Genres

Visitors Review

jacob-belding 2012-05-23 15:27:42

painfully sexy

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

aharmas 2012-05-22 23:00:13

what a sad waste of Stone's marvelous character

I had been looking forward to catching the sequel to "Basic Instinct",a film that was inspired by a twisted admiration for a killer thatactually gets away with it and enjoys every minute of it. The originalhad Stone, portraying the sassy and sexy writer who might or might notbe a killer (depending on what you want to believe). She was aterrific, beautiful, and intelligent manipulator who pushed everysingle male's, and some females' buttons. She remains as powerful andbewitching as ever, but this time, she manages to wander into a mire ofbanal and polluted talent.Catherine is now in England, still seeking thrills and inspiration forwhat will give her another successful bestseller. Does her creativitylead to the destruction of others? Is she just "lucky" enough to wanderinto a pile of stupid people who surrender to her charms and findthemselves involved in a mess of their own design? These aretantalizing prospects that never come to full realization in the film.Instead, we are given an awful, half-cooked mess of a script that can'tever survive the terrific sets and some new provocative outfits forStone.Her poses are still effective and were the only things that kept mefrom slapping a zero on this film, but she can't fight everything thatis wrong with this movie. In fact, there are a couple of things when wesee how powerful an actress and incredible her Catharine could be inthe right film. The closing scene hints at what could have been as sheslowly details the plot of her novel to one of her victims. These lastminutes show how much the camera can love an actress with the magneticstar power Stone has, but it is not enough. One can only wish shedoesn't go the way of Indiana Jones, and someone gives us theopportunity to see her in her full glory (no pun intended).Too bad.

Jack Mathews 2012-05-21 06:10:35

As with the first film, BI2 abounds with red herrings and misdirection, and comes up with an equally ambiguous Did she or didn't she? ending. But there are problems here beyond its staleness.

Manohla Dargis 2012-05-20 14:30:49

The long-gestating follow-up to Paul Verhoeven's 1992 blip on the zeitgeist screen is a disaster of the highest or perhaps lowest order.

kiaser_chiefs 2012-05-15 01:03:54

Very Good

people say that basic instinct 2 isn't very good and all the rest ofit, but it isn't bad at all, i think it is really good. the story lineis very good and the twist at the end is brilliant. the acting is greatand Sharon stone is still sexy. there are no bad points about thisfilm, so if u haven't seen this i recommend you buy it and watch it. Idon't think there will be another one but if there was they shouldbring it out soon before she gets too old. so don't take notice of allthese bad comments and watch it for your self, u wont bedisappointed.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Wayne Malin 2012-05-14 14:25:08

Not bad at all

This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct".Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sexwith a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames.She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass(David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial.Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty ofmurders and sex follow.This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get acast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was nothappy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not toobad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautifullocations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), anicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feelslike a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a chokerleash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pickin the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looksat it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might begetting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, malenudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), femalenudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting isgood across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looksmiserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good insupporting roles.So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still Irecommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well likedand they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 yearsafter it was made.

2012-05-10 21:18:47

thumps way down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a disappointment!!! I am a big fan of Basic Instinct and Sharon Stone. I was trilled when I heard they were making BI2. When I heard it was taking place in London I said, BIG MISTAKE!! Catherine T. will not be living in England. She will live, other than the US, in Spain, Italy, or France; where were the beautiful and scandalous people gathered. Then, when I heard who the main male actos were I said, OK SECOND BIG MISTAKE!!! I mean, need I say more!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rob Vaux 2012-05-10 12:24:55

Basic Instinct 2 would be a magnificent exercise in transcendental camp... were it not for the pleading, deluded look behind its leading lady's ice-blue eyes.

cmivie 2012-05-08 11:01:32

This movie should have never been made.

