User reviews

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.

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.

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")

We didn't need a Hollywoodesque Erotic Thriller! That's why we stick with the goodness of Skinemax! It's really nerving that Sharon Stone tried to do a sexy, hot sequel to the extremely successful early 90's hit.

The plot couldn't be less interesting and dull. To be honest and realistic, Sharon Stone is the main and only reason to watch this poor attempt to storm the box office. Of course, it didn't have success or anything; in fact, it will be remembered as one of the most unnecessary sequels of all time.

One positive point is the incorporation of the super hot Flora Montgomery. Her sex scene was the highlight of the movie for me! A very hot and steamy scene involving a Sharon Stone picture. That's it. I found the best thing about this feature: See, every soft core flick has something "good" about it. Some of them feature hot women, or a memorable sequence, and in small cases a decent plot. Here, we have hot women and that's it.

Watch it only for the sex scenes which aren't too steamy but oh well, it's Hollywood.

Otherwise, stay away from this. It's completely utter trash.

I never managed to watch all of Basic Instinct for one reason or another. Of course, I have seen pieces of it (including the most notorious scene from it), but never from beginning to end. Despite this, I gave the recent sequel, Basic Instinct 2 a whirl. And like everyone could have predicted from the start, it is quite terrible albeit not as bad as I thought it would be.

After a fairly intriguing opening, we catch back up with Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone). She has apparently relocated to London since we last saw her, and she is being charged with murder. Detective Roy Washburn (David Thewlis) wants her behind bars, but since the murder cannot be proved, he needs to have a state psychologist examine her. So enter Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey). He thinks she may re-offend, and despite his testimony in court, Tramell manages to get out on bail. But she feels the need to get some help, so she enlists Glass to be her therapist. And then the bodies start piling up.

This is without a shadow of doubt, one of those sequels labeled "should have been made less than 14 years ago, or not at all". Basic Instinct was fresh (or fairly fresh) back in 1992. A lot of copycats and ripoffs have come and gone since, and now we finally have a sequel. The film smells stale from the start, and fails to pick up at all through its two hour running time. It just does not have any zest or even feel like a real story unfolding. It just looks like a really confused guy with a jones for a great-looking woman, who just happens to be turning 50 in less than two years, mixed in a blender with a half-assed plot. The weakness emits itself throughout, and the film just cannot get anywhere away from it.

Moving the action to London felt like a good match, but never do we really actually feel like we are in London. There is almost nothing to suggest it being any different than an American city. The cinematography is interesting to watch however, as despite the undistinguishing features, the bright colours and great scenery all look beautiful for the camera. Some of the costumes Stone manages to put herself into are also quite interesting in their own way. The writing itself is cheese all the way, and none of the actors really make a valiant try at helping to make it any better. They seemed content at what it was at, and really did not care what everyone else thought.

Morrissey tries his best here, but he's too young and innocent looking to actually believably get wrapped up in the web of Catherine Tramell. Michael Douglas had edge. This guy has an expressionless face, and not much else. He tries playing off all of the other actors, but he just does not have any chemistry with a single soul, and just looks and feels totally awkward. It may be the problem in the fact that Morrissey did not bother making the almost two-dimensional character any better, or it just may be that he is not that great an actor (but I have yet to see any other films with him starring in it, so I will just leave that out).

Stone, while her physique is absolutely stunning to look at (especially out of the clothes, which takes almost an hour before we see), just sounds too old for this role. She is well past her prime, and she is still trying to do the roles that got her fame back when she was younger. Her face looks nowhere near as perfect as her body, and neither does her posture. When she is sitting trying to seduce Glass, you are unsure of whether she is believing what she is telling him, or is looking at the material and wondering why she even bothers. Her character is supposed to have stronger potential than Morrissey's, but they really feel like they are on the same page (and what is up with practically tearing out all that lesbian subtext from the original film?).

Thewlis on the other hand, despite his very small role, is excellent as the "corrupt" detective. He has the charisma, the zest and the actual morphing of the character to allow himself to feel real. He carries the film on his shoulder when he is around, and is one of the key reasons why this movie is mildly watchable. He gives poetic justice to some of the most horrific dialogue I have ever heard, and looks great saying it. More than everyone else can say for themselves.

