User reviews

It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip "Basic Instinct 2," to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone who—like all of us—is now fourteen years older, and—unlike most of us—still looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. "Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.

The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.

I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators.

So, every year there is at least one movie, that hasn't got any chance of being a box office success, because from the moment of production, even before one simple shot is filmed, everybody's picking on this movie... There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits! I mean, my gosh, just because the wide crowd does have to have a victim each year they can pick on, not everybody has to join them. So yeaaah, maybe those movies aren't perfect, but c'mon, how many movies are? Not every movie is supposed to be a new The Lord of the Rings! Not everybody will enjoy these movies, but I bet there are more than who admit they do. Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former "Bennifer"-Couple, and this year it's "Basic Instinct 2"! Well, when I heard the rumors of a sequel to one of my favorite movies I was very sceptically, and although I really love Sharon Stone I stayed sceptically until I've finally seen this movie. And really, I was very positively surprised! I can't understand why it gets such a bad press and such a bad voting here. It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life! With 47 years when shooting the movie she looks hotter than many stars in their 20s, but it's more than her being beautiful, it's brilliantly acted, with all her looks, her famous smile, the way she speaks and moves... from the very first frame she's in you can't take your eyes off of her. It's simply a pleasure to watch her as Catherine Tramell, and all of the other actors deliver solid performances, too! So I really can't see what's wrong with this movie... it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored! Maybe the story isn't Oscar-caliber, but it never even tries to be! It's an entertainment-movie, and by this standard it absolutely delivers in my opinion! So give it a try!

I think the reason for all the opinionated diarrhea on this movie is that most people have it out for Sharon Stone being around 50 and getting naked while playing sexy. No one cared when the Golden Girls sat around eating cheesecake and discussing their first orgasm, but to see someone post menopausal getting digitally pleased while driving I guess is just too much for some to handle. Let's face it, she looks good, she's light years hotter than my mother who's the same age! It's not an Oscar or a cult classic like the first, but ever since the turn of the century that's all movie goers seem to expect: a cinematic experience that will touch your soul. As such, it never claims to be either. It's an erotic thriller that is both erotic and thrilling, and is a continuation of a brilliant character that we all love to hate. It's the character of Catherine Trammell that helped give way for this sequel. Fans of the first movie want to see more of that frosty ice queen.

The cinematography and art direction were lush and extravagant and made me want to move to Britian for sure. The score is amazing as well.

Sure there's some overacting from some characters but there's some brilliant work from David Morrissey who's virtually unknown.

There's a setback in that the script is virtually the same as the first movie only plugging in a psychiatrist in place of the cop. As well as the criminal decision of the MPAA to force the movie to be cut down even more which takes away from the guilty-pleasure raunchiness that the story is known for.

At the very least it's entertaining and fun to look at it, and that's the movie's only intentions. So if you've got beef with Mizz Stone, maybe you should actually SEE the movie and draw your own conclusions before you spew forth your projectile vomit?

I never trust the opinions of anyone regarding a film. That goes for critics as well. Sure, if it gets positive reviews that's OK and a plus, but most films that get critical rave I hate. I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film. It takes you out of your life for a couple hours and into a fictional character...that being Catherine Trammell. Sharon Stone is awesome in this role, just like she was in the first one. Anyone who says she is horrible in this film must have felt the same in the first one b/c she is back acting the same way she did in Basic Instinct 1. Catherine is hers and she plays her to perfection. Her one liners are great, much like in the first one. Who can forget in the first film when she tells the cops, "If you're gonna arrest me do it...otherwise get the f**k out of here!" Great scene, and believe me, she does it again in this one. I was captivated by her. Her outfits, the way she smoked her cigarettes, believe me, its worth the price just to see Stone's performance. I cannot wait for this film to be released on DVD, uncut, because I can only imagine how much better it is going to be. And yes, there are lots of twists, as in the first one, including the ending!