I was thinking the same thing many of you were when I learned that thismovie was being made (and then eventually debuted in 2006). Why make asequel to Basic Instict? Still, even wondering "why" this movie wasmade, I knew that I would eventually sit down and watch it. Theoriginal was nothing great, but at the time of its' release (1992)Basic Instinct turned our heads because it was a film that Sharon Stonesold (cause of her good looks, the fact that the role of CatherineTrammell was one that she "made", her uncrossing of her legs, and somewild sex scenes). Seriously. You mention Basic Instinct and the firstthing out of people's mouths is talking about Stone's character. In anutshell, she made that movie. I am not saying that Verhooven did notdo a good job directing it, or that Douglas was a slouch. But we allknow damn well that Stone was the star of Basic Instinct. I am sayingthis simply because I think that is why this sequel was greenlit. But,14 years removed from the first one, there are some painfulrealizations here. First is the fact that Stone is not the star she wasback in the early to mid ninties. Second is the fact that (in this dayand age) nothing seems to be "controversial" anymore when it regardsthe subject of sex. I mean, back in 1992, Stone uncrossing her legsmade major waves. You do that now and it barely even registers on thenewsline. Even as painful as these two realizations are, I am willingto bet that had this sequel been made, say in 1995, then Stone couldhave sold it by herself. But in 2006, and after watching Basic Instinct2, I think we can all agree that this movie should never have beenmade.Now, the film does start off with a promising beginning, in whichStone's character, Catherine Trammell, is speeding down the streets ofLondon with some guy who is all doped up on some sort of drug. I saypromising cause she is driving at 110 MPH while she is helping the guyget her off while she drives. Now, I am sorry, but I found this to be"hot", and I was once again reminded why Stone (as Trammell) made mehave "happy, happy thoughts" when she played her in Basic Instinct.Even at the age of 47 or 48, Stone looks good. I don't care if she hashad plastic surgery. Stone is freaking hot at her age. But after thisscene is done, the movie becomes a mess.As was done in the first film, BI2 asks us the same question, "IsCatherine Trammell a murderer?". Now, the element that is added to BI2with this question is that we learn Trammell has a "Risk Addiction". Infact, we are to believe that she thrives on it. From the openingsequence (speeding car while masturbating) we see evidence thatsupports this theory. But, the movie loses this element once Trammellstarts to try and manipulate her therapist (who is about as bland anactor as I have seen). Don't get me wrong. When Stone plays Trammell asthe manipulator, it works. Thing is, in Basic Instinct, you could neverquite figure out if Trammell really was a killer. Heck, to this day,there are people who still believe that she was the killer in BasicInstinct. But in BI2, it is so easy to see through her. You know darnwell that she is not killing anybody. Manipulating things? Oh yes, shedoes do that. Killer? Nope. Now, had the movie focused more on the"risk addiction" theme, I think we could have had a better, moreinteresting story. But what BI2 tried to become is Basic Instinct allover again....just 14 years later. And that just does not suffice.The twists and turns in BI2 seems to be thrown together, without anyexplanation as to why they are happening. And the sex scenes? Well,nothing really to write about here cause you saw it all in the firstfilm (minus the orgy). Douglas and Tripplehorn did the "doggy style"scene that we saw in BI2....only the one in BI is better and had moretension in it. No ice pick stabbing while having sex. In fact, therereally isn't a lot of sex in BI2. So, nothing to write about as far asthe sex scenes go.Overall, the movie should not have been made. Having said that, I stillthink Stone did as good a job in BI2. I did not feel that she "forced"any of her lines, especially the ones in which she is manipulatingpeople. She knows how to play Trammell, and this turned out to be thelone bright spot of BI2.

2012-05-08 03:56:50

Enter at your own "risk"

"Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction" is a perfect example of why sequels should be outlawed. And especially sequels with returning actors, because they keep you from blotting the whole thing out of your memory.Though it took many years to formulate and approve the whole thing, "Basic Instinct 2" ends up being a messy, halfhearted effort that smacks of "direct to video." Except, sadly, it wasn't -- instead, it has been one of the most atrocious box office disasters of 2006 thus far. Both creatively and financially.Novelist Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone, still trying to revive her career) is doing 110 mph while having sex. They splash off a bridge, and her soccer star lover dies. In the aftermath, a court shrink (David Morrisey) tries to determine if she is sane or not -- and ends up with the sultry killer salivating for him as her next victim/lover. Take this as a warning, guys: Practice safe sex. By that, I mean don't date a woman with risk addiction.Then the dead bodies start piling up around London, and it seems likely that Catherine is the culprit. Fascinated by Catherine, Glass soon becomes enmeshed as a murder suspect, and it means trouble for his ex wife and her boyfriend. Like Catherine's prior victims, the unwitting shrink is lured into a game of seduction and death.The plot is too similar to the original for there to be many surprises in "Basic Instinct 2," although it's rather interesting to relocate the action to London. And as this movie starts to wind up with a shrink and a car crash, it seems that it might actually be worth watching while sober.Then it deteriorates into a meandering waffle. Director Michael Caton-Jones obviously doesn't have the slightest idea where he should take this, so the movie just sort of ambles around aimlessly, getting more boring with every new scene. It almost resembles an arty French film.... except those don't have dialogue like "Don't take it so hard. Even Oedipus didn't see his mother coming." Ew.Don't expect sexpottiness from Stone in this movie: her performance here consists mainly of posing. Trammel is supposed to be smart, charming and witty -- and Stone shows none of this here. You'd think she'd at least TRY to act in her "comeback." Yes, she looks good for her age. But to justify a movie about a sultry killer, the sultry killer has to be more than a pretty picture.And David Morrisey gives a decent but pallid performance. The poor man looks utterly stupefied throughout the movie, and I can only assume that he's wondering how he signed on for this. A few other good actors -- Charlotte Rampling and Indira Varma among them -- appear, but don't really register."Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction" should have been light years better than it is, after a decade and a half of work on it. It may be a risk, but it's far from addicting.