While it is muddled by all sorts of issues, Basic Instinct 2 is not a bad choice for some random escapism. Just do not go in expecting it to be anything amazing, or anywhere near as good as the first one (or at least, the brief parts that I have).

3/10.

After watching the first one, then seeing this one. Its rubbish. Everything about it fell short.

For starters the script was so bad and so cringe, it made everything feel cheap. There was no sexy to this movie is was sleazy and just wrong. There was zero chemistry between anyone. No emotions or feelings. It felt cold. Just like the very blue cold filter they used for the entire movie.

Sharon was too old for the film. In the first one she had youth and so much beauty. She's still gorgeous but it didn't feel the same with her age in this one. Kinda like watching a grandma trying to seduce everyone.

Why was all the cast British? And B rated cast? The acting was horrible. The story was a mess and the lines so bad. Even the sex was empty. No passion. It felt like everyone was reading lines. And the music was overpowering taking away from the scenes. On top of everything the movie felt rushed. Quickly sweeping from one scene to the next in a hurry. There was no tension or build up.

A very empty movie.

I've always had a special place in my heart for the first Basic Instinct movie. Back in the early 90s, you didn't have instant internet access like you have today. So the easiest way for adolescent males to look at naked female bodies was to head over to your local video store and rent any one of the broad selection of outdated low budget action movies that were available to you. Needless to say those films were not exactly top of the line material. But then came along Basic Instinct, a film loved by male teens whose hormones were running amok, adults looking for an exciting thriller, or just curious what all the fuzz was about, and film critics alike. Basic Instinct was special because it was not only sexually provocative (remember the interrogation and bondage scenes) but also had a strong cast, a good storyline, well developed characters, beautiful photography, fast cars and a nice setting. It was a violent police thriller in which the central character and main draw was a pantiless femme fatale with a taste for all things extreme and directed by the accomplished Paul Verhoeven, a Dutchman famous for making for harsh films with a touch of sexual provocation.

Fast forward to Basic Instinct 2. Whereas Cahterine Tramell was the most intriguing figure in the first movie, she was surrounded by other equally well developed characters. Nick Kurran was the borderline cop, played by Michael Douglas, who became obsessed by the beautiful and dangerous Tramell, Jeanne Tripplehorn portrayed the jealous co-worker and Leilani Sarelle was Sharon Stone's lesbian love interest, which was pretty revolutionary in early 90s mainstream cinema.

The sequel shows Catherine Tramell living in London and that's about it. Caught in her web this time around is Stan Collymore, a boring psychologist whose life is influenced by equally uninteresting women: the sexually unsatisfied ex-wife, a mother figure and mentor and some kind of love interest. I suspect the cliché London setting and subsequent cast of unknown actors was done for financial reasons. There is not a whole lot to say about the story. The movie starts off with a famous soccer player getting killed while he's making love to Catherine in her car while she's doing 110 miles an hour in downtown London, which is immediately the most exciting sexual scene in the whole movie. There is one other where Collymore has sex with his would-be girlfriend but that's a poor reproduction of Michael Douglas letting his suppressed sexual appetites rage havoc on Jeane Tripplehorn. The other erotic scenes are pretty lame compared to today's standards, especially after such extreme opening credits and taking into consideration Catherine Tramell's sexy outfits. Why would anyone want to go see an erotic thriller whose love scenes are tamer than a Britney Spears concert? Sharon Stone does look as beautiful and seductive as she did in the first film. However, whereas in the early 90s Catherine Tramell wore sexy outfits, made even more exciting because it was obvious she didn't wear any underwear, she was still pretty elegantly dressed. Her clothes in the sequel are designed for the sole purpose of turning men on.

