User reviews

It's the sequel that everybody (including me!) wanted to hate. The truth, is that there is actually damn all wrong with the movie. I expected an absolute disaster, and got something which is easily one of the most exciting films I have seen in a long time.

It is alarming to read such negative reviews from respected film critics who quite frankly, do nothing but romanticise the original - as we all know, time makes the heart grow fonder. It really does make you wonder if many reviewers have actually seen the latest movie. Obviously everything comes down to personal taste so one would expect some 'mid-range' scores, but within reason! There is very little to dislike about this movie.

Because of this, the movie (through no fault of anyone involved with it) will bomb at the box office. In the rental/retail market however, I have a feeling that it will be a different story altogether.

Do yourselves a favour, watch the movie and make up your own mind.

I have no idea what people are complaining about. I saw this movie yesterday and I really liked it. Stone once again delivered a great character. She was just as good as she was in the first Basic Instinct. She still has those smart but tricky answers. Although Sharon may be 48 years old... she looks amazing! I don't care if she's as fake as a Barbie. She looks good and that's that. Basic Instinct 2 gives you everything you want from the first. Sex, violence, and a great ending that will leave you thinking and talking about it for hours! Half the people commenting on this movie haven't even saw it. So don't listen to them.

Better, perhaps, than Basic Instict, and criminally underrated, this movie is not only an excellent thriller that grabs you from start to finish in its web, but also a very accurate look at psychoanalytists' matters - and practices- that I can not think of any other movie to match, with a sarcastic tone that can easily be overlooked. Overall, one of the best neo- noirs one can meet. The critics butchered the film; they ' d better go watch Vertigo again and explain why it's better.

...that's exactly what this is: a thriller. It's not supposed to sweep the Oscars, the acting isn't supposed to be perfect, and it's not supposed to make perfect sense.

The story follows our beloved psycho Catherine Tramell, who's once again under investigation for murder. The psychiatrist who's after her is taught and trained to become her love-slave (in a very comedic scene). After that, a whole lot goes wrong.

I loved this movie, and I hate how everyone's been calling it 'mindless nudity'. It's not mindless, it's actually very dramatic. The acting is great from pretty much all accounts, even Sharon Stone does a good job.

David Morrissey captures the 'reluctant hero' role, and Charlotte Rampling does well as his friend. David Thewlis delivers a great comedic performance as the genius who goes insane once the killing starts.

Great, funny, intense, dramatic movie. 9/10.

Just came back from the first showing of Basic Instinct 2. I was going into it thinking it would be crappy based on preview critics and I was pleasantly surprised! If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more. Great story that always keeps you wondering and thinking. The music is superb, reprising the original's theme. Don't go expecting Academy Award material, go to see it for enjoyment and fun. That's what movies are designed for -- escapism. I can't think of a better way to escape than to escape with Sharon Stone who is as sexy as she ever was. Am thinking about going to see it again this weekend. Go see it!

This sequel is way above the original, improving on some of the clumsier attempts at tense, wound sexuality. Sharon keeps getting hotter with age, cosmetic surgery notwithstanding. She's grown and evolved with the role, in the same way a real character would. Some won't get the layers of subtlety mixed with intensity, but maybe the more intense sex scenes will make up for that. Even the driving is up a couple of notches right down to the upgraded automotive technology. The screen play writers clearly used the original as a base, but the average viewer may not get that. It's too bad there isn't a guide to help the less cognizant with the parallels, metaphors and analogies. The extended version of the DVD heightens the experience. Don't look away or some nuggets will slip past you.

I just saw this movie and I want to say it was Great! Sharon and the other actors were great as well. Plus Sharon's voice and trademark walk made it all the better.

I was surprised at the crowds that turned up for it, but maybe that had to do with Basic Instinct 2 being at only three theaters here in Tucson, Az.

I was also surprised at the good word of mouth from exiting moviegoers. I heard "fabulous" and "you're in for a wild ride." The reason I was surprised was because of all the badmouthing in the media and saying she was too old. She looked like some women I've seen in their early 30's.

This film seals her status as a cinema icon and one of the great "movie stars."

Anyway this was a good date and popcorn movie and the audience was really into it. I will see it again before it's gone from the theaters.

The Basic Instinct movies have an evil psychiatrist who is trying to do harm to Cathrine Tramell one way or the other. However, she is not the type to give up and she fights back with her best weapons, her good looks and "magna-cumlaude" educated brain.

This movie is about free speech; about how far can you go into pushing someones "buttons" and who is responsible for the consequences. Why do psychiatrists have so much say about who is free and who goes to a mental institution, even if there is no proof of a crime of violence? This movie is about justice and I would call Cathrine Tramell the Dirty Harry of psychiatry.

