User reviews

Quite a few reviewers have given this movie only 1 star... now either they really hated this movie (which I am not going to go into) or they have never seen a 1 star movie. 1 star movies are so bad..., well it's beyond description, best you go and see for yourselves and check out the "Bottom 100" on IMDb and torment yourself for a couple hours.

Now I really enjoyed the first one, a classic thriller, great cinema (there are movies which everyone accepts that they are great, cause they cause no controversy and then there are movies which will divide the race, so to speak), very suspenseful and gripping.

Now to the second one, it's definitely not a 1 star movie. For entertainment value alone it is well worth watching. Sure it has it's flaws and isn't as exciting as number one, but overall a nice movie. I am sure if it had come out on it's own, without a prequel to live up to, there wouldn't have been such a big hate fuss. For anyone who likes thrillers and some suspenseful entertainment I recommend this movie. To all those who hated this movie (I heard that many people hated it even before it came out), I am actually pretty curious on what your biases are based on, it sure isn't a logical issue, since logic doesn't inspire such strong resentment. But I myself got movies which are actually good but I just don't like them, so in fact I can empathize with you.

So to sum it up, I'd give the movie a rating 7 out of 10 just for entertainment value, which it fulfilled just nicely.

Frankly I don't understand why this movie has been such a big "flop" in publicity. Sharon Stone certainly has not lost any of her charisma and "touch" since "Basic instinct". I voted this film 10 and I tell you why: Game opens in London this time. London is the city where Catherine Tramell has moved since the events in BI1. Again she proves to be a mastermind manipulator of her own class -unchallenged. She is "screwing your brain" as Catherine with such a skill that in the end you don't be quite sure who is the real villain.

As for the technical part of the film: Only real setback is the B-rate crew of actors. Sharon Stone is the only really big name in the cast compared to her and Michael Douglas etc in the first part. I also think BI2 would have been better had Sharon Stone been a bit younger but she is still quite stunning in her looks and has only improved concerning her charisma. Her B-rate "assistants" are not so bad either although I would have wanted some bigger names to the cast.

I think there are quite good improvements in the basic plot. I think this is a far better thriller than many of the run-off-the-mill crap Hollywood so readily distributes these days. The plot is great, it's easy to see technically, you don't snore in the half way through the film and most important -the heath is on.

Sharon Stone is still as beautiful and sexy as she ever was. People who complain about the story line not well developed and all, that's because they went in the movie with the wrong expectations. This is not Mission Impossible or CSI. You cant expect this to movie to be action packed or with a great murder plot. This is Basic Instinct! The movie is focused on a hot seductive dangerous woman, very skilled at mind games. There is sex, there is murder, there's basic instinct.

I loved this movie as much as I loved the first. this one is slower paste than the first, with more talking, more mind games. And scratching out Michael Douglas makes perfect sense. This movie is about Catherine Tremell, not Nick, it's about basic instincts, not love. So the man has to change for sure. And Douglas looks way too old to be in this movie. I mean he's 60!! Cant he even get it up? And do you seriously wanna a 60 yr old saggy man naked? Sharon Stone is 48 but she looks nothing like a 48 yr old woman.

I loved Basic Instinct not because of the sex, or coz she gets naked. I love it because it's about a woman who is in control, and she uses sex as her power. She controls every one around her, she manipulates them and uses them for the sole purpose of her entertainment, for her story writing. It's not like those typical love stories where the woman, no matter how successful she is, she still needs love and all that crap. Here, Catherine Tramell is a cold blooded person, that's why she always wins, she always gets away with everything. No emotions attached. She plays the men, drives them insane, then completely destroys their lives. People around her knows she's dangerous but still lets themselves fall into her hands. If you didn't like the first Basic Instinct, don't bother watching this. If you are expecting a lot of sex, you'll be disappointed too. Afterall, this isn't porn. This sequel is like another chapter of Catherine Tramell's life.

I'm tired of people bashing this...it's not as bad as everyone is saying...I think people are going in expecting too much. The film is a popcorn flick and never tries to be anything more than an entertaining and over the top thriller. The language is hilarious and the sex scenes are dangerously fun. The mysterious killings are just fun to follow even though you already assume who the killer is which is pretty obvious although still never stated completely. All in all, if you just want to have a good time at the movies that's what this movie is all about. I'd recommend it to anyone who was a fan of fun '90s style thrillers like the original.

What a thrill ride! Twisted and thought provoking. Once again, Sharon Stone pulls off her drop dead gorgeous, spellbinding character of author Catherine Tramell impeccably. The original Basic Instinct takes place in San Francisco. The sequel takes place in London, where Catherine has now relocated. Both bustling cities known for excitement, haute couture ~ and a perfect place for someone like Catherine Trammel to take residency. David Morrisey, ("Derailed"), plays the smooth role of psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass. The character David Thewlis plays as Roy Washburn with Scotland Yard, is a refreshing departure from his role as Lupin in the Harry Potter series. Flashy cars, designer clothes, sex, drama, humor,tension, - all of the "basic instincts." Mind bending throughout. Great screenplay. From the climactic opening scene to the surprise ending, this film is anything but boring! Everyone in the theater was glued to the screen.