So all in all, I conclude that director Michael Caton-Jones has pretty much exploited the sexually provocative aspect of the first movie (but not in a very good way, unless the unrated version features a lot of spicy cut scenes) and neglected all of the other aspects that made Paul Verhoeven's film so special. Is it any coincidence he's since gone on to direct the critically acclaimed Blackbook and Basic Instinct 2 was nominated for worst film of 2006? So, if you were an adolescent male in the early 90s, whose sexual fantasies where forever influenced by Miss Tramell or if you just like Sharon Stone, who looks as good as ever, go check this film out, even if it's just for nostalgia's sake. If it's an exciting crime story you're looking for, better go watch one of the other erotic thrillers Basic Instinct paved the way for, like Body of Evidence, Disclosure or Sliver.

The problem with this is pretty obvious, but sadly pretty fundamental: the script sucks. They tried to go for a rip-off of the original and couldn't even pull that of. The point is exactly the same, you have this Catherine Tramell(though she doesn't even look like the same person anymore), and she kills people and then finds some guy for the sake of using a web of lies on him. But here's the exciting new twist, now it's set in England. Wow. Pathetic. As the film progresses, and when it's supposed to get interesting, it just gets worse and worse. I mean the ending just doesn't make any sense. Tramell is supposed to be always in control and omnipotent and whatnot, but seriously the chances of her new devil plan to work were like zero, she just trusts on the fact that the completely charisma-less psychiatrist(you actually forget him while he's on screen, he just blends in with the wall) is a moron. In the original, which is starting to look like a pretty good movie, stuff just looked cool. This is gray and lifeless. And you could see that coming from miles away really. Just sad, ruins a perfectly good movie character for me.

I went to see BI 2 last night and desperately wanted to like that movie for many reasons. First of all, I had really enjoyed the first one which came out when I was still in college. Secondly, I like the fact that Sharon Stone wanted to show that women over 40 can still be sexy and desirable.

Unfortunately, the movie didn't work for me. It misses its natural audience: mature and/or older people who still have a very active social and sexual life. Had the movie been conceived to appeal to them, it might have been interesting.

Instead, BI 2 seems to go after a younger crowd. (nothing wrong with that.) However, why would a 20 year old want to see 48 year old Sharon Stone naked when he can look at Jessica Simpson's legs in the "Dukes of Hazzard"? Beats me.

I left the theater a little sad because Sharon Stone is a great actress and I admire her courage for trying to show that it's a shame that women over 35 suddenly become invisible nowadays.

It is a pity that such an intriguing concept, because of poor execution,will probably go to waste.

I've never been averse to the idea of a Basic Instinct sequel, even after all of these years—Sharon Stone has kept herself looking pretty damn good, after all; however, without the involvement of Joe Eszterhas and Paul Verhoeven, any follow up to the controversial 1992 erotic thriller was almost certain to fail.

Director Michael Caton-Jones certainly isn't up to the task, lacking the perverse sense of humour and sheer outrageousness necessary to wring any fun from Leora Barish and Henry Bean's rather preposterous script. Where Basic Instinct opened with a bang (literally), part 2 starts with a whimper, not once comes close to matching the original in terms of tension, eroticism, excitement, violence or style, and ends with a dumb twist that makes very little sense.

i am not a fun of the original basic instinct at all, but i'm working at a video store and i get to rent films for free. this looked like fun trash so i decided to go for it. i must say the first thirty minutes were pretty cool in a crappy way. the dialogue was kind of fun and sharon stone (whom i've never considered a great actress) was actually enjoyable in an over the top catty way. the opening scene in the car was funny and i must say the overall look of the film isn't that bad. but the whole plot was silly and the lead actor looked as though he was a capable actor but just didn't fit into this role. i had a good laugh at the dresses mrs stone wore during the therapy session, i doubt there appropriate for the occasion. in the end the mystery didn't work and the trashy fun of it wore out rather fast. by the way mrs stone looks great but i think the plastic surgeon did a rather mediocre job on the boobs. all in all: not unbearable but certainly bad, while it really could've been fun

It's no surprise that this movie's script caused some high calibre talent to shun it: there are so many failings and problems that it would take several times the 1,000 word limit on comments to list them all. But here's a little taste: in the opening sequence, under the influence of some drug Sharon Stone's character drives through deserted central London streets (!) at 110 mph (!) at night while masturbating and french kissing her boyfriend in the passenger's seat. After crashing into the Thames, in the nicely lit water she manages to give her boyfriend another kiss before getting out and floating away while boyfriend drowns... and then the police think all that is quite OK under the law. Sharon Stone's quotes in the advertising for the movie here suggested that there would be plenty of erotic action but it doesn't deliver much that satisfies on that count. Where the film does have a modicum of merit is its surreal ambiance throughout and its exploration of the suggestion that some psychiatrists may be as screwed up as some of the people they treat.

