User reviews

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.

A lot of people are tearing up this film. Although I didn't think it was a great, I didn't think it should be thrown into the same bin as Gigli.

The movie is somewhat predictably unpredictable which is either a good or a bad thing. Sharon Stone does a good job bringing her character back to life although the performance seemed somewhat repetitive.

The thing this movie did best was building up sexual tension between characters. From beginning to end you could cut the tension with a knife. Very real and raw, even with the acting being sub-par.

I was moderately entertained, yet I did look at my watch a few times. I am by no means saying this is a great film, but if your looking for something risky, sexual, raw, entertaining at times, and completely different than whats out there, then this is the movie to see.

The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous. The plot is awful...but on the plus side the acting is pretty good, with a few good shouts and rants. Sharon stone is OK this time...not even half as good as the original mind you. The murders aren't as gory as the first one either, which is a shame. Its not the unpredictable mess everyone say it is though. The sex is pretty graphic at times while others it is clear it is fake (they are fully clothed). The script is weak most of the time, but the scenes with banter and arguments between Dr.Glass and Washburn are highlights. The plot twists a few times, but the ending is awful. The tension is always constant with a huge dollop of 'Oh my god!'. The chase sequences are brilliantly directed, and shots and camera angles are impressive and bring a bit of class to an otherwise, rush-felt film. Sharon stone is a bit old for this too. The bits where we see her breasts were, in the first one, delights. This time around, they are too horrid to describe. The films its self is rather average, but it is worth a go. Mainly because the film does deserve some good buzz...with the opening sequence being a highlight. Not to be critical, but if you liked the first one - leave this one. Don't ruin the run. You'll be glad you left this stone unturned.

Basic Instinct 2 a.k.a as Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction is an erotic thriller film and the sequel to 1992's Basic Instinct. The film was directed by Michael Caton-Jones and stars Sharon Stone, David Morrissey, Charlotte Rampling, David Thewlis and Indira Varma.

Catherine Tramell is once again a suspect after her boyfriend is killed, Psychoanalyst Michael Glass examines her but eventually entranced by her seductive and manipulative nature.

There might be mixed reviews for this film and most of the viewers must be comparing with the first part which is always there whenever there is a squeal and most of the viewers must've disappointed. I watched the film without any comparison and tried to watch the film from a fresh perspective but still got disappointed mainly due to loose approach towards the making of the film and under-cooked characters.

The plot of both the films is almost similar with almost similar execution, the character is also not chosen wisely, it seems that Sharon Stone had completely outshone the character played by David Morrissey and he looked like a second string character.

Screenplay of the film is average and doesn't excites much, the climax of film is senseless and doesn't gives any purpose to make this film.

Acting is average and apart from Sharon Stone none of the character has been effective and is easily forgotten.

Overall an average film with nothing new and exciting to offer, erotic thriller lovers might enjoy the film.

It seems fashionable to hate this movie, put the blame on Sharon Stone and try everything to throw this movie into the "Bottom 100" slot. I will try my best to judge this movie decently.

First of all, the question we all wanted this movie to answer: Is Sharon Stone still as hot as she was 14 years ago? The answer must be Yes. Stone still does look radiant, thanks to plastic surgery, good make-up artists, sexy dresses and -- in her (very few) sex scenes -- body doubles.

Is Stone convincing in her part of Catherine Tramell? Sure she is. Stone is one of the best (and most underrated) actresses in Hollywood. She did great in part one, and she did a convincing job in the sequel. After 14 years of preparation, she knows Catherine Tramell inside out.

What did I like about this movie? First of all, I was thrilled to see Charlotte Rampling again. She is one of the most beautiful women in the world (still!), and she does fine in her part. I pity that she hasn't got more scenes. There were several supporting actors who made this movie worth watching: Indira Varma, David Thewlis, Hugh Dancy, Heathcote Williams, Kata Dobó. Sad thing that each of them only has three scenes or even less. (If you look closely, you can briefly spot André Schneider from "Deed Poll" as an extra at the police station.) The movie looks cool and stylish, but after all this is a big budget movie, so I do expect good editing, fine photography and art direction. With a budget of about 80 million dollars, one CAN expect a good-looking movie, I think.

The weakest spot of "Basic Instinct 2" is David Morrissey who has to carry the movie. (He's got more scenes than Stone, and the story is told from his point of view, after all.) He's an accomplished stage actor, and he's made some good movie appearances (i.e. in "Drowning by Numbers" or "The Suicide Club"), but this was certainly one of his bleakest ones. He just couldn't deal with the part, sometimes he's unintentionally funny, especially in the end when he's become crazy.

