User reviews

I read all the previous reviews and nasty online comments in regard to La Stone returning as the evil Catherine Davis Tramell in Basic Instinct 2 now set in London and I want to say, "go see the film because Sharon Stone is still a chilling, evil, a tad older, but still glamorous vixen" in Basic Instinct 2 and commands the film from the first frame to the last. Sure, Stone throws in a few "camp moments", but who cares, as she is Catherine Davis Tramell, weaving a story of intrigue and doom for whoever falls into her hands.

London is a perfect location for the grown up Catherine, and the city reflects the new sophisticated evilness which she is weaving into another book of her deadly sins. The British cast, Charlotte Rampling and the handsome David Morrisey especially, provide the perfect moments in the film to send Stone/Tramell into her evil ways. The sets are so dark, reminded me of ASYLUM, and Stone perfectly matches the glamor of London.

BASIC INSTINCT 2 will never be the first BASIC INSTINCT, and it shouldn't, as Catherine Tramell has moved on from Nick and pretty little San Francisco to something bigger-London, and with the ending, also reminded me of ASYLUM, you wonder if our Catherine is onto new and more deadly games. Hope so...

This is not a bad movie. It is worse than the original. And the expectations could be high, but THIS IS NOT A BAD MOVIE.

The plot is well made and it binds you to the movie. The characters are well constructed and they are not exactly sane, but that doesn't make it a bad movie.You see other movies here on IMDb with much higher classifications that are really worse than this one.

This is a clear 6. Not less, not more. Good entertainment. Not very good and not bad at all. And Sharon stone is still a sea of sexiness. So enjoy the movie. It is worth a look.

And this last line is here just because you have to write at least 10 lines of text in a critic and I wrote nine. *sigh*

Now the movie did manage to raise a lot of heat during its release using Sharon Stone as the "venture catalyst" but somehow,Michael Caton Jones failed to deliver that degree of brilliance and trill that he promised his audience through the trailers of B I 2.Insted it turned out to be something like watching soft-porn on the big screen! Stone is a risk addict who loves taking risk and in turn falls for the detective that we do not realize until the last scene in the movie.It may be slow and dragging,but what may keep you through the movie will definitely be naked women and the sex scenes. So watch the movie only if have the live action urge in u else chuck it!! A treacherous 3 out of 10 for the story and the movie but an extra 3 for the sex.

I watched this movie before seeing Basic Instinct 1. After watching this movie, I absolutely loved it. Then I bought Basic Instinct 1, and I thought this was kind of boring. If you loved Basic Instinct 1, you don't really need to see this movie, because it's predictable. On the other hand, if you see the second one before the first you understand the first better. If youhaven't seen the first one, you will probably enjoy this a lot. I likethis movie, but it is definitely not as good as the first one. I thinkit's worth watching though, I don't understand why it got such harsh reviews. It has suspense to some degree, but the sex scenes suck. The version I got only had one with Sharon Stone, and it was barely a sex scene.

Despite some pretty poor reviews of Basic Instinct 2, I figured that since I loved the first Basic Instinct, to give the second one a chance. I love Sharon Stone and she was so beautiful and dangerous in the first movie, why not give the sequel a chance? While it felt just like the first plot did, I thought it was actually over all a good mind f word thriller. I thought the acting wasn't too bad and the story worked, although I have to admit the psychiatrist screaming at the end was a little over the top, but it was a fun movie to watch.

Catherine is back and while her and an athlete are in a car getting stoned and having sex, they crash and Catherine gets out in time, but the athlete does not. Catherine is under investigation for murder of the athlete, but since there is not enough evidence for the investigation, so she goes to a psychiatrist, Dr. Glass. But soon he finds himself being seduced into Catherine's world of sex, drugs, and murder, and he's starting to like it!

Basic Instinct 2 is a pretty good thriller and I think people were expecting too much, or at least what the first Basic Instinct was, but believe me, on it's own, the sequel is a fair story that deserves a little more praise. Come on, I know IMDb users have seen a lot worse, and it's Sharon Stone! How could you hate Sharon? That excludes Catwoman, but still!

6/10

Basic Instinct 2 (2006) Starring Sharone Stone, David Morissey, David Thewlis, Charlotte Rampling, Hugh Dancy, Anne Caillon....

