Basic Instinct 2 (2006)

I just saw Basic Instinct 2 again, and my opinion of the movie changed. Initially, I had a lot of issues with the movie. And then I read all of the negative press and reviews, and coupled with the awful box office, I really went in a second time with a much dimmer impression. But oddly, I very much came to love this sequel. I went back to see it looking through the lens that was created by all of the negative and vicious criticism. I went out of my way to pay attention to why people were saying this was one of the worst movies and/or sequels of all times, and I was very happy to realize that are all dead wrong. (Warning: some of this may contain slight spoilers)

First, people are attacking Sharon Stone like she dressed up like the Prophet Mohammedand defecated on the screen. Her interpretation of Catherine is no different than it was in the first movie. She is SUPPOSED to be over the top. They did add a little more sarcasm to her character though, but it's because her position in the movie is different. This story definitely told from Catherine's P.O.V. She is purposely being a sarcastic and nasty and blatant about her machinations to see just how stupid these people really are. If you notice it's mostly directed towards Glass. It's a form of antagonizing him and making him angry enough to fight her, which is what she wanted. Catherine is much more exacting and evil in this sequel. I really enjoyed how much it fully exploited her character's potential.

The screenplay is just as implausible as the first movie. It takes no more leaps in logic that the original. The same goes for the dialog. Actually the dialog is a little more restrained in the second one. Am I the only one who remembers: "She's evil! She's brilliant!"? The acting in this one is also a lot more restrained. Michael Douglas wasn't all that subtle if you remember correctly.The sequel was darker and more focuses on the mind games than the first movie, which I prefer.

A lot of criticism has been placed on the sex scenes (or rather, the chopped and butchered ones in the R rated cut). Again, I felt the same way the first time I saw the movie. But I was wrong. People are viewing the sex through the lens of the first movie. The first movie's view of sex was very titillating and very much told from a soft-core-porn-cable-male point of view. It was so choreographed and so overdone. It worked brilliantly for the first movie. The sex in the second one is completely different. It's much more realistically done. It is not as staged. Also the sex in the sequel is, like the rest of the move, dark and violent and disturbing. That doesn't mean that it's not hot; it just means that the sex in the sequel is used for a completely purpose. Every sex scene has a very specific purpose and that is control and/or manipulation.

To be sure the first movie has sequences that can't be beat: Johnny's death; interrogation scene; the club scene, but the sequel isn't trying to one-up the first movie. It stands by itself. It's a completely different feel and angle. But the sequel has its own great moments as well: the scene where she straddles the chair in his office; threesome scene was hot and a great example of her power over him; the Jacuzzi; Milena's apartment. But especially the ending! It was far much more satisfying than the original. Evil, dark, and uncompromising, the ending was awesome.

People are condemning this movie for reasons that go far beyond tastes and preferences.

Fmovies: Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like "I want to *beep* you " and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?" All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film.

It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.

Basic Instinct 2 fmovies. 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 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?

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.