The script. My oh my! The first draft was finished in the late 1990s, and they kept re-writing and re-writing it over and over and over. Michael Caton-Jones, who made "City by the Sea" and "Shooting Dogs", two little masterpieces, stated that he had to change it practically every day while they were already filming because it just didn't work. In the end, "Basic Instinct 2" is overlong, and it tries to surprise the audience so much that it gets ridiculously boring. In the end, you just don't care anymore whether Catherine did it or not. The script alone would have sufficed for a made-for-TV mystery, but...

There are some things about Miss Stone's make-up. She IS hot. She has aged damn well. She's almost 50 and looks like 42. By trying to make her look like 25, they kind of made her face look like wax. Why?

I used to think that Basic Instinct was a pretty empty movie, more famous for that one scene than anything else. After finally sitting through the entire movie (I had previously only seen er.. snatches) the original is actually quite a decent thriller. The plot is just plausible enough and Verhoeven clever enough to keep that sense of suspense and tension all the way through the film.

In Basic Instinct 2, Sharon Stone still looks great, and the performances were pretty good overall, arguably better than in the first film, especially that of Thewlis. The problem is that we already know what the main character is like so there is no longer any suspense there. This means that there is much greater emphasis on the plot - we have to believe that Stone's adversary could buy her version of the story without being a complete idiot. Unfortunately the plot is very weak and predictable - with a climactic scene which is simply not believable. So when the denouement comes at the end where everything is explained, it's a big yawn since it was all pretty obvious and not very plausible.

Catherine Trammel is back to write (and act out) another horror novel in Basic Instinct 2.

After being accused of his murder, Catherine is assigned to psyhctiarist Dr. Michael Glass for a complete evaluation. He deems her to be a risk addict, willing to do whatever it takes to feel a thrill and to have taken a risk. He starts seeing her on a regular basis as a client, and she reveals to him that she is aware of his past. Over a year ago, Michael had a patient who ended up killing his pregnant wife which has left him with a lot of guilt.

A reporter, who is also sleeping with Michael's ex wife and Catherine, decides to write a negative article on him and his handling of the patient. The reporter eventually ends up dead, with viewers of course seeing that Trammel is the main suspect. Eventually, a few more people around Michael start dying as well which prompts the police to stop pointing the finger at Trammel and onto him. Will the truth come out, or will Dr. Glass be perfectly framed for a series of brutal killings

Basic Instinct 2 is such a let down after a wonderful original film. It just felt like an inferior film in pretty much every single category. A big flaw with Basic Instinct 2 is that Catherine has become an annoyance to the male protagonist and not a sexual being who is meant to ravished. She seems to follow around Michael like a lost puppy looking for a thrill or to take a risk, but it comes off like she is a nuisance. Stone and Morrissey lacked the chemistry that was there in the original with Michael Douglas for sure.

Another flaw was the sex scenes and the sexual dialogue. I thought some of the stuff in the original was teetering on exploitative, but Basic Instinct 2 takes it to the ultimate cheap level. Catherine isn't as sleek and mysterious with her sexuality and sensuality. In this one, she simply says sexual words and phrases which is almost meant to turn Michael on and I guess shock the viewer. It failed to be impactful.

I give Basic Instinct 2 credit and marks for keeping my attention with it's mystery, but it is an inferior film to the original product. It isn't a must see.

4/10

"She captivated moviegoers with her raw sensuality and steel heart. Now Sharon Stone is back as the notorious crime novelist Catherine Tramell. This time she proves to be respected criminal psychologist Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey)'s deadliest challenge. With professional boundaries blurred by obsession, Dr. Glass is lured into a murderous web of lies and deceit and begins a torrid affair with Tramell that takes him to the point of no return. As their passions rise, so does the body count - and Dr. Glass faces a choice that will change his life forever," according to the DVD sleeve description.

This belated follow-up to "Basic Instinct" (1992) has Ms. Stone's original novelist character going after Mr. Glass' psychiatrist character like she went after Michael Douglas' "Shooter" cop in the original, or does she… The picture wants to re-open the question about who is killing off the cast. If there is some conclusive answer to that question, it passed me by. After the film reaches mid-point, you begin not to care, anyway. Stone looks like she may be positioning herself to go under the knife one too many times; she looks sexier and more natural in a "special features" interview. Others simply fill space.