Basic Instinct Part I was released in 1992. Sharon Stone became a huge star and a sex icon of the early 90's (everyone recalls the unforgettable Interrogation Scene in which she uncrosses her legs). She was only 34 at that time and exuded both fierce venom, total depravity and evil, and sexual magnetism and alluring beauty. Michael Douglas was only 48, but quite virile and young-looking. They had genuine chemistry and their love scenes, in which both appeared in the buff, was mesmerizing, the hot stuff you see on late night HBO or Cinemax. Stone is now 48 and Douglas is 62. Obviously, for the sequel they could not cast the aging Michael Douglas and so instead they cast the younger David Morissey as her latest prey. Miss Stone has had a lot of plastic surgery or has preserved her body so well through physical fitness, yoga, or age-reducing products that she looks almost as beautiful as she did in Basic Instinct I. But she should know better than to appear in a sequel to a highly successful first film just for eye candy. Her lines seem tacked-on at the last minute, she seems to be repeating what she said in the first film, she offers no real character development and remains uninteresting. The only thing has changed about the film is the location from the States to London, possibly in the hopes that the bleak urban London scene would create an eerie, mysterious and frightening mood. The majority of the actors in the cast are British and seem to talk a great deal but don't act their parts with any real vitality or intensity as the other actors in Basic Instinct 1. So, just why was this film a big flop at the box office ? Because, quite frankly, the sequel came to late. Maybe no one has stopped to think that if this film had been released in 1995, at least 2-3 years after Basic Instinct Part I, the movie would have garnered greater critical acclaim. But NOOOOO! They waited 14 years later. If the film had been released in 1995, Sharon Stone would have still been naturally beautiful and Douglas would have still been hot, and audiences would have been treated to a better film. If the writer/writers had come up with a intense, dramatically compelling sequel in 1995 which wraps things up so that it wouldn't be a trilogy (Basic Instince 3 is no longer possible), then this movie would have been terrific. No matter how hard this film tries to imitate the original or appear as thrilling, it does not impress. The script is lousy, the acting is weak, the music is bland, the whole thing is a mess. Not even fans of Basic Instinct are pleased, or fans of Sharon Stone. This is a terrible movie that should not have been made, or at least not at this time. It should have been made much earlier, while it was still the 90's. Interesting note: In 1995, (the time I wish this film had been made) Sharon Stone was busy in a Western film (I forget the title) and Douglas was filming the American President in which he played the President. If only they had squeezed in Basic Instinct 2 at that time, I'm 100 percent sure that this film would have been greater. Nothing beats the greatness of the first film.

I have to admit I thought it was bad when I saw it in the theater in 2006. Now that I have watched it again recently I believe it is better, especially after rewatching the first one again. I almost like it better than the first one; maybe because film editing and overall filming is better since the 90's.....???

Sharon has some good moments, not as good as the original, but Morrissey is pretty terrible throughout, but especially at the end when it should drive things home. That scream scene was like an indie film project performance. He's just bad. It doesn't help that the overall production seems almost low budget either. There's no weight or gravitas compared to the dark and brooding OG. Could have been a lot more fun.

I'd heard good things about this... from a reviewer who admitted that he only knew three people who liked it and that included himself and his wife. Given this review I had to check it out when it was on television.

The film didn't seem to be particularly related to the first, largely because instead of being set in San Francisco it is in London; if it weren't for the presence of Sharon Stone it would have been a B grade British film that few outside Britain would have heard of. That said it wasn't terrible by any means; David Morrissey was good as the psychologist Michael Glass who was originally employed by the CPS to determine whether or not Catherine Tramell (Stone) should be bailed after an car crash in which a footballer died and it was alleged that she had deliberately killed him. Despite Glass's recommendation bail is granted and Trammel turns up at his office in the somewhat phallic Gherkin building asking to become a client. After some initial reluctance he accepts and things start going badly for him as people around him start getting murdered causing him to become a suspect.

The plot is fairly convoluted with the chief suspect changing more than once. For an erotic thriller it isn't all that erotic, there are a few sex scenes but these are shot so as not to show more than the occasional glimpse of a breast or backside so anybody hoping to see as much as the first film showed will be disappointed. Overall it was a reasonable film that I suspect would have got better reviews if it hadn't been called "Basic Instinct", of course if it hadn't hardly anybody would have seen it.

I cant understand why people hate this movie! I thought this movie was okay but it wasn't great.The first BI movie was better.I watched this movie at the beginning this year and i thought it was a pleasant surprise.I had heard a lot of bad things about this movie and I didn't understand why people were being so negative about this movie.The storyline was good.I also thought this movie was quite suspenseful and dark which I liked.

I thought Sharon Stone was beautiful and she is one of those people that gets better with age.I don't think this movie deserves so many 1 star ratings - it deserves a chance! I really liked the ending.You need to give movies a chance - perhaps if you watch it for the second time you may have a very different opinion on this movie i would give this movie a 5 out of 10 for my rating

I didn't like the sequel. It was indeed really tricky to have a second movie in this storyline, & I don't think it was the best!

