Customer Reviews

Basic Instinct 2

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(33)
2 star:		(25)
1 star:		(35)

 

 

I can't beleive I'm the first to mention this! There are a few "good" (wink-wink) scenes which have been removed from this DVD version! A lesbian scene and part of Stone's hot tub scene are gone. It' seems clear that the makers of this film are depserately trying to lose as much money as possible. Although perhaps this DVD is selling well for them since they've went to the extent of flat out lieing to the consumer about it's content. Studio DVD labels make me laugh with their "Unrated-Uncut" sellpoint that always amounts to almost nothing interesting.. but this is unusual since the DVD is actually MISSING scenes. Tragic.

Basic Instinct 2 is fine, campy fun. People who see this and take it too seriously simply just won't get it. This film is about the most menacing, conniving and manipulating vixen every put forth. Everyone who gets involved with her either dies or gets taken through the ringer. She uses sex as a weapon, and she's always one step ahead of everyone.

Sure, Sharon is trying a bit too hard in this film--the excessive hair-flipping is a bit much--but this is totally understandable. The first film was her best performance ever, plus it was the film that put her on the map. In the first film she had a unique, charming quality where should go from the sweetest, condescending seductress to the most evil woman around in the same sentence. Here, we find a much more hardened Catherine Tramell. Is this how Sharon's acting has evolved, or is this how Catherine has evolved as a person 14 years after the original? You be the judge. Regardless, Stone at age 47 is flat-out still hot.

The biggest flaw I see in this film--like the first film--is a less-than-sexy, whatever leading man. Sure Michael Douglas is a fine actor, but come on, they could've picked someone much sexier. The same goes for this film, Clive Owen would have been an excellent choice, or even Pierce Brosnan. David Morrissey just doesn't cut it.

I also feel shorted because--after seeing the uncut promo reel--there's been a ton of things cut out of the R-rated version. For example, in the reel Sharon is seen with yet another girlfriend hanging out with her in her stunning London flat; what happened to her? They are also shown in a threesome. So, to get the R-rating they had to cut the entire character out? This is why I long for the uncut, unrated version. The film seemed a bit short and rushed in parts, probably because 20 minutes or so were cut out.

Overall, I feel the film is fun and entertaining to the end, despite its short-comings. Sharon Stone was forced to carry the film on her own and she does a pretty good job considering, despite critics going to town on the film--they would've no matter who was in it and how good it was. It simply existed so they have to slam it; however, that's what they get for waiting 14 years to make the sequel.

Catherine Tramell is the perfect role for Sharon Stone who, though not a great actress is certainly a screen "personality" : someone that commands your attention. You simply cannot take your eyes off of her perennially, it seems, gorgeous face and body.
In her other roles, other than arguably in "Casino," there is a falseness in Stone's approach as if there is a scrim between her and us...her technique "shows" and she is simply not effective.
But in both "Basic Instincts," Stone has found the role of a lifetime: one in which everything about her persona, her acting abilities and her charisma come together and form a cogent performance. And believe me, Stone's Catherine Tramell is a chew-the-scenery, gut-splitting, batten-down-the-hatches p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e.
"Basic Instinct 2" is much better than it has any right to be: the screenplay, is pretty good, David Morrissey as Dr. Andrew Glass: Catherine's foil, plaything, Psychiatrist, though at first kind of a stick in the mud...ends up being an interesting, edgy character. The sublime Charlotte Rampling is also on hand to add weight and substance to the proceedings as Glass' mentor. But the real acting honors go to David Thewlis as a slimy, maybe-lying-maybe not lying, conniving, profanity spouting detective Roy Washburn. Thewlis chews through all the plot machinations and screenplay inconsistencies with his sterling acting chops.
"Basic Instinct 2" is ultimately an effective entertainment though not quite on the level of a so-bad-it's good, way, way over-the-top movie like "Showgirls." If anything "B.I. 2" is too safe, too perfect looking for it's own good.

This is the best bad movie to be released in ages and Sharon Stone knows it. This actress is in on the joke of this movie even if the rest of the crew are not. She just chews up the scenery and spits it out in your face.

I knew this was going to be the best trash since Showgirls and I was right! Opening weekend in a 25% full theater in a metropolitan city and the audience was howling at the dialogue and convoluted plot twists. It was hilarious and Sharon Stone should be more proud of her work here than Casino! I pray this sweeps the razzies and gets the acclaim it deserves!

I would only change one thing and that's the length of this crapsterpiece. It just did not need to be so long. At the end of the movie I stood and applauded as the whole audience screamed with laughter. They enjoyed this for what it is: A bad movie to LOVE.

Basic Instinct 2 is directed by Michael Caton-Jones (This Boy's Life, Rob Roy). The original film was in my eyes a lot better than most even gave it credit for, but that movie was handled by hit or miss Director Paul Verhoeven. History suggests that Caton-Jones has consistently directed more quality films than Verhoeven. So the sequel, on the surface anyway, doesn't seem like such a bad idea despite it happening so many years later. There was something incredibly inviting about Sharon Stone's Catherine Trammel in the first movie. It was edgy and well done, which is a sum combination superior to the individual strengths. Many have suggested that this is the worst film of 2006 and I try hard to approach a viewing indifferent to such assertions. After all, people hailed Crash as the best film of 2005 and I didn't buy into that hype. I'm going with the sheep here though. Basic Instinct 2 is the worst film of 2006.

