User reviews

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.

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.

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.

So, Basic Instinct 2... as crap as they say? Nope, just very average. I've seen hundreds of worse movies. As good as the first one? Nope, lightyears away actually. Worth watching? I only wanted to see this because I loved the 1st movie and Catherine Tramell's character. So after reading the reviews, and expecting the worst, I went to see it anyway.

The premise is an interesting one, unfortunately the producers hired the writers of "Desperately Seeking Susan". WTF? Why?! The result is a by-the-numbers screenplay without much excitement, sex scenes or murders. The problem is that audiences have become used to the fact that sequels are supposed to at least try to be bigger than the original movies they're based on. But here, it's a much smaller film. Apart from the opening scene, there's no action at all. Lots of mind manipulation through dialogue instead. It kind of works since when the end comes it becomes harder to be sure of the killer's identity. Did Tramell do it? One minute you're sure of it, the next other possibilities are creeping in your mind. I enjoyed that aspect of the film, even if it's far, very very far from a masterpiece.

Sharon Stone camps it up big time compared to her performance in the original, but I thought she was fun to watch, and even though she definitely doesn't look 30 anymore, she's still good as the evil temptress.

I wouldn't consider this movie a horrible movie, like others are saying. Sure it is nothing like the first one and filmed 14 years later. I wouldn't rate it with LOTR's or godfather and i wouldn't rate it lower than son of the mask or any of those other movies.

I give it a five because it is still a good enough movie to sit and watch. Maybe not to see a half a dozen times at the movie theater but still a good movie to watch.

Sharon Stone still looks pretty good for being as old as she is. She played a role that is very sexy and i think she still pulled it off. Maybe not with flying colors but she still had the sex appeal.

I agree, the movie shouldn't be in the theaters for too long. I think it will do better in the DVD part.

Why are people "disappointed" after Basic Instinct I? Didn't anyone notice that that was a cartoon? It had silly dialogue, phony drama, unbelievable relationships and psychology. Costumes, hot girls, the crotch shot, that's what Basic Instinct I was about.

Basic Instinct II is an agglomeration of small pleasures. Unfortunately it lacks the steamy sex and lingering seduction scenes that would have made it fun to watch on a scene-by-scene basis, but I say you can still salvage a fair evening's entertainment out of this harmless film if you let yourself in on the joke.

Enjoy David Thewlis's performance as a fixated and demented cop, the grimy little investigative journalists, the murders, the scruffy, half-buttoned costumes, the vault-like sets, London's rainy streets, Sharon Stone's surprise hairdos, and David Morrissey's puffy-faced vulnerability. It's also fun and different to see a mature seductress in Sharon Stone. Don't ask for acting; what you get is mugging and mouthing off and posing, and Stone is fine at it.

I must admit that I didn't really care who was committing the murders, but I felt a bit of suspense and was mildly amused by the ending.

So all in all it was better than washing dishes or watching a DVD I've already seen a hundred times. Why not?

Speed limits could be one of those things - no pun intended. And it brings us to the very first scene - the way the movie starts off. And a sequel where it doesn't seem necessary for you to know the first part. Sharon Stone playing the ... write/femme fatale once more - and with quite the gusto. While I remember her complaining about a particular scene (and the nudity it involved) from part 1, she doesn't seem to mind getting naked for this one.

Of course that doesn't mean her character is weak - quite the opposite is the case. But while the first movie was lingering in the shadows, letting us the audience do the guessing and not revealing too much (not talking skin wise, so pun intended) ... this one is quite definitive with what it tells us. And that is not just the ending - I do wonder though about the alternate ending ... couldn't find it and it is one of the issues with streaming movies - the absence of special features like this.

All that being said, the main character (besides Stone), is supposed to have quite the journey ... from controlled to losing that control ... actually there is a deleted scene where Stones character reveals her plan ... sort of. But there is too much based on luck and things going a certain way ... just the fact that the car crash from the start seems to not matter at all ... is kind of crazy. I don't know the US legal system but it does seem to easy to get away from ... well for certain individuals that is of course ... the main character is interesting and intriguing ... but it probably is for the best it has not come again (get your mind out of the ... actually you may not be wrong about this one ...)

Friday evening, i am bored trying to find something to do and I end up in the same TV-coach as always. I spot the highly criticized Basic instinct 2 and bored as I am deciding to give it a shot.

I cant say that the movie was very well directed but I've seen worse! The script is not terrific but it is good enough to not laughing your ass out while watching it. Sometimes the movie actually is exciting and compared with 300 which everyone seemed to love in the cold North I'm from, it is a freaking masterpiece!! I except everyones view of the movie but not everyones attitude. If you avoid seeing it go see it! I actually know people that say it is better then the first one which i have not seen.