Sharon Stone is a magnificent and totally credible manipulative siren. She obviously enjoys the role and plays it full on for all it is worth. What's more, at the age of 48 she still rings the bell of every male in the audience, and most of the women too. David Morrissey looks at times like a rabbit caught in the headlights of the Stone personality, but on the whole gives a sound, satisfying performance as the psycho-analyst with a crush. The plot is always interesting and twisty enough to keep you on the edge of your seat, and the story moves along at a cracking pace. The ending leaves room for yet another sequel, and I for one can hardly wait. A cracking evening's entertainment.

First of all I want to highlight that I have watched this movie the second time yesterday evening to come to a real conclusion if I really liked it or not. Luckily I made myself clear that BI2 did very well at all in most of the criteria.When I first saw it I thought that BI 1 was way better than this because I had too many unsolved questions in my head . However when I saw it the second time , everything has changed and now BI2 is surely better than first for me.I do not understand why a lot of people have great objections to this movie and too many negative comments. In fact the main reason of this is always comparing it to the first one which I already did. This is not fair to compare a sequel to a prequel if the first one is already a smash hit and effected a lot of people. I remember a few movies that the sequels surpassed the popularity and the box office success of the prequels which comes to mind first is T2 , it was a sequel and it was a real success. But T1 was also a classic , can we say that due to T2 was great so T1 sucked , no not at all!!. I liked Basic Instinct 2 because:

1 ) It started a bit slow , with so many dialogs . But about after 40 minutes it started to get faster, suspense started release it self and the movie started to get some meaning and finalizing with a great twist and left everyone highly effected by Ms. Stone again.

2)There is a real real fact that Sharon Stone is a great actress and she did her best in this movie no less than the first one. (She can not do any less acting even if she wants because she is naturally good!!! )About the sexiness and beauty: Well it is strange that something is missing from her sexiness and beauty from the first movie (by the way we're talking about 14 years!!! , its OK.)But somehow she is more beautiful and dazzling. Her looks and tricky behaviors are fantastic, thanks to her she deserved 14 million to the each cent!!! 3) It is true that the absence of Michael Douglas can not be filled because he is a great actor and he caught a very good combination with Sharon Stone in 1992. However now he even himself can not fill his space because he is 60!!! and he looks 60 maybe more than 60 but Sharon doesn't so whoever has a good or close to good acting talent replacing his role would be OK for this movie and so is David Morissey.He is not great , even sometimes boring but what does it matter ? We have no Michael Douglas here and Morissey is not much a problem. He could also catch a good connection with Stone and he did in some ways especially in the end.

4) Charlotte Rampling was a great supporter and gave seriousness to the movie.

5) The score was great , even greater than the first one. I'm sorry but I really can not understand why some people still have even objections to the score.Oh come on people you are really lying to your selves. The score was so fascinating and effective especially when Morissey was following Stone on the streets,that was really great. And also in some scenes there was a combination of the first movie's score and still some people say the score was not as good as it was in the first movie . . How can this be true while the music is same with the first movie just different tones and instrumentals are used ??? Thats really unbelievable !!!

6)The plot was good , twists were good, the clothes were good, the locations were good, what can I say more? In short it s a very pity that this movie is sucking in box office at the moment and it is really not deserving it. Its just because of the ridiculous negative critics. On the contrary this movie is one of the best of its kind. I want to say that we have very popular movie critics in Turkey and the most popular of them gave 3 out of 4 stars to BI 2 and rated it on top of Brokeback Mountain and Capote. 2.8 points in IMDb is really not fair. I suggest everyone to watch it again!!!!

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!

I read the reviews from the papers here in Los Angeles. And the only thing I have to say to critics is they need to start taking their thumbs out of their ass. BI2 was a very pleasant surprise. Granted its not an Oscar type film nor should it be reviewed as such but it sure delivers the punches. It was extremely entertaining. The storyline was very good and it made a very interesting thriller and whodonnit. Sharon Stone in her ripe age of 48?-50, looks exquisite and Davide Morissey...well let's say the sex scenes were very,very, very hot!!! I highly recommend this movie for its a very entertaining film. I saw this film at midnight when I usually fall asleep in films but this one was good. Yes, it may be corky here or there but overall I give it a ten. Don't listen to the critics and see this one for yourself!!! it is good. As a sequel, I found it to be very original and was able to stand on its own. It's not that BI1 was better, is that BI2 is just plain different. Same concept but different development. I look forwardt o see more of David Morrisey in other film because he is very talented.

I have a question for you, the reader: "How many R-rated movies have you seen in your lifetime? Permission slips at schools don't count; only viewings from 17+ count." And your answer would vary.

If you have seen plenty of R-rated movies in your life, then did you know that on at least one of those R movies, such films almost got an NC-17 rating? The rating that many people fear due to excess (bleep) and violence? This movie, "Basic Instinct 2," as well as its prequel, are such examples.