**** Basic Instinct 2 (3/21/06) Michael Caton-Jones ~ David Morrissey, Sharon Stone, David Thewlis, Charlotte Rampling

Catherine Tramell, Sharon Stone's icy, bisexual murder suspect from the classic '90s thriller Basic Instinct, is now living in London, where she undergoes therapy with a respected criminal psychologist (David Morrissey). Dr Michael Glass diagnoses Catherine as a sufferer of "risk addiction", while at the same time growing obsessed with his mysterious patient, who may be responsible for a series of murders.

Sharon Stone's sex appeal does not translate in this belated sequel. Don't get me wrong, this is not due to her age, but more the fact that she appears to be trying too hard to appear sexy. While the original film wrote Catherine as a manipulative, icy and irresistible temptress, similar characterization is ignored here, leaving Stone to stand around in revealing outfits and recite embarrassingly graphic dialogue. Then there's the constant filter on her face, as well as the volley-ball breast implants positioned so far apart that you can practically drive a car through her cleavage. If the film didn't go so far out of its way to make her appear young, she just might have gotten away with it.

The murder plot treads similar ground as the first film, even down to the positioning of the bodies (naked man in bed, somebody bleeding to death in a closed room). But unlike the original, the writers don't utilize Catherine's possible guilt well enough. Something about the whole character is phony, and she's definitely not the same woman we were introduced to in 1992. Despite her top billing, Stone disappears for long periods of time, leaving David Morrissey (adequate, but no Michael Douglas) to put the clues together and reach some kind of conclusion to the mystery.

Strangely for a movie claiming to be an erotic thriller, scenes of a sexual nature are few and far between. Even a trip to a sleazy London orgy comes off less as an arousing thrill and more pretty depressing, seeing Catherine reduced to underground bars and back-alleys to get her kicks. But, thinking about it, I guess that was what they were trying to do with the whole "risk addiction" thing.

In the end, Basic Instinct 2 is pretty desperate. Sharon Stone appears desperate to prove she is an attractive 40-something, the script features dialogue that doesn't even reach Joe Esterhazs quality, and the amount of phallic imagery (key-chain trinkets, giant penis buildings...) is pretty damn hilarious. When a trashy thriller like this fails in terms of both erotic thrills and genuine mystery, you know there's something seriously wrong.

Rating: D

Any trace that the first Basic Instinct film still lingers in the filmmakers memory is short and sharp in Basic Instinct 2 with the references consisting of Tramell (Stone) standing next to a block of ice and stabbing it with a pick. But it is not just the visual references that are sparse, it is the look and feel of the original that also lacks here, in a rather disappointing and woeful 'whodunit' film aimed at an audience that is old enough to be able to watch sex and violence but stupid enough not to notice a daft narrative and silly script.

The things I'm referring to when I say the certain charm of the first one is lacking mainly consists of the atmosphere. I wrote about the first one that it felt eerily like a horror film of sorts with short, sharp bursts of music firing up at certain points and what with the brutal murder happening in the opening scene complete with accompanying music, it went a long way in setting up an eerie presence and ominous atmosphere. Here, the first scene also goes a long way in setting up atmosphere and tone – for all the wrong reasons. Tramell and a footballer (played by Stan Collymore, no less!) speed along in a CGI car at 110 mph in an urban, built up area. They go through tunnels, through streets and crash over bridges before ending up in a river – the look on Collymore's face as he comes to terms with his predicament, the sexual activity that leads up to the crash and the generally odd looking environment the two are driving around in do more wrong than right.

So with what we think is the initial incident set up, it is the turn of the British police to interrogate Tramell as to what happened, echoing the events of the first film when she is collected for the interrogation but there is no cop sneaking a glance at her as she dresses for the occasion, nor is there any incidental cross-legging in the police station – what a shame some might say after all, that is one of the more memorable moments from the first film. But Basic Instinct 2 does not have any particularly memorable moments at all. So, what do we learn of Tramell when she is being spoken to by Roy Washburn (Thewlis, complete with odd Welsh accent). The answer is nothing much apart from that she is up to her old tricks again; Tramell still has the one-liners but she does not have the script writer to back her up, Tramell has the confidence and the attractiveness but she does not have a good male foil in the form of Michael Glass (Morrissey) to back the film itself up. A little sample of her dialogue this time round consists of things like: "Is this where we'll do it?"; "A hundred and ten, we must've hit a pot hole" and "I may never cum again" – all to men and all for supposed fun.