I went expecting something horrible, but I actually enjoyed it. True, with the amount of movies produced in this age (and especially erotic movies), it doesn't have the same relevance as BI1. But it's a great counterpart: I remember thinking, when I watched BI1, that it was nice, but that Sharon Stone was not credible at all as a psychopath. In the end it was better described as an erotic movie with an exciting setup, purely on fantasy grounds.

BI2 does almost the opposite: it's nothing scenic (although not bad), not sexy in the conventional way, but Sharon Stone makes that up with a performance that shows how far she has come, depicting a much more convincing psychopath. It spends more time talking about the psychological aspects of plot, making it more believable in my eyes. But that could also be what makes it less sexy.

If you're expecting a psychological thriller, this is not it either. It has to be appreciated on its own, but it's not a bad moment either. And I definitely found it sexy, just not explicit, contrary to the first movie.

I was still under-aged when the original Basic Instinct made its debut in the local theater's under the relatively new R rating system, but suffice to say many already know of the kinky scenes, especially the infamous crossing and uncrossing of legs sans panties which sealed Sharon Stone's status as a Hollywood femme fatale.

It's been 14 years since, and the sequel is just released here. Which makes one wonder why, given the question would anyone still be interested to see an aging body doing her thing again? It's no wonder that the preview crowd was mainly elderly uncles and aunties, who apparently had a good time dissecting whatever plot there is to this movie, and of the occupational hazards of being a mental doctor if your mental strength is found wanting.

Not that it's not entertaining (I think my week of work work and more work made me easy to please), but elements which were associated with the original psycho sex thriller, save for Sharon Stone's returning novelist cum serial killer Catherine Tramell, are gapingly pissing. Gone is the icepick, and the graphic violence and killing. In place is a series of murder scenes which happen almost after the deed. The sex scenes here are so reduced, they're negligible, if compared to the original.

And perhaps to balance the lack of sex, this movie migrates to a more mind-numbing psycho-babble flick, since the mind is the greatest sex organ, as Stone's character Tramell, mind-tangos London psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey), and detective Roy Washburn (David Thewlis), investigating her for an apparent murder-suicide of famed footballer Kevin Franks, in a cameo played by Stan Collymore, yes, THAT Stan Collymore. All he had to do in his movie debut was to act stone (pun intended) and finger Tramell. How hard is that?

In dialogues filled with double entrées and sexual innuendos, Tramell basically waltzes through England in her see throughs, having fun running rings around the two male leads, in a carefully crafted game of cat and mouse with Glass. In her psychosis sessions with Glass on her "risk addiction", there was mention of Nick Curran (played by Michael Douglas in the first movie), but that was just about the link to the original. Basically as the movie wore on, bodies associated with Glass turned out murdered, and naturally Tramell, Glass and even the detective Washburn all become plausible suspects.

Being the master manipulator, the audience might even be seduced by her ideas on the plausibility of certain events, and this swung the narrative into varying directions if you'd allow it. If you do, you'll probably give the possibilities the nod, despite some plot holes and an ending tense sense bordering close to absurdity.

What's the motivation for the sequel? One wonders if it's just to revitalize Stone's flagging career by putting her back in one of her more iconic villain roles in cinematic history. Then again, she should have gone back to basics and not stain the original with a relatively lacklustre sequel.

Well obviously by the 3 million dollar take this weekend, not as many people were ready for the return of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct 2. First of all, Sony/MGM did a HORRIBLE marketing campaign (was there even a campaign?)for this film. Honestly I don't recall seeing much PR and I certainly did not see any ads on TV or for that matter trailers in the theatre. I am a weekly moviegoer and did not see one BI2 trailer attached to ANYTHING. Having said that I was excited to see Sharon back as Catherine. But I have to say, she just did not have that sultriness she had in the original but then she did not have a strong actor to play off of. Like a number of people mentioned, the script was confusing and to be honest weak. I did not care for the change in venues. The London setting took me out of it. The biggest problem is that other than Sharon, there is NO big names attached. At one point Pierce Brosnan had been approached and a number of other A list actors. But unlike the original which had Michael Douglas playing off of Sharon, in this movie, it is lacking. This movie should not have gone forward without an established actor for the movie and the marketing's sake to play against Sharon. I may be in the minority here but I would still love to see Sharon come back for a third film and finish it off right, this time finally getting caught.

I have looked into the face of evil. She is a woman, and her name is Catherine Trammell (pronounced Tra-MELL). I'll be quoting a lot from other critics here, because I found reading their reviews, they said what I thought better than I could.

