Basic Instinct - Neues Spiel für Catherine Tramell

Sharon Stone has had a very chequered career, spanning performances that have garnered Golden Globes and Oscar nominations, as well as Razzies. Her performance in Casino convinced skeptics of her acting ability and yet it is for her portrayal of the sexily sinister author Catherine Tramell - in Basic Instinct - that she is perhaps most remembered. Basic Instinct II revives the role – a dangerous undertaking and one that many critics have panned (possibly without even watching it). Yet the character is an interesting one and deserves not to be dismissed so lightly, especially in this well-written sequel.

The enigma of Tramell is whether, in researching her novels, she just gets very close to actual murders, or whether she actually commits them. In Basic Instinct II we become aware of a third possibility – that she manipulates people into creating interesting story lines, even if it means pushing them over the edge mentally and emotionally so they perhaps commit crimes they would not otherwise have committed. Following in the footsteps of twisted real-life authors recently depicted on screen such as Capote, such a possibility does not seem so preposterous.

Where Basic Instinct II fails, is in capturing a suitable target audience. The original Basic Instinct, however good a thriller, is linked in the public imagination with a particularly explicit scene involving Stone uncrossing and crossing her legs during a police interview. Given the raunchy nature of Tramell's personal life, to which the film gave ample reign, the movie drew adult audiences hoping to be shocked. This creates a number of problems for Basic Instinct II. Firstly, the public taste for sexual explicitness seems to have ebbed. Sex scenes are more likely to kill a blockbuster than boost attendances. The independent and European films featuring explicit sexuality tend not to get multiplex coverage – and the limits are now so broad that most mainstream actresses are unlikely to want to push the envelope with such explicitness unless it is to test the limits of art – and Basic Instinct II, like its forerunner, is a thriller not an art house movie.

Yet it suffers from the 'sex-movie' tag. Re-shot in black and white, with a shorter running time, and minimizing any nudity, Basic Instinct II could have been marketed as film noir. The difficulty of puzzling out the who-dunnit keeps the attention, but waiting for the next sex scene it just fizzles (as there's very little to wait for). With a running time of nearly two hours, some of the direction could have been tighter, but the overall feel of the movie almost creates a genre. Sharon Stone hones Tramell's character even better than in the original, and the final twist is difficult to anticipate. As a portrait of a genius writer that can run rings around police detectives and psycho-analysts, Basic Instinct delivers in spades. While Sharon Stone is a good-looking fortysomething, those watching it for sexy thrills may be disappointed.

So, every year there is at least one movie, that hasn't got any chance of being a box office success, because from the moment of production, even before one simple shot is filmed, everybody's picking on this movie... There is a long list of these kind of movies, and in the end, some are really bad (Battlefield Earth (2000)), some may have their flaws but are quite enjoyable (Catwoman (2004), Elektra (2005)) and then there are a few, which actually are really great for what they are, but no one admits! I mean, my gosh, just because the wide crowd does have to have a victim each year they can pick on, not everybody has to join them. So yeaaah, maybe those movies aren't perfect, but c'mon, how many movies are? Not every movie is supposed to be a new The Lord of the Rings! Not everybody will enjoy these movies, but I bet there are more than who admit they do. Hudson Hawk (1991), who is just hysterical funny, Color of Night (1994), which may not be Oscar-worthy, but is definitely a not dumb at all thriller with some nice twists, Swept Away (2002), which I thought is a great mix of sick humor and a beautiful romance, Gigli (2003), which was great entertainment with some really memorable lines and not badly acted at all from the former "Bennifer"-Couple, and this year it's "Basic Instinct 2"! Well, when I heard the rumors of a sequel to one of my favorite movies I was very sceptically, and although I really love Sharon Stone I stayed sceptically until I've finally seen this movie. And really, I was very positively surprised! I can't understand why it gets such a bad press and such a bad voting here. It never simply copies the original, it has a quite clever story, has tension, action, humor and the absolutely stunning Sharon Stone reprising the role of her life! With 47 years when shooting the movie she looks hotter than many stars in their 20s, but it's more than her being beautiful, it's brilliantly acted, with all her looks, her famous smile, the way she speaks and moves... from the very first frame she's in you can't take your eyes off of her. It's simply a pleasure to watch her as Catherine Tramell, and all of the other actors deliver solid performances, too! So I really can't see what's wrong with this movie... it has a dark, thrilling, sexy and gritty look, strong performances, and you never felt bored! Maybe the story isn't Oscar-caliber, but it never even tries to be! It's an entertainment-movie, and by this standard it absolutely delivers in my opinion! So give it a try!