Chuck O'Leary 2012-05-05 05:44:57

Basic Instinct 2 is something the original never was -- boring...An obvious front-runner for the 2006 Razzies and Stinkers.

Joop_de_Mol 2012-05-04 14:49:58

If you did not see the movie, don't bother...

The most successful Dutch director is Paul Verhoeven. He lives by theprinciple that follows: "Never make a sequel of your own success". TheDutchman is right 99% of the time.Take this movie, "Basic Instinct 2". Part one directed by PaulVerhoeven and he was considered to direct part two too. He refused andhe was right. This movie is just a copy of part one, though the set hasmoved from San Francisco to London. The story is exactly the same andthere is no revolutionary directing, camera-work, the sex orwhatsoever. All those things that made part one such a great movie.But the producers were probably blind for the "easy money".Fortunately, that did not become true.So if you did not see the movie, don't bother...

Sherazade 2012-05-03 14:29:39

Worse than a train wreck and a car crash combined! Masterpiece theater gone awry!

Where to even start? Sharon, Sharon, Sharon, girl you should have justsaid NO! Michael Douglas, wisely avoided going down this doomed ship ofa movie by not signing up for it in the first place. I bet Sharonbelieved that this could resuscitate her rapidly diminishing career as# Hollywood's call-girl but too bad the flop didn't work for her!Okay, so the film picks up a decade and some from where the classicleft off and Catherine Tramel has relocated to the UK. She is living inLondon and living large indeed. The opening scene introduces us to hercharacter and her new boyfriend a football player whom she is having adrug high joyride with at ridiculously high speeds through theinexplicably deserted tunnels and highways of the English night scene.Sooner than later, they start to get very sexual with each other and atthe climax of their disastrous and not to mention very dangerous stunt,Catherine (Stone) crashes the car through a barge sending it plummetinginto a nearby river (probably the Thames) with both passengers stillinside. Needless to say, the bloke dies and Catherine survives. Sheturns herself in to the police and begins to tell all sorts of cockyFaux sophisticated stories about how the bloke died and how she triedto save him but had to save herself first etc. etc. Det. Supt. RoyWashburn (played by David Thewlis) doesn't buy her for a single secondand just wants to throw her into the nearest jail, but then her defensecouncil introduces a psychiatrist whom they send in to evaluateCatherine. Dr. Michael Glass is played to perfection (with a greattransitional prelude on his part) by David Morrissey and the minute heand Catherine Tramel meet, you just know what is going to happen forthe rest of the film. Charlotte Rampling is stunning as Dr. MilenaGardosh, a friend and close colleague of Dr. Glass, and she (Rampling)probably turns in the best performance in the entire film. Stone on theother hand is a wreck who takes herself too seriously. Her and her Uberperpetual bad hair day and not to mention druggie look, her stylistreally did her character wrong. The Dialogue was horrible! The plottwists were disastrously unbelievable and Sharon Stone was justall-round bad! The entire film turned out to be like masterpiecetheater gone awry!Oh! and the recent trend of casting one major American actor or actressagainst a bunch of actors for the UK is revisited in this film as wellala 'Paranoia with Jessica Alba, Love Actually with Laura Linney, andThe truth about love with Jennifer Love Hewitt' just to mention a few.Indira Varma plays a subtle ex. Mrs. Denise Glass in a mild cameo andeven with that she did way better than Sharon that's for sure but notenough to save the film.