I don't understand why the reviews of this film are so universally bad, unless I'm just off my rocker. I found it sick, brilliant, twisted, and psychologically sophisticated. You won't get deeper into the mind of a criminal psychopath in a Hollywood film than this one. It has layers within layers, nuanced acting by Stone,and a plot that will keep you guessing even after it's over. People need to get over the fact that Sharon Stone is 48,and that Michael Douglas isn't in this one. I predict that this film will be a huge hit on DVD once people see it for themselves and stop paying attention to the drivel professional reviewers put out. Give it a shot, you might be glad you did!

We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.

This movie is very good. not just good but very good. The critics are a bunch of morons. Just because there is nudity and language they hated it. It was worth the price of ticket and that is all you can ask for. Is that not right? Every movie cannot be an academy award nominee. Sharon stone is gorgeous and does a great job in the movie and it mystifies me as to what in the hell the critics want

I have a very different opinion to what i have seen so far, i believe this movie was brilliant, yes Sharon stone was cringey at times, but i think she was brilliant, but she could have been seen as annoying at times.

Throughout the film there was an obvious thought which meant Sharon was the killer, but the twist was good because it was obviously not going to be the person who you thought it was from the beginning or there would be no point watching the end.

Yes, Sharon stone is still sexy, and i believe that she it a great actress.. However i would avoid going to see this film if you want an easy watching film, as you do need to put the pieces of the jigsaw together.

So far from basic instinct 2 i have only seen bad reviews and i do not think this is fair. It it not a particular strange taste that will like this as i like all sorts of films (man on fire, honey) all kinds such as chick flicks, comedy's, and thrillers.

Some people will not have liked the goriness, and raunchiness of the film, but it wasn't that bad really!!

overall, this film was a sexy film, i would see this again, and it is a good film to see with a partner or friends!

I was very surprised to see all the hatred toward this film. I went into it thinking it would be awful. Sharon Stone is painfully sexy in this movie. Moments of bad acting from her yes, but for the most part my heart raced while watching her. It was not a brilliant movie by any means but it had suspense, sex, and it did not seem slow. I left the the theatre with the movie still playing in my mind and is still with me an hour after it was over. Sharon Stone how ever fake she may be is just a sight to see. She is amazing for her age, and hey it is not the beauty that always makes her sexy, it is her confidence level. She is sex and she shows it. The opening scene is intense and the intensity stays with throughout. I give it a 8/10 and a brava to Ms. Stone

Call me a kinky ne'er-do-well, but I'd rather watch a slinky-sexy sociopathic seductress like, Catherine Tramell sordidly shag her victims to death than some sexless scrote in a Hockey Mask!!! The belated return of the murderously manipulative man-eater entertainingly remains a glossily prurient, terrifically trashy treat! David Morrissey, Charlotte Rampling & David Thewlis are credible, and play it straight, but, thrillingly, the dazzlingly vulpine, Sharon Stone voraciously masticates the scenery like some cadaver-craving Hagfish, thereby making 'Basic Instinct 2' way more fun to watch than it has any real right to be!

Actively opposing, Pat Benetar's earnest plea, the hyperbolically hedonistic novelist, Catherine Tramell has unrepentantly weaponized her sex in order to satiate her psychotically permissive peccadilloes! While the film's thunderous climax is momentarily satisfying, some more sensitive viewers might well feel a trifle soiled afterwards!!!! Frankly, I'd happily watch a sequel to a mediocre film, than a remake of a good one, and i'll joyfully take a lurid thriller over some lachrymose, cause-of-the-week dirge, and while I appreciate that my base enjoyment of 'Basic Instinct 2' will appear baffling, Caton-Jones is a competent filmmaker, and this saucy, slickly fashioned, oft derided sequel is certainly not without some amusingly salacious incident!

I liked it and so did the other people in the theater. I can 't say much about it without giving too much away but it was much better than the first. I know the critics have panned it but they pan a lot of the movies I like. As for those people who are complaining about the deleted sex scenes, go rent a XXX movie. If it doesn't enhance the plot it doesn't need to be there. Sex and violence scenes are to add tension to a true drama. Otherwise it would be just another slasher sex movie. Those can be fun but you normally know up front what they are about.

I can't wait to get the DVD with the director's commentaries. I know Sharon Stone had huge problems with the director of the first movie. I am curious what happened on this set.