I cannot accept the negative comments of other reviewers. They are too critical, perhaps because they are stuck in the past. I would like to see a comment from someone who had never seen Basic Instinct 1, perhaps someone very young ? I left the cinema feeling glad that I had not been swayed by the IMDb reviewers. 14 hours later I am still trying to find flaws in the plot but I cannot think of anything serious. My advice to everyone is see it for yourself and make up your own mind.

It follows a similar pattern to Basic Instinct 1 but the plot is less confused. It still left me wondering at the end but in a more satisfactory way. Sharon Stone is as sexy and evil as before and wears her 48 years extremely well; this remains her defining role. David Morrisey was satisfactory even though he is no Michael Douglas. Of the supporting cast I particularly liked David Thewlis as the police detective.

Hey, Basic Instinct 2 feels like a Agatha Christie novel written for a sexy protagonist and a modern setting. But there is no Miss Marple involved, for she is at the same time the woman who gets away, the author and the "gärningskvinna" or perpetrator. The word in quotes is Swedish, not German, though it looks like "Götterdammerung".

Everybody and his cousin has chided Sharon Stone for being such a wooden actress cast in this role for the second time, but put your hand on your heart: Could someone else have pulled off the part (which is provocative and implausible from the beginning) any better? Would Keira Knightley, Gwyneth Paltrow or Lena Olin have portrayed a better Catherine Tramell? My verdict is no, therefore, she gets a vindication of sorts. You see, this role doesn't require a perfect body but rather someone who almost has it with brains, conceit and assuredness on top of that. Also, this sequel is good in the sense that it has made me want to see the first part which I missed to see at the time.

There's really no way to pull off a sequel to the original classic, Basic Instinct. To do so would require much more than Sharon Stone who sizzles no matter what she is doing. She a fine actress, but surrounding her with unfamiliar actors in London, and handling a script that lacks everything witty and tight that Joe Eszterhas weaved in the original picture, is just disastrous.

Our story here has Ms. Tramell, notorious author from Basic Instinct at the epicenter of a death, accidental, or perhaps...intentional??? She is handled by Scotland yard in this one, a far cry from the San Fransisco PD and Detective Nick Curan, who is sorely absent. Rather than prance around with her sexuality tugging at the police, and seducing them blindly, she is more a bully here, and she pushes authoritative figures, especially Michael Glass the professional assigned to her case, into her game this time around.

Sharon Stone turns in a mostly witty and sharp (no pun intended) continuation of Catherine Tramell, Complete with incomparable physique, sexy sultry voice, and some more blonde poison. Her co-stars, however, do not measure up.U.K. veteran Charlotte Rampling is the only other cast member/character on Stones level. The rest of the cast are like fish out of water. I think it's part of why the film doesn't work. We have very stiff European authoritative figures, bent on the unraveling of the case, as well they should be, except it doesn't feel like Basic Instinct, and the good moments that are had, are reminders that it might have been better had they stuck with the original idea which was to have been set in NYC.

The production design and art direction are diabolical though (again, no pun intended), and it's a scene set greatly, if only the expectations were met. Ultimately I feel the writing was the biggest let down. It's as if Leora Barish and Henry Bean didn't know the character of Catherine, and thusly could not completely tell her story. Whatever they have for every one else is a more or less lacking shadow of what the original was.

Michael Caton-Jones is okay, but this flick, released in 2006, looks like EVERY other action thriller from that time period, and that's sad. The original was a cut (there I go again)above the rest of what was released back in 1992. It had so much style and charisma, and even charm, mixed with an extremely interwoven and complex, even abstract plot/story. This is just a run-of-the-mill follow up sequel that is as bland and boring as every other product that was churned out by studios at the time. It's all in your face at value, which is not very high. There is noting beyond the cheese & crackers. The cigar is just the cigar, and in this films case, it needed to be a highly intoxicating cigarette.