Joe Eszterhas, screenwriter for Basic Instinct, opined 1/ the screenplay is king; there isn't a movie without a story 2/ professional reviewers don't make films themselves, because they lack the talent. That may be harsh, but with some bites of truth. At the least, opinions of the general moviegoer are as valid as the paid critic. I certainly prefer reviews by real movie goers.

BI2 genre is sexy suspense and murder, SSM. Everything revolves on this simple formula. A good director can craft a passable film from an average story. The better the screenplay, the greater chance some silver screen magic explodes.

BI2 is designed to be entertainment, a sincere effort by all involved. There may be plot holes, but plot holes can be overlooked with Hitchcock. And this is a Hitchcockian film, with suspense, fun, and a strong lead character.

Catherine Tramell is a James Bondish character. Her name suggests she may trample over others, or be a tramp; or she may make others tremble. Her chief weapon is the dream or nightmare of sex. She fairly proves the adage that sexiness begins in the mind. I'm reminded of a writer who observed Sophia Loren. By choice, she could appear in public as an ordinary human being and would be ignored in a crowd. And then she would transform her aura and she became Sophia Loren and all eyes flashed as she walked by.

Sharon Stone consciously or subconsciously keeps Tramell in the redline. Either she or her targets must surely burn out. But the diva isn't to be taken solemnly, only seriously. The glide of time from San Francisco to London has improved her vintage.

007 can say and do outlandish things. Realists will find more believable characters elsewhere. But the Bond/Tramell universe is for those who understand fantasy/lust. Again, the seduction begins in the mind. CT believes she is the sexiest being in the room. She would paraphrase Bruce Lee, when asked, 'How good are you?': "If I told you I was no good, you would know I am lying. If I told you I was good, you would say I am bragging."

The question, is CT a sociopath in her utter self-belief? Does her self-belief make her a sociopath? Is she a chess grandmaster or a victim of coincidence?

London's cheerfully phallic Swiss Re tower is a big hint on BI2 team's mission statement. It looms over the characters with a big wink. Especially on psychologist Dr Glass. (Does his name signify his transparency? Or is he simply an a**?). Like the forgotten detective in San Francisco, Dr Glass has zero chance against Tramell, Catherine Tramell.

The ensemble acting is better than BI, their characters are better. Plus, the co-leading ladies are more attractive, which runs with the 'Bond formula.'

This is entertainment. Some don't like roller coasters on principle. BI2 takes you on a ride, if you want to take the comfortable thrill.

I didn't even know BI2 existed. I assumed it would be a failed effort. Glad I was wrong. I suggest this to both sexual manipulators and their (willing or unwilling?) victims. A winky film in the best sense.

I had seen reviews of various portals for the movie and expected that it would be crap as the average rating was 2.5 on 10. I was expecting to go to sleep in the hall but the movie was not all that bad and so I enjoyed it as my expectations were low. I am hence rating it 9 out of 10. Those who go to the hall with low expectations will enjoy the thriller for sure. At least I did and so did all my friends who expected crap after I told them what I had read. Sharon Stone is definitely looking old but hides her age well. She is no longer the same she was in 1992. I was impressed with the movie and would recommend people to surely see it.

Tonight, I watched the Basic Instinct and Basic Instinct 2 right after it. Both for the very first time.

The first one got me excited as the actors were great and the story pretty cool. A great crime movie. I knew about the bad reputation the second installment has and expected a flop. But I did not get one. I got a movie full of honestly great actors, great environments and a great plot. The camera, sound, music, editing, actors, suspense... Everything is on top. I loved the movie and frankly have no idea why it is rated bad and why was it nominated for razzie awards. I guess you have to have a black sheep every year to point a finger at and unfortunately for the Basic Instinct 2 this movie was that black sheep in 2006.

I rated Basic Instinct 9/10 because I was really entertained and I am rating the second one also 9/10 because I was entertained as well and even a bit more because the movie is more current to me as it was shot in 2006 and I am a younger person. Hats off to the makers of this movie and the actors. Highly recommended to anyone interested in crime movies or thrillers.

No, this is not my favorite movie of all time, and not as good as the original (but really how many sequels really are), but I still enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure. A guilty pleasure, by the way, is a movie that you know should be panned but you can't help but like it. The original movie is hard to beat, but I thought the current writers and director did an excellent job of making a reasonable sequel. Remember, many critics panned "For Your Eyes Only", the James Bond film following "Moonraker." But I enjoyed "For Your Eyes Only" because it was more down-to-earth (literally) than the out-of-this-world "Moonraker." Really, how could you top the original "Basic Instinct"? Would it have been believable to have the same character, Catherine Trammell, attracted to another cop in L.A. or Sacramento? No, so I think it was reasonable to change the venue and fall guy, but keep the primary reason to watch this psychological thriller - Sharon Stone's totally amoral femme fatale character as she wreaks havoc on a more genteel London populace. These London characters still have their flaws as did the San Francisco ones and this made it all the more believable as to how they could all be sucked in by Trammell's character. Part of the guilty pleasure of watching this movie is wondering whether she is actually a serial killer or has deftly manipulated other people to do the actual murders. I thought the ending was more satisfying than the original movie. The only thing I didn't like about this film was that the soft-spoken British accent made it hard to understand parts of the film. I had to see it twice to fully understand what was going on.

