Basic Instinct 2

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Not sure why I kept watching...

Just watched it because of Sharon

sharon stone is a horrible actress-she should just do porn

Basic Instinct 2 deserves a much better rating than the ones given by critics. Obviously there are a lot of politics behind the scenes going on. A plausible reason could be even the silly fact that the location was changed from the USA to London. Who knows. But the movie is definitely a very well crafted sequel to the original. Sharon Stone's Catherine is true to the character from 1992. The cinematography and locations presented to the viewer are just beautiful. The plot is intriguing, never boring and up to the final moment captivating. The soundtrack is dangerously sexy. I can only recommend this film. It's a worthy sequel that even made me wish for a third part.

Surprised at the immense number of low ratings for this sequel. Sharon Stone did much the same as the original. The male leads are easily manipulated by her character which allows for an ending I'm still trying to understand. Overall, not as a bad as rated on Rotten Tomatoes. Just not amazing either.

The plot was silly but the erotic part was darned good. SPOILER: Our heroine is driving a shrink crazy by teasing him sexually and leading him on about facts in murder cases. Any shrink worth her/his salt can't be so obviously manipulated by a psychopath.

Major let down from the first. Poor writing. Fairly predictable.

I don't get the exaggerated negative reception on this movie. I understand it may have come as a bit of a shock due to the ostensible deterioration in contrast with its prequel, and it indeed is not the same as a picture with Michael Douglas in it, but there's still Sharon Stone, who gives another good performance. The direction is not so bad either. If not compared with the original, Basic Instict 2 is a mediocre movie which would completely work as a standalone. Among the negative things would be the excessive addition of sex scenes to fill in time, taking away the exuberance of a sex scene in a movie; we can understand the promiscuity of the protagonist/villain without all that. Another negative thing would be the ending; perhaps the producers were trying to leave a door open for a third movie, who knows? To wrap it up, I've seen my fair share of movies I couldn't make it through, but I can't say Basic Instinct 2 is one of them. It's a very normal movie, but it's not THAT bad. I mean 6%? Really?

You may notice that so many of the sequels we've covered this week are past their expiration date. By that, I mean the time to make a sequel to Basic Instinct was a few years after that one came out in 1992, not in 2006. You may also remember that so many of these movies are troubled production. Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction is no different. MGM had planned this movie to come out in 2002 — still late, but somewhat better — but then decided they had no interest in making the movie. That's when lead actress Sharon Stone filed a lawsuit claiming she was guaranteed at least $14 million for her commitment to the sequel, even if the movie never got made and as much as 15% of gross receipts if the film were released. By 2004, the lawsuit was settled and director Michael Caton-Jones (Doc Hollywood, The Jackal, Memphis Belle) got the job. He was broke and needed to make a movie, but called making this movie a "poisoned chalice" and said that "It was horrible. And I knew before I started that it wasn't going to be a particularly good film. Which is a very, very painful thing." The movie starts in London with novelist and possible serial killer Catherine Tramell (Stone) using a passed out soccer player's hand to get herself off while speeding through the streets, finally crashing into the Thames river. It was at this point that I began laughing uncontrollably as the athlete gazes upon Tramell like she's some kind of vision and then drowns while she swims away. It turns out that the soccer star was all pilled up and couldn't even move, but Scotland Yard is unable to make any charges stick. But she has to report to court ordered sessions with Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey), who she of courses beds and starts writing about for her new novel, a story in which real people all around them are being killed in both prose and real-life ways. Unlike the original movie, which seems to only hint at the fact that Tramell is a killer or can manipulate any man or woman into doing what she wants, in this one it's beyond obvious and there's even a square up reel at the end showing all the murders and how she talked Glass into it. I kind of love the reasons why no man was good enough for this movie. Michael Douglas? Too old. Robert Downey Jr.? Possession charges. Kurt Russell? Didn't want to strip down. Pierce Brosnan? Didn't like the sleaze. Bruce Greenwood? Potential actor strike. Rupert Everett? Calling a pervert who American audiences wouldn't accept by the MGM CEO. And Benjamin Bratt? Sharon Stone didn't think he was a good actor. Let that one set in. Remember when Nigel Tufnel confusingly asked, "What's wrong with being sexy?" I kept hearing that same question throughout this movie but it's just a cavalcade of shocking scenes that by 2006 were no longer shocking. This is the kind of movie that demanded to be made by someone demented, someone willing to tell Sharon Stone that she'd have to dress like a cat and urinate in a litter box on camera or fart into jars and sell them to people if she wanted to shock someone. Instead, her scene of knowingly looking into another man's eyes while engaging in an orgy is positively quaint. It's like finding out your mom's best friend is on Fetlife. You're not all that surprised and you really don't want to know the details or see any pictures, but you can be happy for her and wish her well. Speaking of that, Stone wanted to make a third one and even offered to direct. Please make this happen.

Forget lust and pleasure, apparently the most basic instinct is sheer unremitting boredom.