From the OVERUSED, INSIPID BACKGROUND MUSIC, to Trammell/Stone being an EXTREMELY manipulative woman who AFAIC only gets to have extensive influence over first Nick Curran (in the original B I movie) then over psychiatrist Michael Glass in B Instinct 2, Trammell only gets her way because she is found to be pretty and sexy by those 2 men. This movie doesn't cut it. As someone who has been BURNED BADLY by people I allowed to get very close to me for years who were extremely MANIPULATIVE, I despise the practical glorification of Trammell's character. I place manipulation way down there with lying and other major deficits of human behavior. But if you ENJOY watching a person and especially a woman being extremely manipulative and devious, this movie is for you!!

This is not the worst film I have ever seen nor is it the most cringeworthy, but it is definitely a contender. It has maybe 1-2 redeeming factors like scenery and score but you can impossibly build a decent movie on this alone - you need a solid template plot to facilitate the whole thing and this is something that Basic Instinct 2 (2006) simply lacks. It is meant as a sexy enticing cat-and-mouse game between novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) and the psycho-analyst Dr. Glass (David Morrissey) who works with her, but this ends up unengaging.

This film 'cleverly' invents its own logic to propel an inane plot but then, so did Basic Instinct so you can hardly judge it too harshly on this point. If it works, then who cares about logic? The sad news is, this film doesn't work. Not even a little bit. Not even if you desperately want it to. People's film taste and demands change and are not the same as in 1992, so making a sequel fourteen years later with a near identical approach as the original is just a bad idea. The pseudo-dark sex games schtick is misused, overused and endlessly tiring.

What's worse is that there isn't even THAT much sex in the film, just the idea of sex and sensuality, teasing, flirting, and enticing the viewer (except it was more annoying than enticing). Morrissey and Stone have decent chemistry (no, they really do) but they have completely different ways of acting. Morrissey underacts and Stone overacts so it is painful to see them in a scene together as both methods get so highlighted and look so ridiculous juxtaposed with each other. Where's the middle-ground, people?

I don't know what Sharon Stone is trying to prove in doing this cheesy thriller because she's always been stunning and she still good great today. We all know this. But here she ends up a shamelessly vulgar old lady - the kind that makes you uncomfortable to be around - playing her silly pseudo-dark sex games and writing sexy novels, desperately trying to convince us how sensual she is in every scene. Lastly, the less said about the writing of the dialogue, the better. 3/10

Great camera settings, awesome fashion style, and, yeah... good old London- BUT- this was one of the less impressive scripts this year. Catherine Tramell's character appears to be very good looking (compliments to Sharon Stone!!!) but she's also just shallow and promiscuous. I missed Catherine's dangerous intelligence and brilliance. This time she's just a rich beautiful crazy chick, who writes bad novels and doesn't really care about anything... You don't feel her strong presence in the whole story. Maybe this is because of the weak script, but the actors made the best out of it... If sex, violence and good looking people are all you're expecting from a movie- then this film might be the right choice...

What's the statute of limitations on sequels? 5 years? 10? Unfortunately, thanks to "Star Wars" I guess all bets are off! Sharon Stone once again stars as demented horn-dog Catherine Tramell, the serial killing chain-smoker who's now living in London, killing off (or not killing off) the friends of her lover/psychiatrist and talking like she has a fetish-obsessed Raymond Chandler feeding her dialogue through a hidden earpiece. It's a real shame to watch all these grade-A Brits trying to elevate this over-baked, over-sexed, over-written shock schlock above the level of your average "Red Shoe Diaries" sequel. PLUS they ripped off the theme music from "Blood Simple" and in my book that's punishable by death! Will we see a "Basic Instinct 3" come 2027? Pray for global warming! To read more of this review (including its comic companion piece) check out www.flickskinny.com

Let me start by saying that Sharon Stone is an exceptional actress. However she tries, her acting alone cannot rescue the disaster created by the director and the script writer.