LESS MAJESTIC than it's predecessor,BI2 came out 14 years later,and the waiting made the audience's expectations grow enormously,and in the meantime,Sharon reached 40..the N0-NO age-to-be in Hollywood. Even before it was released,BI2 was hued by the critics=the audience. Audiences going to see BI2 already know who and what Catherine is,unlike in the first part where we had to find the identity of the killer and i think that BI2 should've taken us into an immersion of Catherine's private world,instead it's an exact replica of the first BI,with less suspense and much less screen magic. The direction by Michael caton-jones is doubty and really fails to grip ur attention.Too bad cause Catherine's superb character is somewhat wasted by mediocre direction and screenplay.. u can even sense that Catherine in BI2 is a bit over the top,and we don't see any of that brilliant passionate evil yet vulnerable persona,instead she's dry and plastic but her manipulation is so delicious. SO, BI2 doesn't live up to the standard of the first part, but it's not bad either.could have been great with better direction.

well, she looks hot for her age. that we knew without seeing' the movie. The movie is based on sex more than on a real story, the doctor who fell in love with his patient. let's be serious. script sucks. you can know how the movie will end up from the beginning. Though i appreciated the beginning and i thought the movie will be like kick ass. It's like you're trying to sell a gum to little kids. and for commercial issues, u put spaceman's image on it. same happens to this movie. I call it Sharon's Instinct ^^ If a commercial to Pepsi or something would have appeared @ the end, the movie would have been perfect. Commercial like a LOT. i give it a 5

so here's my question, did basic instinct 2 flop because no one wants to see a woman sharon stone's age naked, or did basic instinct 2 flop because it sucked? the day this movie came out i accidentally found myself listening to the tom lycos radio program (i'm sure i've misspelled his name, but do not have enough respect for him to check) as he repeated himself, like a skipping record, for the entire two hour show (i only heard fifteen minutes of it, but know the topic continued after i reached my bile limit.) his main, and only, point was that the sole reason basic instinct 2 was such a loser at the box office was because no one wants to see 48(?) year-old sharon stone naked. i don't necessarily think this is the reason for the lack of audience turn-out. the type of person to attend a film screening because he might see some t****** will turn out to see them droopy or not. basically if you're so simple minded that you will allow the sight of breasts to dictate the decisions you make you are not suddenly going to discriminate because one pair is firmer then another.

Making a sequel to Basic Instinct isn't the worst idea in the world. Catherine Trammell remains an exciting and fascinating heroine and I'm sure a lot of people would like that have seen what she was up to these days. Their biggest mistake was toning down the sexuality.

The original Basic Instinct is still, to this day, one of the sexiest and most controversial mainstream films of all time. The fact that a film that sexually frank (and also violent) played in suburban theaters to middle brow audiences is a bit of a miracle. Why did Basic Instinct 2 feel the need to tone that down and become respectable.

Basic Instinct 2 isn't that bad. It's competently made with good actors and well lit/shot. If this were a made for TV rip off of the original film, people would probably love it, but it's not and that's the main issue - it refuses to take risks like the original did. Where the original film was sexually explicit and shockingly violent at times, this sequel takes a much more subdued approach. Sure, it could still be considered shocking to an audience of nuns or schoolchildren, but it's nowhere near as daring as the original.

It's still nice to see for Sharon Stone, who looks gorgeous (in spite of some unfortunate bangs).

"Basic Instincts 2" is like watching a train wreck unfolding, and you can't take your eyes off it. "Basic Instincts 2" is mesmerizing trash at its best, and some of the glossiest camp. No, this is not praise for Director Michael Caton-Jones's sequel to the 1992 erotic thriller, rather an experiential indictment. Sharon Stone, returning as the deadly author and sexual predator Catherine Tramell, is great and at her smoldering best. The movie itself is not so great. Stone reprises her star breakthrough role of Catherine from "Basic Instincts". Granted the original "Basic Instincts" was a somewhat predictable erotic thriller notorious for the crotch baring scene of Stone. However, Stone's screen magnetism and brazen portrayal elevated her to stardom. In "Basic Instincts 2" Stone's smoldering swagger as the all devouring sexual predator Catherine is the only compelling aspect of the movie. Sharon Stone looks absolutely stunning. Caton-Jones's 'Instincts 2' is sleek and stylish looking too, but the shiny objects eventually tarnish.