I cannot believe all of the seriously negative reviews of this film. I cannot afford to write a lengthy review as I am in the process of a dissertation, but from the off, I must offer that my opinion is that this film surpasses the original.

People have mentioned how predictable the film is, how 'past it' Sharon Stone is, yet I couldn't disagree more. I love the idea that it continues from the same character, the idea that she hasn't changed her colours, and is, if anything more intelligent and manipulative than before. She looks great for her age and although that sounds a cop-out, I think she is perfect for the character, just because we as audiences are constantly bombarded with the youngest and skinniest and hottest girls that society tells us we should find attractive, doesn't mean that she doesn't hold her own, the target audience encompasses a slightly older age group. You don't watch this as from a lusty caveman perspective, go watch Porn for that, this is a thrilling psycho-sexual ride, playing on the psychology of manipulations of lust and desire. It shows that even the best of us, still have the aforementioned caveman lusts, but intermixed with intelligence and cunning so true of life. It kept me guessing until the end, even then shocking me with not knowing what was actually the truth as it did with the characters. I thought a very intelligent film, worthy of its name.

I seldom bother with numbered sequels, especially as I was never very impressed with 'Basic Instinct' in the first place, considering it glossy trash in which screenwriter Joe Esterhaz simply rehashed his script for 'Jagged Edge', itself a blatant plagiarism of 'Play Misty for Me'.

However, since in Hollywood nothing succeeds like success, a sequel was always on the cards; fortunately without the egregious original hero played by Michael Douglas. Since production was so delayed Sharon Stone - who in the intervening years had demonstrated her resilience by recovering from a stroke - was fast approaching fifty when it finally went before the cameras. The final result benefited from being made in Britain and provided the satisfying novelty of a lady of mature years playing a sexy villainess; a fact underlined by the additional presence in the cast of Charlotte Rampling.

The commentary on this movie somehow makes me think about the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton. What a fine line a middle-aged woman must walk to be accepted! The movie was finely made and tension is well sustained throughout. Sharon Stone's acting cannot be called excellent, but it is nowhere close to being bad. She is sexy and seductive. Too bad we don't see enough of her (as we did in BI1) in the movie.

Disregard all the negative comments and see it for yourself. There are thousands of ways you can worse spend five dollars and two hours of your time.

Katherine Trammell is back with a vengeance..... This is a sequel where people actually get to talk and explain themselves and their characters.... And sex and violence is kept to unnecessary minimum... Sharon and David emote well.. although David is kind of wrong for this role.. but that doesn't matter the Sparks fly... and the twists and turns in terms of the plot are right on point... a sequel.. that asked you to think as opposed to watch... they cap Sharon Stone waiting for a while before starting production on this movie and let me tell you it was worth the weight.... Please friends pay no mind to critics.... They bring their own early childhood trauma to everything they do.... Including critiquing movies.... Go see basic instinct 2... it's a thrilling ride.... However.... There are certain diehard people..... that want to continuation completely and faithful to the original..... I understand that.... This is why movies like the exorcist part two... didn't work... folk become so entrenched with expectations. They simply will not accept..... a different storyline... I liked basic instinct, part one.... It was daring and thrilling.. and Sharon Stone worked Katherine Trammell..... I liked basic instinct too... because it gave a different point of view... and it was thrilling because of it.... And Sharon Stone worked double time.... Her role of Katherine Trammell....... Personally, I preferred part two.

It has become fashionable to hate this film even before it is seen, which I think is sad. Because this is one hell of a movie!

"Basic Instinct 2" won a Razzie Award for "worst screenplay". I don't care. I found the story more dark than the first, intense and very sexy. It's not ALL about sex, but also about taking time to develop the story. Worst screenplay, my a**

"Basic Instinct 2" won a Razzie Award for "worst prequel or sequel". HA! Now that is indeed a lie. I can come up with several examples of more awful pre- or sequels from 2006 than this one: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning", "Big Momma's House 2", "Garfield 2", "The Legend of Zorro", "Superman Returns", "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift", "Underworld: Evolution". I could go on forever!