In a nutshell, we reconvene in London with Catherine Trammel as the film's protagonist. Catherine is suspected of playing some role in the death of her boyfriend who was apparently drugged before a fatal car crash into the ocean. After being released from the authorities she decides to hook up with a psychiatrist named Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey). The mind games, sexual tension and murder ensue.

The most important reason this film failed critically and only lasted about two weeks in American theaters is because of Sharon Stone's performance. It really pains me to say that. It is easy to target her age her but that is a slightly misguided criticism. Sharon looks great for her late 40s in my opinion but her performance suggests a lack of confidence in her own ability to be as sexual as Trammel was in 1992. First of all, it's not an easy task to duplicate that performance in the first place, but Stone's failure might expose her as a one-dimensional actress recycling a role she is no longer capable of delivering. It's not her looks that are not sexy; it's her attitude and her paper thin performance that lacks the confidence to be even remotely compelling. I would even propose that her performance affected the confidence of everyone working this film. It's entirely possible that the success of the movie depended on Sharon Stone almost exclusively. Being a huge fan of the first movie, I sincerely wanted her to pull it off. To Stone's credit, the task at hand was a difficult one.

Basic Instinct 2 also doesn't contain nearly the edge that the first film did. That isn't to say it was necessary to do so. In fact, some aspects of the first film could certainly be deemed gratuitous and this sequel is notably missing the copious amounts of nudity that the first film contained, for better or worse. Perhaps there was a conscious effort to be less gratuitous and there is of course some merit to that attempt. But they failed in not being gratuitous as well because the dialogue in this sequel is at times unnecessarily filthy. In fact, it seemed like someone intentional added sexual references to the end of some sentences just for the hell of it. The dialogue was also laughably bad at times and the actors of course struggled in delivering some lines convincingly.

The other big flaw is the story in general. It's not horrible, it's just too convoluted and the movie really dragged at times. To be blunt, it was really boring for the most part and just didn't hook me in. I love to recognize notoriously bad films that hook me in just for being so poor; like Mac and Me, Dungeons and Dragons, Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos, but Basic Instinct 2 isn't even as memorable. It's bad like Gigli or Death to Smoochy was bad. It is forgetfully bad. I almost had to take notes just to recall some key points for this review.

I can't understand the other reviewers! The film is excellent technical and full of suspense. Sharon Stone in her role as a very mean and manipulating psychopath plays a superb role and is even sexier then in Basic Instinct Vol. 1. A must see! The open ending leaves perfectly the question unsolved, if the psychiatrist has used the psycho as his instrument to fullfill his revenges or if the psycho has pushed her doctor/lover to commit crimes for her deviated risk addiction. Criminalistic and psychological very interesting. Must be puritans who don't like this movie...

This film was given a thorough cremation by a lot of critics. Nevertheless, I can't help wondering if people made up their minds without any sense of objectivity. The storyline was certainly not a classic but it was entertaining. Unlike the first one Stone made in 1992, this sequel relied more on a more serious storyline rather than mere sex.I felt it succeeded in showing a more watchable version. Personally, I thought it had just the right blend of spice and drama to captivate an audience. I have seen some rather unkind remarks about Sharon Stone in this film. In my humble opinion she looked fabulous. After all she had been through with ilness etc she deserved a lot of credit. Her acting was good, she looked stunning and her beauty speaks for itself. Bravo!

I wasn't expecting a very good film when I first bought this. The first film is a classic, Sharon Stone is getting a lot older, and she probably can't make her character as witty and strong as she was in the first film. I was 100% wrong.

This film rocked. Catherine Tramell is back, better and hotter than ever. She is playing her mind games once again, and now I know she is the baddest bit** of them all, which is so fun to watch.

This film has a great ending, it's very different and mind blowing. I was left with everything I wanted, admiring Catherine and her evil deeds. She can pull anything off, and she is a genious. Check out this movie if you liked the first one, it is a great follow up and won't let you down.

Okay
Don't compare it to part 1 , the story is not too bad
but Sharon Stone was the best thing in that film
she is sexyr and hotter than ever , the way she talk the way she well dressed is enough to watch that film , i was expecting a very bad film but after watching this , its not bad at all and you gona like it any way
enjoy the fantastic words that coming out sharon stone mouth she is the best
5 star for Sharon Stone
3 Star for the Movie

OK,I'll admit it.I checked out this movie because I'm a guy and I was curious to see if it would deliver the goods that it promised.In a word.... no.

First off,if you are hoping to see alot more of Sharon Stone, you will,but not for a long time.The first real explicit scene of her that looked promising starts off transparent,as it was fading from the previous scene.So alot of the good stuff is missed.What we do see is shot from far away and then switched from a headshot view.

The other scene of her in the hot tub is nice,but again her clothes come off and we get a full frontal nudity shot,but from far away and for a brief moment.Quickly followed is a shot of her face and exposed chest close up (finally!) but once again for only a few seconds.

As for the promise of an alternate ending;that's a total joke.It is the same,with slightly different dialouge and the part of her walking off being cut.Hollywood very much decieved the masses on this little trick.

All and all,it was just a way for Sharon Stone and Hollywood to make more money by milking the cash cow of a notorious title.If you are REALLY big time Sharon Stone fan,then you might want to rent this,but I couldn't actually see anyone wanting to own it.
The overrated "explicitedness" is pretty tame and short.She does however talk dirty in it a few times,so I guess it isn't a total loss.These women get paid way too much...