But apart from the screenplay, which actually get worse when a Scottish reporter in a rather cheesy manner says "I'll take that as a no then" after Glass rips up his business card and leaves, it's the narrative and general logic of the characters that suffers. Glass is a psychiatrist but is conned into temptation and lust too easily for my liking; here is a man who's a doctor; who's an educated man that remains sexually active despite his credentials and yet Tramell seems to get his to think what she wants. So the character background is there but we pick up on Glass' life as he enters a bad patch of madness since over the course of the next fortnight, he'll tell a waitress "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" in a jovial manner; he fingers evidence at a crime scene and even manages to throw a piece of evidence away; he has all the clues spend so much time under his nose, that it's not even funny and manages to fall for a woman he has already rejected after she describes what sleeping with her is like. This is indeed a frantic and brain-dead fortnight in the life of Michael Glass.

In the thriller genre, the film's crucible is where the grip is tightened as the audience edge ever closer to their seats edge since events happen, things occur and we see characters for what they might really be, but not here. Glass reads Tramell's book but when the events in the book actually happen, Glass cannot put it together. Things that Tramell actually tell him begin to happen like the "ever visited a crime scene before?" quote – sure enough Glass is at a crime scene later on and the guy has a belt around the neck, just like in the book. After these little occurrences, Basic Instinct 2 goes down a route that would confuse even those who have spent their life studying Luis Buñuel films. I say this because the film descends into a progression random and bizarre scenes; my favourite of which was when Glass followed Tramell to the red light district and watches her partake in an orgy – they stare at each other through the skylight in an odd and seemingly pointless exchange. Then there is the scene at Tramell's apartment when they have an altercation in her Jacuzzi – again, I was not fully understanding the logic behind showing such a scene especially since it isn't revisited later on. By the end, we are left disappointed, angry and somewhat sorry for what we have sat through with too many incidences taking place and not enough answers following them.

No Basic Instinct 2 is not the monstrously unbearable film it's been made out to be personally i believe that this movie has received low ratings because it didn't top the original and because it starred Sharon Stone whose movies may be Razzie worthy but whose performances are never Razzie worthy.Basic Instinct 2 follows novelist Catherine tramell being questioned for the murder of a soccer star and going through psychiatric treatment on her own terms, Catherine soon plays a seductive game with her psychiatrist getting him into loads of trouble.I'm just going to go out and say that no this film does not live up to the original and no it's not that great of a movie in general but this movie needs to stop taking it up the @$$ from a bunch of p*ssed off fanboys or people who expect everything to be an original motion picture that will leave them breathless.Basic Instinct 2 has a pretty interesting plot but the pacing is so horrible you lose interest very fast but there is always a scene that brings back your intrigue and keeps you wanting to watch.The character of Catherine Tramell is played flawlessly by the still sexy Sharon Stone who gives a performance full of greed,sex,seduction,insanity,intelligence, and just pure evil.The look in Sharon's eyes during this movie is that of a snake sneaking up on it's prey, knowing it's prey's every move, waiting to strike when the time is right.The rest of the cast gives very ho hum boring performances and while the entire cast is believable as their characters there nearly expressionless faces just end up giving you the want for more Catherine Tramell.Like the first film there is a lot of explicit sex and Sharon stone shows her still magnificent body off in sex scenes that appear to be just full of violence and aggression.The movie is very slow moving and doesn't promise the kind of film the opening sequence leads it on to be.At the beginning you get this very pulp noir film but soon it just turns to a film about psychiatry with boring lighting and boring visual effects.A lot of the dialogue can't be heard over the very overbearing background noise that drowns out the actors voices.The dialogue is brilliantly dirty and definitely intelligent and original, Sharon Stones line delivery is perfect and hauntingly beautiful as is her character.Overall this is a very boring, silly, movie but with good acting and fantastic dialogue yes it is a pretty bad film but not to the degree that people have brought it to.Sharon Stone and the writers of this movie deserve better than to be viewed as making one of the worst movies ever made.Overall a so so movie that is enjoyable because of Sharon Stone's performance.

Basic Instinct was a classic as it came out in the early 90's. It's sexual contents and the erotic chemistry between Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas made it one of the movies that most people new. It brought something new into the movies, although the same kind of erotic thrillers were already available as paperback novels.

The question that rises always before actually watching a sequel to a movie is, that why does one actually make those movies. The same question rises also when watching this film: Basic Instinct 2. Whereas the first one is thrilling, the second part has none of that chemistry. The only one doing a decent role is Sharon Stone.