robertcmacon 2012-05-03 01:58:48

Insulting And Silly

This is just ridiculous and sad. Poor Sharon Stone. Was this supposedto be her "comeback?" Daytime soap operas are Shakespeare compared tothis filthy drivel.Why wait so many years to make a sequel to "Basic Instinct?" That filmwas vastly overrated and nobody cares about it now.This "sequel" is a mess. Sharon Stone seems to know that she is GETTINGOLD, and she's not sexy anymore.The so-called "plot" involves exploding cars, serial killings, anembarrassing Charlotte Rampling, and lots of fleeting sex, with Stonepurring about how she's a "great f@@@." Michael Caton-Jones directedthis mess, and I will forgive him for this movie. He has directed twoof my favorites, "Memphis Belle" and "This Boy's Life." But this is themost embarrassing sequel since 1982's "Grease 2." God only knows whatlured Stone into this debacle. Wait...I think I know...MONEY! LOTS ANDLOTS OF MONEY! So awful that it is already out of the movie theatersand will probably show up on DVD in a few weeks.

simona gianotti 2012-05-03 00:35:45

boring and sadly embarrassing sequel

It is undoubted that Basic Instinct1 had sanctioned the artistic birthof Sharon Stone, after some uncomfortable beginnings in b-movies, and,in a way, thanks to her interpretation, Basic Instinct had asserted therebirth of women power within cinematography, after some decades ofmanly domination in the Hollywood environment. Indeed, in BasicInstinct, the actress dominated men, both physically and mentally, andalthough the story left much to be desired, it represented somethingnew, in that a woman was the true heroine in a thriller movie.In this boring sequel, Sharon Stone probably only wanted to demonstrateto herself, or to a still manly dominated Hollywood environment, howpowerful she is and how attractive she can be at the age of 48. She is,indeed, but she did not need this embarrassing sequel to reassert this.The final result is: banal plot, no eroticism, which has given way tosqualid sex scenes and to a vulgar script, the true attraction oncecommunicated by the couple Stone-Douglas is totally absent. The analysthere is such an unattractive and unexpressive man. It is quite patheticto see such a strong woman and experienced actress turning fifty, stillhaving to turn to her body to make herself visible: she could keep upwith ageing with more dignity, although keeping up with ageing inHollywood, where you constantly find blonder, more beautiful and, aboveall, younger women, is probably not so easy. However, a really badmovie.

John Beifuss 2012-05-02 18:49:16

If Paul Verhoeven's film was a potent if hard to swallow sex-and-blood pop cocktail, this London-set sequel is a cup of thin, tepid tea.

afijamesy2k 2012-05-02 07:19:37

Surprisingly Awful.

This is a terrible follow up the 1992 Sharon stone classic, stonereprises her role as the whole from the first movie who does her usualto get what she wants and boy does she? Now the first movie had darkstyle, great acting, great suspense, seduction, power, intrigue andimage, this one has zero, just poor acting, poor screenplay, no image,no dark style, just pathetic after pathetic, after pathetic, afterpathetic, I Remember when I Saw basic instinct on home video, it hadcharacter and seduction, this is just a stupid repeat of the firstmovie and a rehash.This is not only the worst films of the year, but the worst films ofthe decade and the worst sequel since the whole ten yards two yearsago.Director Michael Canton Jones who also gave us that shamefully awfulremake the jackal, shames us once again with this mess.This is a pathetic piece of junk.I'm sticking to the original.

2012-05-01 16:04:39

Mae West Reincarnated

Sharon Stone is sharp. So sharp she perceived that since the script wasso hackneyed the only way to salvage anything out of this mess was tohave a seance and ask Mae West's advice about self-parody and apply thelesson to a magnificent comic turn that could rival anything from theoriginal cast of Saturday Night Live. On every level except one thisthing is derivative, silly, and an enormous waste of talented people.David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling, for instance, have always beenrisk takers and acted out of the box; here I guess a paycheck becamemore important than consideration of their parts. Only Sharon gave memy money's worth as the new Mae West and if you want to spend some timeobserving her high camp please go see this.

Thomas Main 2012-04-26 22:20:27

Hugely entertaining

This film has received an unfair critical pasting. I found it to behugely entertaining and a lot of fun. Sharon plays her part to thehilt, espcally in the last half hour when she seems to relish beingevil. David Morrisey is excellent with strong support from CharlotteRampling. The London location makes a great backdrop to the action.It stands up well as a companion to the original film.The only real problem I had was with the sex scene. I think they shouldhave remained true to the original intention regarding theexplicitness. They've cut a little too deep pandering to the ratings.Hopefully we'll see the complete picture on DVD later this year.I'm looking forward to seeing this one again.

Andy Klein 2012-04-26 02:06:20

In pretty short order, the entire film goes off course and sinks, taking its lead actress with it.