One of the great things about this movie is that it is serious, dark, and broody! Everything movie buffs want in a breathtaking, out-of-your-seat experience! This is a great film, and if you are of age (see my "Stay Alive" review for another example using a lower rating), you can see this film and enjoy it from start to finish!

You really have to question the release date of this movie. Traditionally Oscar has not been friendly to such an early release. A late fall release of this epic would have meant two things, a blockbuster bonanza at the box office and more Academy nominations than Hercules could carry. However, some dunce in Hollyweird decided to run with it now and I will tell you why. Certain movies get a buzz. Producers start watching the dailies and cannot contain themselves, they want to get it out there as soon as possible. Before you know it, the studio is screaming, "get this piece of gold out there!" Well, who could blame them. This film rotates around the sun that is Sharon Stone. Whose Sharon Stone? She is Charlize Theron, with more acting chops. In this movie, Stone is not simply acting, she is grabbing the moviegoer by the throat and screaming "watch me!" And do we ever watch. We are captivated by a master thespian at the top of her game. Sometimes seductive, sometimes lurid, and always dangerous, meow! In all my years, I can think of only one other sequel that was so vastly superior to the original film and that was Jaws II. However, history repeats with a mighty cha-ching in Basic Instinct II. What is my instinct, my instinct is Basic Instinct III and IV are already in the works. Like a Barry Bonds swing, Sharon Stone has hit another home-run, and no longer has to rest her laurels on the great gunfighter movie she made with Gene Hackman and Russel Crowe. Ms. Stone, I and your country thank you.

If you enjoyed the original you'll definitely enjoy this one also. I saw it with friends opening day...apparently we were the only ones who saw it opening weekend according to what it made money-wise, nonetheless...all of us enjoyed it a lot. Sharon Stone has this character down pat and it's obviously her best role. I think that had it been marketed better...I believe I saw maybe one very short commercial for it before the opening date, it would have made more money. Also it opened against a kids film, Ice Age 2, which is never good for an R rated film. I highly recommend you see it at the theater, but if you must wait, definitely buy the DVD when it comes out, as it will surely have an unrated version, which will be hotter than what I saw I'm sure. Sharon Stone looks wonderful (better than 14 years ago if that's possible) and the whole cast, and local (London) is superb!

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.

Some people think that this movie sucked because it took fourteen years to see the sequel on big screen, some of them think that it sucked because M. Douglas is not in it, some of them think that S. Stone stole the show and the other characters did nothing, some think that this time the director was no P. Verhoeven etc. etc.

I do not agree with none of the above thoughts, Because:

a. I watched this in theater I watched the first one DVD again and realized that everything including the dialogs, the tricks, the score, the twist of the plot and the suspense were kept as in the original and further more suspense was higher in BI2 most of the time. b. Why do we need M. Douglas in this one while most of us think that he already got murdered at the end of first Basic Instict. If he was in this sequel it would be the biggest space of the plot. D. Morissey playing an English psychiatrist the story take place in England and he was a typical an English guy and sure is that he can not be compared to an American playing in this role. I mean he is doing as best as he can. c. The success of the first movie was not because of P. Verhoeven it was S. Stone's great ability to make an influence on the audience leaving them with a thousands of question marks in their heads if she is the real villain or not. d. The ending of the first movie was quite simple with leaving only the killer's weapon under the bed . However in this one it keeps you thinking hours and hours after you leave the theatre.The twist at the end is really much better than the first one!!! e. The score is also suspenseful and much more effective than the one it was in the first movie with oriental mixes in it and a combination of the first movie's score.

f. I want to ask anyone who is commenting on this with a meaningless and exaggerated negative reviews: why does it suck in only USA and not in European countries and all over the world???

In short this movie is a good even more good sequel and can be one of the best of its kind. Throw away the negative reviews and give it a chance , if you saw it go and see it again please...

...but intensely great fun.... get rid of your inhibitions and just enjoy the ride.

We live in a world now that would probably censor this...

It is time to make a 3rd movie.

Can someone please explain to me why folks hate this movie so much... I'm not completely sure what other people were watching, but I seen a great movie. This movie is just as good as the 1st if not better, in my view. call me crazy but I loved it.

I'm not going to spoil details for those that like to enter the theater with a fresh mind. I saw this movie and thought it was better than the first. Maybe it wasn't big budget but the story was fine for what it was and Stone's character was much more developed. Why must Americans pick our flicks apart? Can't we just enjoy the movie for what it is? sex, suspense, sex. Not everything has to be Forrest Gump. (The lamest, most over-hyped movie I've ever watched) Like some others have noticed, I think most of the reviewers that gave this film a negative review were just uneasy with the sex symbol/seductress being 40+++ and not 19. For those of us without deep seeded Mommy issues and that are a little more sophisticated and comfortable with our sexuality, that isn't a problem. I'm a 30+++ straight female and Sharon Stone's performance had me looking for a cold shower. This film isn't meant to provoke thought but stimulate one in other areas. Go in expecting that and you'll walk out satisfied.