David Morissey wasn't a name for me before this film and I have to say that although he was not really bad, he lacked everything that Michael Douglas had. Perhaps one of the reason was also that the director of the movie wasn't at the level of the first one and neither was the whole script.

Basic Instinct 2 is not really a movie that one should see. It doesn't have any really thrilling moments and it is lacking in every aspect that would make it a good and entertaining movie.

When you don't have the original protagonist,director,writer,producer and score maestro you know that the movie is going to sucks (to say least) and thats exactly what this movie is SUCKS!.

You can't see that this movie was made because the huge ego of Sharon Stone simple like that.At least a couple of this kind of movies came out in the lapse of this movie and the original (14 years)and some of them was very good.

But in the case of this movie this is not case Don't get me wrong the movie have a great cast (David Thewlis,Charlotte Rampling,David Morrisey)the simply don't have any surprises and in the begging of the second act you can guess how is going to end.

Don't waste you time they are a lot of better thrillers out there the only thing you gonna see is the decline of a great actress and a movie made it because of she ego.

I understand why a sequel to this movie was made. The original had so much to offer. It's a fantastic mystery that somehow convinced you to feel sorry for the beautiful rich woman who always got what she wanted. She even got away with murder. The sequel however lacked the ability to carry over the suspense, the intrigue or a script that didn't seem to completely be a rip off of the original only with more names and more twists than you can imagine making it hard to follow at times. Sharon Stone looked fantastic and the cast was great. The acting was good for what this script offered. Personally I wish they would have just left it alone. Basic Instinct is still one of my favorite movies and you can't duplicate that feeling.

I was thinking the same thing many of you were when I learned that this movie was being made (and then eventually debuted in 2006). Why make a sequel to Basic Instict? Still, even wondering "why" this movie was made, I knew that I would eventually sit down and watch it. The original was nothing great, but at the time of its' release (1992) Basic Instinct turned our heads because it was a film that Sharon Stone sold (cause of her good looks, the fact that the role of Catherine Trammell was one that she "made", her uncrossing of her legs, and some wild sex scenes). Seriously. You mention Basic Instinct and the first thing out of people's mouths is talking about Stone's character. In a nutshell, she made that movie. I am not saying that Verhooven did not do a good job directing it, or that Douglas was a slouch. But we all know damn well that Stone was the star of Basic Instinct. I am saying this simply because I think that is why this sequel was greenlit. But, 14 years removed from the first one, there are some painful realizations here. First is the fact that Stone is not the star she was back in the early to mid ninties. Second is the fact that (in this day and age) nothing seems to be "controversial" anymore when it regards the subject of sex. I mean, back in 1992, Stone uncrossing her legs made major waves. You do that now and it barely even registers on the newsline. Even as painful as these two realizations are, I am willing to bet that had this sequel been made, say in 1995, then Stone could have sold it by herself. But in 2006, and after watching Basic Instinct 2, I think we can all agree that this movie should never have been made.

Now, the film does start off with a promising beginning, in which Stone's character, Catherine Trammell, is speeding down the streets of London with some guy who is all doped up on some sort of drug. I say promising cause she is driving at 110 MPH while she is helping the guy get her off while she drives. Now, I am sorry, but I found this to be "hot", and I was once again reminded why Stone (as Trammell) made me have "happy, happy thoughts" when she played her in Basic Instinct. Even at the age of 47 or 48, Stone looks good. I don't care if she has had plastic surgery. Stone is freaking hot at her age. But after this scene is done, the movie becomes a mess.

As was done in the first film, BI2 asks us the same question, "Is Catherine Trammell a murderer?". Now, the element that is added to BI2 with this question is that we learn Trammell has a "Risk Addiction". In fact, we are to believe that she thrives on it. From the opening sequence (speeding car while masturbating) we see evidence that supports this theory. But, the movie loses this element once Trammell starts to try and manipulate her therapist (who is about as bland an actor as I have seen). Don't get me wrong. When Stone plays Trammell as the manipulator, it works. Thing is, in Basic Instinct, you could never quite figure out if Trammell really was a killer. Heck, to this day, there are people who still believe that she was the killer in Basic Instinct. But in BI2, it is so easy to see through her. You know darn well that she is not killing anybody. Manipulating things? Oh yes, she does do that. Killer? Nope. Now, had the movie focused more on the "risk addiction" theme, I think we could have had a better, more interesting story. But what BI2 tried to become is Basic Instinct all over again....just 14 years later. And that just does not suffice.