Sharon Stone is super hot. She has 50 and I would still give it to her for the championship. She doesn't perform memorable scenes like the opening of the legs, but the sex scenes are truly amazing for those who like to see action and appealing women. ¿David Morrisey? Puhlease. He needs a serious acting coach. The storyline is, still again, random and lost. I liked the settings and how the dark corners are entraped in this film. The script, you ask? Worse than the adapation of "Narnia". No intelligent lines. I ask, why did they do this? The answer: to see Sharon Stone again, in her best moment. If you are a man; you should definitely spend 7.5 dollars to see this woman.

This is the movie, the one I can see being trashed by critics and completely avoided by moviegoers, and talked about later by many how horrible it was, most of which will come from those who haven't even seen the film at all. Basic Instinct 2 isn't for everyone, I'll admit that. If you disliked the original, this certainly isn't for you. I, however, really enjoyed the original, and the sequel also worked for me, and I'll tell you why. BI2 isn't a masterpiece by any means, there are some problems with the plot, and if it's nudity you want, go elsewhere, there was a lot more nudity in January's Hostel. BI2 worked for me, and deserved my high score for one reason, Catherine Tramell. In my opinion Catherine is one of the best characters out there, and Sharon plays her so well, I often wonder if she doesn't have a bit of Catherine in her, herself. My biggest comparison to her would be that of the also addicting Hannibal Lecter, cause besides the eating people part, both Hannibal and Catherine are manipulative clever geniuses, you never know exactly where the truth lies, yet they are both so likable, you can't help rooting for the bad guy. Now, I'm not going to go into details on the plot, cause you get that in so many other reviews, but the point I'm making is Catherine Tramell makes BI2 a very fun experience, one that makes me hope she'll return again someday, maybe in another 14 years.

I'm beginning to wonder if my critical faculties aren't forever lost! This film has been savaged by our local (South African) and foreign critics, but this is one sequel I think is on a par with the original, if not better.

Sharon Stone is mesmerising in the title role. She looks good, acts well as the sociopathic Catherine, and is always interesting. The script is good... and you never really have the "complete" truth, even at the end of the film.

Supporting cast is good, too, with a good Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Rampling and David Morrissey. It's a good film, at times like a film noir, at others like a good psychological mystery.

Don't let adverse publicity affect you badly. See this film.

VERY entertaining, skillfully made, Sharon is right back into her character, she is excellent and the cast and location are hot!! I don't understand the critics who want to skewer her, there is such jealousy of her talent and looks, which is so unnecessary. The movie is fun, entertaining, true 'popcorn movie' and as good a sequel as any. while missing Michael Douglas, the other actors were very accomplished, and hold their own with her. It kept my attention to the very end, and I for one look forward to the DVD release with extras. Sharon looked great, her clothes were gorgeous, and the sets were stylish and very much a part of the movie. It was a great concept to put her in London, different and actually made some of the S & M more believable. All in all, a very entertaining diversion and a sexy time at the movies.

OK...first off, nothing can beat the first Basic Instict. The chemistry between Stone and Douglas could not have been matched with anyone else. However, Stone was better than the supporting cast but still not as powerful as she could have been. I blame the writers for that. When you are making a movie like B.I.2 you have to have some elements in the second movie that were in the first one. What happened to the sex? Curran and Tramell made sex what it was on screen. In the second movie it was lacking. I know that there were scenes cut from the final movie that will appear in the DVD, but c'mon. I went to see it for the sex and gore that the first one had and I left the theatre not happy. Stone did a superb job with what she was given. The script was weak and needed about three more re-writes. Even though it was a marginal movie, it was not as bad as Cutthroat Island, Waterworld and Fialure to Launch. Go see it if you have a free pass or something like that!

Hi, Basic Instinct was a movie that has dominance on my personality , every time I watch I run my imagination to set another plot, another motive…and this is why Basic Instinct become a hit and not only because the fact Sharon stone didn't wear any underwear.

Basic Instinct 2 comes after 14 years without the original crew. I don't think someone can seriously believe it's a squeal. They just use the name to attract people to watch. The movie is excellent but it has nothing to do with Basic Instinct.

Someone said its better late than never…so I glade they did this movie .i think if they had using another actress(younger) and find another name for it…this movie would become the hit of the decade.