First, though, before we go any further, please know that whatever you think of Sharon Stone, or this movie, this is a first rate murder mystery. It is set in London and all the players except Sharon Stone are English .. and, as I watched, I couldn't help thinking this would have been a terrific episode of Mystery! on PBS.

The movie like the psychotic Catherine Tra-MELL, draws you in. At first, you think it's obvious what's going on; then, you're not so sure; then you're sure, and angry at all these stupid people for falling for Catherine's schemes; then, at the end, you're not sure again .. On that level, this movie works.

But, this movie is not at its most .. well, basic .. a mystery. It is a character study of Tra-MELL, and the actress who plays her, and as such, it does not succeed quite as well.

Roger Ebert gives us the first clue to unlocking the mystery of Trammell and Stone: "The Catherine Tramell role cannot be played well, but Sharon Stone can play it badly better than any other actress alive .. " Chris Hewitt delivers another: "Stone, who never raises her voice above a bedroom purr, plays Catherine like she doesn't give a "research" if anyone thinks she's ridiculous. She knows "Basic Instinct 2" is a comedy, and she is the only one in on the joke." This is critical. You buy this, you buy the movie. If you don't, then BI 2 becomes a farce, not a comedy or a murder mystery. Trammell is in a world of her own, and Stone creates that world first in Trammell's own head, then in the shrink's who sees her for what she is and is taken in anyway, then .. in ours.

Owen Glieberman tells us how Catherine weaves her spell: "What counted wasn't the words but the subtext Stone brought to them, her persistent toying glimmer of You know you want to f--- me. Everything else was just talk." This movie is all about subtext. The sexual tension builds .. and builds, and while there is release for some of the characters, usually in death, there is none for us. "It's a treat, " Glieberman says, "to see Stone rev her evil vixen engine again .. " Indeed.

Stone is still a strikingly beautiful woman (and so is Charlotte Rampling who costars, but I digress), and if she were not, the audience wouldn't buy into her character, nor would we believe what we were seeing when the psychiatrist who is treating her, falls under her spell.

The mechanism of seduction was absolutely perfect, down to the smallest detail. Trammell meticulously schemes to seduce her therapist, every line she speaks in session a ploy to arouse his libido .. And, as soon as he shows an interest, she secures the hook in his mouth .. and disappears. "I'm canceling therapy," she says at one point, and briefly drops out of his life. He's hooked.

What is most interesting here is we are not. The psychiatrist who is her foil, her mark, her lover, her boy-toy, and at some moments her enemy .. begins to unravel before our eyes, and it is here where this movie lost me. His helplessness did not ring true.

So, we've come to the end of our Catherine Trammell character study, and it is time to summarize. Is she a serial killer or is she not? The movie does not say, so we are left to decide for ourselves.

But, Roger Ebert and Director Michael Caton-Jones provide the most important insight into her character, when Ebert says of the director: "he alternates smoldering closeups with towering dominatrix poses" Catherine Trammell stands revealed at last: a garden variety dominatrix, whose entire life consists of playing head games with everyone she meets. And, she is very good. Her psychiatrist early on says that she has an "omnipotence" fixation, and we don't understand that at first. By the end of this movie, we know exactly what it means: she is, indeed, the dominatrix, working every circumstance, every emotion, every lapse in judgment into an intricate tapestry of evil in service to her own ends.

I liked Basic Instinct 2. Not a lot, but more than the 15 or 16 other people who saw it .. Call it a guilty pleasure.

I didn't expect much from this movie given the reviews. A rating of 4 doesn't help my expectations however IMDb-ratings haven't got a reputation of being accurate all the time. The first let's say half hour didn't do much for me, but the rest of the movie was OK. OK, Sharon Stone is older now. I didn't see that one coming... . Acting was good, the story was good , kept me interested until the end. Conclusion must be this movie suffers from it being a sequel. When you aren't bothered by that it's a worthwhile watch. When you want to see the young and beautiful Sharon watch part 1. For the mature and still beautiful one watch this. For a nice movie you can safely watch both although the first is better.

First off, I have to admit i have not yet seen the Original film with Michael Douglas and perhaps my view of this film will change when i do.

I thought this film was actually alright, certainly not as bad as most people would suggest. I thought the acting was pretty solid from the main characters however pretty poor from the minors. The story was alright but hardly anything original and the ending just didn't work for me. I felt this film was reasonably well directed but could have easily been done with a much smaller budget..i still have no idea how they managed to spend 70 million on this.. Unlike other reviews, i didn't think of this film as cheap and tacky and have to admit i enjoyed most of it. And as for Sharon Stone, she is still very sexy for her age!

Overall i would give this film 6/10. Like i said i haven't watched the first film yet but i'm confident i'm going to see much worse sequels than this.