michael knows her deeper and deeper, he becomes obsessed for her, while people of their relationship are killed.

I do not know what the writers and director of this flick think about their target audience, but probably they believe they are at least imbeciles. The plot of "Basic Instinct 2" is so unbelievable and absurd that I dare to say that it is disrespectful with the audiences. The bureaucratic direction seems to be one of these "canned" movies broadcast on television and the neo-noir style never works. Sharon Stone's hairstyle does not fit well to her face, but she still is a very pretty and sexy woman and is the best in this lame movie. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Instinto Selvagem 2" ("Savage Instinct 2")

What Were They Thinking

[Michael_Elliott · 29 February 2008]

Basic Instinct 2 (2006)

BOMB (out of 4)

Sharon Stone is back, this time she's being questioned by a psychologist on whether or not she's a murderer. If you've followed this thread the past two years you'd see that I try and track down back movies from all the previous decades. I'm quite sure that one hundred years from now there'll be another weirdo doing the exact same thing and this movie here will be some sort of holy grail. I was expecting a bad movie but good Lord was this thing horrid. I'd say this film should have gone straight to DVD but that would be an insult to those films that do go straight to DVD. Stone, at best, is a fair to poor actress who can do good work if she's with a great director. Here she gives one of the worst performances I can think of coming from someone with an Oscar nod. She's so incredibly bad that you can't even laugh at her performance. Morrissey is also quite dull and whenever he's on screen I couldn't help but want to take a nap. Even the sex scenes are quite dull, although I've heard that some of them were trimmed for the theatrical release. Most depressing is that this crap is from director Michael Caton Jones who previously gave some good films like Rob Roy and This Boys Life.