I forget about basic instinct label and I enjoy the movie very match. If you going to sit on the chair and be exited to watch the sequel of Basic Instinct you going to be disappointed.

And I so Miss Michel Douglas but David Morrissey is an excellent actor. I don't know where he was hidden till now. I'm sure he is going to be a big star.

As the bottom line I think the script of this movie was more colorful than the original but less emotional, more killing , more movies , more food for thoughts. Sharon stone is fantastic like always . for all of you that are fan of Basic Instinct … the small of the first one gone completely in this movie.

Shay

I approached this film with a wide-open mind, expecting the worst. I had read discouraging critiques when first released, and also the current "Painfully Bad" IMDb comment. I was prepared to cut and run if it was as bad as the ratings and comments purported, having, as I do, scant tolerance for crap and slush. So, with low expectations, I was surprised to find how much I enjoyed it. I am still bewildered at how badly it has been received.

In preparation, the previous night, I refreshed my experience of its predecessor, Basic Instinct (1992). Of course we know it is a classic, and so time has in no way jaded its impact. As a sequel, however, Basic Instinct 2 squares off just fine. I loved the flash beginning - swept us right in in good style. Being British and knowing London well, I felt comfortably at home in the film's setting. That was a good start.

The scenes and sets were stunningly dazzling, crisp, contemporary, breathtaking and sensitively contrasted. In that respect I think Michael Caton-Jones demonstrated great skill and maturity. The photography was superb, and never failed to surprise and, as it must and did, carried the story beautifully. The story itself was intricate and sufficiently puzzling to keep one guessing and involved, echoing the theme and complexities of its earlier version. I think Caton-Jones did an excellent job of mimicking, rather than merely regurgitating, the distinctive chilly demure and sultry, enigmatic combativeness of the dialog and interactions. While it was nice to be reminded of some of the original one-liners that gave BI1 its zip and humor, there was no point where it seemed cheap or glib. Though we certainly could anticipate many of them, they served more to reassure than disappoint. There was nothing stale in their repetition since they were entirely consistent with, and helped to restore our connection with, the protagonists who uttered them. At worst, they were tongue-in-cheek in their predictability.

Sharon Stone carried her role with consummate aplomb, fresh as a daisy and looking not a day older. I never tired of watching her face, or her body for that matter. Only at the very last scene (which I felt was quite redundant) did I feel the slightest twinge of dissatisfaction. Her counterpart, in the shape of David Morrissey, resonated well with his stiff upper lip and fragile professional kudos. It was a clever shift in scenario to cast her new adversarial paramour in the guise of a forensic psychologist. I absolutely loved the character of Detective Ferguson (Neil Maskell) - I guess we were meant to - as a much subtler element in the plot than any of Nick Curran's shambolic sidekicks.

The sex was tasteful, powerful, believable and.. sexy. It fitted well into the rhythm and unfolding of the story, as it did formerly, with nothing gratuitous or too ridiculous. My girlfriend, with whom I watched both films, however, found David Morrissey's face and physique very ugly. It didn't bother me at all, which just shows how very personal these things are. We agreed that the photo in the toilet though, was a wOw.

So what's been turning everyone off and giving it such a low rating? Beats me. Is it because it is too British -- no guns (except once), explosions, car chases, mayhem, destruction and heavy-handedness? You'll just have to find out for yourself, which I thoroughly recommend you to do.

I would give this a 7.5, but since I can't, I'll bump it up to 8. The ridiculous and incomprehensible 3.7 deserves some counterbalancing, for sure.