The story by Leora Barish and Henry Bean opens with a bang—so to speak. Catherine (Stone) drives while climaxing in her sports car tearing through the streets of London with drugged out boy toy soccer star Kevin Franks (played by soccer star Stan Collymore) and crashes into the river. Fortunately, Catherine is able to escape the car and surface to safety. Held in custody along with circumstantial evidence for the murder of her lover by Detective Roy Washburn (David Thewlis), Catherine undergoes a psychological profile with psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey). Dr. Glass possesses his own demons—a patient under his watch murdered his girl friend after confessing his desire to do so. Glass suffered a 7 year meltdown during which time his wife Denise (Indira Varma) left him for reporter Adam Towers (Hughe Darcy). Towers writes a story about Glass's mishap. Glass predictably is aroused and drawn to Catherine (Stone), and renders his diagnosis to the courts that Catherine suffers from "risk addiction". Convoluted? Yes. Preposterous? Absolutely. Barish and Bean's screenplay begins superfluously complex then quickly spirals into the completely ridiculous. The resolution of "Basic Instincts 2" is either revisionist genius or just plain embarrassing. I lean to the latter.

One of the many miscalculations of "Basic Instincts 2" is that Morrissey's Glass folds under the shear force and charisma of Stone's Catherine. Morrissey is a good actor, but may have been woefully miscast. His Glass is more sensitive and complicated as opposed to the dangerously trapped animal. For a sexual thriller "Basic Instincts 2" seems more camp than erotic—compared to its predecessor. Another miscalculation. The lurid discourse between Tramell and Glass at times although unintentional, bordered on ludicrous. Shockingly given such glossy camp, Stone isn't more naked to compensate for the dreadful writing. This will likely be amended in the DVD director's cut release. Barish and Bean's narrative mess does retain unintentional entertainment value.

The performances under Caton-Jones's direction are scattered. Morrissey as Glass suffers valiantly under the weight of an ill conceived character. Indira Varma is interesting as Glass's scorned ex-wife who is sleeping with reporter Adam Towers (Darcy). Both Varma and Darcy's roles are mere plot devices. David Thewlis is convincing as Detective Washburn, who strangely is obsessed with convicting Catherine. The great Charlotte Rampling fairs better as Glass's mentor Milena Gardosh who warns him, "You're falling in love with her." Other than Stone as Catherine, she is the only one who apparently retains her wits. Ultimately, "Basic Instincts 2" is all about Sharon Stone's Catherine Tramell. As Catherine, Stone is the icon of icy cool and deadly sexuality. This time around she strips Catherine of any vulnerability. She is merciless. Oddly enough that works for her. Watching her as Catherine is the only compelling aspect of "Basic Instincts 2". As mind bending stupid as the movie devolves, one is captivated by what Stone as Catherine will do next. Consequently, that may warrant waiting to see a better Sharon Stone movie.

It's neither a soft core porno film nor a cop thriller. One of the main reasons why the audience has been expecting this film was to find out whether Sharon Stone would be up to the fame of sexy icon. Well, this is one of the most unerotic flicks I've ever seen, though Catherine Trammel is very attractive for the age she is (48). Basically it's the same plot as the one starring Michael Douglas, except for the setting moved from US (San Francisco) to UK (London) but having nothing thrilling of its predecessor. In fact Douglas kept off this sequel, in reason I could say, whereas Sharon Stone wanted to invigorate her image and accepted that useless role.

So the acting is cringe worthy at most parts but was this a needed sequel? No!!! Did I enjoy it? Yes! Was it as good as the first one?! Absolutely not. Just let the bad reviews go, as a fan of how crazy the first one is, I didn't think it was as bad as the reviewes were.

The primary reasons for seeing "Basic Instinct 2" are to find out if it's as bad as people say it is and Sharon Stone. Concerning its reputed badness, I have to say "BI2" wasn't nearly as awful as I was expecting, which was a disappointment in itself. Whereas the predecessor gleefully catered to the audience's baser instincts, the sequel tries to pass itself off as a sophisticated psychological thriller, director Michael Caton-Jones doing his best smother the movie's camp potential beneath a blue-tinted English chill.