"Basic Instinct 2" won a Razzie Award for "worst actress" – Sharon Stone. Shut it! If anybody remembers the fantastic first film about the seductive Catherine Tramell, I can tell that she does the job again, only with a darker attitude. She is still SO hot and sexy, and she can seduce any man just by looking at him – I know she could seduce me...

"Basic Instinct 2" won a Razzie Award for "worst picture". Oh boy. Don't even get me started with how many more awful films which were made in 2006 – I don't have the space.

I think it's unfair with all these Razzies. Well, "Basic Instinct 2" was certainly not a film I expected to be made, but it is here now and I must that I enjoyed it big time. I know I was seduced almost for the two hours it goes. The only thing I can say I wish replaced, IF I had to say something that is, then I would replace David Morrissey with Michael Douglas from the first film. Morrissey is good, but Douglas was better – He is always better!

In spite of all the undeserved Razzie Awards, I can only recommend "Basic Instinct 2", it is dark, hot and sexy, intense and when it is all over, you'll be left with a sweaty shirt and still be guessing on who did it.

I'm sorry, but I have to declare that this movie kicked ass. You can't go into this movie after seeing "Capote" or "Good Night, and Good Luck" or something and think that this will compare with those Oscar caliber projects. It's not meant to. This is a sequel to the 1992 sexual thriller and is meant to be nothing else. And it's a damn good one.

If this were to have been made back in the mid 1990's, immediately after the original, it would have been consider a big hit and the critics wouldn't have bashed it (as badly). Unfortunately for this sequel, it came out about 10 or more years too late. This kind of movie just doesn't appeal to mass audiences anymore. Those who flocked to the cinema back in '92, are at the age now, that they don't go to see movies in the theater, they wait for DVD.

But, you can still watch the original "Basic Instinct" and appreciate how well it was written, directed and acted by those involved, even though, these kind of films don't bank at the box office now.

I was one of the $6.8 million of domestic box office that went to see this when it came out and I bought it the day it was released on DVD. If you loved the original "Basic Instinct", or similar themed movies, then you'll at least like this sequel.

If you don't love them, and just want to bash this kind of sexual thriller and called them "dumb", "out of date", "silly", or whatever, then there's no way you'll appreciate it.

Just the kind of movie I love. Some very good British actors as well as the one and only Sharon Stone. Catherine Tramell (Stone) masterfully manipulates a well educated group of people's lives, playing on their frailties to collect experiences to write a murder mystery book. She plays the female psychopath quite well while using her ample sex appeal to convincingly portray what could be considered one of the ultimate Black Widows. Tramell is use to dark places within society and freely partakes in sadomasochistic flings in the 'never visit after dark' side of town. From the beginning, there is nothing short of an R rating here from the dialog alone. Stone could also be described as a sort of female Hannibal Lecter, an emotionless femme fatal without the meal plan.

This one's for the camp afictionados crowd (and architecture students, perhaps). Highly funny in a black and/or double-entendre way. Mrs Stone delivers an expectedly fierce performance, while Morrissey maintains a quiet stubbornness on the other side.

I should mentioned that I just loved the black comedy Diabolique (advertising it as a thriller was a terrible idea, in my opinion, with a very broad use of the term "remake" ). Don Roos' script was full of juicy one-liners, gay humor and a definite predilection for form over content. And most of all, Stone went Lee Strasberg-ish (that self-parody ranks in her best outings, I think), improbably dressed in a film-noir-on-acid kinda way. The same applies here, except for the costumes, which are here closer to haute couture.

Like I mentioned in the summary, the movie is also extremely well photographed all around London and shows great locations, old and new (a voluntary contrast), with exquisite lighting.

The story, of course, is absolutely improbable, but I don't think the screenplay was a big issue here...

This is guilty pleasure in all its decadent splendor. I have a feel I'll watch this one again...

If you like sexy mystery thrillers, this is one film that is a must see. And, if you like Sharon Stone as I do, you will find that this film may in some ways - be better than the first. Sharon Stone, plays Catherine Trammell as in the original Basic Instinct. She is extremely revetting, and stronger than ever... very direct, captivating, and brilliant. She delivers an even more seductive performance than the younger Catherine Trammel of the original Basic Instinct which co-starred Michael Douglas.

The story has the right blend of complexity and atmosphere. To help gain perspective and to try to understand the wickedly clever character Catherine Trammel, this film probably should be viewed several times - watch the subtle facial expressions, and hear her confident dialogue.

It is obvious that Sharon Stone has the intelligence for the cunning role of Trammel. The part is just so well played. She certainly has my vote for the all-time brilliant, cunning, beautiful and sexy femme fatal.

With great care given to the set design, casting, and background music, this is a film not to be missed.