Fistly, I understand that this film did not live up to the sequel but hey, how many films do? There was no need for the amount of criticism the film received, at the end of the day there are many features in this film that were similar to the original for starters Catherin tramell is back, and has not changed a bit, still as sexy as ever. However the down play of her sexuality was a mistake because sex is her weapon in these films, it was kind of like watching a horror slasher film without any stabbing. But still that was the BBFC's fault because the sexual scenes were made just not shown, there was nothing the director or actors could do about that, so holding a grudge against the film for that I feel would be pointless, however from reading an interview I found that they are planning to release the REAL uncut DVD. Secondly the male protagonist is still annoying and thinks he knows it all like Micheal Douglas in the first. But most importantly the ambiguity and mystery that confuses the audience is still there, I think that critiques have to understand that it would have been difficult to match the suspense of the first film because the audience is now familiar with Cathrine tramell and what she does so it may appear repetitive but I feel it's not. The clever word play and sexual innuendo's are still there but of a higher standard, I feel this is to compensate for the lack of sex in comparison to the first. Sharon stone once again lived up to HER role as Cathrine tramell perfectly and the acting of the others was fantastic. I feel that you should what this film first then make a judgement rather than listening to the critics, it was a long awaited sequel starring the seductive goddess Miss Stone and the film did all it could to entertain. I would recommend watching the film, it was excellent.

The movie is not that bad. Do not be fooled by the over-hyped "fact" of the critics that it's a piece of ****. It's not a great movie - true, but i'm SURE that it would gotten five times better reviews if it wasn't a sequel. As a stand-alone movie, it's quite good. And as a Basic Instinct sequel, it's OK. It's clichéd and on some occasions ends up being a parody of itself, but it's fun, sexy, and great entertainment. Sharon Stone does a great job (and looks hot). The male lead and the directing are a bit weak, but it's not an epic movie, so don't expect it to be perfect. It's light entertainment. What else would you expect from a Basic Instinct - movie. Geez, people.

After having read a few comments on this film (amongst other places here on IMDb), I really didn't have high hopes for this movie, and maybe that is the reason for me being positively surprised.

This is by no means a great movie, but it's OK, and it will certainly have an appeal to people who would like to see another movie like the first "Basic Instinct". The effective plot is very much alike in the two movies. The plot is driven by mind games (and not always very realistic ones) and attempts to challenge the viewers opinion on who the killer is.

It may also appeal to people with professional interest in psychotherapy, not because of its accuracy, rather the opposite, but it is always entertaining to watch ones profession depicted on screen, regardless of the accuracy of realism (if nothing else it is good for a laugh).

If you don't fall into one of the above mentioned categories, you probably shouldn't watch this in the theaters (or at all), but if you do, you would probably enjoy it at least as a rental :-).

It seems to me like people as usual, follow the pack and criticize movies, because someone else did. I will admit this film is not as good as the original, but it's almost as good. The quality of filming in some scenes is superior and the film takes a confusing path once again. Sharon Stone at times looks like she walked off the set of Basic Instinct straight on to this one, OK maybe off the set of Sliver, but she looks great and Catherine is as seductive as ever. I did walk into the film thinking she'd seem more like a desperate, horny old woman, but she proved me wrong and i have to eat those words. The story once again follows the investigator who's being... stalked... kind of by Trammel. This time there's loads of murders and plenty of twists to keep you glued to your seat for 2 hours! my final comment, "When's 3 coming out??"

Dudes, If you put aside all the prejudice from the BI1, you'll see this as a pretty good standalone movie. It has menace, it has creepiness, and in fact, this one has a lot of depth and dialogue. No one really has any one-liners. There are many different camera angles (shots of the skyline, birds-eye view, closeups), there's lots of style (see costumes). The cinematography definitely reflects 2006. Looking back, the BI1 had cheesy dialogue, plain colours, lack of depth. The BI1 just seems rather dated.

If you try to tie the BI1 storyline to BI2, you'll see that it connects pretty well. Folks, it's been 14 years since BI1, changes to characters/situations are expected. It's natural for Catherine to be more confident and skilled at what she does. Whereas BI1 portrayed her as having a softer, naive side, this one gives her more edge due to the additional 14 years of life experience in between. It is unrealistic to have her be exactly the way she was before. However, if the BI2 story is set to be just shortly after BI1, then yes the character should be similar. Also, choosing a London backdrop seems to indicate that she was evading something from the US.

I personally think Sharon performed better in BI2 than BI1. She has more screen time, says more witty things, has more expressions, and is more consistent with her character from shot to shot I notice that in BI1, sometimes she acted differently between shots. Most people would take it as the intention to confuse the audience, but I think it was just inexperienced acting. Somehow the effect worked (by accident?), which became an end to itself.

-GW