Fortunately, Sharon Stone cannot be so easily tamed. Having spent much of her career trying to grow as an actress, playing moms and cuckolded wives and death row inmates (yet only getting an Oscar nomination when she played a hooker in "Casino"), Stone, approaching 50 at the time this was made, sets out to prove she's still a sexpot. I'm sure many people would've wished she'd just posed for Playboy instead, but Stone is almost single-handedly responsible for "BI2"'s entertainment value. True, she looks a bit haggard throughout much of the movie, but given her character's fondness for excess – so much so it's a wonder the woman has time to write a grocery list, let alone a trashy potboiler – one should expect her to look a bit rough. Smirking like she's in on the joke, Stone takes over every scene she's in, walking away with a movie no one in her right mind would want. I still hold out hope that there's a trashy prime time soap in the works that has an evil temptress part with Stone's name on it. Just like Joan Collins did in the 1980s and Heather Locklear did in the 1990s, Stone could quite easily revive her flagging career by becoming the prime time vixen of the 2000s. You're welcome, Sharon.

***SPOILER*** Inferior remake of the 1992 blockbuster "Basic Instincts" that has sexy mystery writer Catherine Tramell, Sharon Stone, now in jolly old England looking for new material for her next book. We get to see Catherine in action as soon as the movie credits start rolling with her and her boyfriend footballer Kevin Franks, Stan Claymore, speeding down the darkened London streets with their car landing in the bottom of the River Thames. With Franks not surviving Catherine is charged with his death in both her wild driving and getting Frank's so doped up that he couldn't swim to safety!

It's when court appointed psychiatrist Michael Glass, David Morrissey, was given the job to examine Catherine's mental condition that she started to manipulate him into thinking that he was responsible for all the killings that was to take place in the movie by the time it ended. It was in fact Glass' handling of a previous case that of convicted psycho killer George Cheslav that really started him going bananas.

Telling the court that Cheslav was completely normal he was released on Glass' recommendation and later murdered his girlfriend by bashing her skull in with a brick! Now with the news that Cheslav had committed suicide behind bars tabloid magazine editor Adam Towers, Hugh Dancy, is about to publish the story that Glass knew all along that Cheslav was a danger to society! And where did Towers get that information from? Non other then Glass' estranged wife Denise, Indna Varma, whom Towers is now shacked up with!

We the audience get to suffer though the film in seeing poor Michael Glass slowly becoming a mental case by Catherine playing with his head in making Glass have serious doubts about his, not her's, own mental stability. Glass at first feeling in control of the situation starts to fall for the sexy and scheming Catherine when he starts to believe all the garbage that she feeds him about not only Cheslav but her lesbian relationship with his former wife Denise! Whom she, not Adam Towers, was responsible in breaking up his marriage!

***SPOILER ALERT*** The movie comes to its final and ridicules conclusion with Catherine, Psycho-style, giving this long monologue, with film inserted in, about what really happened in all the killings that took place in it! By then Glass was so out of it and sedated to the point where he looked like a brain dead zombie that he couldn't care less about what she told him!

The DVD is out and I have seen it. We get more murk, more nukid Sharon (which is neither altogether bad nor altogether good at this age), and more confusion. My main problem is that the (Scottish?) brogues here are so thick that it's very hard to grasp the dialog. But even if one could understand what was being said, there are other problems here, as well.

BI Two purports to be a psychological thriller and then represents three experienced mental health professionals and a veteran detective who would (in real life) be far more likely to understand a vengeful female sociopath for serial-molested adult child she probably is. In the real world, such women -are- well-understood, and handling them appropriately would -still-, I expect, make a pretty interesting movie.

This is unfortunate, because women (at least somewhat) like Catherine really do exist. And they -will- use their physical and intellectual gifts to serve their need to get back at the world for what it did to them when they were little. Eszterhas and Verhoeven managed to keep the very bizarre impulsivities one sees with intellectually gifted, sociopathic borderlines on a nice, tight leash in BI One. The dog simply runs amok here.

Was Stone's financial control over the film the reason? At least to some, many of her role choices suggest an over-identification with an angry abused child fixated on castrating powerful males (e.g.: Lori in "Total Recall," Ginger in "Casino," Ellen in the "Quick and the Dead").

In whatever event, the intriguing character of Catherine Trammel that emerged in BI One is overcooked here. And that's a shame, because the revenge-bent Jezebel who's empowered by a decadent society to use all her "tools" to grind up those around her -is- worth having a look at. And, whatever her reasons may be, Stone has given us a bunch of excellent examples over the years. In this case, she just overshoots the target.

That said, the forensically oriented viewer (say, the fan of "Law and Order: Criminal Intent" of the D'Onfrio/Erbe era; or those into Michael Stone, Robert Hare, Reid Meloy or Teddy Millon) will see a lot of "character" here in yet another of Stone's -august- depictions of female psychopathology. Sharon's women seem to truly "relish" what they are doing, and if you enjoy that about her work in the past, this won't disappoint you at all.