This is just a bad movie. There's nothing to hang onto in this film. The male actors are spineless unknowns that cannot counterbalance Sharon's performance -- she dominates the film, overwhelming it actually, and been given lines that just seem ridiculous.

It's so sad the Basic Instinct 2 is such a disaster. There was SO much potential -- picture this...Catherine Tremell could have married the cop in basic instinct (who could be the now-promoted head of the San Francisco police force) who now writes about world leaders and gets swept into an international drama involving the UN and an underground crime ring with a sleeper cell in San Francisco. OR something else. But, this story is so misplaced that the whole movie doesn't make sense. Catherine Tremell, 14 years later, should be more socially integrated and respected, into politics, and able to see things that others can't.

My vote: fire the director and the writer. Tell movie lovers that the whole film was a huge mistake, head back to the drawing board, and come back with something that works. I'd be ready and willing to give it a second chance as this story has incredible potential - the likes of being a series classic, like the 007 series. Don't blame Sharon Stone - she's going to take enough heat for this, even though it isn't her fault.

Sharon Stone is sharp. So sharp she perceived that since the script was so hackneyed the only way to salvage anything out of this mess was to have a seance and ask Mae West's advice about self-parody and apply the lesson to a magnificent comic turn that could rival anything from the original cast of Saturday Night Live. On every level except one this thing is derivative, silly, and an enormous waste of talented people. David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling, for instance, have always been risk takers and acted out of the box; here I guess a paycheck became more important than consideration of their parts. Only Sharon gave me my money's worth as the new Mae West and if you want to spend some time observing her high camp please go see this.

I'm trying to find a movie I could compare this movie to, but haven't been able to come up with anything. You may think that it would compare to the original Basic Instinct, but that would be an insult. Basic Instinct was a great erotic thriller that kept me interested to the very end. Basic Instinct 2 was downright boring and predictable from the start. I kept waiting for the eroticism and mystery to begin, but the only mystery was why I stayed in the theater. I guess you could say that Sharon Stone is sexually captivating...even at this age. However, if you are planning on watching this movie to see Sharon in all her splendor, you'd be better off watching the original...or surfing the web for a few minutes. The only sex scene involving S.S. was painful and amusing. You will not be missing anything if you pass on BI2, so save your money or see ANYTHING else. BI2 is an absolute bomb and can/should only be compared to Saturday "Up! All night" B- movies. By the way, I gave the movie a 3/10 because Sharon Stone is still pleasing to the eyes.

Very predictable and naive, at moments i was asking myself why, why this is happening, who wrote this ....

Lethal weapon Catherine Tramell is back with a sequel to the 1992 hit noir film Basic Instinct. Years later, the sexy blonde viper (Sharon Stone) lands in London where she pays daily visits to Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey) and once again plays a series of mind tricks with him. Dr. Glass is left with conflict between having sexual relations with her and arresting her for the murders of Adam Towers (Hugh Dancy), Denise (Indira Varma), and Roy Washburn (David Thewlis). Despite having the similar plot, this movie holds accountable for some of the silliest moments in the series. Unlike the previous film where she mostly used an ice pick to murder her victims, in Basic Instinct 2, Catherine drives over 100 mph in a car with Kevin (Stan Collymore) masturbating her and drowns the car into the Thames. This over-the-top murder method might fit more in a parody of the first movie and makes her seem like a sleazy B-movie villain. Furthermore, how nobody in Scotland Yard can be immediately suspicious about her and arrest her after she killed Kevin is anybody's case. Even the ending was a bit cheap and hokey, with Dr. Glass getting arrested and taken to a mental ward. Instead of killing him like she did in the last film, she leaves him her bestseller and some more predatory manipulation. Basic Instinct 2 is nothing more than a lame sequel with very little suspense and not much erotic undercurrent. (1 ½ Chinese Dominatrices out of 5)