Basic Instinct 2

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.

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.

The sequel of Basic Instinct won't be for sure a remarkable movie, as the original one, but we cannot say it's awful, because it isn't. In fact, I think it's quite good.

The main reason why so many people think this movie is so awful is because they compare this one, more than they should, to the original one! Beside that, the expectation for this sequel was very high (many people expected the sequel since 1992!), and when that happens it's very hard to have success. In most cases it's condemned to fail. But in my opinion, this movie didn't fail, especially because it's a powerful mind twist!

All the plot is a twisted labyrinth where lies and deceives mix together with killer instinct. It's a game to survive! Of course Sharon Stone is not so "hot" in this sequel as she was in the original, nor either exist any "unusual sexy scene" (cross legs' scene), but on the other hand I think she has refined her "killer instinct"! In the original, her character was provocative, seductive and manipulative, but it didn't have the coldness and the evilness on its sight, as it has now at the sequel! The way she manipulates the psychologist and the way she looks at him, is really cold, wicked, in a word: evil!

So, generally, I don't think this movie is brilliant - in fact, it's far away from that - but it's not as bad as some people told!

I read all the previous reviews and nasty online comments in regard to La Stone returning as the evil Catherine Davis Tramell in Basic Instinct 2 now set in London and I want to say, "go see the film because Sharon Stone is still a chilling, evil, a tad older, but still glamorous vixen" in Basic Instinct 2 and commands the film from the first frame to the last. Sure, Stone throws in a few "camp moments", but who cares, as she is Catherine Davis Tramell, weaving a story of intrigue and doom for whoever falls into her hands.

London is a perfect location for the grown up Catherine, and the city reflects the new sophisticated evilness which she is weaving into another book of her deadly sins. The British cast, Charlotte Rampling and the handsome David Morrisey especially, provide the perfect moments in the film to send Stone/Tramell into her evil ways. The sets are so dark, reminded me of ASYLUM, and Stone perfectly matches the glamor of London.

BASIC INSTINCT 2 will never be the first BASIC INSTINCT, and it shouldn't, as Catherine Tramell has moved on from Nick and pretty little San Francisco to something bigger-London, and with the ending, also reminded me of ASYLUM, you wonder if our Catherine is onto new and more deadly games. Hope so...

It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.

The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.

If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.

If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care.