The twists and turns in BI2 seems to be thrown together, without any explanation as to why they are happening. And the sex scenes? Well, nothing really to write about here cause you saw it all in the first film (minus the orgy). Douglas and Tripplehorn did the "doggy style" scene that we saw in BI2....only the one in BI is better and had more tension in it. No ice pick stabbing while having sex. In fact, there really isn't a lot of sex in BI2. So, nothing to write about as far as the sex scenes go.

Overall, the movie should not have been made. Having said that, I still think Stone did as good a job in BI2. I did not feel that she "forced" any of her lines, especially the ones in which she is manipulating people. She knows how to play Trammell, and this turned out to be the lone bright spot of BI2.

There really isn't much to say about this movie except you'll be waiting for it to end after the first scene. The only thing that keeps your attention is Sharon Stone's hot 50 year old body --which you don't get to see until the final few scenes. The movie ends so ridiculously that you wish you hadn't watched it to begin with. This movie is about as good as the first which doesn't say much. It's nothing to be remembered except for a 50 year old's body who looks like she's 30. Need plastic surgery or a cool haircut? Rent this movie. Want to watch a good movie? Don't rent this. It's a waste of 4 bucks and even a bigger waste if you buy it.

First I wasn't going to watch this movie at all. I loved The great movie Basic Instinct, have seen it something like 4-5 times. I knew that Stone is too old for this film, or is she? Well, curiosity won. I like Sharon Stone and I was kind of interested of what would happen in this one.

Directing was okay, pretty dark atmosphere, Stone acted OK (and looked lot better than I expected..), no other big names in actors list but seemed to work OK, script was predictable but OK, some funny moments, really stupid ending.

I guess that defines it. If you like Sharon Stone or/and liked Basic Instinct, I guess this is worth of watching. Still I wouldn't pay lot to see this again. Don't take it too seriously, it's sarcastic movie and doesn't seem to be made too seriously. It's for few hours of little fun only.

I give it 4/10, if I didn't like Sharon nor Basic Instinct it would have been 1 or 2 / 10. Hope you get something out of this comment.

We all know what they say about sequels and this movie is a prime example of the saying "You cant have a sequel half as good as the First One" and this case lets face it- the original though entertaining had its flaws as well.

Needless to say I went into this movie expecting nothing more a few erotic moments (read as steamy scenes)peppered with a few genuinely sexually charged moments and some good chemistry between the hopefully hot Sharon stone and the other guy. This I daresay was not much at all and all in all besides this i expected quite a trashy movie.

And trash is exactly what I got minus the few expectations i had from the movie. The chemistry was non existent , the scenes were trash and Sharon stone looked bad.

Any person who went to the movie expecting what i did can safely just scroll down to the end of my review as the next part of the review is the unfortunate by product of having to see the movie as a normal movie and not a simple b-grade sequel.

The acting in this movie is strictly OK. Sharon Stone's seduction and mind games parts border on hamming (and trust me a cosmetically and possible surgically enhanced 47 year old Sharon stone looks bad almost in every scene, her hair especially felt like it had gone through multiple treatments). David Morrissey displays no acting talent here. The only saving grace are the supporting cast who act out their brief roles comfortably and efficiently, special mention for David Thewlis who seems absolutely believable as the tough cop and Indira Varma who is thought was B-movie semi porn actress but who is actually much better than that ( sorry but ks was the only yardstick i had until now).

The script of the film had looked like it could have had some potential but the shoddy acting and OK direction made sure we never saw any of it.

The characters are all unidimensional and boring , even a child could see what Sharon's character is doing in the film yet we are to believe a trained psychologist can only stand and watch the ruining of his life. What bullocks.

Not to mention the this movie does not benefit from "The Scene" from the first movie and save for one appropriate and disturbing scene in the film (which does not involve Sharon) the movies sex scenes all seem forced and badly executed.

The only good part about the movie was the background score which added some excitement and tension to scenes which the actors were hamming to, there are a few scenes (mainly towards the beginning of the movie) that are likable and the background score plays a major part in that.

But.............that said i didn't really get that bored in this movie and the only reason i can think off that is satisfied a burning curiosity in me, and having being satiated and realising i was right, i felt content once i left this movie.

That being said the above reason is probably the only reason why you should be seeing this movie otherwise avoid it and see the Unrated DVD (which I'm sure is round the corner) instead.

p.s I've changed the rating from 3 to 4 an back 2 times while writing this review