Basic Instinct 2

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.